Rape in Bible

[YeAtheist]

I was thinking about Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29 : “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce …"

Most explanations I heard explain literally nothing, except this one:

gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

There are some problems with this, though.One is that, according to the site, woman doesn’t need to marry rapist, but she shall do it, which doesn’t change these intentions to really good to be honest.Second problem, more serious, is the “explanation”: it’s because of Jewish tradition.But, you must say, making virgin woman better than non-virgin, is simply stupid.It’s just a plain misogyny.Should God allow such a thing in his chosen nation?Why didn’t he try to tell at Bible it isn’t good?Why does God has to adjust to people, not people to God?

And please, don’t close this topic or something, even though I’m atheist, I’m still open to christianity and want serious answer.I’m not provoking you now, but trying to understand things better.

 

[HelenRose]

One of the things that has proven to me that the Bible is true is simply: There is no white washing of the events. The Bible is about real people, real events, and real problems.

God came to his people where they were at. A barbaric ancient violent culture. This law sounds very hard to our ears but in fact, for the time it was a break through in the rights of women. A man was not allowed to just use and throw away a woman. He was required to take care of her.

God did not come down with a magic wand and “poof” there were saints abound. These were hard, tough people. The goodness of God’s grace through the Israelites grew slowly and often painfully through the ages.

Take for instance the command, “A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye” We find that rather hard to take. But, when you live in a culture that would wipe out an entire village for an insult, you can see that this law prevented much bloodshed.

Given the fact that our culture right now has murdered 55,000,000 babies, we do not have much of a right to judge an ancient culture that grew slowly in grace.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I think that you are mistaken in believing that these passages refer to rape. They refer to consensual intercourse, fornication. Rape would be punishable by death for the perpetrator, not by some forced marriage. In the ancient world, women were treated as property. The history of Judaism and Christianity is all about raising respect for women.

 

[HelenRose]

I think that you are mistaken in believing that these passages refer to rape. They refer to consensual intercourse, fornication. Rape would be punishable by death for the perpetrator, not by some forced marriage. In the ancient world, women were treated as property. The history of Judaism and Christianity is all about raising respect for women.

Still there may be some question as to a woman’s consent to the action. But you are right. The laws concerning women were much better than surrounding cultures.

I am not totally sure of this comment, but I understand that the ancient Greeks not only thought of women as property but placed them as beings without souls on par with animals.

The Israelites recognized that women had souls and responsibilities toward God

 

[Cojuanco]

I was thinking about Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29 : “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce …"

Most explanations I heard explain literally nothing, except this one:

gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

There are some problems with this, though.One is that, according to the site, woman doesn’t need to marry rapist, but she shall do it, which doesn’t change these intentions to really good to be honest.Second problem, more serious, is the “explanation”: it’s because of Jewish tradition.But, you must say, making virgin woman better than non-virgin, is simply stupid.It’s just a plain misogyny.Should God allow such a thing in his chosen nation?Why didn’t he try to tell at Bible it isn’t good?Why does God has to adjust to people, not people to God?

And please, don’t close this topic or something, even though I’m atheist, I’m still open to christianity and want serious answer.I’m not provoking you now, but trying to understand things better.

1. As the example of Ammon and Tamar shows, the woman is not forced to marry her rapist necessarily. She is only required to follow her father (remember, this is a patriarchal society, and the father had authority over all his children).
2. Aquinas explains that the Mosaic Law, for purposes of the Christian standpoint, is divided into three kinds:
   -The moral law, which is permanent, because they came not into force by the Laws of Moses, but from the creation of the world, by God. Such pertaining to humans concerns things like, for example, the proscription against murder.
   -The ceremonial law, which concerns that “ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ”, which ceased to bind with the coming of Our Lord, and would be a false thing to do to still continue to observe as if Christ had not come. These are things like the Temple rites of the Jewish people.
   -The judicial law, concerning relations between men that derive their binding force from more than reason alone. While ceasing to bind in conscience by the coming of Our Lord, one does not sin by enforcing them at the command of a sovereign.

