Old Testament law...why would God do that?

[Momo-P]

With most of the Old Testament law I understand, but there's one thing someone told me that I don't really get (though truth be told, I don't even remember reading it even though I've read the Bible twice).

They said that people who were raped had to get married...now...like I said, I don't even remember this passage, but at the same time I have a feeling it was in there. So that said, exactly why would God do this?

I understand that sex bonds people emotionally, physically and spiritually, but to put myself in that box? If some guy snuck into my house and raped me, the last thing in the world I'd want is to see that guy, let alone MARRY him.

But then I got to thinking about it...last I knew, weren't rapists suppose to be stoned? I mean, how the heck could anyone be married anyways is the guy is killed off? I know there were safe zones, but in the end the guy would still be judged and I don't see many people saying "Ya, go force the victim to be put through more pain".

So...could anyone explain this to me? The most I could think up is that...to God, sex is for married couples only. So where as we see marriage as something that involves a huge ceremony and whatnot, He simply sees it as when two people are actually combinded. Going by that, the raped woman would technically be married to the man, but last I was aware, just because you're married doesn't even mean you'd have to be together. It'd just prevent her from being with someone else...though even that that'd seriously suck. Unless the guy did get stoned, then she'd be up for grabs (though back in those days, were there honestly any men who would take a raped woman? Heck, then again, how many raped women actually do want to be around men period after that?)

[K. Ayato]

If I remember correctly, someone told me that in Jewish culture, when a couple (meaning a man and woman) got married, they immediately had to consummate the marriage, with everyone watching! So, in the context of that culture, I believe then, that in the act of rape, that part of what made marriage what it is, the joining had already taken place.

However, you do raise a good point. In Deuteronomy (not sure of the chapter, but you can look it up), it makes it clearer. Should a young unmarried lady be raped, and cry out for help, but no one comes to her aid, then she still remains innocent, no one is put to death, and the man must marry her because now they have been bound together. Guess in a way that's also a form of punishment. BUT, should the same girl have been raped and this time DID NOT call out for help, then she is guilty and both her and the man would be put to death.

Hope this helps.

[Momo-P]

However, you do raise a good point. In Deuteronomy (not sure of the chapter, but you can look it up), it makes it clearer. Should a young unmarried lady be raped, and cry out for help, but no one comes to her aid, then she still remains innocent, no one is put to death, and the man must marry her because now they have been bound together. Guess in a way that's also a form of punishment. BUT, should the same girl have been raped and this time DID NOT call out for help, then she is guilty and both her and the man would be put to death.

Ya, I went and looked it up. Deuteronomy 22...

From the way the passage is presented, it clearly states the guy must marry the woman because he dishonored her, plus isn't allowed to divorce no matter what.

Granted I don't exactly see what kind of woman would be happy with that punishment, but I guess that's just another culture clash. Perhaps it's suppose to be honoring because A- People will never stop piting and comforting her because of what the loser did, and B- For the rest of his life he's going to have to work to support her whether he likes it or not.

Most guys who rape obviously don't want marriage, let alone being stuck with the woman and being forced to support her and respect her. If the guy even attempted to treat her badly, he'd probably end up getting killed by breaking another law or something...

[Prince Asbel]

I've debated atheists on this passage before. Given the context of the whole law, I don't think the woman forced to marry her rapist was necessarily raped. I mean, it may have been nonconsensual, but since the laws provide for those who cry out while they're raped, I doubt the victim in this case was supposed to be totally unwilling to have sex.

[Momo-P]

I've debated atheists on this passage before. Given the context of the whole law, I don't think the woman forced to marry her rapist was necessarily raped. I mean, it may have been nonconsensual, but since the laws provide for those who cry out while they're raped, I doubt the victim in this case was supposed to be totally unwilling to have sex.

I wondered that too...in the KJV, the passages read a little bit differently.

23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her](consenual)[/B]

25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. (nonconsenual)

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (???)

Maybe it means nothing, but why not word it the same way? The first one specifically says force, but the other one is just merely laying hold on her. I mean perhaps they did it to avoid repeativeness, but last I remember, the people in the Bible didn't really care if they repeated the same sentence a billion times. ^^;

But even all that said, I know I recently read another passage that made me question things. When David's daughter got raped by her half brother, he got real angry and told her to leave...but her reply was something like "No, sending me away would be worse than what you've done to me".

Now personally I don't understand that train of thought, but maybe that's just how women were back then? Like it was 10 times worse to be raped and left alone than to have a husband? I mean after all, weren't women who didn't bare children or left alone seen as something terrible?

[Prince Asbel]

(What a coincidence, I just studied that passage like just this week) Yeah, I agree. The culture back then gave rape victims a bad reputation. I think that's why they had men in the case I talked about in my previous post were made to marry their 'victims'. It said Tamar like lived in desolation, implying all her life. So she probably never got married. That's why I think she said what she did. Because now she was raped, she would also go on being unmarried and uncared for.

[Cap'n Nick]

It's kind of like the modern practice of child support, with a lot more support.

