[Editor's note: We here at Revelife know and understand that rape is a very sensitive topic, and we are in no way seeking to justify rape, nor are we seeking to make light of a very serious subject matter. We've featured this post because it provides those of us with understanding and knowledge of these scriptural passages the opportunity to explain them and maybe find a common ground between those who uphold the scripture and those who question it. With that in mind, we ask you to comment respectfully on this post, seeking only to find the truth in the matter rather than personal conflict. If you are unsure how to comment on this post, please read our Code of Conduct.]
Rape, the paramount of fears for many women, rears its ugly head in the Bible. Fortunately, God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under a few circumstances. Unfortunately, God permits the sexual violation of woman on more than one occasion. Even more unfortunately, the fine for committing one of the most heinous acts known to man (without God's permission) is only a pound of silver to her father and a forced marriage to the victim if she's not already engaged or married (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Yes, God's idea of justice for the female victim is to be horrendously punished again by being forced to marry her rapist. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it's certainly not a decision rendered by any court I'd like to be facing. If a man rapes an engaged virgin who doesn't cry loud enough to draw attention, the community should consider the attack consensual if it took place within the city. Thus, the "whore" must be stoned to death per God's instructions. It obviously doesn't matter if the woman is threatened or too frightened to scream because the law obviously makes no such exceptions. The man will be stoned to death as well, but not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but only because he "hath humbled his neighbour's wife" (
Deuteronomy 22:24). Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since it's all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the
husband is the one who is the victim of the attack.
As I previously mentioned, the Bible regrettably provides some situations in which rape is entirely permissible, even encouraged, by the Hebrew god. Recall the rule of marriage specifying how a man can force his daughter to marry and sleep with another man (Exodus 21:7-11). This in itself is completely reprehensible and rises to the level of rape if the woman is unwilling.
In Moses' war victory over the Midianites, God had previously commanded him to build an army and defeat the enemy. After doing this successfully, his army takes thousands of war prisoners. Moses then orders his army to kill the remaining men, boys, and woman who have already slept with a man, "but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31:17-18). If taking a human war trophy based solely on the prisoner's gender and sexual status isn't implied permission to commit rape, I honestly don't know what is. Even God gets 32 virgins as part of his spoils, but they are handed over to the priests for obvious reasons (Numbers 31:40-41).
The "women children" mentioned in the passage certainly included young girls. Some female inhabitants of the city had to have been several years away from puberty, but don't pretend these barbaric savages capable of killing defenseless women and children thought twice about waiting a few years for the girls to mature. So what eventually becomes of these foreign women kidnapped in battle?
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails. And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)"
What do you make of these scriptural references? How are we supposed to read and interpret them? Are these verses supposed to be taken at face value, or should they be read carefully? Does the God of the Bible truly permit rape?
True
Comments (140)
I'm so sick of reading posts like this. I'm sick of people parading their complete lack of knowledge of Christianity by pretending that the New Testament does not exist. There is a huge contrast between the Old and New covenant for a reason, which is to show how badly mankind is in need of a savior. The chaos of the Old Testament directly points to the need for Jesus in the New Testament. So you can't cherry pick the OT and say "Justify this," because the New Testament shows Jesus taking the punishment that the evil doers of the Old Testament deserved. Judgment vs. Grace is a big theme of the Bible. Until you understand that, you can't use the Old Testament to make Christianity out to be an evil religion.
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - But you can sure as hell make the Judeo-Christian God out to be a monster using it (which he is).
Whether or not the OT was replaced by the NT, that's irrelevant. The fact the OT laws were in place at all to begin with makes the Judeo-Christian God morally repulsive.
And don't even get me started on sacrificing YOUR OWN SON. That's more morally repulsive than the OT itself!
@An Atheist - You don't get to decide anything for God. Sorry.
@An Atheist - The OT isn't "replaced," it's fulfilled. Big difference. And much of the OT laws were cultural, not dictated by God. And it's not like Jesus went to the cross kicking and screaming, either. He was willing to die out of love.
