Explanation of Deut. 22:28-29?

[JEFFinGA]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NKJV):

"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he siezes 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."

I hope I have misunderstood something here because the way I read it, it is saying that if a man rapes a young virgin woman who isn't engaged or married, all he has to do is give the girl's father money and then she has to marry him?!?! What kind of messed up junk is that? Maybe I have a misprinted bible? Anybody wanna help me out here?

 

[£amb]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NKJV):

"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he siezes 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."

I hope I have misunderstood something here because the way I read it, it is saying that if a man rapes a young virgin woman who isn't engaged or married, all he has to do is give the girl's father money and then she has to marry him?!?! What kind of messed up junk is that? Maybe I have a misprinted bible? Anybody wanna help me out here?

My son who is only 8 is scared to death of a policeman. He has it in his mind that if he does something wrong, then he'll go to jail and get in major trouble from his mom/dad. This is what the law was trying to do in a sense. This law was to deter men from committing such a violent act to a woman. When the Isrealites came into the Promised Land, they knew the law and had to obey it. Men knew the consequences if they raped a woman. The money they gave was not "paying" for the girl, but it was the bride-price. It was custom for the man to pay a bride-price to the bride's family. The man had taken her virginity away and her possiblity of ever being married without it. He had to redeem her by marrying her and not being able to divorce her. Even if a man seduced a woman (not raping but the woman is willing), the same thing would happen. He then would have to pay the bride-price and marry the woman. Exodus 22:16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife."

 

[Asar'el]

The passage (as you will see from the chapter) deals further with the issue of purity in marriage.

Adultery has no excuse - the text implies that a married woman cannot be raped (that is, her husband, and the men of her city, would defend her). Both are guilty, and sentenced.

A betrothed damsel in a city is also considered safe - if she is found out with another, it is implied she did not cry out, and that, if she had, she would have been rescued. Without a cry, she is guilty with the man, and both sentenced.

A betrothed damsel in a field is innocent - but the man is guilty, and under penalty. Notice especially that it specifically says 'the man shall force her' - it is implied that the damsel cried and there was none to rescue her.

The passage you ask about in particular deals with a virgin not betrothed. Notice, however, that it does not speak of a man forcing her - only that he 'lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found'; it is speaking about sex before marriage; and how such is a shameful way to enter marriage.

 

[JEFFinGA]

Oh, I was under the impression that the phrase "he siezes her" meant that he captured her or forced her. I guess some people have a different definition of the word sieze. Would anybody happen to have the original hebrew text (or whatever language it was originally written in) for this verse?

 

[Adoniram]

The phrase "lay hold on her" or "seizes her" would seem to mean rape in today's language, but in the language of the period, it is implied that she yeilded to him. From John Gill's exposition:
Deu 22:28 - "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,...."--- That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:

"and lay hold on her, and lie with her,"--- she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deu_22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo_22:16 but not without her consent:

"and they be found;"--- in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy.

Deu 22:29 - "Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver,"--- For the abuse of his daughter; and besides this was obliged to give her her dowry also, as Philo (d) says, which is commonly said to be fifty more:

"and she shall be his wife;"--- if her father and she agreed to it; and in such a case the man was not at his liberty to refuse, be she what she would, agreeable or not, handsome or ugly; he must, as the Jews express it, drink out of his pot, or marry her, if she is lame, or blind, or full of ulcers (e):

"because he hath humbled her he may not put her away all his days:"--- to all the other parts of his punishment, paying a fine of fifty shekels to the damsel's father, a dowry of the same sum to her, obligation to marry her whether he likes her or not, this is added, that he is not allowed to divorce her as long as he lives; which was permitted to other men, and this was wisely ordered to preserve chastity.

(d) De Special. Leg. p. 787. (e) Misn. Cetubot, c. 3. sect. 5.


This is not a law for today, but rather was the custom of that time. It was meant as a deterant, and also as a means of insuring that the woman, who would be looked upon as being defiled, would be taken care of, along with her offspring if there was one.

Today, it would be similar to a woman suing for child-support.

 

[JEFFinGA]

Well I don't know who John Gill is or what his exposition was but I guess people just interpret the bible differently. So be it.

While you're at it, how would you interpret this scripture:

Deutoronomy 25:11-12 (NKJV)

"If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her"

This seems a bit odd; a woman tries to help her husband, so he has to cut off her hand? Ouch! Also, I guess the word "seize" in this scripture means that the man gladly let her grab his genitals, because as we all know "seize" does not mean to capture by force, as pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

[£amb]

What is the point of these verses? Are you just picking verses from the OT to debate on? Sounds like you're setting up for a firing-squad.

 

[Davis]

yeah really I'm not really grasping why he is diggin in the OT. The OT is very meaninful. Jesus said that he did not come to replace the old covenant. Maybe if you are truley seeking the Lord you should start in the Book of John. Then after you grasp more and more of scripture than get on to the tougher works of the OT. Hope you take this advice to heart.

