There should be some kind of restitution paid, if said unmarried daughter living under my roof is defiled in this fashion.
This is for Granite, but for everyone’s “benefit.”
Virgin bride price laws make an assumption we no longer make. The ownership of human property, in this case, ownership of the daughter by the father. The “defilement” of one’s daughter was treated under biblical law as a form of theft. Under biblical law, the boinked virgin daughter represented “damaged goods.” Thus, as has already been mentioned, restitution was made to the father.
This law only applies, however, if the father has been economically injured by the loss of his daughter’s virginity. If there’s no economic injury, the father has no case, and there’s nothing to be “restituted” other than the father’s “good name” (assuming he had a good name to begin with). In order for the virgin bride price laws to apply then, now, or in the future, the father has to show evidence of financial injury directly related to the loss of his daughter’s virginity. No financial loss, no “crime.”
In ancient Israel, the loss of a daughter’s virginity represented real financial loss. It would be harder to argue today (not impossible) that the loss of a daughter’s virginity represented real financial loss. The Christian father may suffer spiritual or “emotional” loss (the loss of his daughter’s innocence and “sexual purity”), but this has nothing to do with virgin bride price laws.
The economic impact of a daughter’s loss of virginity turns on the cultural and market value of the daughter’s virginity. It there’s no “demand” or “market” for virgins, the “bride price” of a virgin daughter would be low, or nonexistent. We cannot transpose the cultural and economic value of a virgin Hebrew daughter growing up in ancient Palestine with the cultural and economic value of a virgin Methodist daughter growing up in modern day Cleveland. Good or bad, virgin daughters were “worth” more in Old Testament Israel than they’re worth today.
Maybe not to the Christian father who insists his daughter’s virginity is “priceless,” but their daughter’s virginity is only “worth” what the market is willing to “pay.” What’s the going price for virgins in 21st century America? What “price” do we put on our daughter’s virginity? I have no idea, but it makes as much sense to put a price tag of “50 shekels” on a virgin daughter today as it does to enforce price caps on a loaf of bread based on the market value of flour in 2,000 BCE.
Complicating matters, women, in case no one’s noticed, are no longer considered marketable commodities. Wives and daughters are no longer viewed as “private property.” If the Christian would argue for the reinstitution of the dowry and bride price laws, then he must,
in principle, argue for the reinstitution of ALL Old Testament property laws, including the ownership of human property, in spite of prevailing cultural norms and mores toward slavery.
The purpose of biblical law is not to force world culture into the cultural and economic image of Old Testament Israel. Bob and Jefferson and 1Way have made two mistakes. One, they would criminalize unlicensed sex between non-virgin, unmarried adults (behavior “permitted” under biblical law in the sense that no criminal penalty is prescribed), and two, they would enforce virgin bride price property laws in an era when the notion of owning and controlling human property has become “morally” reprehensible.
Slavery is the product of Old World values and Old World economics, when slavery was a fact of life. Bride price laws, as property crimes, like slave laws, do not apply where the ownership of human property has been abolished.
For all their posturing, Enyartites are not really interested in biblical law. They are interested in
manipulating biblical law in order to create their own personal visions of a morally pure “biblical society.” They are not, however, much interested in the limitations and “boundaries” of biblical law. The “wandering seducer” could, in fact, be construed as a menace to society. But not as menacing as a legal authority empowered to ignore and exceed the limits of the law.
I hope we can at least agree that there are “limits” to God’s law. If not, whoever is “speaking” for God has “become” the law. In which case the wandering seducer is the least of our worries.
[This was composed prior to 1Way’s last post. Specific response to 1Way to follow.]
