3 “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. ~Deuteronomy 22:23-27
In my studies of Scripture and my discussions with others concerning the Bible, I have encountered several ways that people attempt to discredit God and His Word. All of these of course usually stem from a misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says or a complete disregard of a passage's context. A popular argument that I hear used most often pertains to a set of laws found in the book of Deuteronomy. I have lost count of the number of times I have had someone quote Deuteronomy 22:23-27 to me and then proceed to explain how God must be unfair to punish a woman for not screaming when raped. How God could judicially punish a victim of a crime. However, if one actually takes the time to study this passage, they should be able to see that the issue is not the screaming or crying out of the woman at all. Rather, it is whether the woman consented to sexual intercourse with the man.
Verses 23-24 and verses 25-27 give instructions concerning judicially what should be done in the case of two different scenarios. Both scenarios deal with a man having sexual intercourse with a woman pledged to be another man's wife. Pay close attention to the differences between the two. In the first instance, a man finds a woman pledged to another in the city and has sexual intercourse with her (lies with her). Then the man and the woman who had sex together are to be taken out and stoned to death. Both are identified as guilty. the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he violated his neighbor's wife (v. 24). Now the other scenario is described differently. In this case the man forces and lies with the woman pledged to be another man's wife and only he is the one to be killed (v. 25). The first scenario doesn't say anything about the man in that case forcing the woman to lie with him. Just that he lies with her and that she does not cry out in the city. Would this not indicate that in the first scenario the woman served as a willing participant in lying with the man? He did not force her to lie with him. The reason she didn't cry out in the city is due to the fact that this act of sexual intercourse was consensual. Hence why she is punished by the death penalty along with the man she slept with. They both are found guilty of the act of adultery since she was pledged to be another man's wife and she willingly sleeps with someone else. The woman crying out in the city would indicate her being forced into the sexual act. She did not consent to it. That is why she is described as being a victim in that case, just as one who has been murdered by their neighbor (v. 26) and thus she bears no guilt for the adulterous action. When the man met her in the field to have sex, she cries out in protest to his action, thus not consenting to it (v. 27).
You see, the issue here is not simply whether the woman cried out in the city or not. That would miss the entire point of these laws. The issue really is whether the woman consented to the sexual act with this man or if he forced her into it against her will. The crying out in the city is the author's way of communicating to us the idea of consent or protest. If she doesn't protest (ie. cry out in the city), she willingly slept with the man and is just as guilty of the act of adultery as he is. However, if she does protest, then she is merely a victim that does not deserve to be punished.
So, this passage certainly does not call God's justice into question. Instead, it reveals it in action. Only the woman who consents to have sex with a man who is not the one she has been pledged to be married to is punished by stoning. Not the victim but the criminal. Once again we find that a closer look shows both the integrity of our God and His Word. Those who call either into question do so from their lack of a careful study of the text or deliberately to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).
In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment