D
DarkLight
Guest
I’m curious what translation you’re using? I’ve seen some debate on whether that passage refers to rape or not. I’ve also seen it translated as simply if he “lies with” a virgin who is not betrothed.
- Status
D
Dan123
Guest
NIV says rape, KJV does say ‘lie with her’ but with this before it:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found
There’s definitely the suggestion of force even in the more kind translation. It also justifies the cost in silver because he had violated her.
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found
There’s definitely the suggestion of force even in the more kind translation. It also justifies the cost in silver because he had violated her.
Last edited:
D
DarkLight
Guest
I’ve seen it translated a lot of different ways, honestly. The parallel passage in Exodus says if he seduces and lies with her, and then prescribes the same penalty. So I’m not completely convinced that this was a penalty for rape, rather than a penalty for sexual activity outside of marriage.
D
Dan123
Guest
Ah, so what was the penalty for rape? Or was there none? Is that better?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Oh no… not at all! There are other provisions in the law dealing with these other crimes, and the punishments thereof! I mean, “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life” gives the penalty for murder, right? It’s just not in the Decalogue that way – which was your complaint. I’m just pointing out that your focus is a bit narrow if your claim is merely “but… it’s not in the ten commandments…!”
D
Dan123
Guest
I was only using the commandments to point out God had no trouble setting hard lines in the sand on certain topics, even when he knew humanity would break them over and over.
D
DarkLight
Guest
There are some passages suggesting stoning as a penalty for rape, but it’s not super clearly spelled out.
I would also say it’s highly unlikely that every single criminal penalty and crime are listed in our modern Bible. There’s also suggestions of councils of elders or similar courts that had the authority to give out punishments.
It is also explicitly noted in both passages that the father can refuse the marriage. From what I understand of later jewish scholarship, the bride price was taken under the care of the father but was used for the support of the woman, so that it would compensate for her being seen as less marriageable.
I would also say it’s highly unlikely that every single criminal penalty and crime are listed in our modern Bible. There’s also suggestions of councils of elders or similar courts that had the authority to give out punishments.
It is also explicitly noted in both passages that the father can refuse the marriage. From what I understand of later jewish scholarship, the bride price was taken under the care of the father but was used for the support of the woman, so that it would compensate for her being seen as less marriageable.
D
Dan123
Guest
Right, it’s one of those things that when you step back from our modern sensibilities, consider the time, the place, the people, the culture and the state of the world, it’s very practical. It’s a sensible system to make some form of restitution for a wrong that had a lot of implications for a woman.
But I think it’s understandable that many would find it a bit incongruent with how we’re used to thinking about God. It’s just I guess, unsettling might be a good word, even if one ultimately accepts God’s judgement on the matter. And quite honestly, no one should ever be completely at ease on a topic like this so, perhaps that’s for the best.
But I think it’s understandable that many would find it a bit incongruent with how we’re used to thinking about God. It’s just I guess, unsettling might be a good word, even if one ultimately accepts God’s judgement on the matter. And quite honestly, no one should ever be completely at ease on a topic like this so, perhaps that’s for the best.
Last edited:
D
DarkLight
Guest
It definitely is.
There are also traditional societies to this day where it is very difficult to track rape, because taking a woman by force and simply absconding with her without the permission of her male kin are treated the same. There have even been cases where deliberate sexual activity (or the suggestion of it) have been used to force the kin to agree to a marriage selected by the man and woman. Sometimes there would even be a “kidnapping” involved. All of that can make it very hard to punish rape properly.
There are also traditional societies to this day where it is very difficult to track rape, because taking a woman by force and simply absconding with her without the permission of her male kin are treated the same. There have even been cases where deliberate sexual activity (or the suggestion of it) have been used to force the kin to agree to a marriage selected by the man and woman. Sometimes there would even be a “kidnapping” involved. All of that can make it very hard to punish rape properly.
A
abucs
Guest
Hi seeking,
I view the OT as a partnership between Jewish culture and God, with the latter slowly fashioning the former.
I agree with you that it is not God’s law for a rapist to marry his victim and it shows a lack of respect for women.
I would file this more under the Jewish culture of the time. (along with perhaps most other cultures).
I am assuming my ancestors also had similar ways that today we would find unfathomable. I think it is important to try and understand why they/we did this but I would not personally file it under God’s law.
L
LilyM
Guest
“Don’t fricken’ commit adultery” ??? Rape counts under that commandment, and always did
Last edited:
R
ratio1
Guest
I think the other reason is to stop a blood feud. If the rapist didn’t marry the girl then there will be a blood feud between the families which in those days will just keep on perpetuating.
T
TK421
Guest
The Old Testament is the history of the Hebrew people and the line of prophets leading up to Our Lord. Not everything contained within should be assumed as morally infallible.
God permits mankind to develop and grow, as well as to sin. This was true for the entire world in the past and remains true to the present day. Many children died a painful death in the time it took me to type this, and many as a result of the failures of society. Everything will be brought into account.
Peace.
T
tomarin
Guest
That may be true as well but if so probably in circumstances when a girl or young woman runs away with a man who the family disapproves of. I’m talking about the privilege of certain Afghans, probably prominent ones such as warlords, to force themselves on a woman or women they see in the fields working and then afterwards marry her if they want to.
2
2towers
Guest
I agree. By executing the rapist, there would be no one around to take care of the victim and possibly her child. Their lives would be over due to the stigma of no longer being a virgin. They did not have prisons back then, at least not ones where they could hold a few thousand and keep them all alive for a life sentence.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
We also have to remember the culture.
Women did not just walk or travel around alone. Married people did not even spend much time alone together. Women traveled in groups, if they were not destitute they had servants who would go out and do the shopping.
People did not go on dates, at parties/festivals/celebrations it was women in one place, men in another. At Synagogue it was the same way, women and men did not pray together.
The world was a very, very different place then.
Women did not just walk or travel around alone. Married people did not even spend much time alone together. Women traveled in groups, if they were not destitute they had servants who would go out and do the shopping.
People did not go on dates, at parties/festivals/celebrations it was women in one place, men in another. At Synagogue it was the same way, women and men did not pray together.
The world was a very, very different place then.
W
Wesrock
Guest
An eye for an eye wasn’t about making sure discipline was harsh, it was about making sure the punishment did not exceed the crime so that the punishment was fair.
Many of the laws dictated here, from what happened in the case of rape or relationships between slaves and owners are similar, in that they can be interpreted harshly when the actual intent was to ensure some level of justice and protection for the underprivileged in a harsh and cruel world.
In this case, the law was intended to ensure that the woman and any of her children would be provided for instead of abandoned. The attacker was mandated to provide a home and food and protection for his victim in a world where it would be common for the victim to be left alone and uncared for. It was a matter of recompense for the victim. It’s not clear in this case that the action was always non-consensual, either, though it certainly could have been.
It is far from perfect, but the relative culture then was far more immature and harsher than today, and the law was a primitive way of ensuring some level of justice and provision. God raised the bar slowly for mankind as we matured, not all at once.
And there’s debate even among Jewish scholars about how “by-the-letter” the law was enforced, or if it was more of a general principle type thing which was often evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
He was. Slowly, at a pace related to our own failings and immaturity and hardness of heart.
Last edited:
C
ConfusedLucy
Guest
On a practical level I was taught that the woman in this circumstances would often continue to live with her parents and the marriage would just mean financial support as no one else would marry her.
A
abucs
Guest
Interesting twist which changes the circumstances quite a lot.
Last edited:
- Status