Not Rape but Restoration (Exodus 22:16&17)

INTRODUCTION

If you would’ve read the Midway newspaper on a certain morning, under the police report, you would have read that he Midway Police Department issues Kasity Roberts’s citation to shut down her business or else face fines and even imprisonment. At first glance, it may not seem like a big deal, but it will all the sudden become a big deal when you learn that Kasity is girl in elementary school. The business she was illegally running? A lemonade stand. Upon receiving the news, Amy Roberts, Kasity’s mother, marched down to the police station, demanding to know the reason for the citation. Kelly Morningstar, the Midway chief of police, sat down with Amy and kindly explain that the state laws regarding food safety in food service are meant to protect its citizens from unsafe and unhealthy food and drink. The police didn’t know who made the lemonade or what the lemonade was made with, and therefore needed to shut down the operation until the business was deemed to safe to serve. Amy reluctantly agreed, but she still felt a bit baffled. After all, different police officers from the Midway Police visited the lemonade stand the previous day, bought lemonade, and then complimented Kasity for choosing to make lemonade from fresh lemons instead of a powdered drink mix. You think that’s bad?

It gets worse. In Scottsdale, Arizona, Dr. Reed Turozi received a citation and fine breaking Scottsdale’s “nuisance of property maintenance” law. His crime? He was growing an illegal tree in his yard. The fine was for $2,000, and for every day he did not cut it down, he would receive another $2,000 fine. if he could not pay, he would face imprisonment. Reed was baffled. That tree has been growing at that house for all 10 years he lived in it, and nobody said a thing. In fact, he recalls that part of the reason he bought the house 11 years earlier was that it came with that tree. He marched down to City Hall to look through all the laws, and sure and off he found out that his tree was not approved by the city of Scottsdale. He still decided to take it to trial. In his defense, he pointed out all his neighbors grew the same tree in their yard. The authorities replied, “just let us know, and we’ll cite and fine then, too!” Needless to say, Reed is not a friend with his neighbors anymore.

It gets even worse. Abner Schoenwetter ran his own seafood importing company. For 13 years, he ran his buisness the exact same processes and procedures, and every time he cleared both customs and FDA regulations without any problems. Then, one day, in his 14^th year of business, he wakes up to hear a knock on his door. There’s 13 FBI agents on his deck. They proceed to arrest Abner. His crime? He transported the lobsters in plastic bags, not wooden crates. What makes this so interesting is that a Honduras law, not a United States law. Since Abner transported the lobsters from Honduras, he had to follow Honduras law. Since the United States did not want to ruin relations with Honduras, they had to arrest Abner. A judge sentenced Abner to 8 years in prison. After 6 years in jail, Abner appealed the ruling. He spent thousands of dollars on a attorney, who got a Honduras government official to testify that no such law ever existed in Honduras. By then, it was too late. Out of business for 6 years, Abner and his family went broke, and it broke apart the family.

Just when you think it can’t get any worse, this is the worst. Jack and Jill (no joke, that’s their real name) wanted to build a new house on their property. The county government came down to inspect the foundation, and they approved the building of the house. There was only one problem. A drainage ditch, owned by the state government, was clogged with logs. Jack ass the state government to fix their drainage ditch. That’s the government admitted that they were six months backed up, so it would at least take half a year to get to his problem. Jack volunteered to do it himself. State government, not wanting to have to pay more money, gladly agreed to give him permission to clear out the clog with his backhoe. Shortly after clearing the clog and building the house, the federal government handed Jack and Jill a felony citation for building on a wetland, which is protected by federal law. Yes, the clogged drain flooded the ground, which gave the appearance of a wetland, and the EPA stepped in protect it. Jack dug an 8-foot-deep hole to prove no water ever existed there prior to the flooding, yet the EPA wouldn’t listen. They still brought him to court. A jury did find Jack not guilty, but at a price. Jack had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an attorney to prove his innocence. They had to sell their home to prevent bankruptcy. They now live in a trailer in a trailer park, and they miss their farm dearly.

