http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html
Question: "Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?"
Let's keep reading to find out shall we?
"Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often pointed to by atheists, skeptics, and other Bible attackers as evidence that the Bible is backwards, cruel, and misogynist, and therefore, not the word of GOD."
I can understand why
"Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reads, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
I find it interesting that it says HE can never divorce her. It is highly probable that he wouldn't even want to. Why not stick around and torture her further?
"At first glance, this passage seems to command that a rape victim must marry her rapist. Is that the correct interpretation of the text, and if so, how is that not horribly unfair to the woman?"
If that is the true meaning of the passage, then it most DEFINETLY is.
"First, it is important to recognize the preceding context."
Agreed. Context is key.
"Deuteronomy 22:22 commands the death penalty for adultery; both the man and the woman are to be put to death."
By modern standards, that isn't exactly an improvement. That's not to say that modern standards are always right. I am just stating that if you are trying to convince people that the bible is not outdated for our time, you are doing a bad job.
"Deutoronomy 22: 23-24 commands the death penalty for both the man and the woman in an instance of a man having sex with a woman who is betrothed (engaged). It seems to be speaking of consensual sex, since the woman does not cry out for help."
WOW, just WOW. So what if she isn't engaged? Is it still a crime? This all goes back to patriarchal control and the archaic attitude of rape being an affront to the men in the family who "own" the women. And cry out? What do you mean by that? How much of a struggle does she have to put up? And what if she is unconscious? What if she is too frightened to fight back?
" Deuturonomy 22:25-27 seemingly commands the death penalty for a man who “rapes” a woman who is betrothed."
Not comfortable at all with you putting rape in paranthesis. And I agree that rapists deserve death. And for the record, I don't think the woman has to be betrothed for it to be a crime.
"Second, it is important to understand that the Hebrew words used in Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28 do not necessarily indicate rape."
That is certainly a relief. But why didn't they make that clear then?
"In verse 25, the Hebrew word chazaq is used, and it essentially means “seize,” or “take hold of."
Sounds like rape to me.
"In verse 28, a different Hebrew word taphas is used, and while it has a very similar meaning to chazaq, it is not the same word."
The case against this not being rape apologist is not looking good.
"In both verses 25 and 28, the Hebrew word shakab is used, and while it literally means “lie down,” it is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse. So, both verses 25 and 28 describe a man seizing and having sex with a woman."
Which would be rape nincompoop!
"While this is a possible description of rape, it does not explicitly refer to rape."
See previous post. And the fact that we even have to discuss whether or not this scripture is condoning rape is hideous and very telling.
"Also, the differences in the Hebrew words between Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28, could be interpreted as verse 25 referring to rape, with verse 28 referring to consensual sex."
Why would they be talking about two different subjects?
"Further, in other Old Testament passages that refer to rape, different Hebrew words are used (Judges 19:25, 20:5; 2 Samuel 13:14, 32; Zechariah 14:2)."
Fair enough.
"Third, we should not read the modern image of a violent rape into Deuteronomy 22:28-29."
The frick!?!! What is that supposed to mean? Now I know where the "forcible rape" abortion bill almost passed in congress this year came from. And only recently has date rape even started to be acknowledged. In many countries it still isn't both legally and culturally.
"The passage gives very few details in regards to what is being described. All it describes is a man seizing a woman and having sex with her."
That is ALL it describes? Even if that was "all" it described, that would be enough jackass!!
"To automatically assume that it was a violent encounter with the man brutally attacking the woman is not biblically supportable."
Rape IS a violent encounter period!! It is a violent encounter because it is taking control of a woman's body and life in an invasive and traumatic manner. And what about the instances of rape where it IS physically violent? Does this still apply?
"It could just as easily be describing a man forcing a woman, with whom he was romantically involved but not betrothed, to have sex with him before she was willing/ready. While that would still be rape, there are definitely different degrees of rape and different amounts of violence that occur in connection with rape."
Irrelevant. Rape is rape. To say there are different degrees of rape is stupid and heinous. And even if it wasn't as violent as it could be, making her marry him is still wrong.
"In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the rape."
From my research into middle eastern culture, I can see why she would. She must have been soo desperate. I have read that passage. It is horrible. I always felt so bad for Tamar. And whether or not she wanted to marry him doesn't mean she should have married him and it sure as hades doesn't justify forcing her to. And don't tell me that there weren't rape victims back then that didn't fight this crap.
"Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized."
