Help understanding a scripture

[southerngirl89]

Could someone please help me understand this passage and explain it to my brother in law. He loves to mock and make fun of the Bible. I am trying to shed some light into what this means & a good explanation…Anyone who is a Bible scholar or more knowledgeable about the Bible than me, I’d appreciate some help. Thanks!!
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - NIV)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Could someone please help me understand this passage and explain it to my brother in law. He loves to mock and make fun of the Bible. I am trying to shed some light into what this means & a good explanation…Anyone who is a Bible scholar or more knowledgeable about the Bible than me, I’d appreciate some help. Thanks!!
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - NIV)

I’ll give it a shot.

Remember, in the time of Moses, a man COULD divorce his wife, and then she, without a male provider, would almost always wind up on the street, prostituting, or wind up dead of starvation.

Now here, a man who rapes a woman not only has to pay for the crime (literally, in silver) . . .he CANNOT compound this by then divorcing the woman and leaving her in dire straits. She is to be treated as a wife, with all the rights of a wife, all the inheritance rights, etc.

Rape took from the woman what was destined for a bride to give her husband (and also remember that the custom of the time was that women did not have a ‘say’ in who they married. Their father or the nearest male relative ‘chose’ the husband. And it worked for men too. . .often a man had his bride picked out by his father and mother, without consulting him. marriage for ‘love’ was not the custom. Once one married, one learned to respect --and thereby love–the spouse. It seems strange in our time but it made sense to the people of that time.)

Because the virginity had already been taken, the man was ‘tied’ to the woman by the union of the flesh already. This teaching ‘sealed the deal.’ The man who, out of lust, decided to try to ‘take’ outside of marriage was firmly reminded that sex was ONLY for marriage, and it was marriage for LIFE, sanctioned and made explicit in the above teaching.

This is really something which is very friendly to the WOMAN of the time, who otherwise would be considered a ‘defiled’ object. Now instead of being ‘defiled’ she is not just lawfully married but much safer than her sisters who could be divorced. . .she could not be. The wrong to her was ‘righted’ by making sure that wrong could not be done to her in future.

 

[southerngirl89]

So, just to be clear, this verse was not spoken by God/Jesus, correct? It was the law of the land at the time? I believe my brother in law is beliveing that it is saying that God said that the woman must marry her rapist…

 

[Julia_Mae]

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - NIV)

It means exactly what it says. It’s law from a 3500 yr old culture. Women were chattel. It’s of some vague historical interest. Otherwise, it just is what it is.

 

[southerngirl89]

It means exactly what it says. It’s law from a 3500 yr old culture. Women were chattel. It’s of some vague historical interest. Otherwise, it just is what it is.

Well, I am trying to explain to someone ( whom is an atheist), that God does not condone rape, which is why I needed the most accurate explanation as possible. He is completely turned away from God & people who go through something like that really need to be taught the true meaning to understand the Bible.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The law is from God, but it’s from God to a particular people in a particular cultural context.

The whole point of the law is for the rapist to make amends and to minimize the long-term harm done to the woman, who otherwise may have been unmarriable after the rape due to no man being willing to marry her. Being unmarriable would be the ultimate socio-economic disaster for her, especially once her father died.

It’s our distance from the cultural situation of that time and place that makes a law designed to protect women seem like the opposite to us.

 

[ahs]

Well, in a sense it IS spoken by God, because the Scriptures are the Inspired Word of God. But no, God did not condone rape…it was punished as the verses clearly states. We may not see that as much of a punishment in these days, but one cannot read the OT in terms of 21st Century American (or whatever country you’re in) ideals and customs. It must be read in the context of the times and the culture it is teaching about.

Also, consider the adjacent teachings there. Rape, as horrible as that is, is not inherently a sterile act. Look closely at what is considered the more horrific act to God…sterile sex…that between humans and animals and between same-sex persons. These were punished not with silver, but with death.

