[b-hebrew] Deut. 22:22-29
Bryant J. Williams III
bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Sat Jan 19 18:15:19 EST 2008
כִּֽי־יִמָּצֵ֨א אִ֜ישׁ שֹׁכֵ֣ב׀ עִם־אִשָּׁ֣ה בְעֻֽלַת־בַּ֗עַל וּמֵ֙תוּ֙
גַּם־שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם הָאִ֛ישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵ֥ב עִם־הָאִשָּׁ֖ה וְהָאִשָּׁ֑ה וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥
הָרָ֖ע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ ס
23 כִּ֤י יִהְיֶה֙ נַעֲ֯רָ֣ בְתוּלָ֔ה מְאֹרָשָׂ֖ה לְאִ֑ישׁ וּמְצָאָ֥הּ אִ֛ישׁ
בָּעִ֖יר וְשָׁכַ֥ב עִמָּֽהּ׃
24 וְהֹוצֵאתֶ֨ם אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶ֜ם אֶל־שַׁ֣עַר׀ הָעִ֣יר הַהִ֗וא וּסְקַלְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֥ם
בָּאֲבָנִים֮ וָמֵתוּ֒ אֶת־הַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֗ עַל־דְּבַר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־צָעֲקָ֣ה בָעִ֔יר
וְאֶ֨ת־הָאִ֔ישׁ עַל־דְּבַ֥ר אֲשֶׁר־עִנָּ֖ה אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֵ֑הוּ וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥
הָרָ֖ע מִקִּרְבֶּֽךָ׃ ס
25 וְֽאִם־בַּשָּׂדֶ֞ה יִמְצָ֣א הָאִ֗ישׁ אֶת־הַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֮ הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה
וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־בָּ֥הּ הָאִ֖ישׁ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וּמֵ֗ת הָאִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־שָׁכַ֥ב
26 וְלַֽנַּ֯עֲרָ֮ לֹא־תַעֲשֶׂ֣ה דָבָ֔ר אֵ֥ין לַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֖ חֵ֣טְא מָ֑וֶת כִּ֡י
כַּאֲשֶׁר֩ יָק֨וּם אִ֤ישׁ עַל־רֵעֵ֙הוּ֙ וּרְצָחֹ֣ו נֶ֔פֶשׁ כֵּ֖ן הַדָּבָ֥ר
27 כִּ֥י בַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מְצָאָ֑הּ צָעֲקָ֗ה הַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֮ הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה* וְאֵ֥ין
מֹושִׁ֖יעַ לָֽהּ׃ ס
28 כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ נַעֲ֯רָ֤ בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ
וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ׃
29 וְ֠נָתַן הָאִ֨ישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵ֥ב עִמָּ֛הּ לַאֲבִ֥י הַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֖ חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים
כָּ֑סֶף וְלֹֽו־תִהְיֶ֣ה לְאִשָּׁ֗ה תַּ֚חַת אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִנָּ֔הּ לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל
שַׁלְּחָ֖הּ כָּל־יָמָֽיו׃ ס
[ Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : With Westminster Hebrew Morphology.
electronic ed. Stuttgart; Glenside PA : German Bible Society; Westminster
Seminary, 1996, c1925; morphology c1991, S. Dt 22:22-29]
Relevant transliteration (from Logos Bible Software)
šakab (7 / 212)
Deut 22:22 yimaṣēʾ ʾiyš šokēb| ʿim-ʾišah bəʿulat-
baʿal ûmētû gam-šənêhem haʾiyš hašokēb ʿim-
Deut 22:23 ûməṣaʾah ʾiyš baʿiyr wəšakab ʿimah.
Deut 22:25 bah haʾiyš wəšakab ʿimah ûmēt haʾiyš
ûmēt haʾiyš ʾǎšer-šakab ʿimah ləbadow.
Deut 22:28 ʾorašah ûtəpašah wəšakab ʿimah wənimṣaʾû.
