If a woman was raped, she had to marry her raper?

Question

what do you think of that ancient rule, regardless of it applying today today (since it most assuredly does not...)

How was that fair? I mean we know in the Bible, adultery is all wrong and you should only have sex with your husband...but the choice is completely taken out of your hand. Why was it fair to punish the woman just because her innocence was stolen?

bball:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If 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; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

though I'm sure good christians will find that it meant consent...but 'lay hold on her' clearly means forcing her.

dances, if one is forced..they cannot back out. Even if the other person refuses...if one is forced....well.

Answer 1

Just another example confirming the topic of Christopher Hitchen's new book, "God Is NOT Great": Religion poisons everything. It takes a really sick, twisted, human mind to think up such a depraved idea as making the rape victim marry the rapist.

Answer 2

Have you ever noticed life often isn't fair? It isn't fair that a man would force his will on a woman and take something from her that never belonged to him in the first place.
I could never understand this scripture for the longest time and thought it was really cruel for the victim. But if you look at this scripture more closely, that's not what it says at all. The word used in that particular scripture means to manipulate. And I believe what it's really saying is that any man that manipulates and takes advantage of a woman sexually and isn't married to her must marry her and pay the proper dues. I believe God viewed this as the equivalent of rape because the man was taking something without commitment and sexual relations were only to be between a married man and woman.
Please note the other scripture that talks of a man raping a woman in the field and the penalty being death for the man. Also note the scripture that talks of a man raping a woman in the city and if the woman didn't try to resist, both the man and woman being put to death.
These scriptures look like they contradict one another until you really understand the meaning.
Also, if a rape victim was required to marry her assailant than why wasn't Tamar required to marry Amnon in 2 Sam.13 & 14? King David failed to enact the death penalty on Amnon and the result was devastating.

Answer 3

Women had no choice in the matter since they were property.

http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Evil-Ridiculous-Disgusting-Bible-Verses

Rape is not punishable as a crime in the Bible. If a man rapes a married or betrothed woman, he is punished for the crime of adultery. If the victim fails to cry out loudly enough while she is raped, it is assumed that she is accomplice to adultery and she is killed as well.

Deuteronomy 22:23-27 - If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man rapes a virgin who is not betrothed—that is, who does not belong to another man—there is no punishment. The rapist pays his victim's father the brideprice and marries her. He cannot divorce her (apparently God thought this was for the girl's benefit). Again, rape is not punished at all: this law essentially states, "you break it, you buy it."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "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."

Note that the 50 shekels the rapist pays for his victim's brideprice is half of what a man must pay to a woman's father if he unjustly slanders her virginity, per Deuteronomy 22:15. God felt that sullying a father's honor by accusing his daughter of having unmarried sex is worth twice as much monetary compensation as raping his daughter.

Answer 4

I can't believe so many people are saying that the Bible doesn't say it...actually, no I DO understand why...I was a Christian for 17 years and read these verses time and time again, never getting the meaning until I left my religion. You get taught to ignoring those kind of things.

The scriptures in which this is written are Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

I was raped so this does not go down too well.

Answer 5

Read it again ... if i remember it correctly, she had the option of marrying a man who took her virginity. If the marriage was refused, then the man still had to pay her family a dowry irregardless. The man had no choice in the matter.

===edit==

I think that "Reverent Reflections" (below) has a good point -- one that I heard before.

I'm willing to give Moses the benefit of a doubt here, since we were not there, and we don't know what social conditions that he faced, or what problems that he was trying to solve. I have never liked arm-chair quarterbacks second guessing the actions of people who live in different times as if we know what it was like to live in the harsh, uncivilized deserts of the ancient Middle East and would have done differently if we were there.

Answer 6

Back then, if a woman was not a virgin (by her choice or not), it would be near impossible for her family to procure a husband for her. So, I guess, instead of the rapist merely taking his pleasure and leaving her behind without a second thought, he was forced to take responsibility, marry, and provide for her.

Certainly not the ideal situation by any means, but in a way, I guess this law was for the benefit of the woman since she most likely wouldn't be able to find a husband to provide for her by any other means?

Answer 7

I've asked this question before. Basically people say "that isn't a rule for modern day" or "hey, it was a super punishment for the rapist... imagine being forced to honor and obey your victim" or "back in those days, any kind of sex before marriage taints the woman, it was the only way to ensure she was still respectable within the community".

I never though ANYONE would try to justify something so horrible.

Do these sound like adequate justifications to you?

Me neither.

Answer 8

I believe you have it a little bit backward. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, it is the MAN who is forced to marry a woman he has raped; he is also prohibited from divorcing her (as opposed to the usual situation where a man could divorce a woman at will). It says nothing about what the woman in question must do; she can still refuse the marriage - we Jewish women have always had that power, at least de jure, if not de facto.

Answer 9

Your decree in Deuteronomy has no longer something to do with saying that a raped lady must be compelled into marriage.In conflict many adult males took women people as better halves and slaves as part of their booty.The captive lady could or won't have been raped.....after all this variety of difficulty a woman could placed up for concern of her very own existence I extremely have a extra valuable representation the suited located tale to respond to you would be in Samuel 2:13..The rape of Tamar word..... a million.She(Tamar) requested Ammon to bypass and ask David for her hand in marriage extremely than raping her..he declined 2.After raping her she requested him to no longer chase her and discredit her now that he had(raped her) ,provided that replaced into worse and actual to human instinct (the two out of guilt or loss of actual love) he refused to apologise or by some ability salvage what he had completed by arbitrary marriage. Now in a classical occasion of Jewish regulation being broken ...replaced into it enforced in this experience...the respond is a sturdy NO! word additionally David learnt of what transpired and replaced into very offended yet in no way compelled Ammon to marry Tamar.Amon lived a 2 finished years on my own interior of David's court docket he replaced into no longer even banished. He replaced into killed by Absalom's trick.... So there you have the juxtaposition of the regulation and human emotions.it somewhat is rather much like how Jesus mentioned it may be extra valuable for clergymen to proceed to be celibate.He did no longer expressedly forbid married clergymen yet recommended against it.He understood that the urge could conflict with vocation and so left it as much as individual determination. interior a similar way the decree you're speaking approximately isn't binding,people decrease than frequent circumstances can not stick to by with it.after all rape is a criminal offense and actual merits punishment so the decree replaced into meant to decrease rape interior of particular parameters the suited it ought to and that replaced into no assure.

Answer 10

Remember that women were pretty much property in those days. The rapist still had to pay the girls father for her. 50 shekels I believe.

What a loving thing.