Dinah and Deuteronomy 22:28

[heavensflower]

A lot of you may be shocked by this mean-sounding Bible verse. I know I was when I first read it. 

Deuteronomy 22:28:  if a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 

he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

That's terrible, very cruel towards the poor girl, isn't it? Is the Bible really sexist? Well there is a reason for this abominably horrible law. 

 

it's the story of Dinah in Genesis, she is Jacob and Leah's daughter, Joseph's sister. Her story is in Genesis 34

 

Dinah goes to visit the women of the area, in a place ruled by a man named Hamor and his son Shechem. Shechem falls in love with Dinah, seduces her, and they have intercourse.  Shchem wants to marry Dinah, so he tells his father this. Hamor goes to see Jacob, who knows Dinah has been deflowered. Jacob waits for his sons to come in from the fields. He talks to Shechem, and they agree to make an alliance, Dinah will marry Shechem,  and Jacob's people will marry the daughters of Hamor's land,  Her brothers were very angry. Jacob made a condition that all the men of that town must become circumcised Shechem is so in love with Dinah he agrees, and the men are forced to become circumcised. While the men are still in pain, Dinah's brothers Simeon and Levi attacked the town with their swords and killed all the men, then her other brothers looted the town, taking all the livestock, animals, gold, silver, bronze, iron, everything of value, they even took the women and children as slaves. They killed Shechem and his father Hamor and dragged Dinah out of the town and back to her father's tents. 

Jacob was very upset. He told his sons that they have put the tribe's life in danger, their neighbors, the people around them, would get angry and could attack them, for they were few in number. 

But SImeon and Levi said, "Should we treat our sister like a prostitute?" 

 

I think this story encourages the marry your rapist law. Maybe trying to avoid a bloodbath?  I think Deuteronomy 22:28 is a mistranslation. It is meant to say 'seduced', not 'rape' Maybe some teenagers in love who had made out would be allowed to get married instead of being stoned for fornication.  It is a shot gun wedding. If a girl found a stranger handsome and interesting, well I think only a willing female partner should marry the stranger. I just don't think a good God would force an innocent young virgin girl to marry someone who brutally attacks her and steals her innocence, doesn't God love women just as much as he loves men? Well, I believe he does!

I

[Willa]

They were to keep themselves separate from the sins of the land.  Lot failed to do so and suffered.  Abraham had sought a wife from his own people for his himself and for his son.  

Many peoples made treaties by intermarrying, giving a daughter.  Haman tried to smooth it all over by offering this treaty.  Jacob thought that would be expedient and avoid an international incident.  His sons weren't going to let them get by with it.   

According to law I believe that they both could have been executed, but this was a heathen who had violated her.  

When David's son raped his half sister, David did nothing about it.  He should have killed the offending son.  Instead Absolon did it and hated his father for not avenging his sister.  This started the trouble David had with Absolon till his death.  

We don't realize the protection that Judism and Christianity have given women.  In Arab lands even today often women are considered less valuable than hunting dogs and horses.  We are not treated as equals at all.  The law of Moses gave women some protection just as it gave slaves some protection.  God wrote to protect the poor, the widows and orphans.   It was Paul who wrote that in Christ there is neither male nor female, gentile nor Jew, slave nor free, but all are the same in God's kingdom.  This was an earth shattering notion.  It is only in Judeo/Christianity that the weaker are to be protected and honored.  

[BibleStudent100]

Great question HeavensFlower:  Many Bible translations do not use the English word rape in the text you cite.  The Bible version I use translate this text in the following manner:

“In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.”—Deuteronomy 22:28, 29.

This was a case of pressured seduction and/or fornication. If an unscrupulous man felt at liberty to have sex relations with a virgin, she would be the primary loser. Besides the possibility that she might have an illegitimate child, her value as a bride was diminished, for many Israelites might not want to marry her once she was no longer a virgin. What, though, would discourage a man from taking liberties with a virgin? God’s “holy and righteous and good” Law would.—Romans 7:12.

The Mosaic code had a provision allowing a man to divorce his wife for certain reasons. (Deuteronomy 22:13-19; 24:1; Matthew 19:7, 8) But what we read at Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 shows that the option of divorce disappeared after premarital fornication. This, then, might cause a man (or a virgin woman) to resist a temptation to share in fornication.  This law then would deter immorality by causing any would-be offender to weigh the long-term consequences of fornication—having to stay with the other party throughout his life.

The Law also lessened the problem of illegitimacy. God decreed: “No illegitimate son may come into the congregation of God.” (Deuteronomy 23:2) So if a man who seduced a virgin had to marry her, their fornication would not result in an illegitimate offspring among the Israelites.

