Evidence for God from Science

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/12/08/a ... er-rapist/

Does the bible still have it that woman should still have to marry their rapist

UsagiTsukino wrote:http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/12/08/a ... er-rapist/

Does the bible still have it that woman should still have to marry their rapist

I read that the man was made to marry the woman and look after her.
"Still have it" = certainly not. The Law was given to Israel.
BUT, regardless, this has no simple answer...

Keep in mind, what we have in the OT was not absolutely all the ins and outs of the law.
The issues are very convoluted and require an understanding of culture (I won't speak for Afghanistan).

It requires understanding that virginity was a very important asset of a marriageable girl within Israel.
Without it, then the chances of her being married and looked after are unlikely.
She could possibly even be taken advantage of further by others or shunned as an adulterous.
I wouldn't want to be in such shoes. There's really no good outcome.

BUT, to protect the woman from further social abuses and essentially no life, the rapist was required to pay a hefty bride-price (about 5 years standard wage).
He was then obligated to look after the woman "all his days". In marriage, the man is to protect the woman.
Malachi 2:16 says, "The man who hates and divorces his wife… does violence to the one he should protect."
Thus, there would be other rules in place should the husband be abusive.

How it panned out in reality, in such a paternalistic culture, well I wouldn't like to be such a woman.
I doubt realistically women had much protection at all, only because I don't have much faith in people to do the right thing.
We have laws in our society, but at the end of the day those within the society need to stand up to help.
If there were people in society who stood up for such women, then great. I just can't picture it.

So again, this is not a clean issue. Issues involving sin committed against others rarely have a fair result.
What is done can't be undone, however it is rather a pragmatic approach to ensure the victim is compensated and looked after as much as possible.
I suppose "law" is quite cut and dry and impersonal in that manner. It's meant to try make right as much as possible what can't be undone.

I'm sure the woman would have to have some say. To be clear, it was the rapist being forced to marry and look after the woman all his days.
Notably, the father could refuse the marriage. (Exodus 22:16-17) And as marriage is seen as a covenant, I really can't see the woman having no say.

I'd recommend reading over http://christianthinktank.com/virginity.html to get a better understanding of what is being dealt with.
Then, the reasoning behind it, however distasteful such a situation still is, at least becomes a little understandable.

UsagiTsukino wrote:http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/12/08/a ... er-rapist/

Does the bible still have it that woman should still have to marry their rapist

Where does the bible state that a woman must marry her rapist?

What the bible does say is this:
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."

Exodus 22:16-17 “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."

What we have here is a causal Law, A law designed to punish the instigator AND provide some recompense and security for the victim(s).
We have a Law that allows for the the Father of the victim to DICTATE the recompense ( the Father always has the option to NOT accept payment and insist on punishment) and allows that the now-spoiled virgin, to be cared for.
Not that only Deuteronomy implies rape in the "seizes her" statement, Exodus is referring to a man SEDUCING a virgin.

Please note that there is NO Mention that the woman MUST marry the man, only that the MAN must marry the woman and never divorce her (One can imagine that scenario: A man forced to marry the victim and be under HER fathers rule til the day He dies, yikes !).

The issue most have is that this seems to imply that the rapist can n ow have sex with the woman whenever he wants, that the punishment for rape is to have free reign and "raper" her again as many times as he wants.

Obviously these people that think that have NO CLUE what marriage meant in the ANE.

Please note that there is also NO case in the bible of a woman having to marry her rapist.

Under this causal law the victim has rights and is compensated and while we may look at these laws as barbaric with out 21st century mindset, never forget that these laws were designed for the ANE during a time where people took what they thought they could get away with, where life had very little value and women were valued only if they were virgins.

Context is crucial in understanding ancient times.

You should also note that the word seize used is:
taphas

And means:

to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

And the term translated as "violated" is ANAH and means:

(Qal) to be occupied, be busied with
to afflict, oppress, humble, be afflicted, be bowed down

Are you defending Scripture Paul?

Kurieuo wrote:Are you defending Scripture Paul?

Always
Even when I disagree with it.
Why?
Because we are fickle.

We pull the "high and moral" card to point out what we think are moral issues with certain passages of the bible forgetting that, outside of an absolute moral standard that exists, there is NO moral card to pull.
Add to that the simple fact that the bible itself speaks to it's "progressive revelation" and God's accommodating to man's sinful nature.

Truly, if the bible did NOT have these issues I would be far more concerned because that would show HEAVY EDITING on the part of the copyists with their ever changing moral views.

Can I suggest a book if no one already has done so, it is called "Is God A Moral Monster" by Paul Copan, it goes deep into passages that are hard to understand and puts them into context (language, history, culture etc..).

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Can I suggest a book if no one already has done so, it is called "Is God A Moral Monster" by Paul Copan, it goes deep into passages that are hard to understand and puts them into context (language, history, culture etc..).

Highly recommend that book also.