God's Plan for Rape

Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
- Lev. 18:14-16
My Religion prof pointed out that the reason repeatedly given in this passage for not having sex with a female relative is that it would bring dishonor on the male to whom she belongs. Of all the reasons not to have sex - consensual or otherwise - with your mother, the one given (ostensibly) by God is that it would dishonor your father. Not you. Not her. Her husband.

It occurred to me that this might explain why a Biblical prohibition on premarital sex is difficult to find. (Maybe I should have another contest.) Apparently the violation of a woman is less deplorable if she has no male lord to be dishonored by it. Indeed, Deut. 22 says that a man who rapes a betrothed woman must die, but a man who rapes a woman who is not betrothed must pay her father the bride-price and marry her. And they can never be divorced.

If I understand this correctly, a man who rapes a betrothed girl has committed a far greater sin than a man who rapes a girl who is not yet betrothed. (Bear in mind that in this society everyone gets married, and does so as soon as they're physically able to bear children. So a girl who is not yet pledged to be married is probably younger than one who is. Probably prepubescent.) Following the logic of Lev. 18, it seems that in the first case the rapist brings disgrace to the girl's betrothed, for which he must die, whereas in the second case he has sinned against the girl's father (who had the right to choose his daughter's husband) for which he must pay the father a pound of silver. This second sin is not a serious one because he has not stolen what is another man's, but merely claimed it for himself - albeit in a somewhat unscrupulous manner.

I'm not going to dwell on what I think about forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, but the word "abhorrent" comes to mind. In fact I can't think of many things forbidden in the Bible that strike me as so cruel and reprehensible as what is commanded here.

I've heard the argument that the ancient Near East was a brutal and barbaric place, and that the Mosaic Law was far less brutal and barbaric than anything else at the time, and that it would have been impossible in that context to introduce a 21st century - or even first century - legal code, so God just did the best he could. I can accept this argument, to a point. (I'm not a Kantian.) I can accept that ancient Jews may not have been ready for the concept of gender equality. And I might be able to accept that God would permit slavery in this context (I'm not entirely sure) so maybe I can accept that God would permit women to be treated as property. But I cannot accept that God would order rape victims to marry their attackers.

Bear in mind that I've only been thinking about this for a few hours, and I haven't really done any research yet. So if you have some insight in this matter please let me know. Either way, I'd like to hear what you think of this. Are you as sickened by this law as I am? Can you worship a god who wrote it?

16 comments:

Filth- Man said...

I don't know enough about the mosiac rape laws to offer an opinion. I think "fornication" is the Bible word used to describe all sex outside of marriage. (If I am wrong, and original meaning does not prohibit premarital sex, please let me know.)

David Hengen said...

i've heard that same idea before from another guy. it's definitely interesting but i'm going to have to go with filth-man on this one. i don't have alot of knowledge in this area. i never questioned what i was taught (i.e. sex before marriage = bad), but that isn't a very good position to be in.

it's interesting, that's for sure.

Lucid Elusion said...

Here's a perspective that you won't hear every day--and perhaps has become less than culturally approved. As far as the Biblical precepts & statutes of sexual relations & marriage goes, it seems pretty clear that God makes no distinction in His own sight between "marriage" and sexual relations between members of the opposite sex. As soon as the two become one flesh, as it were, they have become one flesh in the sight of God. The whole legal marriage dealie is an institution designed to support & protect such a unifying act, which is why (I think) the raped woman and the raping man are commanded to marry. Under God, they have already been married (though, not with the woman's consent) since the man took the girl by force. As it stands, then, I do not believe that sex can happen before real marriage. Biblically, sex is marriage. The legal mumbo-jumbo is there to recognise such a union, not to form such a union. Furthermore, I believe that such a perspective holds even today: sexual relations equate to a marriage relationship. The legal "institution" of marriage is nice & it is good as a recognising factor, but beyond this, a marriage license means very little. In fact, you can be truly married without at all being legally married. It's one of the reasons why I think the government should get out of the business of "marrying" people & offering such licenses. Now, as this comment is going, I've provided no supporting background textual bases (mostly because I'm just too lazy right now, though the passages to exist & they are not isolated cases) & because of that, I think I should keep this comment as short as I can, without ranting on & on about political issues ;). So yeah. That's my take, like it or not.


LE.

Filth- Man said...

If I remember what I heard somewhere correctly... In the days of Mosiac Law, a girl was "taken care of" by marriage- an unmarried woman was screwed, Therefore, the law was meant to make sure the raped girl is "taken care of" (no one else wuld marry her if she was no longer a virgin".)

Am I comfortable with this law? Not at all. However, unless we're going to believe that God, or Moses, made up laws out of pure sadism (a scary thought indeed) that's the best reason I can think of. Oh, LE's got a point too... the sex=marriage thing is pretty Biblical.

Filth- Man said...

Frick, my comment is poorly written. Sorry. I am very tired.

Jacob said...

Very interesting, LE. I'd like to see your textual support, of course, but your theory makes a lot of sense, based on what I know. And I imagine it would be pretty handy for condemning premarital sex. (Good thing I didn't offer another million.)

That being said, I hold to my point that forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is a horrible solution to the problem. Supposing that sexual union is the sole requirement for marriage "in the eyes of God", I would argue that a union brought about in this matter ought to be annulled. Deuteronomy permits a man to divorce his wife if he "dislikes" her, but stipulates that a raped woman can never be divorced by her attacker. To me, this is too much to be excused by cultural considerations.

