The Bible's view on rape?

Question

I was just going through the Bible and reviewing passages online. I came across quite a few versus that seem to support rape such as the one below. Using today's logic, I don't think anyone would think it would be acceptable for a rape victim to marry her rapist. I'm just wondering why the Bible would feel this is a logical position to take?

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Answer 1

It is amazing how different culture is over time. just one hudred years ago, if someone wore to the beach what people wear today, they would be either thrown in jail, or an asylum.

you are looking back literally thousands of years in that text. I dont think we can comprehend what the culture was like, and why this made sense. It was a civil law we are looking at. like the speed limit today, civil law changes. The law was not meant to be something you do as a rule, but usually to protect people. we see the law today doing the same thing, protecting and limiting the people for good. things would have been worse without this law, not better

Answer 2

This is a great question. I understand how you feel because, at first glance, this mandate looks really harsh - to force a girl who was raped to be with her rapist the rest of her life. And you're correct - in our society today, a girl marrying her rapist definitely would not be encouraged for obvious reasons. Here's how one Biblical reference explains Deuteronomy 22:23, 24:



*“In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.”—Deuteronomy 22:28, 29.



This was a case of pressured seduction and/or fornication. If an unscrupulous man felt at liberty to have sex relations with a virgin, she would be the primary loser. Besides the possibility that she might have an illegitimate child, her value as a bride was diminished, for many Israelites might not want to marry her once she was no longer a virgin. What, though, would discourage a man from taking liberties with a virgin? God’s “holy and righteous and good” Law would.—Romans 7:12.



The Mosaic code had a provision allowing a man to divorce his wife for certain reasons. (Deuteronomy 22:13-19; 24:1; Matthew 19:7, 8) But what we read at Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 shows that the option of divorce disappeared after premarital fornication. This, then, might cause a man (or a virgin woman) to resist a temptation to share in fornication. A man could not feel, ‘She is pretty and exciting, so I’ll have a good time with her even though she is not the sort I’d like to marry.’ Rather, this law would deter immorality by causing any would-be offender to weigh the long-term consequences of fornication—having to stay with the other party throughout his life.



The Law also lessened the problem of illegitimacy. God decreed: “No illegitimate son may come into the congregation of Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 23:2) So if a man who seduced a virgin had to marry her, their fornication would not result in an illegitimate offspring among the Israelites."



So, then, Jehovah God - whose thoughts are higher than ours as humans - had a very good reason for establishing the command found in Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 - that of protecting the violated woman and making the rapist pay for his actions. Today, this is not required of Christians, but the principle of that scripture still applies. The quoted reference work explains:



*"Granted, Christians live in a social setting that is different from that of the ancient Israelites. We are not under the decrees of the Mosaic Law, including this law requiring the marriage of two persons who engaged in such fornication. Nonetheless, we cannot feel that engaging in premarital fornication is an insignificant thing. Christians should give serious thought to long-term consequences, even as this law moved the Israelites to do so.



Seducing an unmarried person ruins that one’s right to enter a Christian marriage as a clean virgin (male or female). Premarital fornication also affects the rights of any person who might become the individual’s mate, namely, that individual’s right to marry a chaste Christian. Most of all, fornication must be avoided because God says that it is wrong; it is a sin. The apostle aptly wrote: “This is what God wills, the sanctifying of you, that you abstain from fornication.”—1 Thessalonians 4:3-6; Hebrews 13:4.



I hope this information is helpful to you.

Answer 3

“In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.”—Deuteronomy 22:28, 29.

This was a case of pressured seduction and/or fornication. If an unscrupulous man felt at liberty to have sex relations with a virgin, she would be the primary loser. Besides the possibility that she might have an illegitimate child, her value as a bride was diminished, for many Israelites might not want to marry her once she was no longer a virgin. What, though, would discourage a man from taking liberties with a virgin? God’s “holy and righteous and good” Law would.—Romans 7:12.

The Mosaic code had a provision allowing a man to divorce his wife for certain reasons. (Deuteronomy 22:13-19; 24:1; Matthew 19:7, 8) But what we read at Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 shows that the option of divorce disappeared after premarital fornication. This, then, might cause a man (or a virgin woman) to resist a temptation to share in fornication. A man could not feel, ‘She is pretty and exciting, so I’ll have a good time with her even though she is not the sort I’d like to marry.’ Rather, this law would deter immorality by causing any would-be offender to weigh the long-term consequences of fornication—having to stay with the other party throughout his life.

The Law also lessened the problem of illegitimacy. God decreed: “No illegitimate son may come into the congregation of Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 23:2) So if a man who seduced a virgin had to marry her, their fornication would not result in an illegitimate offspring among the Israelites.

Granted, Christians live in a social setting that is different from that of the ancient Israelites. We are not under the decrees of the Mosaic Law, including this law requiring the marriage of two persons who engaged in such fornication. Nonetheless, we cannot feel that engaging in premarital fornication is an insignificant thing. Christians should give serious thought to long-term consequences, even as this law moved the Israelites to do so.

Seducing an unmarried person ruins that one’s right to enter a Christian marriage as a clean virgin (male or female). Premarital fornication also affects the rights of any person who might become the individual’s mate, namely, that individual’s right to marry a chaste Christian. Most of all, fornication must be avoided because God says that it is wrong; it is a sin. The apostle aptly wrote: “This is what God wills, the sanctifying of you, that you abstain from fornication.”—1 Thessalonians 4:3-6; Hebrews 13:4.

