Rape in the Old Testament

[AndyT_81]

Hi Cecilia, I understand that it would be horrific. But can you at least see the attempt at mitigation on behalf of the author? You say that no justification is possible, but surely marriage in this instance is better than the alternative (i.e. likely either destitution or prostitution, whereby prostitution will essentially be rape multiplied many times over enforced by hunger)? You could say that God should have somehow enforced a wholesale change of the culture, but we know how resistant the Israelites were to a change from polytheism, let alone any wholesale changes to the structure of society. After God performed the most amazing miracles in bringing them out of Eygpt, it only took an extended absence of Moses on Mt Sinai to drive them back to idol worship. How else could God lead such a fickle people apart from slowly coaxing them along with incremental improvements?

With these facts in mind, ask yourself how God could have done any better apart from removing our free will.

I have recently published a blog post on this topic if you are interested: faithforourchildren.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/does-the-bible-condone-rape-a-closer-look/

 

[Arizona_Mike]

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: Douay Rheims 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 does NOT apply to rape is shown if you read it in the context of the earlier passage. The actual penalty for forcible rape is quite reasonable (execution of the offender, with no penalty 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.

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), 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 justice.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So no, if a woman was raped her attacker would be put to death and no shame attached to the woman. And no, a woman couldn’t be forced to marry even a seducer, 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, if her father approves.

As both Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 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.

What if the seducer did not have enough money to pay the dowry cost, which he would be required to pay whether her father did or did not agree to marriage? He would have become the father’s 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.

 

[AndyT_81]

Thanks for that extra info Arizona Mike! It is even more clear cut than I originally thought - you learn something new everyday

 

[therese1998]

I realize this thread is old, but it piqued my interest.

I thought some really good answers were given and this is actually an accusation (or more politely, a question) of God “condoning” rape or violence in general in the Bible.

One poster had mentioned how the law of marrying the woman you “conquer” as “better”, while still undesirable from our 20th/21st century perspective. I would add to that, as I understand it, that women in that time (over many different societies) had no legal status and neither encouragement nor means to support themselves. Essentially, being a woman was about being someone’s wife, daughter or sister. Without the protection of a husband or adult male relative, a women could not simply take her half of the estate and go down the street, rent a room and start weaving baskets to support herself. Literally, every aspect of a woman’s life was handled by a man. No one would rent her a room, sell her food, allow her to sell items or to even negotiate a simple barter. These things, should they need to be done, would be done through a male…her husband, brother or father. Therefore, to sexually use a woman and then abandon her was to leave her to be cast out without the means to sustain herself. To marry her meant she had a status and with that status would come the “privileges” of having a place in society. Even in divorcing her, the man would have to ensure the woman’s place within society. She would maintain her right to a portion, if you will, of the food and shelter provided by that society. As crude and distasteful as it seems, the law was an attempt to protect woman from likely destitution, abuse and death. Perhaps many who enjoy complete autonomy over their person and their legal, financial and personal details are very quick to talk about “rather beg for my bread then marry an icky guy”, but I suspect the horror of slow starvation, further rapes, beatings and being left to die without aid would make marriage a little more palatable.

The second point I thought was great is to not confuse the Word of God with the law of man as he understood that Word. Unless you read, "God said, “Rape women and force them to marry you”, then it is simply, as stated, a fact of the law. When the lawmakers of Israelite society decided to put God’s Word into practice, the “safeguard” of marriage or a fine or whatever they decided would happen in the case of fornication/adultery/rape is their RESPONSE to the Word of God. You can think that response stinks, and I might even agree with you, but that is not the same as saying “A woman was forced to marry her rapist by Israelite law, so God condones rape”.

Great discussion