ETA: Sorry, I forgot to give you the verses: Leviticus 20:13-16

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well, in a sense it IS spoken by God, because the Scriptures are the Inspired Word of God. But no, God did not condone rape…it was punished as the verses clearly states. We may not see that as much of a punishment in these days, but one cannot read the OT in terms of 21st Century American (or whatever country you’re in) ideals and customs. It must be read in the context of the times and the culture it is teaching about.

Also, consider the adjacent teachings there. Rape, as horrible as that is, is not inherently a sterile act. Look closely at what is considered the more horrific act to God…sterile sex…that between humans and animals and between same-sex persons. These were punished not with silver, but with death.

I would not emphasize the the point made in your second paragraph, due to the tremendous suffering that rape causes. It’s just an entirely different kind of sin, and one which evidently required a different kind of social response at the time. While both rape and sterilized sex are superficially sexual in their physical process, rape is more a kind of violent assault, probably resulting from the guilty party’s disordered desire for power more than lust.

Anyway, I don’t think there’s anything like a 1:1 ratio between OT punishments and the relative levels of gravity between the sins themselves.

 

[jochoa]

So, just to be clear, this verse was not spoken by God/Jesus, correct? It was the law of the land at the time? I believe my brother in law is beliveing that it is saying that God said that the woman must marry her rapist…

Please consider the following concepts:
Consider the following:
-the Holy Spirit is God
-the Holy Spirit was revealed when the Son freely embraced being patient and kind in the face of impatience and meanness during His Crucifixion.
-the Holy Spirit is inside each of us
So perhaps, the Holy Spirit can refer to free-willed men growing in oneness with the Holy Spirit of God.
Therefore, much of the Holy Bible is the Word of the Holy Spirit(free-willed/ignorant men growing in unity with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, given the desires of peace/freedom from disturbance and happiness/contentment to intense joy).

Regarding your questions:
This verse was spoken by God/Jesus, because Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit.
Not only was it the law of the land at the time, given the DRB translation, it is the law any parental authority who acts in oneness with the Holy Spirit would impose on his/her son and his girlfriend given a similar circumstance. Please consider the following example: A boy impregnates a girl. Which of the following responses of a parental authority would be more righteous?
A. Son, you need to leave that girl. If you don’t, she and the baby are going to bring your life down.
B. Son, you need to go out and get a job and all your money is going to your baby and the mother. You need to marry her and show your child how precious of a life s/he is to you.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well, I am trying to explain to someone ( whom is an atheist), that God does not condone rape, which is why I needed the most accurate explanation as possible. He is completely turned away from God & people who go through something like that really need to be taught the true meaning to understand the Bible.

Sounds to me like he needs to find God. Then whatever he reads in Scripture will be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

The answer to the question is what I said. There’s no need to embroider. It’s not like God wrote it.

 

[TimothyH]

Well, I am trying to explain to someone ( whom is an atheist), that God does not condone rape, which is why I needed the most accurate explanation as possible. He is completely turned away from God & people who go through something like that really need to be taught the true meaning to understand the Bible.

The rule about paying 50 sheckels to the father of the person you raped is part of the Levitical Law, given by to Moses by God, specifically for the Jewish people.

The Levitical Law was part of the covenant which God had made with the nation of Israel thousands of years ago. Only Israelites were under the covenant and so only Israelites were bound by the law. The rest of mankind was not bound by the Levitical Law. The rest of mankind would have, quite frankly, raped the woman and left her for dead.

The Jews had just come out of 400 years of slavery to and dependence upon Egypt and had forgotten how to propertly worship and how to properly behave. The old covenant and the Levitical Law which accompanied it were part of the preperation God was making, preparing the world to recieve Jesus Christ, who would usher in a new covenant and a new law.