@NightCometh@xanga - I truly admire your patience. I keep losing mine.
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - Revelife sure has interesting "reasons" for featuring this post. I don't think we'll ever find common ground with atheists haters of God regarding God's laws.
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - Excuses, excuses. Either the Bible is the "word of God" or it is not. So which is it? If the OT laws are cultural, that's not really the word of God, now is it? Catch-22, much?
@NightCometh@xanga - Which is why if God is exists and is anything like he is in the Bible, I'd rather be in hell away from him (further: if God is anything like Christians, I'd rather be in hell too), because he's disgusting.
@An Atheist - Sounds like you and God agree that you deserve hell.
@NightCometh@xanga - Your sad attempt at humor = epic fail.
@An Atheist - You're cheerfully creating a false criteria here. Suppose God tells Farmer Jones "Sow salt on thy field, and I will make it into raspberries." Does that mean that anyone who sows salt on his field today should get raspberries, and lack of raspberries means God is evil? I hardly think so. Context matters. Culture matters. Etc.
@An Atheist - I wasn't attempting humor. If you really hate the God of the Bible, then God's okay with sending you to hell. That's how it works.
When interpreting written material it is critical to understand the intent of the author. Since the author of the Bible is God and the author of this post is an atheist the result cannot be anything meaningful.
I am extremely surprised that the editors of Revelife would stoop so low as to publish a post clearly meant to mock sacred scripture.
@An Atheist - The Bible is the Word of God, yes, but it is also a story that has a context. That context is the culture it was written during, which means that that culture will show.
If you read the New Testament, you'll notice that a lot of Moses' Laws were abolished and replaced with better laws, more humane laws. The God of the Old Testament is incredibly, vividly different from the New Testament God, and part of this shows in his approach. The OT God tends to sit back, let people do whatever evils they may, and then punish. The NT interferes and offers alternatives. So at the time of the Old Testament, God just let this happen. He's not endorsing it, he's just letting humans be... human. It's sick, I know, but God is doing differently now. You can't really judge yesterday's behaviors by today's standards. Back then, this stoning behavior was perfectly moral.
Now on the topic of rape... This always bothers me, but why does no one ever bring up how Lot's daughters raped Lot? I mean, they got him so drunk he apparently couldn't make up for down or identify his daughters, and they just have sex with them in this state. It's horrible! I know that female victims of rape are far more common, but male examples DO exist and they shouldn't be covered up.
@NightCometh@xanga - OHHHHHHH. Snap!
@TheNewSeminarian - As we said in our disclaimer, we hope that those of you who have knowledge of the scripture will help shed light on where the author of this post may have misinterpreted or misunderstood. We never want to be seen as stooping to a new low; our intention in publishing this post and its subsequent discussion is to take a very puzzling portion of scripture, often quoted in retaliation to scripture and Christianity, and ask you, our wise and faithful readers, to help us explain it. If anything, we hope to see some good come out of this discussion, if possible.
Alright, let's make a deal not to respond to anonymous comments.
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - @GreekPhysique@xanga -
I agree with what you're saying here, but to the degree that the Old Testament law reveals something of the nature of God, I find laws like the ones described in this post to be somewhat troubling. I'm not sick of reading posts like this, because I think they are genuinely challenging to how we interpret scripture. We can argue that context is important, but then we still have to do the difficult work of putting this issue into context.
There is a good deal of logic in the policy that a man marry the woman he has raped. It's the same logic as "you break it, you bought it." In ancient near middle east society, an unmarried woman was consigned to poverty, and nobody would marry a woman who had been raped. To protect a woman from poverty, the law forces a man to marry the woman he has raped. It makes sense, but it's extremely disturbing from a modern standpoint.
I think that's valid. And I think atheists have a good case for rejecting Christian claims when they read the Old Testament, find something disturbing, ask Christians about it, and only get a response saying their question is against the rules.