Deut 22:29 wənatan haʾiyš hašokēb ʿimah laʾǎbiy
3. of sexual relations, lie with: subj. man, c. עִם Gn 30:15, 16; 39:7, 12, 14
(J), Ex 22:15 (E), Dt 22:22 + 8 times Dt., 2 S 11:4, 11; 12:11, 24 Lv 15:33; c.
אֶת fem. with (MT אֹתָהּ, etc., orig. אִתָּהּ, etc., v. Dr 2 S 13:14 and II.
אֵת, p. 85a supra), Gn 26:10; 34:2, 7; 35:22 (all J), 1 S 2:22 (om. G and mod.),
2 S 13:14 Ez 23:8 (fig.), Lv 15:24 (שָׁכֹב יִשְׁכַּב), Nu 5:19, also (c. acc.
cogn. שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע) v 13 Lv 15:18; 19:20; c. acc. (sf.) fem. Dt 28:30 Kt (v.
[שָׁגֵל]); c. אֵצֶל fem. Gn 39:10 (J); c. אֵת vir. (sodomy), Lv 18:22; 20:13
(both H; c. acc. cogn. מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁח); c. עִם־בְּהֵמָה Dt 27:21 Ex 22:18
(E); subj. woman, c. עִם vir. Gn 19:32, 34, 35 (J) 2 S 13:11; אֵת vir. Gn 19:33,
34 (cf. 1 e supra).
[Brown, Francis ; Driver, Samuel Rolles ; Briggs, Charles Augustus: Enhanced
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. electronic ed. Oak Harbor, WA :
Logos Research Systems, 2000, S. 1012]
2381 שָׁכַב (šākab) lie down.
2381a שְׁכָבָה (šĕkābâ) coating.
2381b שְׁכֹבֶת (šĕkōbet) copulation.
2381c מִשְׁכָב (miškāb) couch.
šākab appears most often in the Qal primarily with the meaning “to lie down (in
death)” or “to lie down (for sexual relations).”
Whenever the derivatives of šākab (see below) are used in a context of sexual
relationships, those relationships are illicit (Gen 30:15, 16; II Sam 11:11 may
be exceptions). This is no less true with the verb šākab itself. In one instance
it is used in legal statements that forbid certain types of sexual liasons.
Exodus 22:16 [H 15] outlaws fornication: “If a man seduce a virgin who is not
betrothed and ‘sleep/lie’ with her he shall pay her price and make her his
wife.” Deuteronomy 22:22 advocates the death penalty for two people caught in
adultery: “If a man is caught ‘sleeping/ lying’ with another man’s wife both
must die.” Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 use šākab in the statement that prohibits
homosexual relationships: “The man who ‘lies’ with a man … they must die.”
Finally in Deut 27:21 “lying” with animals is cursed by the Law.
It is sobering to notice that for the above sexual aberrations usually the death
penalty was prescribed. To be sure, the Bible does not tell us to what degree
the punishment was enforced across the board. But why do the Scriptures inveigh
so forcefully against tampering with the sexual relationship. Could not at least
one reason be that Israel was surrounded by cultures in which such practices
were par for the course at the human or even at the divine level? Perhaps one of
the most degrading features of pagan religions is the way in which religious and
sexual expression were often one and the same thing. It was, however, not a
sacramentalizing of sex but rather an eroticizing of religion.
Apart from legal texts šākab is used in narrative sections that describe
incidents of inappropriate behavior. The daughters of Lot made their father
drunk and then ‘slept’ with him (Gen 19:32ff.). One of Abimelech’s subjects
almost inadvertently committed adultery with Rebekah (Gen 26:10). The verb is
used to describe the rape of Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, by Shechem (Gen 34:2, 7).
Reuben “slept” with his father’s concubine Bilhah while Jacob was absent (Gen
35:22). The sons of Eli engaged in amorous pursuits in their free time (I Sam
2:22). Amnon violated his half-sister Tamar (II Sam 13:11, 14), emulating, no
doubt, the activities of his own father with Bathsheba (II Sam 11:4).
