Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Deuteronomy

[Paulie]

According to God's law, if a woman was found to not be a virgin when she was married, she was to be stoned to death.

Also, if a woman was raped and didn't make it as public as possible, she was stoned to death (as well as the rapist). No matter what, according to God, women were basically sentenced to death by being beaten by rocks. Tf.

[jimwalton]

It seems that you are in Deuteronomy 22.14-21. Is that true?

The text doesn't explain the "why" of the situation. We could possibly infer that paternity is far more important in the clan identity culture of the ancient world than it is in our modern world, but we'd be guessing. Capital punishment in the ancient world was the way their societies responded to acts that posed deleterious threats to the dissolution of society. Our modern societies don't see things the same way, but they don't have to. There is no reason to claim our society should be structured like theirs, or theirs like ours. If you are concerned about God's justice, we have to put ourselves in their context and values.

Also, you should realize that the laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy were not a law record—recording what was, and explaining all the ins and outs—but case law: giving hypothetical situations so judges know how to make rulings. It gives generic examples and the principles, expecting that knowledgeable and mature judges will understand the intent and create and enforce laws accordingly, ruling in fairness.

All the law is asking for is proof of guilt or innocence, something we do in our courts. if she's guilty, she should be punished, and if innocent, acquitted. It was up to the judge, accusers, defenders, and the community to establish reasonable ways to ascertain guilt or innocence. Due process and fair treatment is both implied and understood.

As to your other claims, give me the texts and we can talk.

[Paulie]

You stopped short. If you read up to verse 24, you will see that if a man has his way with a virgin meant for someone else, God's law (which is above man's law) is to allow all of the townspeople to murder the both of them with rocks. It's kind of sick that God would allow any willing participant to join in killing these people.

[jimwalton]

Sorry you misunderstand the text. Thanks for giving me a chance to explain it. The context matters.

The first paragraph is divided into 2 parts: a primary case involving a false accusation (v. 13-19), and a counter case in which the charges prove to be true (vv. 20-21). The first case goes to great lengths to protect a woman from false accusations by an abusive husband, and the second doesn't try to defend a woman who is actually guilty of lying to protect her husband about her pre-marital virginity.

Verses 22-29 bring up a new set of hypothetical situations. Adultery was a capital crime. The reason was because it was important for land ownership (which always stayed in the family) that a husband was assured that his children were his own so there would be no spurious claims to steal his land from his family.

But vv. 23-29 continue the possibilities. V. 23: what if he rapes her? In this case (because it's in a town), it is assumed that if it were truly a rape she would have screamed out for help. If there was no scream or fight, it can be assumed she consented, and it's adultery, not rape, in which case they will both be punished (v. 24). It's a violation of marriage, a screwing with inheritance rights, and detrimental to the foundations of their society.

What the Bible is saying is that circumstances matter. She is engaged to another, and if someone rapes her and she fights (showing she is being forcibly raped), then she is protected. The rapist is executed; she is set free is not considered guilty. But if the sex was consensual, she is as guilty as he, and they would be punished accordingly.

Then v. 25-27 deals with the case of actual rape, in which case the man is punished and the woman is vindicated and protected.

Scenario 3 (vv. 28-29) pertains to the seduction of an unengaged woman. The law has tried to put before the judge enough hypothetical situations so he can make a wise and accurate judgment in cases brought before him:

- If the woman was complicit in illicit sex, she is as guilty as the man.
- If the engaged woman was raped, she is protected and vindicated while the man is punished.
- If the unengaged woman was raped, he would have to pay large sums in fines and would have to marry her so that she would not go through life without financial resources.

So, you see, God's law isn't sick at all. It's realy about the presentation of evidence, consideration of the situation, punishment for the guilty, and acquittal for the innocent.

These laws are similar to other laws in the ancient Near East. The Laws of Eshunna, Middle Assyrian Laws, and the code of Hammurabi had similar content, infractions, and punishments. We live in an era of lax laws pertaining to sexual ethics, paternity, and inheritance. In their culture, an attack on a woman was considered an attack on the clan, stealing a man's rights to procreate, confusing land inheritance, and endangering the orderly transmission of his estate to his rightful heirs. The consequence of that, in their culture, was that these things were capital crimes, in all the ancient cultures.