The injunction against rape, of course, generally is of the moral law, which naturally means one cannot ever justly abolish rape as a crime. But the penalties and procedures, which is what the quoted passages from Deuteronomy regulate, are of the judicial law.

Why did the Father allow this? The same reason as he allowed the Jews to put away their wives with a bill of divorce - out of the hardness of their hearts, that he might work to eventually convert them that they frown upon the accommodations.

 

[dmar198]

I was thinking about Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29 : “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce …"

Most explanations I heard explain literally nothing, except this one:

gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

There are some problems with this, though.One is that, according to the site, woman doesn’t need to marry rapist, but she shall do it, which doesn’t change these intentions to really good to be honest.Second problem, more serious, is the “explanation”: it’s because of Jewish tradition.But, you must say, making virgin woman better than non-virgin, is simply stupid.It’s just a plain misogyny.Should God allow such a thing in his chosen nation?Why didn’t he try to tell at Bible it isn’t good?Why does God has to adjust to people, not people to God?

And please, don’t close this topic or something, even though I’m atheist, I’m still open to christianity and want serious answer.I’m not provoking you now, but trying to understand things better.

Try this explanation: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/does-god-approve-of-rape-dark-passages/

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Try this explanation: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/does-god-approve-of-rape-dark-passages/

I was just about to go find that. Thanks ^^

 

[Robyn_p]

Try this explanation: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/does-god-approve-of-rape-dark-passages/

That’s a good one, here’s another one by Akin that deals directly with the passage of virgins marrying their rapists. ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/does-god-expect-women-to-marry-their-rapists/

Both of these articles are part of a series and should help you out.

 

[DaveBj]

1. As the example of Ammon and Tamar shows, the woman is not forced to marry her rapist necessarily. She is only required to follow her father (remember, this is a patriarchal society, and the father had authority over all his children).

snip

This event was several centuries before the giving of the Law.

 

[RPRPsych]

This event was several centuries before the giving of the Law.

I think you’re confusing Amnon and Tamar with Judah and Tamar.

Judah / Tamar was a dodge on the part of Tamar because Judah was refusing to go ahead with a levirate marriage of his youngest son (Genesis 38). This event can be dated c. 1750 BC (or c. 1900 BC if we follow older scholarship.)

The Law was given soon after the Exodus, which took place either c. 1250 BC (modern scholarship) or c. 1450 (older scholars).

The rape of Amnon by Tamar (2 Samuel 13) took place in the latter years of King David’s reign, which took place c. 980 BC (David reigned from 1010 - 970 BC).

The former was before the Law; the latter was well after it.

 

[DaveBj]

I think you’re confusing Amnon and Tamar with Judah and Tamar.

Judah / Tamar was a dodge on the part of Tamar because Judah was refusing to go ahead with a levirate marriage of his youngest son (Genesis 38). This event can be dated c. 1750 BC (or c. 1900 BC if we follow older scholarship.)

The Law was given soon after the Exodus, which took place either c. 1250 BC (modern scholarship) or c. 1450 (older scholars).

The rape of Amnon by Tamar (2 Samuel 13) took place in the latter years of King David’s reign, which took place c. 980 BC (David reigned from 1010 - 970 BC).

The former was before the Law; the latter was well after it.

You’re absolutely right; my bad, only it wasn’t Judah and Tamar, it was Dinah and ?Shechem? that I was thinking of.

 

[buffalo]

Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God

http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751

ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FAg3Plv7L.SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

A recent string of popular-level books written by the New Atheists have leveled the accusation that the God of the Old Testament is nothing but a bully, a murderer, and a cosmic child abuser. This viewpoint is even making inroads into the church. How are Christians to respond to such accusations? And how are we to reconcile the seemingly disconnected natures of God portrayed in the two testaments? In this timely and readable book, apologist Paul Copan takes on some of the most vexing accusations of our time, including: God is arrogant and jealous God punishes people too harshly God is guilty of ethnic cleansing God oppresses women God endorses slavery Christianity causes violence and more Copan not only answers God’s critics, he also shows how to read both the Old and New Testaments faithfully, seeing an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both.

 

[RPRPsych]

You’re absolutely right; my bad, only it wasn’t Judah and Tamar, it was Dinah and ?Shechem? that I was thinking of.