By contrast when the Bible makes reference to a sexual relationship that is
within the boundaries of God’s will it usually uses a phrase such as “Adam knew
his wife and she conceived” (Gen 4:1, 17) or “Abraham went in unto Hagar and she
conceived” (Gen 16:4). The latter phrase is used even in Gen 38:18 of Judah and
Tamar, father-in-law and daughter-in-law respectively, where Judah denied Tamar
her levirate rights.
[Victor P. Hamilton, pp. 921-922 in Harris, R. Laird ; Harris, Robert Laird ;
Archer, Gleason Leonard ; Waltke, Bruce K.: Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament. electronic ed. Chicago : Moody Press, 1999, c1980, S. 921]
It is apparent from even the above sources that Tanakh is very explicit about
illicit sexual intercourse. Furthermore, since God is holy, He expects His
people to follow His commandments, statutes, laws, etc. The Israelites were to
be totally different in comparison to the nations that they were to dispossess
per God's command. This is especially true with regards to sexual relations and
idolatry. As Victor Hamilton says above, "It is sobering to notice that for the
above sexual aberrations usually the death penalty was prescribed. To be sure,
the Bible does not tell us to what degree the punishment was enforced across the
board. But why do the Scriptures inveigh so forcefully against tampering with
the sexual relationship. Could not at least one reason be that Israel was
surrounded by cultures in which such practices were par for the course at the
human or even at the divine level? Perhaps one of the most degrading features of
pagan religions is the way in which religious and sexual expression were often
one and the same thing. It was, however, not a sacramentalizing of sex but
rather an eroticizing of religion." It is a violation of the commandment, "Thou
shalt not acommit adultery." This applies in its literal, figurative and
spiritual senses. See also the entire prophecy of Hosea regarding how adultery
is understood by God.
This is not a question of ancient views versus modern views.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
> You have added an interpretation that goes beyond the text, and on the
> basis of your interpretation then making judgments.
> In Hebrew the text leaves open more than the possibility that the sex
> was consensual.
> On Jan 16, 2008 12:44 PM, Bill Rea <bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> I wrote:-
> >> In the Bible the seduction of a married woman is a more serious
> >> crime than the rape of a virgin. Most modern westerners would hold
> >> the opposite view, me included.
> > And Karl asked:-
> >Could you please remind me of the verses that you are looking at? The
> >only verses that I can think of are found in Deuteronomy 22 where
> >"rape" is not mentioned. Rape always carried the death sentence.
> > Here's the stuff about the virgin. KJV translation:-
> 28: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,
> andlay 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.
> > Ok, it doesn't say rape. It says he lays hold of her and lies with her. In
most people's books, mine included, that sounds like forceful sex, a.k.a. rape.
> That's according to your understanding. What if that understanding is
> not correct? My reading of the verse first of all does not say "rape"
> and the context indicates consensual sex, at the very least seduction,
> not forceable rape. That's why I did not recognize which verses you
> indicated by your initial claim.
> >All societies share common norms of ethical behavior. Stealing,
> >murdering, lying, the coveting of what belongs to others, are all
> >recognized as wrong. Even in sexually "liberated" societies, there is
> >an implicit recognition that cheating on one's lover is wrong. Some
> >try to justify their actions, but even the action of trying to justify
> >themselves is an admission that they recognize that what they do is
> >wrong. In that, ancient societies are no different from modern ones.
> > This looks like a case of moving the goal posts after the goal had been
scored. You asked for, and I quote:-
> (delete repeat of claim that this refers to rape)
> You haven't scored the goal yet. Your claim is based on your
> understanding, and since I don't read KJV (I wonder if I have even one
> copy of it at home) that is not a convincing proof to me. You need to
> prove that the Hebrew used in these verses indicates "rape", and so
> far you have not done so.
> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz </ New
> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator (/'
> Karl W. Randolph.
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 01/18/08 7:32
For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
More information about the b-hebrew