Laws, am I right? We all know we need laws. Laws exist to keep the citizens in a society safe and to protect their rights. The laws I mentioned do seem to fall under that purpose. Midway Chief of Police Kelly Morningstar did have a point. I should be eat or drink at any restaurant, rest assured it’s safe and healthy, not worrying who made or how they made it. Perhaps the tree Dr. Reed Turozi had in his yard is an invasive plant species that would have taken over Scottsdale, Arizona like a weed. Maybe marine biologists and animal activists determined that it was cruel to transport lobsters in plastics bags. And wetlands deserve protection. As much good as these laws intended, how could they miss the mark, criminalizing people who aren’t criminals.

THE PROBLEM WHEN CHRISTIANS READ OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Honest Christians might admit that they feel the same way about God’s Laws found in the Old Testament. They have all read Psalm 19:7-11. They have all read the positive impact God’s Laws had on David, and they rush to the Pentateuch to gain the same benefits. When Christians read these laws in the Torah, however, they struggle to reap the reward David received for reading them. They find the laws repetitive, boring, harsh, confusing, outdated, obsolete or irreverent. Therefore, most Christians end up marginalizing or neglecting the laws found in the Pentateuch. When these laws surface, people end up belittling or vilifying the law, they end up spiritualizing or allegorizing the law, or they abuse the law, like pushing a political agenda.

Paul doesn’t seem to help the Christian here. Just look at what Paul says in the book of Romans alone. On the one hand, Paul informs Christians that they are “not under the law but of grace” (Romans 6:14) and “released from the law” (Romans 7:6). Furthermore, Paul reminds Christians that “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4). On the other hand, Paul describes the law as “holy and righteous and true” (Romans 7:12), as well as “spiritual” (Romans 7:14). As matter of fact, Paul encourages Christians to uphold the law (Romans 3:31)! What gives, Paul?

THE SOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS READING OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Fortunately, Paul did provide a hermeneutic for how Christians living in the New Covenant on how to exegete Old Testament Law. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul appeals to the church in Corinth that pastors deserve pay. Paul adds many proofs to his thesis, but one stick as odd. In 1 Corinthians 9:9, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. Deuteronomy 25:4 reads, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading the grain.” Any reader, either back then or now, might think, “What does that have to do with anything?!” Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 9:10, “Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.”

From 1 verse, Paul has made a 6-point hermeneutic. First, Paul reminds believers that law came from the Word of God. Second, since the law comes from the Word of God, it reflects God’s heart and mind. Third, since the law has come from the Word of God, it has more authority than humanity authority. Fourth, God spoke the law into existence with humanity’s sake in mind. Fifth, this law, originally, spoken to the young nation of Israel before the time of Christ, still has relevance to Gentile Christians in the 1^st century A.D. Sixth, all God’s laws have relevance to New Covenant Christians, not just the 10 Commandments. Some Christians try to solve Old Testament law problem by claiming that only the 10 Commandments have significance in the Christian’s life, and all other laws in the Old Testament have no importance. On the contrary, Paul would disagree, as he quotes a law which many Christians would call obscure.

From those 6 principles, Dr. Timothy R. Valentino, pastor at Fleetwood Bible Church and professor of Biblical Studies and Practical Theology at Evangelical Seminary, has created a 4-step hermeneutic for interpreting Old Testament Law. His hermeneutic modifies Dr. David Dorsey’s “CIA” hermeneutic, adding in Cristocentrism at the beginning and the end. I have adopted a very similar hermeneutic, which, being the good Cristocentric Mennonite I am, further strengthens the Cristocentrism aspects.

