Rape

[Dunban]

In Deuteronomy, a rapist is commanded to marry his victim.

What are we to make of this?

God said this? Really?

God as in the sole source of goodness and morality?

Hmmm...... I'm not seeing it.

How is this a defensible position for any christian?

At best, you can say it's moral relativity and times have changed. Well, there goes the part about the bible being inerrant, flawless and perfect moral guidebook for all areas of life.

So what do we make of this horrible text?

 

[Purge187]

How could the Bible command a rape victim to marry her rapist? - Christian Research Institute

The third paragraph clarifies.

The law wasn't about punishing a woman for something that was so obviously far out of her control; it was about making the idiot who raped her pay for his crime.

 

[singpeace]

In Deuteronomy, a rapist is commanded to marry his victim.

What are we to make of this?

God said this? Really?

God as in the sole source of goodness and morality?

Hmmm...... I'm not seeing it.

How is this a defensible position for any christian?

At best, you can say it's moral relativity and times have changed. Well, there goes the part about the bible being inerrant, flawless and perfect moral guidebook for all areas of life.

So what do we make of this horrible text?

Actually, her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.

The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says.

Throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist. However it is plausible that there could be circumstances in which a father would choose to have his daughter marry a rapist. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule.

Read more: Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?

 

[Bobinator]

In Deuteronomy, a rapist is commanded to marry his victim.

What are we to make of this?

God said this? Really?

God as in the sole source of goodness and morality?

Hmmm...... I'm not seeing it.

How is this a defensible position for any christian?

At best, you can say it's moral relativity and times have changed. Well, there goes the part about the bible being inerrant, flawless and perfect moral guidebook for all areas of life.

So what do we make of this horrible text?

I believe you're judging the Word from an emotional standpoint. God is Spirit. And yes, marriage and sex was viewed differently back then. Women couldn't get married unless they were virgins, and marrying a non-Jew was out of the question. A woman without a man to protect and provide for her would be in a deeper dilemma. There was no such thing as dialing 911 or hiring a lawyer to defend your constitutional rights.

I just watched the Chinese movie, "Raise the Red Lantern", this weekend with English subtitles. It had a very sad ending. (*Chick flick alert*). It illustrated some of the conditions women subjected themselves to in order to survive. Marriage wasn't for love's sake.

 

[ebedmelech]

In Deuteronomy, a rapist is commanded to marry his victim.

What are we to make of this?

God said this? Really?

God as in the sole source of goodness and morality?

Hmmm...... I'm not seeing it.

How is this a defensible position for any christian?

At best, you can say it's moral relativity and times have changed. Well, there goes the part about the bible being inerrant, flawless and perfect moral guidebook for all areas of life.

So what do we make of this horrible text?

When you understand that in this culture a woman that was not a virgin was shut out...you understand this was protection for the woman.

The man had to marry her, was not allowed to mistreat her or divorce her.

Lastly understand that this was God's direct rule over Israel.

 

[HisSparkPlug]

How could the Bible command a rape victim to marry her rapist? - Christian Research Institute

The third paragraph clarifies.

The law wasn't about punishing a woman for something that was so obviously far out of her control; it was about making the idiot who raped her pay for his crime.

Good material!

 

[football5680]

It's not horrible, it protects the woman's future outlook. It would be much harder to get married to somebody if you were not a virgin so if somebody raped them the rapist would be forced to take care of her for the rest of his life and he could not divorce her. But she is not forced to marry him against her will and the man will be punished for the crime.

 

[IndyEllis]

God said this? Really?

Maybe, maybe not.

Things get sockpupetted into "Thus saith the LORD" all the time.

This has to be about the biggest downside to being a Deity.

So what do we make of this horrible text?

Breathe in.

Breathe out.

Smooth out scrunched up undergarments.

It'll be OK...

And, also...

1. Don't rape others.
2. Don't throw the first stone at those who do.
3. Aggressively defend the defenseless.

Or something more or less like that.

 

[HisSparkPlug]

It's not horrible, it protects the woman's future outlook. It would be much harder to get married to somebody if you were not a virgin so if somebody raped them the rapist would be forced to take care of her for the rest of his life and he could not divorce her. But she is not forced to marry him against her will and the man will be punished for the crime.

It would be nice if she didn't have to LIVE with the moron....

 

[SnoogumsBoogums]

It would be nice if she didn't have to LIVE with the moron....

Yes it would

 

[football5680]

It would be nice if she didn't have to LIVE with the moron....

Of course but rape is terrible and there is no way to make it all better. Our current system to punish it isn't any better. The guy might get thrown in prison but it doesn't change the fact that she went through that horrible event. This law would guarantee her future security which is the only consolation possible. Nothing is going to change the fact that it happened and there is no way to make it all better.

 

[mandyangel]

Actually, her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.

The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says.

Thank you for speaking the truth. Some people don't get this and it drives me crazy.

 

[intojoy]

I wonder if this was a problem then the way we see it today. Are there any references to this law being enforced in the biblical record? What about Dinah? Surely her rapist thought he could take her and that her family would allow him to keep her as a wife. That event happened pre - law. The other biblical events that come to mind are the taking of Sarah by the Egyptians. It seems to me (just a deduction) that rape was tolerated by people living back then. It is and was wrong for sure but it looks like a law that was instituted to protect women from those who'd force themselves on them and not marry them. In other words maybe people would forgive the guy who did this act if he married his victim. I don't know, I'm not a historian but it is a valid question to put on by a critic of the Word, these are my thoughts. What about the command not to lie with a beast? That sound [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] ridiculous to me too yet obviously the world at that time was a very different one from my spot in Hawaii.

Sorry - thought that was a neutral term