Why does Leviticus 19:20 address punishment for the woman but not the man? Socio-Legal Setting in Ancient Israel 1. The woman is an ʼāmâ or šipḥâ—an indentured servant, often pledged to become a concubine or secondary wife after redemption. 2. Until redemption, she is legally under her master’s authority (Exodus 21:7-11); intercourse violates the master’s property rights and her betrothal status. Ancient Near-Eastern parallels (e.g., Code of Hammurabi §§130-134) executed both parties for adultery. By contrast, Torah mitigates death when full marriage has not yet begun, demonstrating measured justice. Why the Text Mentions Her Penalty Explicitly 1. Property Restitution Logic • The offense creates economic loss for the master (loss of bride-price, possible offspring). • “Due punishment/compensation” (RSV “indemnity,” NAS “scourging”) centers on restitution to the master and the required guilt offering (Leviticus 19:21-22). The Hebrew verb nasaʾ (“bear”) shows both parties bear guilt, but only the woman’s status triggers restitution. 2. Protection of the Vulnerable • Death is withheld because she is not free to refuse (cf. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 on coercion). • Mentioning her first signals divine concern that she not be treated as disposable chattel. A judicial inquiry (biqqōret) clarifies consent and safeguards her future redemption. 3. Male Responsibility Is Presumed • Verse 22 commands the man to bring a ram as an ʾāšām (guilt offering) “before the LORD for his sin he has committed.” • Numbers 5:5-8 and Exodus 22:16-17 require the seducing male to pay bride-price; the priestly ritual squarely fixes blame on him. Consistency with Other Torah Passages • Adultery with a free married woman: death to both (Leviticus 20:10). • Consensual seduction of an unbetrothed free girl: marriage or monetary settlement (Exodus 22:16-17). • Rape of a betrothed free girl: death to the man alone (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Leviticus 19:20 fits the mosaic pattern by calibrating penalty to marital, social, and freedom status. Archaeological and Historical Corroboration Tablets from Nuzi (15th c. BC) list indemnities when a pledged slave-girl is compromised, paralleling Leviticus 19:20’s economic focus. Ostraca from Lachish (ca. 586 BC) reference priestly oversight of guilt offerings, matching the ritual remedy in verse 22. Such findings affirm the historic plausibility of the statute. Ethical and Theological Rationale 1. Justice Tempered by Mercy • Capital punishment is withheld to honor graded culpability (cf. Jesus’ principle in Luke 12:47-48). 2. Redemption Typology • The unredeemed slave-girl anticipates humanity’s need for redemption; the guilt offering prefigures Christ’s atonement (Hebrews 9:13-14). 3. Progressive Revelation • While the statute operates in an ancient context, the trajectory leads to Galatians 3:28—“there is neither slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus” . Answer in Brief Leviticus 19:20 names the woman’s status because: • Her unredeemed servitude makes economic restitution essential; • Capital punishment is suspended to shield her limited agency; • The man’s guilt offering (v. 22) and required compensation (Exodus 22:16-17) hold him fully accountable, though the text highlights her circumstance to protect her. Thus, Scripture consistently penalizes the man, safeguards the woman, upholds justice, and foreshadows ultimate redemption in Christ. |
    |