Deuteronomy 22:23-24?

Question

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24

How can you reconcile stoning a women because she was raped with a just and loving god?

1) For anyone who says "the old testament doesn't apply any more", I am aware christians believe that. However, if you believe that the god of the old testament is the same god as the god of the new testament, then you worship the god that, for thousands of years, commanded the death of raped women. That argument doesn't work.

2) For anyone who says I have taken the verse out of context, please explain the context in which stoning a woman because she was raped is the morally correct thing to do.

So, if the woman was gagged, so couldn't scream, that makes it consensual? Or was too terrified? Isn't screaming = rape / no screaming = consensual a bit hit and miss for a god with perfect judgement.

If it is talking about consensual sex, not rape, then is consensual sex in the country ok, as Deuteronomy 22:25 suggests?

Isn't commanding stoning for many crimes, then adding "but only sinless people may do it" centuries later a massive oversight on the part of god?

Answer 1

Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality. The above verses were written 3000 years ago in a very different culture and location. Sexual purity was very highly valued, unlike today, and when a man would marry a woman, her virginity was critical. In ancient times a dowry was paid to the father of the bride and the rightful expectation was that the bride would be a virgin.
In the culture of the time it was the father who was charged with the covering, care, and well-being of his daughter. Her sexual purity was was representative of the fathers ability to raise her according to the laws God. Therefore, in that culture, a man's reputation, as well as the family's reputation in the community, could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter. If his daughter had been promised to a man to be married, and a dowry had been paid, there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered after the marriage, then the implication is that there had been a deception in which the father could be implicated, or it would mean that he was unaware of her sin and this would bring great shame the family and the community, not to mention it being a display of outright rebellion against God's law. In this case, to insure the integrity of the family, and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated.
Finally, she was not stoned for not being a virgin, but for carrying out a deception in trying to appear as one.


"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," (Deut. 22:13).

Answer 2

Deuteronomy 22 Commentary

Answer 3

You're asking some really good questions, I'll give you that.

First of all, the Bible was written by humans, not by God. The "laws" of the OT were designed to bring order to society, just as our laws of today are.

In this passage, it does not specify rape; it just says the man has relations with the woman. If the woman fails to cry for help, perhaps she is a willing partner. Of course, it could be that the man is holding a knife to her throat--I don't argue your point, there. I'm just pointing out that you are jumping to a conclusion. The next few verses go on to say that if this happens in the country, only the man is put to death, because the woman may have cried out--the woman is, in fact, given the benefit of the doubt.

In any event, the fact is that the "laws" and regulations of the OT are no longer applicable--they also allow fathers to sell their daughters into slavery, slaveowners to murder their slaves, and many other things which we find abhorrent today. I think the real question is: Were these obviously unjust laws given to humans by God, or were they completely "man-made" laws? I believe we have to come down on the side of saying these laws were human laws,not God's laws.

Answer 4

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

God was illustrating something. One of those things is how the Jews in particular weren't too keen on the Law. It was not something pleasing to them. Yet Judaism, as we call it now, still exists in some rather diminished form. We should be only reading about it in the history books- especially by the reference that you stated. But it still exists.

I think that by Judaism existing is one evidence that it would only have survived the ages because it was an order from God-- existence therein. Otherwise as is illustrated in the Old Testament, the people were into abandoning it altogether to worship more pleasing things to them. Asherah poles and groves, Baal, Dagon. Until a strong leader got them back into it, they wandered to other things to worship and forgot the ways set by Moses.

What else could it be other than a divine will to observe the traditions though they did not understand the true meaning thereof?

Answer 5

She wasn't raped- this verse implies that she willfully had sexual relations with a man other than her husband. Usually, if a woman is being raped she cries out for help, especially if she is in a city.

The laws of the Old Testament are ancient and a long time past. God is just and holy and does condemn fornication and adultery. He is the same God as the Old Testament, but thank Him for sending Jesus Christ as our advocate so we don't have to live by the laws in the Old Testament.

Answer 6

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.


23 “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a 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 with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.


where does it say she was raped? in actuality she was committing adultery and her hubby found out... back then the land of the law for adultery was stoning.. just like in todays time Law of the lands change in time.. happens even today

Answer 7

Two things:
This actually allows her a way out. Neighboring cultures didn't. It sounds unbelievably harsh to us, but it was a softening of that region's practices.

The reality was that an argument could be made that she tried to resist but was thwarted somehow. Or she screamed and no one responded for some reason. The possibility of pleading her case was significant progress; this law provided that.

And even more importantly, Jewish tradition has always been very dynamic. These sorts of laws were reversed during the Rabbinic period, around 100 C.E., and generally reflected long-standing practice. If you want to criticize our tradition, study all of it, not just the parts that Christianity kept.

Answer 8

Dueteronomy 22

Answer 9

If he was raping her, she could have screamed. Being in the city, someone may have heard her. The fact that she didn't scream or fight, could mean that she was not raped, that she went along with it. I'm sure, they would investigate the situation before they would put anyone to death. Would it be right for a woman to say she was raped, when she wasn't?

It shows how serious fornication and adultery were. The Israelites were God's chosen people, they had very high standards to live by. They needed to be set apart from the nations around them. And no we are not under the commandments given to the Israelite anymore. Of course, God has not lowered his moral standards, because of Jesus ransom, we can be forgiven for such behavior, if repentant.

Answer 10

A clear scene of pornography ascribed to God by man and deftly, universally taught and defended as being God-breathed. Hear the bible speak in 2 Timothy 3 verse 16 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.." In which of the compartments do classify Deuteronomy 22:23-24? Teaching, reproof, for correction or for training in righteousness? Help!

Answer 11

Bryan is 100% correct. I would just add that you've overlooked other laws that prohibit the stoning of anyone, except by a perfectly righteous, sinless person. Most of the Jews also overlooked this understanding of the Law. However, when Jesus "bottom lined" it for them at John 8, they dropped their stones and walked away.

So what does this tell you?

God NEVER meant laws such as this one to be enforced by imperfect, sinful humans. Period.