Christ did come, and he did established a new covenant, and the new covenant comes with a new law - love. Christians today live under the new covenant, and its law which says we are to love, not rape and then purchase the person we rape as a bride.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are three intrinsic evils in the world, things which are absolutely evil and have no good in them at all, and one of those is rape. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

*2356: Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them. *

Rape is always evil. That is the official teaching of the Holy Catholic Church today.

-Tim-

 

[southerngirl89]

Please consider the following concepts:
Consider the following:
-the Holy Spirit is God
-the Holy Spirit was revealed when the Son freely embraced being patient and kind in the face of impatience and meanness during His Crucifixion.
-the Holy Spirit is inside each of us
So perhaps, the Holy Spirit can refer to free-willed men growing in oneness with the Holy Spirit of God.
Therefore, much of the Holy Bible is the Word of the Holy Spirit(free-willed/ignorant men growing in unity with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, given the desires of peace/freedom from disturbance and happiness/contentment to intense joy).

Regarding your questions:
This verse was spoken by God/Jesus, because Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit.
Not only was it the law of the land at the time, given the DRB translation, it is the law any parental authority who acts in oneness with the Holy Spirit would impose on his/her son and his girlfriend given a similar circumstance. Please consider the following example: A boy impregnates a girl. Which of the following responses of a parental authority would be more righteous?
A. Son, you need to leave that girl. If you don’t, she and the baby are going to bring your life down.
B. Son, you need to go out and get a job and all your money is going to your baby and the mother. You need to marry her and show your child how precious of a life s/he is to you.

While I respect your opinions, I do not believe that a woman who was raped should be forced to marry her attacker. To me, that is sick. I understand that it may have been the norm back then, but not now. Also, everyone sins. I do not believe that two people who conceive a chuld out of wedlock, should have to marry. The man should absolutely be finacially & emotinally loving and supportive towards the mother & baby, but one mistake should not tie these two individuals together for life, especially if they are not in love or dedicated to each other. Unfortunately, people do have sex out of wedlock while being intoxicated,etc. While this is a sin, they made a mistake & should repent for it and not do it again. I just don’t think every situation is the same. I think it depends on the situation. I could personally never force my son to marry a woman becuase he got her pregnant becuase they are both equally responsible for the conception of a child.

 

[southerngirl89]

Sounds to me like he needs to find God. Then whatever he reads in Scripture will be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

The answer to the question is what I said. There’s no need to embroider. It’s not like God wrote it.

Unfortunately, some people can’t just “find God”, especially when they don’t believe He even exists. He is more of a scientific thinker. Basically, if he can’t see it, it doesn’t exist for him. As Christians, we all have to be understanding and patient with people like that or it will push them firther away. Many verses in the Bible can be confusing becuase it did sound like God condoned the act at first to me, which is why I asked.

 

[southerngirl89]

The rule about paying 50 sheckels to the father of the person you raped is part of the Levitical Law, given by to Moses by God, specifically for the Jewish people.

The Levitical Law was part of the covenant which God had made with the nation of Israel thousands of years ago. Only Israelites were under the covenant and so only Israelites were bound by the law. The rest of mankind was not bound by the Levitical Law. The rest of mankind would have, quite frankly, raped the woman and left her for dead.

The Jews had just come out of 400 years of slavery to and dependence upon Egypt and had forgotten how to propertly worship and how to properly behave. The old covenant and the Levitical Law which accompanied it were part of the preperation God was making, preparing the world to recieve Jesus Christ, who would usher in a new covenant and a new law.

Christ did come, and he did established a new covenant, and the new covenant comes with a new law - love. Christians today live under the new covenant, and its law which says we are to love, not rape and then purchase the person we rape as a bride.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are three intrinsic evils in the world, things which are absolutely evil and have no good in them at all, and one of those is rape. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

2356: Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

Rape is always evil. That is the official teaching of the Holy Catholic Church today.

-Tim-

May I quote you as to explain to my brother in law? This was very informative & helpful! Thank You!!