And in your backwards caveman existence, a woman's purity is still of utmost importance. Hence the purity ball tradition. But that is a blog for another time.
"It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her."
I think the whole terminology of virgin needs to be gotten rid of. And this just goes to show how you view women. Especially if she had been raped? Why would the fact that she had carnal knowlede against her will make a difference? It all goes back to rape culture. And the fact that women are having difficulty finding husbands because of "lack of virtue" is a fault on the society not the women.
"It seems that Tamar would have rather married Amnon than live desolate and single the rest of her life, which is what happened to her."
Devastating. Absolutely devastating. And how many more "Tamars" do there have to be before our global society wakes up and starts valuing women for being themselves and not judging them on their sexual history?
"So, if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is interpreted to mean that an un-betrothed rape victim must marry her rapist, it could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable."
Screw that!!!! Women in many countries are STILL being forced to marry rapists because they still adhere to that stupid viewpoint. A viewpoint I have VERY little doubt you hold as well.
"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."
It is still like that around the world. And those of us who give a crap are working to change that. Join us won't you?
"It should also be noted that the Old Testament nowhere records a rape victim being forced to marry her rapist. "
Literally, thank GOD for that.
"Even if that is the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the Bible nowhere records the command being enforced."
What is the point of making a command that won't be enforced anyway?
"Further, if a rape victim being forced to marry her rapist is the correct interpretation, it must be viewed in light of the culture of the time."
I agree that historical context is key. That is my point though. If we are going to study scripture, we must understand if it was for a specific time and people, if it was truly meant at all in the way we are perceiving it.
"In the case of Tamar, she would rather have married her rapist than remain single the rest of her life. Reading modern Western societal mores into ancient Israel warps the meaning of the passage."
I love how you refer to it as western. Which brings me back to my point. Since this behavior is still practiced around the world, do you condone it today? And it isn't social mores. It is basic decency. Please learn it.
"Lastly, if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is interpreted as referring to rape, it clearly requires restitution from/punishment for the man who rapes a young woman that is not betrothed. "
A flimsy punishment at that. It pays off the father for his "property damage" and simply passes the woman of as chattel to her next owner.
"That punishment consisted of two parts: he must pay the woman’s father fifty shekels of silver and he must marry and support the woman for the rest of her life."
What about putting him in jail? How about that What about an apology? And NOBODY better try to put a monetary price tag on me!!
"Fifty shekels of silver was a very substantial fine as at that time a shekel was a measurement of weight and not an actual coin. Some scholars believe it could have represented as much as 10 years of wages for the average person."
Do you even listen to yourself? You are trying to justify forced marriage based upon monetary compensation. Get a grip!!! I don't give a rats nutsack how much money the jerk would be forced to pay. It would still be wrong.
"The fact that a man was in any way punished for rape was revolutionary for that period of time in history."
Progress is slow I will acknowledge that. Thankfully progress doesn't stop. Since that passage was written we have made even MORE progress. Like not making victims marry their assailants for instance. I am also curious if this punishment is STILL in place.
"No other ancient legal system punished rape to anywhere near the degree outlined in Deuteronomy 22:22."
And what does that tell you? That women have and continue to be viewed as chattel. But no matter how "revolutionary" this was for its time period, it fell and continues to fall unacceptably short.
"While it is unrealistic to say that because of this command rape never occurred, hopefully the severity of the punishment was a strong deterrent to the exceedingly evil act of rape. "
Hopefully? Yeah, go look at the countries where this type of crap still occurs and tell me if rape is rare there. And the only way to deter rape is to form a society that doesn't encourage or condone it. Do you do that?
"So, back to the question at hand: Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist? While that is a possible, perhaps even likely, interpretation of the passage, it is not the only possible interpretation. "
I agree that scripture has different interpretations. I have my own beliefs about certain passages and the BIBLE itself. I get chills over your admission that it is the likely interpretation.
"Even if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does command a rape victim to marry her rapist, it is crucial to remember that such a fate, as difficult as it would be, was, at least for some, much better than the alternatives."
It wouldn't be difficult. I think the word you are looking for is abusive. And at least for some? What about the ones it wasn't better for Are they collateral damage?. And what exactly constitutes some? And once again, if this was really from GOD and not tained by human minds, why not just go ahead and speak out against rape culture period? I also find it kind of interesting that to my knowledge there are no passages that directly admonish men not to do the raping in the first place.
You FAIL!!
No comments:
Post a Comment