# OT Judiciary law concerning rape.



## Dan.... (Jan 12, 2007)

> http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl2.htm#rape1
> 
> According to Deuteronomy 22:28-29. a virgin female who was not engaged to be married and who was raped was required to marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. Most women would probably find it difficult to develop a love bond with the man and thus would have to submit to marital sexual activity against her will. That is, she had to accept being continually raped after she was married.
> 
> A man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his new father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. That payment would compensate the woman's father for the loss in value of one of his possessions: his daughter.



How do we answer this type of an argument?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 12, 2007)

Dan.... said:


> How do we answer this type of an argument?



Make the opponent justify the assertion that rape occurred.

CT


----------



## Saiph (Jan 12, 2007)

> Deu 22:28 `When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,
> Deu 22:29 then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.



Is _TAPAS_ rape ? ?




> Hebrew Word: tapas
> Strong's Cross Reference: 8610
> Definition: catch, handle, lay hold.
> 
> ...



Or _ hazaq_ in verse 25?


----------



## Dan.... (Jan 12, 2007)

Thanks. I guess I just assumed that since verses 28-30 follow verses 25-27, then it must also be rape as 25-27 are. (The writer of the article must have assumed the same).


----------



## Saiph (Jan 12, 2007)

I hope one of the hebrew scholars here on the board checks my theory on that though. I am guessing based on the TWOT.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 12, 2007)

The context suggests "seduction," not rape. Terrible translations have influenced bad ethical teaching in this area. Ironically, both Greg Bahnsen and Meredith Kline agree that the context is seduction, not rape. That would make more sense, given the heinousness of rape. Honestly, are we really saying taht a woman should marry the guy who brutalized her and terrorized her? But if you read it that a young man couldn't keep his pants zip, then it makes far more sense. 

Go to Covenant Media Foundation, look for some such article on sexual immorality, and read it. Bahnsen gives NUMEROUS exegetes who read it as "seduction," not rape.

I would also add that those who deny any form of judicial continuity in the penal sanctions cannot give a rationally defensible, non-arbitrary punishment for crimes such as this. Relegating penal sanctions to the Noahic covenant doesn't work. But that moves off topic...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 12, 2007)

Note the parallel passage: Ex. 22:16-17
Exo 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 
Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. 

In both cases, the notion of seduction or _potential_ seduction is present. It's patent in the Ex. passage; in the Deut. passage the language puts a strong element of *blame,* not license, on the offending male. Reading the text as though "seizing" was something positive is prejudicial to ancient Hebrew sensibility. Its an obvious aggressive act, note its use in warfare texts.

In the Exodus passage, the emphasis is on patriarchical responsibility for his daughter. He is not under _obligation_ to marry the girl off to this scoundrel, but in any case, the man must at minimum pay a fine. But because the sex was (or is presumed) consentual, and the woman was not betrothed, the law was lenient, the father did not have to be bereaved of his daughter, and consequently the seducer's life was not forfeit either. But in any case, it was the father who decided whether or not to let the girl go to be with this man, it wasn't the man's choice. Nor was it his choice to pay the bride-price, wife or no wife.

Now to the Deuteronomy passage. The focus is not on the _patriarch's_ rights, but on the _seizer's_ obligations, as well as the woman. Note that they are FOUND together. The implication is that they are _discovered_ although they have hidden their tryst (or trysts). His FINE is specified, as well as a further penalty (assuming he was given leave to marry her, in harmony with the Ex. passage)--he may not divorce the woman under ANY circumstances.

Just the idea that the OT codified kidnapping and rape is ludicrous to begin with, as is obvious from other laws in the same code. It shows the lengths some idiots will go to paint Hebrew society as brutish, as opposed to sophisticated. What kind of Jehovah-fearing (or simply loving) father would consent to such an arrangement? It was the opposite--societies without laws--that made women or children chattel. Hebrew society was notable for comparative respect of their women in the ANE (ancient near-east), just like Christianity also elevated women.

This type of argumentation against the justice of Hebrew society is on the same scholarly level as phrenology and astrology.


----------