Granted, we moderns have a hard time understanding the culture of the Israelites at that time, especially this one that basically requires the marriage of two persons who engage in fornication.  As we all know, engaging in premarital fornication is NOT an insignificant thing. Christians should give serious thought to the long-term consequences of sexual intimacy before marriage, even as this law moved the Israelites to do so, even if the sexual act was willingly agreed to by the female or she was pressured to give her body to some degree.

 The apostle aptly and succinctly wrote: “This is what God wills, the sanctifying of you, that you abstain from fornication.”—1 Thessalonians 4:3-6; Hebrews 13:4.
 

[Jayne]

God views rape as murder.  The Bible literally says that.  And the Bible literally says that a rapist must be executed.

You've gotten ahold of a poor translation of that verse.  All Bible translations have the occasional word or phrase that's better translated something else.

The King James, ESV, and NASB don't translate this verse as rape.  Those are my top three that I read.  My fourth is the NIV and it does translate it that way.

There are four situations here in this chapter of Moses giving the Law a second time. He gave the Law the first time to the first generation leaving Egypt and now the that their children are about to cross over into the Promised Land, he give the Law a second time.

• The first and second involve consensual sex between a man and a woman that is either married to someone else or betrothed to someone else.  Both Deuteronomy 22:22 and 22:23-24 require both the man and woman to be stoned to death.  The first time that this law was given was in Leviticus 20:10.  Consensual sex between a man and woman with one belonging to another person, either married or pledged [which meant more than just engaged] was foul and vile in God's eyes.

 

• The third, Deuteronomy 22:25-27, clear cut about non-consensual sex or rape.  It clearly states that the woman did nothing wrong and should not be punished, she screamed for help and no one could hear her, [even if she didn't scream as some women freeze and can't scream, ergo no consent is given].  The word here for "force" or "seize" her is the Hebrew word "chazaq" which means like being bound  strongly with tight bonds.  You cannot help yourself as you are constrained and being forced upon.  God says in this short passage that this is like a man who attacks his neighbor and murders him.  The rapist is to be put to death.

 

• The fourth scenario cannot be about rape, because the above law said a rapist must die.  Also, the Hebrew word for "lay ahold" of her is not "chazaq".  It's "taphas".  It literally means to lay ahold of.  Like when Potiphar's wife "taphased" Joseph by his garment and said "lie with me".  He ran away.  The unmarried girl in this scenario did not.  It says something that the rape scenario does not say.  It says "they are discovered".  That mean's they got caught.  The first time this law is given in Exodus 22:16-17 explains it better.

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged in marriage and sleeps with her, he must pay the full dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, the man still must pay an amount comparable to the bridal price of a virgin.…"

The Bible cannot contradict itself.  Either this was a seduction or a rape.  Exodus says it was a seduction and ergo, consensual.  And he must pay the price whether the father gives his approval for marriage or not.

 

 

[Who me]

23 hours ago, heavensflower said:

 

I think this story encourages the marry your rapist law. Maybe trying to avoid a bloodbath?  I think Deuteronomy 22:28 is a mistranslation. It is meant to say 'seduced', not 'rape' Maybe some teenagers in love who had made out would be allowed to get married instead of being stoned for fornication.  It is a shot gun wedding. If a girl found a stranger handsome and interesting, well I think only a willing female partner should marry the stranger. I just don't think a good God would force an innocent young virgin girl to marry someone who brutally attacks her and steals her innocence, doesn't God love women just as much as he loves men? Well, I believe he does!

I

God does love women as much if not more so then men.

But he is also practical, how would a girl who had been raped/saduced etc get married?

The culture stressed the virgin nature of women/girls getting married and do remember marriaged were arranged, not love matches.

Foes God value women, that he does is seen in how Jesus related to women, Mary had the place of honour sitting at his feet, he appeared to women when he rose and women had no value then as legal witnesses.

Look at Hannah, Ruth and Esther all women of faith.

Look at the mothers of many great Christian missionaries and teachers. It was there teaching that laid the foundation of their sons faith.

Who else has so much influence in the world?

[thomas t]

Hi Heavensflower,

I love your passion for the case of women and girls. Keep on!

Great post.

Just a little thing...

On 7/7/2019 at 6:33 PM, heavensflower said:

I think Deuteronomy 22:28 ["rape"] is a mistranslation. It is meant to say 'seduced', not 'rape'

and before you said:

On 7/7/2019 at 6:33 PM, heavensflower said:

Shechem falls in love with Dinah, seduces her,

now let's read which Hebrew word is used for what you translate "seduce":

way·‘an·ne·hā

the same word is used in 2 Samuel 13:14, which is a clear cut rape.

So if you say way·‘an·ne·hā should be rather called "seduction" you could end up playing down rape. That's the danger here. Or let me put it that way: other people could jump in and call rape seduction, playing down rape in general. That's the danger here.

