Rape to Marriage - IN THE BIBLE?

[AngryAtheist8]

A deflowered woman is unmarryable - no man would want her and therefore she is condemned to a life of poverty and shame. Therefore if the rapist thinks he can get off scot free after having his way with her, he has another thing coming: he must financially support her for the rest of her life.

That’s why I support forcing the rapist to marry her. Plus think of the deterrent value.

Why would a woman want to marry her rapist?

 

[MrZetterlund]

Hello everyone, my faith is shaken once again. Everybody’s all upset over Morocco’s “if she gets raped, she has to marry her rapist” law. But the thing is people have pointed out that that rule is the Bible too (Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30).

Any thoughts? Any rebuttals?

This is why I hate some comittee translations that take little scholarly interest such as the NIV that does indeed use the word “rape” in Deuteronomy 22:28. Deuteronomy 22:28 is actually in the context of foreignication and suduction. This is why it reads, “and *they *are caught in the act,” because of her paticipation in the seduction. Verse 27 says in another context, “because this case is as someone who attacks and murders his neighbor,” so clearly there is concern of the woman’s consent. Deuteronomy 22:28 is a restatement of the same law that you quoted in Exodus.22:16-17, which clearly puts it in the context of seduction. Use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

 

[EvelynEVF]

You have to remember that women were essentially considered the property of their father or husband (much like women in the Middle East today) in that setting.
The woman’s feelings on the matter probably were not even considered an issue.

Right, but Rainaldo seems to be advocating forcing a marriage in the modern day.

 

[Rainaldo]

Honestly, the laws specifically were NOT on women’s side in ancient Israel.
That’s why women who didn’t have a male protector/master (such as a husband or father) were at such a disadvantage:shrug:

I see God’s revealed laws for his people to be, not only a natural consequence of, but also a damage-controlling response to, Genesis 3:16.

 

[Rainaldo]

Why would a woman want to marry her rapist?

Because no one else would ever marry her. Were it not for the merciful law requiring the rapist to marry her, she would be condemned to a life of poverty and exclusion. See above.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
You have to remember that women were essentially considered the property of their father or husband (much like women in the Middle East today) in that setting.
The woman’s feelings on the matter probably were not even considered an issue.

Right, but Rainaldo seems to be advocating forcing a marriage in the modern day.

Some modern day Catholics also think that women’s aspirations and desires don’t matter as well:shrug:
One of the worst offenders I have come across are these guys:
catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Because no one else would ever marry her. Were it not for the merciful law requiring the rapist to marry her, she would be condemned to a life of poverty and exclusion. See above.

The law is only merciful in the context of a brutal and misogynistic society that valued women only as wives and mothers.

 

[TimothyH]

Hello everyone, my faith is shaken once again. Everybody’s all upset over Morocco’s “if she gets raped, she has to marry her rapist” law. But the thing is people have pointed out that that rule is the Bible too (Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30).

Any thoughts? Any rebuttals?

Those are Old Covenant laws. We are not bound by the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was fulfilled on Calvary.

We are bound by the New Covenant. The law of the New Covenant is this… Love.

Christans under the New Covenant are not required to marry their rapist. But they are required to forgive him, and even to love him.

-Tim-

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

A deflowered woman is unmarryable - no man would want her and therefore she is condemned to a life of poverty and shame. Therefore if the rapist thinks he can get off scot free after having his way with her, he has another thing coming: he must financially support her for the rest of her life.

That’s why I support forcing the rapist to marry her. Plus think of the deterrent value.

Say what?

 

[TimothyH]

That is a very good example of love.

We often don’t feel love when we do it. I’m sure the girl felt many emotions which were far from love, and that is really the point. Love is not desire. Love is an act, not an emotion.

What the girl did is what we are all called to do, and more.

That’s what many of the laws of the Old Testament were designed to do, to help Israel do things like this - release slaves, forgive debt, care for widows and orphans. But Israel perverted the laws and used their own gain.

Anyway, we are not bound by those laws. They are from an Old Covenant which has passed away and has become obsolete. We are no more required to marry our rapist than we are required to go to Jerusualem three times each year to sacrifice bulls and goats on the altar at the temple.

-Tim-

 

[Eagelswings]

That verse has been grossly translated. The acutal meaning is if he seduces her, not rapes her. If I am wrong anyone here may feel free to correct me.