As Filth-Man points out, some will argue that it is better for a woman to be forever married to the man who raped her than to be reduced to prostitution or begging. I'm not sure if this is true, but in any case, I think it's a false dilema. Remember that God is writing the laws of a new society here (or so the story goes), and that he includes provisions for widows and orphans. Surely it would be better to treat a raped woman as a widow, or make some other provisions for her, than to force her to live with a sexual predator.

By the way, if marriage (i.e. sexual union) is such a serious thing to God, why can it be terminated if the man is displeased with his wife? By merely writing a certificate of divorce, a man can rend this most sacred union, and condemn his wife to a life of begging or prostitution (which some argue is worse than living with a rapist). But God makes a special exception for rape-marriages - for some reason this union must never be broken. Can someone explain that one to me?

Filth- Man said...

I wonder if the translation of this verse is under dispute, because in my "New Living Translation" Bible the "engaged girl" law refers to rape adn the punishment is death for the man, while for the "unengaged girl" the crime is sex (not rape) and the "punishment", as you say is "you have to marry the girl and you're not allowed to divorce her".

Jacob said...

For what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of the NLT. Most translations will fudge things a little to suit their biases (the NIV included) but the NLT seems to do this more than most.

There is no Hebrew word that means "rape" exactly, perhaps because the significance of rape depends on the marital status of the girl. The NIV uses the word to translate "force to lay with", or simply "force". The Hebrew does use slightly different words for "force" in Deut. 22:25 (engaged woman) and 28 (not engaged) - a distinction which many translations maintain (eg. KJV) - but they both mean something along the lines of catch/force/take hold of. Every translation I could find uses either the word rape or words that mean rape (eg. "seizes her and lies with her") in v. 28, with the exception of the NLT.

Filth- Man said...

Thanks for clearing that up.

The NLT does indeed "paraphrase" a lot but it's the only Bible I have right now.

Chuck said...

So far, I see that it looks like nobody has mentioned that the father of the girl could refuse her to be married to the perpetrator (see the reference at Exodus 22:16-17).

Jacob said...

Yes, quite true. One hopes that the father would often have exercised this option. But since that would essentially mean providing for a disgraced, unwed, childless daughter for the rest of her life, I suspect that few ever did.

Again, this shows that women in this time and culture were very much the possessions of their husbands or fathers. The father could do with his raped daughter as he wished - either care for her, or turn her over to her attacker (and receive the bride-price).

Just to be clear, I don't denounce Moses for failing to recognize women as full equals and create laws for sex and marriage that conform to 21st century egalitarian ideals. But of all the possible ways of dealing with the horrible reality of rape in his culture, I have to think he (or He) could have come up with something better than forcing victims to live with their rapists.

Chuck said...

As the daughter could have married someone else at a later time, it would not essentially mean that the father provided for her for the rest of her life.

Jacob said...

Yes, the daughter could be married, but who would marry her? I'm not an expert on the social norms of ancient Israel, but my understanding is that the odds of this happening were pretty slim.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I find it barbaric, sadistic and abhorrent, and no, I can't worship a god who could condone such behavior, any more than I could worship a god who countenances genocide (1 Samuel 15), who fools his most faithful servant into believing that he must murder his own child (Genesis 22), who allows his creations to burn forever in horrible torment (numerous references to hell throughout the New Testament), or who accepts the brutal murder of small children (Nahum 3:10).

janiceam said...

My understanding is that the Mosaic Law was from God and not Moses directly. He was just the mediator of the Law Covenant which the Israelites agreed to follow. It was not God's purpose for men to divorce their wives but because of their hard-heartedness as Jesus said, Moses prescribed for the husband to give their wife a certificate of divorce. However if they divorced except on the ground of fornication they committed adultery and left their wives open to fornication as well and he would be judged ultimately by God.

Also many laws given to the Israelites we do not understand except to say all God's laws are for the protection of society. I suppose the law to marry if one takes advantage of an unengaged woman could serve as a huge deterrent against premarital sex or rape itself if the potential attacker knew he would have to marry the victim and take care of her all his life. Although it does seem awfully cruel for a woman to have to marry her attacker if her father permitted it.

We must also understand from a Biblical standpoint, we are all imperfect and do not deserve life. However, because of God's love and mercy he allows us to live for a time.

God has the right as Creator and Supreme Sovereign of the universe, is obligated by justice to execute or authorize execution of the lawless (and their children) . to war against all obstinate ones who refuse to obey his righteous laws. God was therefore just in wiping out the wicked at the time of the Flood, in destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, and in bringing destruction upon Pharaoh's forces.

The Israelites also acted as God's executioners in the Promised Land to which he brought them against ungodly nations. God also used other nations to punish the Israelites in war or take them into captivity.

God has designated a war to end all wars and restore peace to earth in the future.

We may not understand all of God's laws or why he allows evil to exist in such a way, why he allows the earth to continue until now with all the human suffering but there may be many reasons we just don't understand. However, let us not give up faith and one last thought is that many descriptions cannot be taken literally. Jesus was in hell 3 days and 3 nights. Apparently it wasn't too hot for him.

QueenFox said...

Please excuse if it doesn't entirely convey my message. This is a late night post.

janiceam