I ought to have figured that out. Now I feel like a dope.

And, yes, Dinah and Shechem was way before the Law. However, it’s interesting to note that while Jacob calls out his sons for taking revenge - probably for political and safety reasons - the vengeance of Simeon is mentioned approvingly in the Book of Judith. In other words, “punish the offender” was also acceptable at least to that author. (Most modern scholars date Judith to the post-Maccabbean period, but the best guess for the setting is c. 650 BC.)

 

[DaveBj]

I ought to have figured that out. Now I feel like a dope.

And, yes, Dinah and Shechem was way before the Law. However, it’s interesting to note that while Jacob calls out his sons for taking revenge - probably for political and safety reasons - the vengeance of Simeon is mentioned approvingly in the Book of Judith. In other words, “punish the offender” was also acceptable at least to that author. (Most modern scholars date Judith to the post-Maccabbean period, but the best guess for the setting is c. 650 BC.)

Let’s both put on our pointed caps and have fellowship in the dunce corner

Back on the OP’s topic, this is one passage that I have decided to put aside (i.e., not to say anything one way or the other about it) until I’ve had a chance to talk to the Author.

 

[YeAtheist]

Thank you! ,Your hearts were hard" explains this passage the best, but I have one problem with it. Even if Israelites were too hard to accept these things, if God would include them in Bible, through his prophets, they wouldn’t have a choice other than accepting these, which overall is better than slow way he according to you used.

 

[HelenRose]

Thank you! ,Your hearts were hard" explains this passage the best, but I have one problem with it. Even if Israelites were too hard to accept these things, if God would include them in Bible, through his prophets, they wouldn’t have a choice other than accepting these, which overall is better than slow way he according to you used.

I really try to avoid second guessing God.

If an individual decides that he or she is going to follow the path of finding fault with the Hebrew Scriptures, which, in my opinion are miracles in themselves, there is no explanation that will satisfy.

There are no ancient writings to compare. Sure, there are wonderful stories to be had in other ancient writings - some of which have found their way into the Hebrew Scriptures. But, to have in our hands the literature, the history, the poetry, the religion and the philosophic thought of these chosen people of God, is a gift that should be loved and appreciated. Even if one does not believe in God, the honesty of these writings should be recognized.

To not appreciate this wonderful gift is like climbing a beautiful mountain to behold the vista of the world and complaining because there is some mud on the way.

 

[Aloysium]

Thank you! ,Your hearts were hard" explains this passage the best, but I have one problem with it. Even if Israelites were too hard to accept these things, if God would include them in Bible, through his prophets, they wouldn’t have a choice other than accepting these, which overall is better than slow way he according to you used.

Have you devoted your life to loving God above all else and your brothers and sisters, as you love yourself?
The message is clear and is everywhere. Do you have ears that hear, eyes that see?
God speaks to people where they are. When you will receive His graces, do accept them.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I was thinking about Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29 : “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce …"

Most explanations I heard explain literally nothing…

Let me see if I can help you.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

The choice of words of “and they are found” indicates that this refers to a consensual act. Thus, “seizes” used in this context seems to imply a lustful or passionate act, but not a non-consensual one, as the term “ravished” in English implies a lustful act but not necessarily a non-consensual act of rape. This sounds more like a description of a shotgun marriage, Israelite-style. The violation involved was loss of her virginity, which would make her unmarriageable in the eyes of their people, so the seducer would have to marry her. He would also forever lose his ability to divorce her, no matter what she did in the future.

Many English translations of this passage do not carry a connotation of rape: The Douay Rheims translation, which is a standard among Catholics, doesn’t: *If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment.
*

The term for taking or seize in this passage in the original Hebrew is a combination of two words, TAPHAS (to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield) and SHAKAB (to lie down, to bed, to rest).

That this law did NOT apply to rape is shown if you read it in the context of the earlier passage. The actual penalty for forcible rape was quite reasonable and admirable, as I am sure you will agree, YeAtheist (immediate execution of the offender, probably by stoning him to death, with no penalty or opprobrium to the victim), and is probably far more compassionate than existed in the middle east then, or in many middle eastern countries now, where loss of virginity for a girl even by rape can result in the execution of the woman by her own family out of an immoral code of “family honor.”