First, back-read the law from the New Testament context. Does the New Testament reference it? What does the New Testament have to say about the law? Whatever New Testament has to say trumps the actual law in the Old Testament. For example, Leviticus 21:7 forbids anyone to marry a prostitute, and in 1 Corinthians 6:15, Paul states that a Christian should never unite with a prostitute because a Christian is united with the Lord Jesus. Since the 1 Corinthians 6:15 command repeats the Leviticus 21:7 command, Christians should keep the command in its present form. Leviticus 11 lists the unclean animals which Israelites cannot eat. In Acts 10, however, a sheet drops from heaven, full of unclean animals, and a voice from heaven tells Peter to kill and eat. When Peter objects, calling the animals unclean, the voice from heaven reprimands Peter for calling something God made unclean. Therefore, Christians can conclude that God now allows Christians to eat meat once considered unclean.

Second, examine the law in its Old Testament context. Old Testament laws did not come from a timeless and spaceless vacuum. They came from a history, a geography and a culture. They had a context. This step requires Christians to understand what the author meant and how the original, intended audience would have understood the text. This step requires Christians to understand when the text is historically, where the text is in geographically and what the text is culturally.

Third, theologize the law to its universal context. At this step, the Christian does not look for a what but a who. The Christian does not look for a principle but for a person, that is, God. The Christian asks, “What does this passage reveal about God?” This truth might include God’s attributes, his character, his thought, his feelings, his priorities or his morals. Furthermore, a Christian should ask, “How does this law point forward to Christ? How did Christ fulfill this law? Did Jesus live out the law, so Christians must also live out the law, or did Jesus live out the law, so Christians don’t have to?” From these universal truth, the Christian can move on to the next step.

Fourth, apply the law to the current context. If the New Testament referenced the law in step 1, whatever commandment that came with the New Testament reference gets carried over to step 4. In step 4, the applications come from the truths about God in step 3, not necessarily the understanding of the law in step 2. The application may look exactly like the commandment found in the Torah, but the application might also look nothing like the commandment in the Pentateuch. Just like step 2 brought about understanding in the history, geography and culture of back then and there, step 4 should bring about understanding about the history, geography and culture of here and now.

A CASE STUDY OF EXODUS 22:16&17

Of course, you know me. I don’t let you off easy. Of course, I picked an awkward, uncomfortable and controversial (in the sense in might cause offense) law I could find. My pick, however, comes with good reason. This law can serve as an apologetic. Many anti-Christian atheists will use this law to attack God’s holiness and righteousness. They will read this law and say, “Just look at your God! This poor girl gets raped, and your God commands the girl and the rapist to marry, and the rapist only has to pay a fine?! How can you call your God both holy and loving when he treats young women like that?!” Did God really say that? Did he really command that? If so, how do Christians follow that command in their everyday life? Let’s BETA test it!

Step 1: Back-read from a New Testament Context

Back-reading from a New Testament asks the Christian to first seek what the New Testament has to say about this law. Indeed, the New Testament remains silent on this Old Testament law. The New Testament neither repeats the law with instructions to follow it, nor does the New Testament teach something contrary to that law. Therefore, the Christian can’t assume that the Christian, in the New Testament should continue to follow the law or cease to follow the law. The Christian needs to move on to the next steps, so the Christian can understand the verses in its original context, what the law teaches about God and how the Christian can apply it.

Before moving on, however, I want to remind us of 2 things. First, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes like shifting shadows. Therefore, this law reflects the character and nature of God, which was true back in Exodus and is true in the 21^st century. Second, Jesus has come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. As the fulfillment of the Law, this individual, specific law, found in Exodus 22, will somehow point forward to Jesus.

Step 2: Examine the Law in its Original Context

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible did not originally come in English. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Since this law appears in the Old Testament, the Israelites originally heard it in Hebrew. Anyone multilingual will tell anyone else that translating words into different languages does not always have a one-to-one correspondence. Therefore, some of the words in this law need more careful attention.

Seduce (v.): פָּתָה (pātâ). The root of this word means to be open. The full word means to allure, beguile, coax, deceive, entice or seduce. The Hebrew language might have went from the root to the full word is because a young, immature youth might easily be open to enticement or seduction, without thinking about the ramifications. The full word, in this context means “to convince someone to engage in coitus through taking advantage of immaturity and inexperience.” The Contemporary English Version provides a good translation: “talks her into having sex.” The New Century Version also provides both a good interpretation: “tricks her into having sexual relations.” The persuasion could have come about as result of coaxing, charming, flirting or deceiving, but it’s definitely not by force, so it’s definitely not rape.

