17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
As I was studying the concept of betrothal (thanks again to everyone for their support!), I came across the commands regarding rape in Deu 22:23-29, I remembered it and of course noted the difference in penalty for betrothed vs. the unbetrothed and it reminded me of the commandment above. What's stood out to me, is that there is no sin offering in regard to this command. No talk of iniquity. It seems in fact that the iniquity would not be in the fact that the man enticed the woman and they had relations, rather it would be if he failed to endow her to be his wife. This struck as odd considering the modern view on what fornication is.
So I'd like to hear other thoughts on this. Secondly, what is the spiritual significance of this? If God gives human relations as a picture of his relationship to man...for example, why are people in the church so dead set against divorce, because if God allows it than what does it imply about his marriage to individuals of the church. So what does this imply that it seems that a man could sleep with a woman and there be no sin unless he fails to endow her to his wife? And if we can answer that, then what is the significance of the laws of rape in the case of the unbetrothed where instead of death the man must again pay and marry?
Jesse,
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if this will clear up the issue or produce more questions.
The first passage I want to look at is your reference to Deuteronomy 22:23-29.
There are three cases involved in the stated discussion.
1. A “virgin” (betrothed) engaged who willingly participates.
The result of this woman’s action (and man) is self explanatory.
She is stoned because she failed to cry out.
He is stoned because he has humiliated his neighbor’s wife.
The reason it is done is to cut off evil.
2. A (“virgin betrothed”) woman who unwillingly participates.
The result of the action taken against the woman is self explanatory.
The man has violated every command there is.
The woman cried out, but no one was able (or willing) to save her.
3. A “virgin” (not betrothed) who participates.
a. Unwillingly
b. Willingly
I do not believe the text supports an “unwilling” accomplice. The strong language used previously regarding the “betrothed” virgin would have to be taken into consideration when weighing the matter. Another issue of concern would be the words used to describe. In the case of the first woman “unwillingly” raped the word chazaq is used. It means to fasten upon, hence to seize. The woman is bound or restrained and as a result conquered. In the example of the second woman (possibly unwillingly) the word taphas is used. It means to manipulate and as a result captured.
The first is guaranteed to be married; the second is unwarranted. We know the hope laid out for the first, we are uncertain of the second.
The phrase “they be found” is also of interest (Dt. 22:28). There is no appearance of a “scream.” Instead the word matsa’ is used to describe their apparent “union.” The word means to “come forth to.” The context suggesting, in my opinion, that they make the matter known before discovered.
We have in these examples the state of man. He either participates in evil wholeheartedly, unwillingly, or is deceived.
It is the latter that reflects the meaning of your primary passage of Exodus 22:16-17. It states that the man “enticed” (seduced) the woman. The word used there is pathah and it means “to open” with the intent of either simplifying or deluding. Interestingly enough in “deluding” the pathway to marriage is “simplified.”
A question not asked at this juncture, but I offer for consideration is, “Why is the woman’s hand not pledged at this time?” Why was the woman not betrothed? You could say, “She did not want.” It would be hard to convince me of such. The only plausible explanation would be that her “Father” did not want. What would be his reason for “constraining”? My dad (or that imaginary person I call dad) used to say, “If you don’t know the answer, follow the money!”
What sin, if any, has been committed? The utter refusal of the father reveals an unwillingness to let go. What is holding him back? You may suggest concern for his daughter. Does this ever stop?
You assessment would be correct. If the man refused to offer dowry, it would be his sin. However, in the case presented, it is the father who “utterly refuses.” How does this fit in with modern view on fornication? There is only one partner in the cases presented. The course of action as a result is also very clear. Society disregards! They are guilty of the first example and worthy of death. They willingly ignore and have no desire to unite in purpose.
What is implied? You can’t stop love, even if you try! A couple of things come to mind when reflecting, both of which can be found in the 2nd Testament. The first is this, “God is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins,” especially when done in ignorance (1 Jn. 1:9). Yet, what must first be done? We must admit what we have done. The example, I believe, we are given. Second, there is “no more sacrifice for sins,” when done “willfully” (Heb. 10:26). Both of these passages are brought out under the discussion present.
As mentioned previously, I do not believe the passage in Exodus or Deuteronomy is a “rape” case.
I may need some clarity on the divorce issue. I’m not sure what you are asking. God does not “permit” divorce any more so than He “permits” sin. Or to put it another way, God allows you to determine your choices. Will it be out of the hardness of your heart you pursue? You are free to do however you please! However, you may not like the consequences.