 

But keep your work up defending women and girls!

Thomas

 

[Tzephanyahu]

On 7/7/2019 at 5:33 PM, heavensflower said:

Well there is a reason for this abominably horrible law. 

Shalom @heavensflower

How is it that you think the good and perfect Creator of all things made an "abominable horrible law"?  That sentence kinda blows my mind.

But what of the commandment in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 then? If we can ASSUME the Yahweh is good, perfect and love, we can understand it differently, rather than immediately getting offended or thinking Elohim is sexist...

"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days."

This is not a prescription or order of events one most follow to allow them to rape.  This is meant to be as a deterrent.  A judgement upon the matter which is intended to scare the man off from planning such evil, not facilitate it.  Let me explain...

Before Yahweh's people were blessed with having the Holy Spirit, they would have been easily swayed by the flesh.  Add to the unbalanced view and unfair treatment of women back in the day and it's inevitable that in the large congregation of Israel there would be many wicked, selfish and cruel people.  Giving the Torah alone wouldn't make them righteous, it would only highlight what is right and wrong.  But practically, how are you going to stop men being selfishly wicked?

Now, should have  Yahweh said "You shall not rape", do you think that would have stopped a man in the heat of his passion?  Surely he would have proceeded and then simply bring a sacrifice to the Tabernacle thereafter, in repentance.  But that's not good enough.  What would stop that man doing it again?  

The commandment in the Deut 22:28-29 is to warn of the consequence to the man, and subsequent protection of the woman - not to oppress her further.  The law is to cool the heat of passion in (most) men when they realise there is no quick getaway, no repentance option and no tomorrow to forget it.   

We see this same principle repeated a lot in the Torah - some commandments aren't designed to be followed but to be a deterrent-judgement, in a certain circumstance.  "If you dare to do X, then you will do Y and Z".  A good example of this is demonstrated by King Solomon when he gave the commandment to cut a live baby into two, before two contesting mothers.  It was a "deterrent-judgement", not designed to be followed, but to be avoided.

I can understand this from a female perspective though and it's like "Oh great! so now I'm married to my rapist forever! How is that fair?".  I get that.  But now, try to imagine it from the attacker's perspective...  After a moment of violence, he has to meet the victim's family.  He has to pay them a large sum before witnesses -maybe even standing before the Priests and Tabernacle of Yahweh (imagine the shame!).  He then goes through a marriage ceremony before his family, his friends and her family and friends.  Thereafter, he lives with his victim for the remainder of his days, seeing her face and her family each day - fulfilling a role of a husband by protecting and caring for her.  It doesn't sound like many rapists (however evil they are) would like to go through that.

So in conclusion, I don't believe this is a "When you rape a girl, you need to do this and that!" law.  Rather I believe it's a "Don't you dare!  If you do, there will be consequences for your moment of passion. You will forfeit the rest of your life and spend the rest of your days caring and protecting the victim you violated".   

I personally believe that this law would have stopped more rape than encourage it.  On a side note, I also believe that the majority of men (that may have gone through this law) would have been reformed, after seeing their consequences and caring for the victim thereafter.

I hope that gives you some different angles to consider.

Love & Shalom

[thomas t]

5 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

How is it that you think the good and perfect Creator of all things made an "abominable horrible law"?

great Tzeph, that you point that out. I must have overlooked it when I answered . It's good to have you here!

5 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

The commandment in the Deut 22:28-29 is to warn of the consequence to the man, and subsequent protection of the woman - not to oppress her further.

That's interesting to read!

Keep up your good work!

Thomas

[Jayne]

6 hours ago, maryjayne said:

Asking a question here: is it not the case that women and girls were not, as a rule, ever alone and unprotected, so to be in a field or a vulnerable place alone with no other men or women near her it would have to have been a choice and deliberate act on the part of the woman?

Genuine question.

Ruth and Naomi were alone.  Traveling great distances.  

If we claim her being alone is a choice and deliberate act and that is why she was raped, then her deliberate act makes it NOT a rape.

This sounds too much like the old "she asked for it" conversation.

[Jayne]

Quote

"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days."

Just a reminder here.  The King James, ESV, NASB, NLT, ASV, and NKJV do not say rape.

"They are found out" - this 99.99% says to me that this is consensual sex.  

"The man who lay with her" - In the Bible, "lay with her" is primarily consensual.

Why would God institute all of this hullabaloo over shekels of silver and marriage with a violent rapist when God had JUST said that a rapist must be put to death in verse 25.

A man who rapes a woman and is forced to marry her will rape her again and again.  Time has proven that over and over.  Marital rape is really a "thing".  I've listened to two women who suffered this.  Women who would not seek help from the police for fear they would be killed.

Marriage won't stop the violence.