Krisko, one must consider the "lesser of two evils" criterion. You're deliberately setting up an alternative universe where the choices are "sunshine and rainbows" or "marry your attacker." To truly blame God, you must construct a universe where you are sure that being forced to marry your attacker is worse than any other alternative. I do not have the latest cultural studies on the Middle East with me, and will return with some research. But to me, that would be a reason why God might have established such laws; if the fate of rape victims was so terrible that a forced marriage would actually somehow protect them from abandonment, persecution, or death.
@SirNickDon@xanga - What I mean by "sick of posts like these," I mean I'm sick of the posts that are intended to attack and mock Christianity. Had this been written by someone who genuinely wanted to understand why rape is mentioned in the OT, I could respect it. And the problem with many posts like these from atheists is that they forget there is a whole other section of the Bible that must be read to fully understand the Old Testament. I would never read half of the Koran and make bold claims about it if I haven't even finished it. I'd just look ignorant. The same thing applies here.
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - @NightCometh@xanga - Here come the thumpers, all set to deny and attack those with different views. I guess we're all going to their hell again for daring to point out the
inconsistencies, hypocrisy and contradictions in their religion. Pull something out of their holy text that makes them uncomfortable and watch the fangs come out. It's a cultural law! You're cherry picking! But it's all right to cherry pick the Old Testament if it suits them, like with creationists and homophobes. And nevermind that these were god's orders, no matter what came later. This was still "god's will" according to the very book you profess to follow. Whether he later changed his mind is irrelevant.
I'll tell you what, I'm going to allow my soldiers to rape you, after which you have two options- marry the guy who raped you or be stoned to death. Better pick one, because that's all you get. Next week, I'm going to change my mind. Rape is bad, we shouldn't do it. That makes me a good and loving general, doesn't it? That makes everything I did before okay, doesn't it?
You religious people who can't own up to the dark parts of your faith make me want to scream.
In a culture that blamed women for seducing their attackers, this law forced a man to provide for any woman he raped for the rest of her life and to give her a home and name (instead of what would have happened, which would have been everyone taking the man's side and considering the girl damaged goods). The whole community would know the situation, and the man would be forced to atone every day of the rest of his life. The girl's father and other men in the community would be watching his every move. Was it ideal for the girl? No, but it was more ideal than the other alternative--being forever outcast because she wasn't a virgin any more. This way, everyone knew the man was to blame, and he had to pay--forever. Men had multiple wives, so it's unlikely she would have spent much time alone with him after that, if any. She would have likely have been brought into a protective community of other women.
An unmarried woman in that culture normally wouldn't have gone out by herself-she would have been with male relatives or older women. For an act to take place within the city and not be noticed as rape would be highly unlikely unless it was actually consensual. That part of the law was meant to keep men from being unjustly treated, just as the other part was meant to keep women from being outcast.
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - I'm glad you found it funny.
And by the way you mention the Qur'an The Qur'an is every bit as sick as the Bible. I would know, I've read both....
Despite how our modern culture may look at these laws, they are actually a means of grace. The woman having to marry her attacker is meant to benefit the woman (and perhaps might seem like a punishment to the attacker!) After the woman had been raped in that culture, she probably would never find a husband. At least in the event she marries her attacker she has a husband. It obviously isn't a positive outcome, but it is better than being left to fend for her own for the rest of her life.
An interesting story in the bible that may shine some light on the subject is when one of David's sons rapes his step-sister (or was it half sister?), when he wants nothing to do with her after he had raped her she tells him that his abandoning her is worse than having raped her.
@Jal_Phoenix@xanga - Scream away, I'm glad that religion incites you to do something.
@Jal_Phoenix@xanga - Obvious troll is obvious?
@SirNickDon@xanga - Updated/expanded answer up. I think similar to yours in some ways.
@An Atheist - The Quran was the first example that came to mind. Substitute that with any holy book you like, my argument remains the same.