 

[JEFFinGA]

So sorry, I was reading the book of Deuteronomy and came across some verses that I didn't quite understand. I thought you guys could help give me some insight. Is it wrong to have questions about the OT? If so, I am very sorry that I broke the rules.

"Sounds like you're setting up for a firing-squad." What does that mean?

"Maybe if you are truley seeking the Lord you should start in the Book of John." Oh I didn't know you had to read certain parts of the Bible before others, thanks for setting me straight.

 

[SHHHNAKE]

What is the point of these verses? Are you just picking verses from the OT to debate on? Sounds like you're setting up for a firing-squad.

Setting up for a firing squad or maybe just asking to further explaination of the religion... after all aren't Christians suppose to spread the word? So why aren't you helping him understand the Bible instead of thinking in a negative way?

 

[£amb]

So sorry, I was reading the book of Deuteronomy and came across some verses that I didn't quite understand. I thought you guys could help give me some insight. Is it wrong to have questions about the OT? If so, I am very sorry that I broke the rules.

"Sounds like you're setting up for a firing-squad." What does that mean?

"Maybe if you are truley seeking the Lord you should start in the Book of John." Oh I didn't know you had to read certain parts of the Bible before others, thanks for setting me straight.

That's fine. Non-believers complain that we ask the same questions over and over and don't understand them. Well, same goes for Christians. Sometimes questions are asked in such a way that I have to think if someone truly is searching for knowledge or just waiting to fire off some "you believe that" questions. Firing-squad....standing in the line of fire of questions.

 

[£amb]

Setting up for a firing squad or maybe just asking to further explaination of the religion... after all aren't Christians suppose to spread the word? So why aren't you helping him understand the Bible instead of thinking in a negative way?

Welcome. You will soon find out that you will have to weed out certain threads to see who truly is searching knowledge or just waiting to set you up. Certain people do truly search for answers, but I like I said, you will see for yourself. If you want to find any post I have written helping people then click on my name, read my posts and then decide for yourself if I'm spreading the word. And if you read my first post in this thread, I was helping.

 

[XfacTor]

JeffinGA -

One thing to keep in mind when reading OT law is that there were three types of law, ceremonial, civil and moral. Here's an example of each:

Ceremonial
then - sacrifice for sin, day of atonement, etc.
now - communion, baptism, etc.

Civil
then - if your bull kills your neigbor's goat then give him your three best goats, if you lay with an unbetrothed virgin then you must pay the bride-price and marry her, etc.
now - if you speed then you get a ticket, if you murder then you go to jail, etc.

Moral
then - don't kill, don't have sex with the same sex, don't commit adultry, etc.
now - don't kill, don't have sex with the same sex, don't commit adultry, etc.

Civil laws change depending on the time you're living in and the government you're living under. Ceremonial laws changed with the sacrifice of Christ and the new covenant. Notice that moral laws didn't change.

What you're asking about are civil laws, i.e. the punishment for carrying out an action. Remain pure before marriage is the moral law. Ok, now you have to pay the bride-price and marry her is the civil law. Cutting off the wife's hand for her action in a fight is a civil law. It was the penalty for the action. Remember that civil laws change given the time and place.

What does that mean? God still wants us to be pure before marriage (moral). Will we force my cousin to marry her boyfriend because her parents found out they were having sex (civil)? No.

Does that help?

 

[Scholar in training]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NKJV):

"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he siezes 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."

I hope I have misunderstood something here because the way I read it, it is saying that if a man rapes a young virgin woman who isn't engaged or married, all he has to do is give the girl's father money and then she has to marry him?!?! What kind of messed up junk is that? Maybe I have a misprinted bible? Anybody wanna help me out here?

This passage is best understood in its social context, though I think it's cool that you came to ask what it meant before outright bashing it, unlike some other skeptics around here...

Anyway, in Hebrew society, the woman would no longer be seen as marriageable and could lose interdependent support because she had lost her virginity (note that this may refer to either the value of virginity in Hebrew culture or social bias, in case you think it is merely the latter). The rapist is being required to give her this support, and because of the social circumstances, the woman might well demand these circumstances. The marriage, then, was likely a type of punishment for the woman and her rapist, but it was greatly tempered by the fact that the marriage was largely about supporting the woman, not using her as a sexual cohort or having the man and woman be a loving couple. The fifty shekels of silver served as a dowry, and was a substantial amount of money at the time - something the woman's parents would need now that their daughter would not live with her family, and would not be able to do crucial work to earn money. Remember that people were not nearly as rich in antiquity as people are today, and most members of a family needed to pitch in to help the family survive.

It is also worth pointing out that the Hebrew word here may indicate that the woman started fooling around, and was not raped at all! If you would like to read more about this issue, see this page.