[Tsukuyomi]

This whole topic is just... *Shivers* O_O

Not sure about anybody else, but I wouldn't want to even take the slightest of glances at my rapist let alone marry him o.O I'm sorry, but I can do without that form of child support O_O

[Prince Asbel]

This whole topic is just... *Shivers* O_O

Not sure about anybody else, but I wouldn't want to even take the slightest of glances at my rapist let alone marry him o.O I'm sorry, but I can do without that form of child support O_O

Of course not. However, if you- like the victim I mention in my first post, didn't call for help and instead went along with it, you would not be so opposed to the idea. That's the point I was making. My view on these passages as a whole is that a rape victim would not be forced to marry her rapist if she truly did what she could to stop him and get away.

I Just wanted to clear that up real quick.

[Ashley]

Maybe it means nothing, but why not word it the same way?

Just a minor side-track here to answer this question: because the translators (note that word carefully) of the KJV, or any Bible for that matter, are not perfect. Translation is a really difficult process as it is; and under most views of "infallibility of the Bible," divine protection is extended to original authorship, not translators. You can't claim the wording of any one Bible is the one-and-only (well you can, but not legitimately).

The KJV is especially tricky because words change over time. For example, there is one psalm that reads, "let me preventh the dawn"--it doesn't mean the guy wanted to stop the sun rise; prevent used to mean the literal Latin: come (venti) before (pre).

I have not studied this passage at length, but it could be an instance where they deliberately chose to leave it vague, such as with the word baptizo. Baptizo is usually translated "baptize" because most translators do not want to give preferential treatment to a certain mode; hence it says, "John baptized Jesus" not "John dipped/sprinkled/infused Jesus." This could be a place where they did not want to give too much of an opinion over a passage, but again, I'm not completely sure that's the case.

Anyway, just a bit of a hermeneutics rabbit trail. Hope it helps. ^^

[ChristianKitsune]

And also...wasn't this JEWISH law and not necassarily God's law?

[Gabriel 9.0]

And also...wasn't this JEWISH law and not necassarily God's law?

Yes, that law and the ceremonial laws no longer apply. But are there for examples. I have to re-study a lot of though. However the TC's are a highly different story. Well I'm off to prepare for church. Good day/night to you all.

[Cap'n Nick]

It was Jewish law, but it was given by God. I think we've proven, though, that it doesn't represent the kind of bald-faced misogynistic brutality that its detractors would have us believe it does, nor does it attribute such faults to God's character. What it does show is a God willing to work through sin rather than ignore it and work with sinners rather than condemn them instantly and irrevocably as they deserve.

Our freedom to deal with rape differently in our own age shows a few things about God, too, things that I believe are very positive indeed.

[NekoChan_C]

I agree with Cap'n Nick... We all must remember that the thinking of men and women was wholly different than what we see today... Women were not just EXPECTED to be docile, submissive and congenial, as a whole, they were raised to be...
Additionally, honor and dignity were esteemed differently than today also. A woman who was raped but not married (such as Tamar) would only have sorrow and loneliness to look forward to. No children or husband to care for and support them in their old age, no one to vindicate them in hard times... They would be a burden to whomever they lived with from then on, since their honor had been ruined... However, if a woman were given in marriage to the man who "took" her, then she would likely have security of a husband, and a legacy of children to keep her heart... and provided the man wasn't so much a lecher as a man who made a grave mistake, it would be theoretically possible for her to find comfort and even love with her husband.
Different era, different circumstances, different beliefs.

[Momo-P]

Well I'd like to say thank you for everybody that brought stuff up...real helpful since this was a strange passage. Though just because I DID get ahold of my pastor, I would like to point out a few things he also highlighted.

At the time this law was given, according to him, it was very unlikey that a poor man would rape a girl. In fact, it was actually much more likely that a wealthy man would go after the daughter of a poor family. As such, the whole "being forced to take care of her" deal was heavily in relation to this.

If I remember right, it was kind of like...the poor man wouldn't rape her because he couldn't afford to (nor would he want to because she would be more at his level), where as the rich man COULD afford it...but just like the rich people today, who WANTS to be forced to take care of anyone?

If anything the law prevented rape more than anything. That's like some rich college kid raping a girl. Can you imagine how much he'd hate it if you denied him marriage and then forced him to support her for the rest of his life? I can't see any guy being happy with that.

Plus he mentioned how family was very important back then. Like...it was a BIG DEAL for the family to stay together and for the child to know his father. For the dad to be killed or taken away would've been worse not only family-wise, but then the girl wouldn't be taken care of...and like most of us know, how many men back then wanted a non-virgin girl? Honestly the girl was in more trouble if the guy was taken away...I mean really, are even rapists today killed? Last I knew most of them are only put in jail unless the charges are serious, but in the end...it definitely boiled down to culture.

He also apparently said it not only had to do with culture, but specifically the Jewish culture. I imagine if this case had happened with a foreign man or something, the charges would be different (especially since God didn't want them mixing with the other nations).

So...ya. *looks up* Man I ramble...but just wanted to at least say what extra info I did find out. Didn't feel right NOT spreading the news. XD

Another thing to think about is how painfully dishonored the man would've been back then. I mean...women were considered "second class". If the man is only being forced to marry her because he dishonored her (so he's basically marrying her in order to restore her honor), then...ya. That's like below second class. I don't think too many guys would've wanted that...

[Prince Asbel]

Well, I found what you and your pastor had to say interesting. I'll probably refer back to this thread if I ever want to refresh myself in explaining this passage.