Both are correct; this is why rape is subsumed under adultery. Amnon was guilty on all three counts.
Technically, he should have been stoned.
Technically, he should have been stoned.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat Common Misconceptions and Mistranslation Issues
- Thread starter Luke S
- Start date
Is there not an umbrella verse in that same passage that says anyone who does this is stoned? I know I should go look but I’m being lazy.
Wait, adultery?
How was this that?
Two ways: it's essential in context to know how people defined adultery back then. The main category was a non-husband having sex with a married woman, but it also included a variety of behaviors that were considered to be sexually humiliating. Rape qualifies in that regard without question. In addition, in the case of an unmarried woman, rape was and continues in many locales to be considered a crime against the woman's future husband.
Where do you find that verse when concerning an unmarried woman?
That's alright: you may be thinking about a later passage, Leviticus 20:13, wherein male homosexual intercourse is pegged to required stoning or some such.
The umbrella verse you're seeking is Leviticus 18:29: "For anyone who shall do any of these abhorrences, the souls doing them will be cut off from among their people." [CVOT]
I'll take what the scripture defines as adultery instead.
I'm about to head to a meeting with a Bib Fam brother, but I'll throw this in the mix: where exactly does Scripture define adultery in a way that isn't circular?
It's essential to know what the then-current cultural understandings of words and concepts were, because Scripture doesn't constantly pause itself to provide thorough definitions of every word in usage.
Think, "uncovering the nakedness of" . . .
I was just thinking of the man who raped an unbetrothed virgin, how he wasn't stoned, but I will look closer.
Haha maybe thats why he couldnt divorce her all his days, because he was DEAD! Hahaha
I’m thinking of a passage that I cannot find.
But it defines rape as a situation where sex happens within the village where she could have cried out and gotten him to stop, but didn’t.
Or out in the country where no one could have heard her.
Deuteronomy 22:24-29 KJV
[24] Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. [25] But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: [26] But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: [27] For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. [28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; [29] Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. …
Thank you!
I had forgotten about the betrothed part.
So it looks more like adultery if betrothed but a simple attempt at making a marriage if she isn’t. And the father has the right to deny the marriage and collect the bride price.
Which is exactly why I say transfer of ownership is what constitutes marriage, not one flesh. God took the woman to Adam and gave her to him. THEN he took her physically. This is borne out in every instance I can find of TTWCM. There are several instances where one flesh is not called TTWCM. It always conforms to ownership transfer though. *at least as far as I've been able to find*
Where do we see that the father has thr right to deny in this verse, I guess im not seeing it.
I'm not saying he doesn't but i don't this this is your proof verse.
Exodus 22:17
16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Exodus 21
1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married*, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
This is clear that laying with a woman does not automatically make her your property/wife. The father has the right to deny. There is no holding the position that marriage already happened. He damaged the father's property by taking the virginity/defiling her. He must repay the price of a virgin. This is really easy to understand and logical. He isn't married to her because the father did not transfer ownership.
The second witness is the master owns the woman. The manservant sleeps with her and she has children, the woman and the children remain the property of the master, not the man who had a one flesh union.
One flesh is sex. Period.
TTWCM is not sex. It is a particular relationship that requires ownership.
The second witness is the master owns the woman. The manservant sleeps with her and she has children, the woman and the children remain the property of the master, not the man who had a one flesh union.
One flesh is sex. Period.
TTWCM is not sex. It is a particular relationship that requires ownership.
So, having raped Tamar, the correct penalty / way forward would have been for all of the following to occur:
1) Amnon to ask David for Tamar as his wife. David could have refused (quite likely, given the circumstances).
2) Amnon to pay the bride price for Tamar to David, whether or not David gave Tamar to him.
3) Amnon to be banished from Israel for incest - taking Tamar with him if she was now his wife, or leaving her behind if David had refused this.
No stoning. If I've read that incorrectly, someone correct me.
1) Amnon to ask David for Tamar as his wife. David could have refused (quite likely, given the circumstances).
2) Amnon to pay the bride price for Tamar to David, whether or not David gave Tamar to him.
3) Amnon to be banished from Israel for incest - taking Tamar with him if she was now his wife, or leaving her behind if David had refused this.
No stoning. If I've read that incorrectly, someone correct me.
This was what I was hoping someone would see too. This was my understanding up to date. Nice job.