Jack
Your brother in Christ
A couple of things have come to mind for me as I have started to sort out this issue. I go back fist to Dinah who was raped and then asked to marry. It would appear by the strangeness of the situation that perhaps the word as Jack describes is used for several types of unmarried altercations. Another question that comes from this situation is how much of the law is known at this time. I see a lot of the law before Moses was alive but that is a discussion for another time.
ReplyDeleteThe second portion that I raise is in the Torah's dealing with kidnapping Duet 24:7 plainly says to put to death anyone who kidnaps and Israelite and makes them a slave. This seems related to me because is has to do with holding someone against their will.
Third, I would commit to a different translation that seems to clear things up a bit for me in terms of context. Deut 23-29 If a man is caught in town having sex with an engaged woman who isn't screaming for help, they both must be put to death. The man is guilty of having sex with a married woman. And the woman is guilty because she didn't call for help, even though she was inside a town and people were nearby. Take them both to the town gate and stone them to death. You must get rid of the evil they brought into your community.
If an engaged woman is raped out in the country, only the man will be put to death. Do not punish the woman at all; she has done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing deserving death. This crime is like murder, because the woman was alone out in the country when the man attacked her. She screamed, but there was no one to help her.
Suppose the Woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, they will be forced to get married. he must give her fifty pieces of silver as a bride price and can never divorce her.
This is exactly why I disagree with my Dad about when someone has premarital sex. He thinks that he should break it off and be done with it, I say he should marry that person whether he wants to or not. There seems to be a bond formed between a man and woman beyond mere physical that when broken leaves pieces behind. Like glueing to papers together and then ripping the apart. Little bits of yourself get left with each person you are with. I think after a while that there isn't much left for you to give.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteExcellent point about premarital sex!
I'd say there have been some good points brought up, it would seem that the language lends itself in the Deu passage to there only being one true case of rape that of the betrothed who cried out. The other two being coercision and willing participation in the first case, and simply being out of order but not necessarily sinning in the last case (which I agree is parallel to the subject in Exodus).
ReplyDeleteI think we all agree on where the rubber meets the road. Don't sleep with your neighbors wife, or you die. But I think there are still questions unanswered. I looked at the Deu 24:7 passage regarding kidnapping, and I think that that has to be in the context of the latter portion where it says to make merchandise. For 1, the word steal is 'ganab' which implies stealthly taking away. Say for example a person is apprehended believed to be shoplifting, and it turns out they were innocent. Did the security 'kidnap' them? Certainly not, but they were detained against their will, but it was done honestly/openly clearly not with the intent to make merchandise of them. If we were talking about the sex trade, I think this passage would be appropriate, but I don't think it necessarily applies solely because of the force.
I think perhaps the case must be understood in the context of Deu 22:26 "... for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:" The case of the man rising against his neighbor is one of intent. The first use of this 'rise up' is referring to Cain against Abel. The rising up shows the intent to what? Be "against" the other person.
The first case then is simply willing participation in adultery whether tempted or tempting, the penalty is death.
The second case is like the man who rises against his neighbor and slays him. I found it interesting that the city "iyr" is a guarded place, the field is a spread out and home to wild beasts etc... This makes sense the difference between city and field. In the guarded place she can expect to be protected if she just cries out! The implication is she doesn't want to be saved. The woman in the field though can't expect that (does anyone else find it interesting that God didn't simply say "a woman shall not be in the field alone?"). Why is the man in the field? Well if we are comparing it to the rising up incident, than the implication is that the man has intent to be in an unguarded place, he wants to be where there are no better men. Hence it makes sense that in this case the man 'forces' the woman.
It would seem that the penalty of death is for willing participants in adultery, and sexual predators...I don't know that this addresses the so called 'crime of passion' though because in those cases there does not appear to be intent. Or...perhaps the force itself is the manifest intent? In those cases, from what I've heard since I've never studied it, it was someone the victim knew...I've never heard of a spontaneous assault on a total stranger, so I guess in fact the use of force is manifest intent. Because at some point this person decided to feed his unlawful desire instead of capturing it, or else we would have many more 'crimes of passion' against random people.
I think this speaks to the idea that God allows us freewwill and will not infringe on it himself, nor allow another to do so.
The third case again I think we agree on. The sin is not he act, but the refusal of the man to bind himself to the woman. I think I agree that in the spiritual sense we have three pictures of believers (all three cases take place WITHIN the community of the covenant), the willingly unlawful (death), the one who forces their will on another (death) and the unwilling victim (life). Those two are clear enough because there is clear sin.