Virgin (n.): בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh). The בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) has three qualifications. First, the בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) is a young woman, even as young as adolescence in age. This points back to our original point of פָּתָה (pātâ) about taking advantage of the inexperience and immaturity of youth. Second, the בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) is someone who has never engaged in sexual activity. Third, Old Testament Hebrew usually reserves בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) for an unmarried person. Now as we see in our Exodus 22 passage, בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) can also refer to someone not yet married, as in betrothed or engaged. The law in Exodus 22:16-17 probably refers to a woman in any or all qualifications. It refers to a young woman who has never had sex, whether that young lady is single, engaged or married.

Bride-price (n.): מָהַר (mohar). In English translations מָהַר (mohar) most often receives the translation dowry or bride-price, although the latter sounds a little deceiving. The מָהַר (mohar) is most definitely not the groom buying a bride. As part of the engagement, the groom-to-be agreed to pay a מָהַר (mohar). According to the traditions formed by the rabbis, on average, the מָהַר (mohar) equaled 50 shekels of silver, but the actual מָהַר (mohar) varied from woman to woman. Factors affecting the מָהַר (mohar) included the man family’s social standing, the woman’s family’s social standing, the number of possible future husbands, the woman’s attractiveness and the woman’s virginity. Anything less would result in a lower מָהַר (mohar). The man would pay the מָהַר (mohar) to the woman’s father, and the father would gift the מָהַר (mohar) to the bride on her wedding day. The מָהַר (mohar) was never considered the woman’s father possession before marriage or the husband’s possession after marriage. The מָהַר (mohar) is always considered the woman’s possession. The מָהַר (mohar) had a few functions in the Ancient Near East. First, it displayed the suitor’s dedication to the woman. The מָהַר (mohar) was not cheap. A man would have to save up a while to have enough. This demonstrated the man could earn, save and afford to bring in the young to his home and take care of her. Second, it would provide the young couple financial stability. If hard times arose, the young couple would have a “nest egg” on which they could fall back. Third, if the woman ever found herself widowed or divorced, and she had no family to fall back on, the מָהַר (mohar) would work as life insurance today, giving her money until she could remarry or some other means of income.

Now that terms have been carefully defined, let me create my own paraphrase by inserting the definitions into the verse. “If a man approaches a sexually-inactive, unmarried, young woman and convinces her to engage in sex through taking advantage of immaturity and inexperience, either by charm or deception, he must give the full, customary engagement gift and marry her. If the young woman’s father forbids to give the man the young woman in marriage, however, the man still has to go through paying the engagement gift.

Now that terms have been carefully defined, and we have a more clarified verse, let’s look at how the situation might play out in life. Imagine, if you will, Joe and Jane are 2 Israelite teenagers or 2 Israelites young adults, madly in love with each other. Only one problem arises. Jane has already been betrothed to John. One day, while the young couples grieves that they will never be together, Joe gets, what seems to him, a good idea. “Wait,” Joe says, “In your betrothal, your father promised you as a virgin, right?” “Yeah, so?” Jane answers, not putting one and one together. “That’s it!” Joe exclaims. “If you are a virgin no longer, John will no longer want to marry you. The betrothal will become null and void. Then we can get married! It only makes sense. We want to get married one day. I mean, I do love you. Don’t love me?” Jane thinks about it. She does love Joe. Not only does he look attractive, he’s always so nice and kind to him, always giving her a warm smile and a hearty laugh. She wishes she could marry him. If they did marry one day, they would consummate the marriage. Why not do it sooner? With no objection coming to her mind, Jane agrees. One day, when Joe and Jane know they will be unsupervised, they sneak off and have sex. Afterward, Jane does ask Joe to hold off saying anything, to which he agrees. Jane wants to wait for the “right time” to her father and John and to figure out a way to put them down nicely, without hurting their feelings. Besides, they still have time before the planned wedding. Soon, however, Jane finds out she doesn’t have as much time as she thought. Jane finds out she’s pregnant. This makes Jane uneasy, but it makes Joe feel even more easy. Joe felt ready to become a husband, but he did not feel ready to become a father. Now Joe plans to back out of his own plan. After all, only Jane heard Joe’s plan. With no witnesses around, Joe’s word would have more a say than Jane’s word.