Compare the first passage to:

Deuteronomy 22: 25-27: But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

(In the above passage, a different word is used than in 28-29 , CHAZAQ, a word used for rape. The word CHAZAQ or LAQACH is used elsewhere in the OT when rape is clearly referenced.)

So, if it happened in the close quarters of the city and there was evidence it was consensual (i.e, she would have been able to call for help but did not do so, amongst a culture where there were lots of able-bodied men around who would intervene to prevent a rape), it was considered a consensual act and the woman shared responsibility for the illicit sex act. Fornication and chastity were taken seriously, walls were thin, and there were many extended family members who could come to your aid if you screamed once or fought. Interestingly, Deuteronomy provides GREATER legal protection for the betrothed woman than modern criminal law if the act happened away from witnesses, as there would be no need for witnesses, and the woman’s complaint to her betrothed or the officials would be sufficient. The rapist would be presumed guilty and receive swift and terminal justice.

(continued)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So, if a woman was raped her attacker would be put to death and no shame or punishment attached to the woman (a moral code that was revolutionary for the ancient world.) And a woman couldn’t be forced to marry even a man who was a seducer but not a violent rapist, as her father could protect her and demand a fine instead, one which would have been fairly expensive as it was equal to a wedding dowry. If it was judged to be consensual sex, the law from Exodus would have applied:

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces (“PATHAH”) a virgin who is not betrothed and lies (“SHAKABH”) with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

The Hebrew verb used to describe the sin is PATHAH, used elsewhere in the OT for “coaxing” (Jud. 14:15), “luring” (Jud. 16:5; Hos. 2:14), and “enticing” (Prov. 1:10; 16:29), and never used for rape.The word PATHAH is even used to describe how God will tenderly lure Israel back into His love in the passage below:

“‘Therefore I am now going to allure (PATHAH) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me “my husband”; you will no longer call me “my master.” I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.’” Hosea 2:14-20.

PATHAH is not used anywhere in the OT for an act of rape.

The lesson of the passages from Exodus and Deuteronomy is that when a man talks a virgin into consenting to have sexual relations with him, he is morally obligated to marry her, but IF and only IF her father approves.

As both Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 describe essentially the same crime and punishment, and as the Exodus passage is clearly using the same term as is used for seduction, not violent rape, and as the passage directly referring to violent rape (CHAZAQ) calls for an altogether different and quite terminal punishment…No, the OT does not support rape or require a raped woman to marry her rapist. That is absurd, as I am sure you will agree upon sober reflection.

What if the seducer did not have enough money to pay the large dowry cost (which few young men could afford), and which he would be required to pay whether her father did or did not agree to marriage? He would have become the father’s debt-slave for 7 years. (The Israelites did not have prisons, so chattel slavery was the imprisonment of choice.) It probably would not be a very easy term of slavery for the seducer, as you can imagine.

I hope this was helpful to you.

 

[dmwessel]

I was thinking about Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29 : “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce …"

Most explanations I heard explain literally nothing, except this one:

gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

There are some problems with this, though.One is that, according to the site, woman doesn’t need to marry rapist, but she shall do it, which doesn’t change these intentions to really good to be honest.Second problem, more serious, is the “explanation”: it’s because of Jewish tradition.But, you must say, making virgin woman better than non-virgin, is simply stupid.It’s just a plain misogyny.Should God allow such a thing in his chosen nation?Why didn’t he try to tell at Bible it isn’t good?Why does God has to adjust to people, not people to God?

And please, don’t close this topic or something, even though I’m atheist, I’m still open to christianity and want serious answer.I’m not provoking you now, but trying to understand things better.

I was sure that I had already responded to this or something like it but I can’t seem to find it.

You’re right of course, it makes no sense at all. The general method for telling if something is inspired (by God) is that confirmations of the same idea can be found elsewhere in the Bible (both old and new testaments). I cannot seem to find anything that confirms this passage.

Deuteronomy is considered inspired but I am beginning to wonder if such is the case.