But the third one seems more complex to me. We agree on the application, "if you sleep with her, you will marry her." I thought Jack's insight on the father was quite interesting. It makes sense though, the man has already slept with her and he had to pay the price anyway, so what is gained by keeping them (again within the context of the covenant) apart? Certainly if he was a foreigner there would be other commands that prohibit so the implication seems to be another israelite. And it's not likely the woman's desire after all she consented, and now she can't be given as a virgin...so the only one who gains from the refusal is the father. And what has he gained? For whatever reason he is not willing to let her go, which I think is out of order for the above reasons but clearly it still establishes the authority of the father.
I'm not quite sure what that distills down to other than that the first two examples show those willing to sin (minus the victim) and the third that despite being carried away with recklessness aren't necessarily in sin if they continue to submit to the father.
I think we agree but there's so many intricaies to this whole area of thought. As for my comment on divorce, that was more a side note, but it is another example of what I was just saying about how much more there is. It actually was a reference back to what you (Jack) said once about why so many believers are so deadset against all divorce because of what it might imply about God's marriage to people...which I think still holds even if you remove the 'permitting' of divorce, that doesn't remove it's existance. Ie, God hates divorce, why? Unless it was an equally binding effect as the marriage then why would God have a problem with it? I'm not saying he wouldn't, but it seems scripture is clear that it is. For example a divorced husband and wife could not remarry (or at least not after either of them had been with someone else). Or "what God hath joined together let no man tare asunder," the implication is that man CAN TARE asunder. God may not permit divorce, but he does recognize it's binding effect.
Good stuff! It is always refreshing to find three different perspectives that lead us ultimately to the same conclusion. Thanks guys for the "spirited" conversation.
ReplyDeleteI would recommend one of you doing a short piece on the issue of divorce (since you brought it up Jesse?). The "doctrine" has huge ramifications. Looking forward to the next blog!
For example a divorced husband and wife could not remarry (or at least not after either of them had been with someone else). Or "what God hath joined together let no man tare asunder," the implication is that man CAN TARE asunder. God may not permit divorce, but he does recognize it's binding effect.
Another short note about the father. As a father I could see one reason why the father in the third case would not be willing to let his daughter mary the man who slept with her. If one of my daughters was infatuated with a man that was violent or abusive I would rather her stay single than marry a man who would beat her.
ReplyDeleteTrue enough Chris, but would you take the money?
ReplyDeleteHahahaha... I might take more than the guys money.
ReplyDeleteStill in transit to Sammamish so I'm not really set to devote thought to the possible next issue of divorce, but I did have a further thought here on the father.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine that an abusive suitor would be much of an issue within the community of the covenant. I don't have e-sword right here, but I'm sure the whole issue of an 'eye for an eye' comes readily to mind. Of course, the context of the command is not one of revenge, but of the obligation to make restitution hence the 'giving of eye for an eye...' rather than the 'taking an eye for an eye...'
In such a community, if a suitor were to abuse another man's daughter then certainly we could understand the father's refusal AND his acceptance of the virgin payment. However, the payment was to cover the act of relations. If he was abusive then he would have a 'regular' and very expensive bill. Not only that recall also the command just previous of the passage in Deu under discussion, where a man 'brings an evil name' on his own wife. As I recall the penalty was a hefty fine and being barred from ever divorcing her. If even her reputation is of high value in God's eyes, I can't imagine that physical or emotional abuse would be without substantial restitution to be made.
Lastly, we forget the whole nature of presumptuous sin. If there was a matter it could be taken to the city judges at which point the abusive suitor having been found guilty of assault on woman would be fined and I imagine there would be some warning from the judge to not do so again. If he ignores this command then the penalty goes from fine to death for not heeding the judge.
So it seems that in a community that was obediant to God, that an abusive situation could not long continue the man would have to learn or die, so the only reason a father might refuse that I can think of, is personal pride or the community is not following torah...but if that latter were the case then what are the odds that any part of the command would be upheld?
Abusive was only one example. He could just be a man of low moral character, for example (he is willing to sleep with a woman who is not his wife yet) Or perhaps he is prone to drinking, or just aimless in life. For a father with strict standards about who his daughter is to marry there are many things that I would turn a man down for.
ReplyDeleteI happen to think Jesse is spot on. However, I do believe that Chris' response is more practical (more likely). From where I sit I see what Jesse said as the "expectation." Certainly attainable, but it requires the participation of all parties. Chris' comment (or reply) is more of an actualization. You both are right!
ReplyDelete