Why does the Bible say a raped woman MUST marry her rapist as a punishment on HIM ?

Question

"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 must give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife forever; because he hath gone unto her..." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)


Who is getting punished ??

.

Answer 1

Deuteronomy 22:25But 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. 26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Don't you love how people pick and choose the passages they post, ignoring the context and even the passages that answer their questions?

Here it is in plain language you can understand:

23-29

If you get caught humping when you are dating, the two of you get married. Pay the girls father and then support her. The guy don't get to treat her badly or divorce her.

If a guy grabs a woman for sex and she goes with him willingly kill the both of them, because they are sex freaks and will turn the whole world into sex freaks.

If a guy rapes a woman, kill the guy.

Answer 2

This is not talking about rape, vs. 25 does.

Deu 22:25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:

This passage is talking about sex outside of marriage. If a man and woman have sex, they are considered as good as married and the man had to pay the father for the offense. And, of course, it had to be witnessed by two or three people, according to Jewish law in order for this law to take effect. But it is irrelevant since we do not live by the Mosaic law. Christians are under grace, not law.

Answer 3

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. 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? This issue is actually addressed in two passages, both of which are below:

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."

Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this—he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him!).

Also note that "he may not divorce her all his days" – this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (restated more clearly in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) allowed for divorce, but only in the case of sexual immorality (the word "uncleanness" refers to this and was translated as such in the LXX). This man now may not divorce his wife even for this reason, but is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does.

But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.

The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says.

Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist. However it is plausible that there could be circumstances in which a father would choose to have his daughter marry a rapist. 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 (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized. 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. 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 (2 Samuel 13:20). So Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. 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. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule.

Also note that the penalty for having sex with an unbetrothed virgin is completely different from the penalty for sex with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is adultery and was to be punished by the death of both if consensual, or the death of the man if it was rape (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html#ixzz3fGSd9w5d

Answer 4

Well in those days women were given to men they didn't know all the time, by there own fathers. anyway. It would be an interesting concept to face everyday someone you wronged like that. I would guess Gods intention would be for the man to eventually ask forgiveness and love the women and for the women to give forgiveness and love the man. Although the story didn't necessarily mean it was rape. Could have just been two people caught but they both consented.

Answer 5

Well that's rape OR just a one night stand apparently. Given the status of women at that period I'm leaning towards rape.

But yeah. I've heard the reason for this is trying to keep strict birth records. If he rapes her and she has a kid they need to know who the father is exactly.

Rape back then wasn't exactly what it is now either. Rape has less to do with sexual desire and more with power and control over a woman. Back then women had no power and men always had full control. Rape most likely wasn't as violent of an act back then. Not saying it was right but it was different.

Answer 6

"If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, Deu_22:28, Deu_22:29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of."

But we are not under that law any more. That law was given to the Israelites to obey and doesn't directly apply to us today.

Answer 7

That scripture does not refer to rape or rapist. The phrase "and lay hold on her" means make her fall for him. It does not mean use of force. The scripture in its entirity means those that have premarital sex should marry, and those that are caught must seek forgiveness from the womans father by giving him money to compensate for the loss of services of his daughter.

If in those times a man was found raping another man's daughter, the father would be within his right to kill the rapist.

Answer 8

Haha, look at all the cult members going nuts to change the wording. You will do anything to defend your indoctrination, talk about stockholm syndrome... you actually think it was your idea to believe in it. so anyway yeah its clearly talking about rape there, sorry that you can't stand it.

Sorry guys, that entire book is made up from older stories, that alone is enough to make a sane person leave the religion.

ITS PROVEN TO BE STOLEN, EVERY STORY RESEMBLES AN OLDER STORY FROM ANOTHER CULTURE.

Answer 9

It is not a punishment. It is compensation.

In those days, virgins were worth money. Apparently 50 shekels as of the time of writing. So if you banged some dude's hottie daughter, you were stealing the goods. You owed him the price he was hoping to get for her. And since you have now paid for her, you can have her if you want her (she has no say in the transaction).

Answer 10

The situation described in this passage is not rape. It's what men and women have been doing forever...having sex outside of marriage. God simply says , do the right thing and marry the girl. It's not punishment.