Before moving on to our next section, our theology about God, I want close this section about the doctrine of sin. We commonly think of sin as the sinner committing the sin directly on a victim. Sin has bigger consequences than that. Sin victimizes everyone. Take a look at the possible scenario I gave and see how it turns everyone into a victim.

Obvious, the young woman is a victim. Because of what happened to her, she has become extremely vulnerable. In most Ancient Near East societies, the father, the fiancé or the future father-in-law could have the girl put to death, either legally or illegally, because of her fornication. In any other Ancient Near East society, despite the sex that went between the man the woman, since the man never officially got engaged with the woman, he never has to go through with marrying her. At the same time, her fiancé has every right to exit the marriage because she broke the contact Now the woman will find it harder to marry because she is not a virgin. Even if the man involved, or any man for that matter, agrees to marry her, she will get less or an engagement gift, if any gift at all.

The young woman’s father is a victim. The father loves his daughter very much. All he wants is for his daughter to have a happy life. As any loving father, his deepest concern is that someone will love and take care of his daughter for the rest of her after he passes away. He has raised her to become a godly wife. He took the time to pick out a husband suitable for her, and her arranged for her to receive the perfect dowry. Now, because of his daughter’s sinful act, the daughter has brought down disgrace and humiliation upon her father’s name as head of the household. The daughter has disrespected the father’s careful choosing of a husband. He might have to have the awkward and embarrassing conversation with the fiancé and his family about his daughter breaking the engagement vow. The father will have a hard time arranging another marriage. If he can arrange another marriage, or even if the fiancé chooses to go through with the marriage, the father would collect a very small (if any) dowry price. All in all, whatever security the father planned for his daughter now will no longer happen.

The fiancé is a victim. Just because the woman loved another man does not mean the fiancé did not love his fiancée at all. As a matter of fact, the fiancé did love his fiancée very much, and he probably began preparing himself to become a husband. He might have learned the family trade, so he could earn an income of his own. He possibly either built his own wing right off his father’s house, or possibly built a house on his father’s property, so the newlywed couple would have a home where they could live. Most importantly, being the good Israelites he was, the fiancé had remained sexually pure until marriage, ready to present his virginity as a gift to his bride. Upon hearing his bride-to-bear gave up her virginity to another man, the fiancé now suffers from a broken heart. He had spent so much time and effort showing how much he loved her by preparing a future, especially remaining sexually pure, and she in return has done nothing for him. Now the fiancé has a tough choice to weigh out on his mind. If he chooses to marry her, he will have to live with the fact he shared her with another man (and has to deal with the gossip about it), or he can leave, despite loving her so much.

Even the man who seduced the woman is a victim. Back in the Ancient Near East before the time of Christ, a man who committed such a crime could face castration or even death. Even with Israelite law forbidding, the woman’s family and friends still might face the temptation to take matters into their hand and castrate or execute the man, no matter what the law says. If the man does not end up marrying the woman he seduced, he has reduced the likelihood of finding another woman to be his wife. A good Israelite woman would only seek out a man who has remained sexually pure. By become sexuality active, he has great reduced the number of women who would consider becoming his wife.

Step 3: Theologize the Law to Its Universal Context

God’s Law reflects the character and nature of God himself. Before diving into what this law specifically says about God, pause and take the time to appreciate how this law, like all the other laws, reflects God’s justice. God has compassion for the victim. His heart breaks when someone becomes a victim of a sin, and he mourns with the victim. When God administers justice, he rules in an equal, fair, rational and satisfying way. In his omniscient wisdom, God knows that unequal, unfair, irrational and unsatisfying ruling will only make things feel worse, causing more hurt among all those victimized. Now, let’s move on to the specifics of Exodus 22:16&17.