 

[Julia_Mae]

Unfortunately, some people can’t just “find God”, especially when they don’t believe He even exists. He is more of a scientific thinker. .

EVERYONE can “just find God.” Jesus said so. Before I retired, I worked in and taught science. Has nothing to do with it. He will find God if he looks. God is not in the Bible. Tryng to explain away all the things in the Bible that atheists are drilled in would take the rest of your life and never work. Pray for him and avoid the topic entirely.

 

[jochoa]

While I respect your opinions, I do not believe that a woman who was raped should be forced to marry her attacker. To me, that is sick. I understand that it may have been the norm back then, but not now. Also, everyone sins. I do not believe that two people who conceive a chuld out of wedlock, should have to marry. The man should absolutely be finacially & emotinally loving and supportive towards the mother & baby, but one mistake should not tie these two individuals together for life, especially if they are not in love or dedicated to each other. Unfortunately, people do have sex out of wedlock while being intoxicated,etc. While this is a sin, they made a mistake & should repent for it and not do it again. I just don’t think every situation is the same. I think it depends on the situation. I could personally never force my son to marry a woman becuase he got her pregnant becuase they are both equally responsible for the conception of a child.

Thank you very much for sharing your perspective. I definitely understand and agree with some of your points. Please consider further definition to the concepts:

-There is a huge translation difference from the NIV to the DRB. The DRB states they lay together, and the NIV states he rapes her. The difference becomes consent of will. Going along with the DRB interpretation, please correct me if I am wrong: Since God never encourages us to practice consensual sex with multiple partners before deciding to marry an individual, He is encouraging us to marry and provide for the person we choose to have consensual sex with.

-I definitely agree that a woman should never be forced to marry her attacker. And, since we are given some freedom in interpreting the Holy Bible, please consider the following concepts: What if to marry someone can mean being 100% dedicated to serving the peace and happiness of someone, without consideration of the dedication of service returned by the someone? To simply display this, Jesus Christ married His Church. He is 100% dedicated to serving the peace and happiness of us, without consideration of the dedication of service returned by us.
Therefore, could the NIV translation be stating: If a man rapes a woman, he should be 100% dedicated to serving the peace and happiness of her, without consideration of her serving him? Essentially, he should repent, reconcile, and restore the peace and happiness his offense caused her to lose. Does this seem reasonable to you?

 

[cc42]

Southerngirl 89: He should read Deut. 22:25 which condemns the rapist to death and the woman is seen as innocent. The Hebrew word for “seizes her” in verse 28 is actually different and probably refers to seduction, so in actuality this verse is probably refering to adultery and not rape. Of course verse 25 is talking about an engaged woman and verse 28 is talking about probably an unengaged woman but verse 28 corresponds with Ex. 22:16-17 as a similar law which does not deal with rape but with seduction so they are probably like laws.

Anyhow the Law was supposed to be interprited in light of what is called apodictic law (found in Ex. 22:20, 23:9-12) where God says “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or orphan (Ex. 22:21).” So unjust actions such as rape would be condemned in light of this normative.

Beyond this Jesus came and reaffrimed the ultimate standard “To love one another as I have loved you” As Christians we must understand the Bible in light of Christ who is the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. We can find God in the Bible contrary to what the person above has noted. Also, as others have written the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church which Jesus established and the Church condemns actions such as rape. The Catholic Church is who put the Bible together and affirmed its inspiration and She has the authoritative say on how it should be interprited.

God is the greatest being and the whole idea that rape is wrong comes from Him so it is complete nonsense to say that God is not opposed to rape.

If your friend wants a solid argument for God’s existence there are a number of them. Here is one: Ask him if a box could be pulled by an infinitely long rope? Obviously not. There has to be someone at the end of the rope that pulls the box. That is the same with changes in our universe something has to be the ultimate changeless causer of it all and that is God. The being has to be conscious (or aware) because if He wasn’t then how could He possibly will (bring into action) all the changes that occur?