Answer 4

I totally agree on first reading this, one can only come to the conclusion that the poor woman is lumbered with this gross person and that he got away with rape and God allowed it. But what we fail to do is look at the history surrounding the people in those times and suddenly, when we do, it becomes so much clearer to us.



I am going to copy and paste from our society because they explain it tons better than I can. But I must stress, I am only do this, because I agree totally with what they say!



This was a case of pressured seduction and/or fornication. If an unscrupulous man felt at liberty to have sex relations with a virgin, she would be the primary loser. Besides the possibility that she might have an illegitimate child, her value as a bride was diminished, for many Israelites might not want to marry her once she was no longer a virgin. What, though, would discourage a man from taking liberties with a virgin? God’s “holy and righteous and good” Law would.—Romans 7:12.

The Mosaic code had a provision allowing a man to divorce his wife for certain reasons. (Deuteronomy 22:13-19; 24:1; Matthew 19:7, 8) But what we read at Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 shows that the option of divorce disappeared after premarital fornication. This, then, might cause a man (or a virgin woman) to resist a temptation to share in fornication. A man could not feel, ‘She is pretty and exciting, so I’ll have a good time with her even though she is not the sort I’d like to marry.’ Rather, this law would deter immorality by causing any would-be offender to weigh the long-term consequences of fornication—having to stay with the other party throughout his life.

The Law also lessened the problem of illegitimacy. God decreed: “No illegitimate son may come into the congregation of Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 23:2) So if a man who seduced a virgin had to marry her, their fornication would not result in an illegitimate offspring among the Israelites.

Granted, Christians live in a social setting that is different from that of the ancient Israelites. We are not under the decrees of the Mosaic Law, including this law requiring the marriage of two persons who engaged in such fornication. Nonetheless, we cannot feel that engaging in premarital fornication is an insignificant thing. Christians should give serious thought to long-term consequences, even as this law moved the Israelites to do so.

Seducing an unmarried person ruins that one’s right to enter a Christian marriage as a clean virgin (male or female). Premarital fornication also affects the rights of any person who might become the individual’s mate, namely, that individual’s right to marry a chaste Christian. Most of all, fornication must be avoided because God says that it is wrong; it is a sin. The apostle aptly wrote: “This is what God wills, the sanctifying of you, that you abstain from fornication.”—1 Thessalonians 4:3-6; Hebrews 13:4.

Answer 5

Back in those days - a woman who is not "clean" (virgin), would sometimes be killed or considered un-marriageable by man. Men wanted a pure virgin to choose as their wife.



The man always paid a bride price to the father for the woman, because the daughters provided great services to their fathers households (as the sons did). And now because the fathers daughter was violated, her purity has been taken, so to keep her living, the rule was that the violator had to make her his wife.



This was their culture, and the way things were done in those times. This is also in the Old Testament, and holds little bearing to the times of today. Jesus is clear about not harming one another, nor committing sexual acts of immorality or fornication. He is also clear about murder and rape. He tells us that we should do unto others as we would want done unto ourselves, and that we ought to love one another. The whole eye for and eye thing is no longer relevant either.



Its hard for people who are not educated on the reasons for things that occurred in the Old Testament, to understand that things were done then in a way to protect and prepare for the coming promised Messiah, who would change everything.



The New Testament is more relevant to us today, it is the NEW Covenant (Contract, Promise) given to man on how to live.

Answer 6

The payment is basically Alimony through the rest of her life, the rapist is paying for the damage he did to the female for the rest of his life. He marries her but does not live with her, they are separated, but the victim is taken care of by the rapist.

I bet if a rapist had to marry (but live separate lives) and pay alimony for the rest of his life, that so many rapes would not occur.



If your going to complain about something than complain about the passage where a women is made infertile by God in his temple for cheating, but not the man.

Answer 7

Funny how those that justify this seem to do it from the male perspective... It is a sin and he has to repent. No other man will have her so he has to keep her...



No one tries to justify it for the woman because there is no justification. No one says anything about her guilt or shame over something she had no control over. No one says anything about the trauma of spending the rest of her life with her rapist, of having children with him. How can that be justified by anything other than women were property and dealt with in such a way back then. And how is that a guide to morality?

Answer 8

Times were different back then . You don’t seem to understand the culture of that day. If a woman was raped she was no longer fit for marriage and no one would have her. That is why the law stated that the attacker will now pay for her and keep her.



it doesn’t condone rape at all.

Answer 9

It is another manner of fornication, which is immoral behavior in relations. It is sin, and that is all we need to know about it, just as lying, or coveting. It is the world that portrays it as overwhelming, therefore is it sensationalized. But do not misunderstand, it is a horrible sin, but so is lying, which is the same rank with murder in the eyes of God. And as any sin which is not repented of, there shall be a consequence for it from God, and that's all we need to know about it.

Answer 10

It certainly is not promoting rape. You dont understand the culture of that day. If a woman is raped she is no longer fit for marriage and no one will have her. That is why the law states that the attacker will now pay for her and keep her.........>

Answer 11

Let's not forget Lot was the only person worth saving out of two cities. This was after he offered to let a crowd rape is two daughters.

Answer 12

Back then women had a status below slaves. What did you expect? I don't know why the hell modern people in a secular society can base their morals on this outdated (and not even good) poetry.

Answer 13

Eventually I suppose he would have to come to love her, but I think its an attempt to suppress raping to other poor women that brought this out.

Answer 14

It shows the writers (and his preferred societal) view of women as property (and seemingly as punishment, as well).

Answer 15

The bible is horrible and sick!

Answer 16

not true