First, God has a very high reverence for all women. He wants all women to enjoy life to its fullest, having a happy life, a healthy life and a holy life. Because God makes every woman in his image, God sees all women as valuable, even when the people around her don’t. Therefore, even when a woman sins, makes the wrong choice or brings shame upon herself, God still loves her and has compassion on her. The Lord still offers her his protection and help.

Second, God expects men to keep his libido in check. Men should withhold from having sex until marriage. If a man does have sex with a woman, he should take responsibility by pursuing the relationship through to marriage, with her family’s blessing. If her family forbids it, the man must find a way to demonstrate he has truly repented.

Third, God truly loves the sinner and hates the sin. God hates the sin the sinner committed, and he expects the sinner to take responsibility. At the same time, God demonstrate his love for the sinner by finding a way for the sinner to reconcile with his God, the victim and the community.

Fourth, God is a God of culture. God speaks to people within their culture. God asks all his people to examine their culture in light of his principles. God only calls people to reject the parts of their culture which stands in stark contrast to the culture, and if they can fix any part of their culture to keep it, they should do so.

As for how this law points forward to Christ, during his ministry, Jesus encountered women who had questionable sexual history, like the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 and the adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11. In both of the instances references, Jesus held the women in high reverence. He forgave them of their sin, so they be reconciled, but he also requested that they put their sinful life behind them.

Step 4: Apply the Law to the Present Context

In general, this law falls under the category “love your neighbor as yourself.” More specifically, this law falls under the subcategory, “do not commit adultery.” Together, God calls all Christians to honor and respect those of the opposite gender, putting their self-esteem and well-being above sexual desires.

Christian men, as sons of the Most High God, respect all women as the daughters of God they are, made in the image of God. Just as God wishes all his daughters to have a healthy, holy and happy life, a godly Christian man also desires that all women, especially their sisters in Christ, will have that healthy, holy and happy life. Therefore, Christian men should pursue every women’s well-being over their own sexual desires. Good Christian men should not take advantage of women, especially young or immature women. Those who do will have to face God on the judgment throne.

Christian women, believe that the Lord values you as worthy of him. You are daughters of Yahweh, the king of king and lord of lords! As daughters of the king of heaven, that makes every Christian woman a heavenly princess! Therefore, God calls Christian women to think, speak and act like heavenly princesses. Do not surround yourself with men who only want to take advantage of you and your body. Instead, surround yourself with men who concern themselves with your happiness and who will keep you accountable as your pursue holiness. Respect all men, especially your brothers in Christ, as you want to be respected.

If anyone here, men or women, sinned and fell short of God’s expectations for you in life, remember your God loves you. God does not hold you accountable because he hates you. God holds you accountable loves you. He wants you to confess and repent because he wants to pour out forgiveness on you, and he wants to reconcile you to your original value and worth.

CONCLUSION

In Psalm 119:47&48, David wrote, "For I find my delight in your commandments, which I love. I will lift up my hands to your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statues." Let the words of David become your prayer. I pray that you will find the same love and delight of the Old Testament Law that David found, and I pray it will encourage you to study the Torah more.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I an eternally grateful to Dr. Timothy R. Valentino, Pastor at Fleetwood Bible Church and professor of Biblical Studies and Practical Theology at Evangelical Seminary, for fleshing the Christian approach to Old Testament Law in his paper "Imitators of Christ: A Theocentric Approach to the Christian Preaching of Old Testament Law," which can be found in Evangelical Journal Vol.32 No.2 (Fall 2014)

I also appreciate Joshua D.Jones, pastor of Therfield Chapel in Cambridge, England for his article "Does the Bible Encourage Rape?" on his blog Sanity's Cove (September 26, 2016).

I also consulted the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Robert Harris, Gleason Archer and Bruce Waltke (1981) for the Hebrew definitions.