 

[£amb]

JeffinGa,

Look, I want to apologize. I didn't mean to sound the way I did. Sometimes I like to know why someone is questioning something. I wonder if they are truly trying to learn or just here to pick alittle "discussion". I see it so much, that sometimes I'm not quite sure. You will find answers from others that have quite abit of knowledge in this area..the OT.

 

[chokmah]

So sorry, I was reading the book of Deuteronomy and came across some verses that I didn't quite understand. I thought you guys could help give me some insight. Is it wrong to have questions about the OT? If so, I am very sorry that I broke the rules.

Jeff:

If you ever wanna learn something about the Tanakh ("Old" Testament) or Judaism; then ask a Jew or someone who has a Judaic understanding of it.

A few people sources on this forum would be:

myself, Talmidah, BourbonFromHeaven, stillsmallvoice

We would have more ability in answering your questions. In Christianity, the Tanakh is secondary.

 

[JEFFinGA]

Lamb, if you don't want to help me, don't have any answers, or think I am setting you up for some sort of evil secret attack, then just don't reply, or just say I don't have a good answer for that question. If you actually want to try to help me understand God's word, please chime in.

XfacTor and Scholar in training, thank you for actually giving thought and trying to answer my questions, unlike some people.

"Cutting off the wife's hand for her action in a fight is a civil law. It was the penalty for the action." So the woman gets her hand cut off for trying to help her husband out, but the man who is actually in the fight doesn't get any punishment? I'm still confused as to the logic or reasoning behind this law.

Scholar in training, thanks for the link.

Chokmah, please feel free to answer any of my questions in this thread if you feel you are more knowledgable than many others on the OT.

 

[chokmah]

Lamb, if you don't want to help me, don't have any answers, or think I am setting you up for some sort of evil secret attack, then just don't reply, or just say I don't have a good answer for that question. If you actually want to try to help me understand God's word, please chime in.

XfacTor and Scholar in training, thank you for actually giving thought and trying to answer my questions, unlike some people.

"Cutting off the wife's hand for her action in a fight is a civil law. It was the penalty for the action." So the woman gets her hand cut off for trying to help her husband out, but the man who is actually in the fight doesn't get any punishment? I'm still confused as to the logic or reasoning behind this law.

Scholar in training, thanks for the link.

Chokmah, please feel free to answer any of my questions in this thread if you feel you are more knowledgable than many others on the OT.

As this section of the forum is for Outreach to non-believers. I think I'll pass. I just happened up the title on the main page.

Just something for you to keep in mind for future reference.

 

[bethdinsmore]

It is good to study all the Scriptures, as Paul told Timothy.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(NIV)

In the first passage you asked about, Strong's says it especially means to capture. And Englishman's says it is the same verb as used in a verse telling parents to lay hold of a bad son and bring him to the authorities to be stoned. Sounds like force to me. (Deut. 22:19).

Couldn't find anything enlightening on the second passage. Need a good commentary.

In the New Testament, it says that the intent of the law was to bring us to Christ. To show us that we needed help - badly.

Aloha in Jesus

 

[Adoniram]

Well I don't know who John Gill is or what his exposition was but I guess people just interpret the bible differently. So be it.

While you're at it, how would you interpret this scripture:

Deutoronomy 25:11-12 (NKJV)

"If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her"

This seems a bit odd; a woman tries to help her husband, so he has to cut off her hand? Ouch! Also, I guess the word "seize" in this scripture means that the man gladly let her grab his genitals, because as we all know "seize" does not mean to capture by force, as pointed out earlier in this thread.

John Gill was a great preacher of the 1700's. His preaching was both expositional and practical, and it set the standard for the modern practice of "preaching through the Bible" book by book. His "Exposition of the Bible" is one of the most respected of Bible commentaries, or verse by verse explanations of God's Word. Matthew Henry, another great commentator who preached during the late 1600's and early 1700's, also regarded the law imposed by the Deut. 22 verses as "special protection by the law for the woman and her chastity." Which is essentially what I tried to point out in my earlier post.

As regarding your second passage, Deut. 25:11-12, John Gill says "This immodest action was done partly out of affection to her husband, to oblige his antagonist to let go his hold of him; and partly out of malice and revenge to him, to spoil him, and make him unfit for generation, and therefore was to be severely punished." If you would like a more modern commentary, William MacDonald, in his "Believer's Bible Commentary," puts it this way: "If a woman interfered by seizing a man immodestly in a fight in which her husband was involved, her offending hand was to be cut off. Her actions might endanger the man's having an heir; thus the severe penalty."

Admittedly, these penalties seem severe or even unwarranted in today's world, their logic hard to comprehend. But as XfacTor and Scholar in Training pointed out in their posts, that is the way societal law dealt with such things some 3500-4000 years ago.