Rape in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter seeking3find
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

seeking3find

Guest
Why is the punishment for rape in Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 not more severe? Why is the woman then forced to marry the rapist?

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

I’ve been having trouble with this passage because it doesn’t seem like a command God could morally give. My thought is that forcing a woman to marry her rapist seems to go against the dignity of the woman. I’ve been having so much trouble with verses like this.

Why did God allow the OT people to function like this?
 
Do you know how an unmarried non-virgin would live in ancient Palestine? She could not just go get her own tent and a uni degree and be a professional.

The punishment meant that the offender would be responsible to support, provide a home, food, care for this woman for the rest of her life.
 
seeking3find said:
Why is the punishment for rape in Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 not more severe? Why is the woman then forced to marry the rapist?

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

I’ve been having trouble with this passage because it doesn’t seem like a command God could morally give. My thought is that forcing a woman to marry her rapist seems to go against the dignity of the woman. I’ve been having so much trouble with verses like this.

Why did God allow the OT people to function like this?
Click to expand...
Sounds a bit like rural Afghanistan in this day and age.
 
Virginity was given extreme importance during those times. If a man raped an unwed girl and took away her virginity, his punishment was to provide for her because otherwise she would be considered an outcast in society.
 
seeking3find said:
Why is the punishment for rape in Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 not more severe?
Click to expand...
Two thoughts:
  • First off, the culture was different then. An unmarried girl didn’t really have any rights. Her father would arrange the marriage and that was it: she was bound to accept his decision. The difference, then, between that case and the case of Deut 22:28 has to do with the fact that the man didn’t approach the girl’s father first and request her as his bride. Stinks… but it was the culture of the day.
  • Second, this law is meant to keep rape from happening, as opposed to provide ‘justice’ for the woman, as it were. If a guy wants to get away with violating a virgin, then he needs to realize that, under the Mosaic law, he’ll be forced to marry her without the possibility of divorce. In other words, the couple minutes of ‘pleasure’ will lead to a lifetime of obligation. And, he’ll still have to pay her father for the right to marry her.
So, the law is what the law is. It was written at a time in which culture is much different than it is today. You shouldn’t expect it to be dealing with people as if they lived in the 21st century Western world…
 
Last edited:
I thought the victim was sentenced to death in Afghanistan? You know, honor killings?
 
The victim doesn’t have to be married because:
If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies 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. -Exodus 22:16-17
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yeah but God knew people would keep stealing, he still put “don’t fricken steal!” in his top 10, he knew people would murder and lie but again, explicitly banned. He didn’t feel the need to water down ‘thou shall not steal’ to ‘if you steal you’re going to have to pay it back with interest!’. The punishment could have supplemented an explicit admonishment.
 
But why wouldn’t God correct them straight away? Why would she have been an outcast, was she not a child of God too?

That’s what I’m having trouble with. God gave his commandments but they were not complete to them, they were completed in the NT. Why didn’t he just give them the law we have now?

Thoughts like these keep me up at night. Many of the answers seem so insufficient to me
 
The Ten Commandments are perfect the problem your having is related to human evil.

God was merciful in that situation because the vast majorty of impure women were stoned to death in anicent times
 
I’ll take a crack at this.

Would you teach middle schoolers to drive? Probably not. Why? They’re not ready, they’re immature. Before a human learns to run, they must walk, before walking they must crawl. Those people were not ready to go from a culture of human sacrifice to the standards presented by Christ overnight. If they can stop ritualistically murdering their children, then they can move from that to treating others the way they want to be treated. If they can care for those they have wronged, they can better keep themselves from wronging others to begin with. Anyway. That’s my two cents.
 
It was a different culture, that much must be understood. I think the understanding of rape then and now is a bit different. When we think of rape we think of a crime of violence with a sexual aspect. “Date” or “Acquaintance” rape is a bit of a more modern term. Virginity back then, as other posters have said, had far greater social and financial implications for women. As one poster said in effect, God was looking out for the victim in this case. Not so much just relegating the act to a “simple” sin.
 
Yes, but forgive me if I’m ignorant about this, wasn’t the stoning punishment a part of God’s law back then? Why would he implement such a thing?
 
I’m in partial agreement with you, the only difficulty I have is that God’s presence among them would stop them from committing evils like adultery and rape no?

Why was death a punishment for a crime back then? Were they not made available to God’s mercy like we are now?
 
seeking3find said:
But why wouldn’t God correct them straight away? Why would she have been an outcast, was she not a child of God too?
Click to expand...
Free will meant that people would have still been able to treat her like an outcast. The answer you look for is sociological. Their culture is not our culture. Just the way your question is worded shows how large the gulf is between that culture and ours. If you do not understand why this could be, then trust that God has a better grasp on what is best for a people four thousand years ago than you do, as well as what is just and what is moral.

Note also that the command is for the man, not the woman. I guess in theory a woman could choose to go off in the desert, or the father could choose to keep the daughter a dependent forever. However, it is not like she could choose to become a craftsman, priest, or go to college.
 
Yes but wouldn’t you agree that our culture is vastly superior to the old ones? Why wouldn’t God usher in the values of mercy and forgiveness that we have now, back then?

In short, why couldn’t it have worked?
 
I may be mistaken, but your suggestion would override their free will. It would remove the option of making the choice to be kind and loving, from willingly participating in the love of God. As for the death penalty, there were some who simply would not stop harming other people, and there was no way to jail them like we can today. Death also provides an opportunity to repent.
 
seeking3find said:
In short, why couldn’t it have worked?
Click to expand...
Because of the nature of people. It is the same reason you can’t teach algebra to first graders, or the trinity to a people in a polytheistic century. It is why Jesus did not teach us everything while we he was here, but allowed the Holy Spirit to guide us into a fuller truth. There is, by necessity of our limited humanity, a progression in Man’s understanding of God and ourselves.
 
Dan123 said:
Yeah but God knew people would keep stealing, he still put “don’t fricken steal!” in his top 10, he knew people would murder and lie but again, explicitly banned. He didn’t feel the need to water down ‘thou shall not steal’ to ‘if you steal you’re going to have to pay it back with interest!’.
Click to expand...
You’re bringing up an interesting subject. The form of the Decalogue (especially in #5 through #10) is really interesting – it reads like a description of who the People of God are: “you will not commit murder”, “you will not commit adultery”, “you will not steal”. It’s less a ‘law’ than it is a statement of what it means to be a child of God under the covenant… 😉
 
That really just kicks the ball down the road a bit doesn’t it? Just changes from 'why didn’t God make the punishment for rape stronger" to “why did God expect his people not to steal, lie, murder, etc but leave the option on rape a bit of a gray area?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top