[b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Sun Jul 15 19:00:21 EDT 2007
> We need to distinguish between physical virginity and chastity.
HH: The law is not talking about the issue you brought up. It is talking
especially about whether the woman had sex before marriage or not. God
is not like us. He says what he means.
> Deuteronomy 22:13-21 makes clear that lack of physical virginity means
> nothing, since we know, and the ancient Hebrews certainly knew as
> well, that a girl may inadvertently lose her virginity for no fault of
> her own.
HH: This is not the subject at all. In the 1800's in the case of Beduins
and lower classes of the Moslems in Egypt and Syria, the parents would
take possession of the spotted bed clothes directly after the marriage
night. They did for just this reason of being able to disprove the later
false accusation of a malcontent husband. The issue is a moral one. The
Deuteronomy law was a warning against bogus accusations of promiscuity
in order to get out of a new marriage that one regretted. It was a
warning of the dire consequences of promiscuity prior to marriage. God
legislated these matters. The words mean what they say.
> The threat of verses 20-21 is a theoretical one to impress upon the
> accusing husband the seriousness of his allegations. It is
> inconceivable that the ancient Hebrews would stone a woman to death
> for sheer lack of virginity.
HH: First, it is not inconceivable, because plenty of other Mosaic laws
threaten death or similar consequences for sexual sins. Second, the law
codes of the ancient world could be very harsh. If you read the law
codes of other ancient peoples like the Assyrians, you will see that it
is not at all inconceivable.
More information about the b-hebrew