Exodus 22:16 - Economic or purely sexual infraction?

[Apex]

Exodus 22:16
If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.

This verse came up in a thread about premarital sex. Since that thread has been deleted because the OP violated forum rules, I wanted to preserve and rekindle the discussion about this verse here.

This law was created to maintain economic stability in the culture for which it was instituted. Without going through the proper marriage negotiations this was tantamount to robbery. This does not translate into the economic environment we see in Western countries.

"The man who seduced an unbetrothed virgin and so compromised her father's opportunity to arrange a marriage for her was required to pay her marriage price and marry her himself. The terms of this guiding principle indicate that its primary focus is financial, both with regard to the father of the unattached girl and also with regard to the young woman herself. The marriage money was in the way of compensation to a young woman's family for her loss into another family, and it may have reverted to the bride herself upon the occasion of the death of her father or her husband. In case the girl's father considered the match unsuitable for his daughter, as well he might under the circumstance, the man involved was still to pay as a penalty a sum equivalent to the marriage price for young women eligible to be married."

John I. Durham, Exodus, vol. 3, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 327.

Women did not have to be virgins to get married (which is why widows and divorced women could still get married - just at a reduced bride price), but there existed economic value in virginity in ancient agrarian societies where legitimate children were vital for land inheritance. In modern Western society, we find ourselves in a very different non-agrarian system. Virginity does not hold any economic value for us.

 

[Tolworth John]

In a society where marrage was arranged, why was this girl/young women, not promised in marrage?
Marriage was the norm. A women on her own often struggled to earn aliving.
I suspect that this women went along with the 'seduction' because she knew it would mean she ended up married.

Viginity is a sign/symbol of purety. A concept thatisnot understood by todays society.

 

[Apex]

Viginity is a sign/symbol of purety. A concept thatisnot understood by todays society.

Virginity is an economic and social category created by ancient agrarian societies. However, like most words, it has morphed into something completely different than what Moses would have understood it to mean. Virginity, in Old Testament time, had less to do with being "intact" and more to do with ensuring the young girl was both marriageable (had her menstrual cycle) and had never been pregnant. In fact, Joel 1:8 seems to be calling a young widow a virgin, perhaps because she never became pregnant during her short marriage and was once again available for marriage. Either way, purity just means the crossing of improper boundaries. If these lines are crossed, defilement occurs.

OT virginity and even this new "intact" virginity would be an unfit symbol for purity because it is irreversible. Purity is something that can be taken away, but it is also something that can be regained.

 

[Apex]

New poll added. After voting, think about adding a quick comment about why you chose what you did. Thanks!

 

[HighCherub]

I chose economic, because a bride-price even existing speaks for itself. Marriage was a financial thing before it was anything else. Society was a patriarchy and a woman alone in it meant she was either a widow or there was simply something wrong and undesirable about her.

 

[Apex]

I chose economic, because a bride-price even existing speaks for itself. Marriage was a financial thing before it was anything else. Society was a patriarchy and a woman alone in it meant she was either a widow or there was simply something wrong and undesirable about her.

This is true. A woman was married off typically within a year of her first menstrual cycle (between the ages of 12 and 15). This was to prevent them from getting pregnant before they could get married and spoil their economic value - which in an agrarian society was legitimate heirs to inherit the land. This is another element we don't normally see in our society.

Instead, we tell our children that they not only must stay a virgin until marriage, but add in the same breath that they should also wait to marry until they get an education and a good paying job. We wouldn't want them to marry too young and spoil their economic value (which for us is education and work experience).

See the contrast? Economic value is equated differently in a post-industrial society.

The average age for a woman to get married is now 24 and for men it is 26. And that's if they even choose to get married. Marriage rates have plummeted. In fact, it is no longer rare to see a single never-married 30 year old woman. That's over a decade longer than the Jews of Jesus' day waited for marriage! Yet, we still see their economic practices as practical and relevant.

 

[Percivale]

I think I agree with the OP's point about the OT, but the NT seems to be stricter about sexuality. To me, traditional sexual morality is basically about protecting children, making sure they are born into a stable family.

 

[Apex]

I think I agree with the OP's point about the OT, but the NT seems to be stricter about sexuality. To me, traditional sexual morality is basically about protecting children, making sure they are born into a stable family.

You are conflating traditional sexual ethics with NT sexual ethics. Traditional sexual ethics are indeed much more strict than Israel's sexual ethics. However, I'd argue that these traditional ethics are not aligned well with what the NT teaches about sex.

 

[Percivale]

I recognize there are a few differences, but on the whole I would think they are fairly close. which areas do you see them being different in?

 

[Apex]

I recognize there are a few differences, but on the whole I would think they are fairly close. which areas do you see them being different in?

One example that comes to mind is masturbation. It has been traditionally seen as a sin. However, from a biblical perspective, this position is difficult to defend. However, I don't want to go off topic too much. This thread was created to show how Exodus 22:16 isn't a good passage to use when supporting the supposed importance of virginity in a post-industrial culture.

 

[Percivale]

One example that comes to mind is masturbation. It has been traditionally seen as a sin. However, from a biblical perspective, this position is difficult to defend. However, I don't want to go off topic too much. This thread was created to show how Exodus 22:16 isn't a good passage to use when supporting the supposed importance of virginity in a post-industrial culture.

I'm not sure whether the value of virginity in Exodus 22:16 has to do only with inheritance or also with jealousy. But there's not much more to say about that verse.

The Bible has nothing to say about masturbation and does not view nudity the same as traditional sexual ethics does but The NT is rather clear that sex is supposed to be only within marriage. And Jesus apparently defined marriage as one man and one woman for life, by the way he used the quotes from Genesis in dealing with divorce. One other difference between New Testament and traditional sexual ethics is whether everyone should get married or whether singleness is preferable. In that the traditional view is more like that of the Old Testament.

 

[hedrick]

And Jesus apparently defined marriage as one man and one woman for life, by the way he used the quotes from Genesis in dealing with divorce.

Since marriage in NT times was only between man and woman, he would reasonably have understood the Pharisees' question as relating to that.

 

[Apex]

I'm not sure whether the value of virginity in Exodus 22:16 has to do only with inheritance or also with jealousy. But there's not much more to say about that verse.

I think I have explained quite thoroughly how it was economic. As for jealousy...who would have been jealous? The virgin's father?

The Bible has nothing to say about masturbation and does not view nudity the same as traditional sexual ethics does but The NT is rather clear that sex is supposed to be only within marriage. And Jesus apparently defined marriage as one man and one woman for life, by the way he used the quotes from Genesis in dealing with divorce. One other difference between New Testament and traditional sexual ethics is whether everyone should get married or whether singleness is preferable. In that the traditional view is more like that of the Old Testament.

This goes too far off topic. I've discussed my positions on each of this topics in other threads. I disagree with your interpretation of NT sexual ethics and that's all I'll say here.

 

[Percivale]

I think I have explained quite thoroughly how it was economic. As for jealousy...who would have been jealous? The virgin's father?



This goes too far off topic. I've discussed my positions on each of this topics in other threads. I disagree with your interpretation of NT sexual ethics and that's all I'll say here.

The jealousy would be that of a future husband who wanted to be her first.

 

[Apex]

The jealousy would be that of a future husband who wanted to be her first.

Men didn't shy away from marrying non-virgins (such as widows and divorced women). There was no jealous involved either. The real question is, why was a virgin worth a higher bride price? It had nothing to do with love. It was economic.