Why would God make someone who was raped marry the person who raped them?

Question

The bible clearly states: "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."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

It doesn't seem right to me, but I've met christians who claim to stand by the Bible 100%. Do they agree with this?

Answer 1

I understand the conflict that you're speaking of.

Throughout the Bible, there is always a prophet guiding the people of God.  But Christians, these days, claim that the need for prophets has been done away.  Obviously, seeing all the conflicting beliefs among Christians about what Biblical passages mean, or how it applies to us, today, we're still as in need of living prophets as we always were.  

There are latter-day prophets.  These men are true prophets, who have the Spirit of God with them, and who have been given much revelation to help us to understand what God wants us to know and live by today.  The prophets are found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

More about latter-day prophets, and the role they play in serving Heavenly Father's will to bring about the eternal happiness of His children (all humans):

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basi...

Answer 2

1. Deuteronomy 22:28-29  If a man <'iysh> find <matsa'> a damsel <na`arah> that is a virgin <b@thuwlah>, which is not betrothed <'aras>, and lay hold <taphas> on her, and lie <shakab> with her, and they be found <matsa'>; Then the man <'iysh> that lay <shakab> with her shall give <nathan> unto the damsel's <na`arah> father <'ab> fifty <chamishshiym> shekels of silver <keceph>, and she shall be his wife <'ishshah>; because he hath humbled <`anah> her, he may <yakol> not put her away <shalach> all his days <yowm>.

This - better translation - explain (and I understand it is not 'rape', forcefully, but rather 'tricky', the way we males approach females to get them to bed, many times not using 'force', but promissing b.s. just to get the girl, alright?), that the act "has a price". Remember "a life for a life, a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye"? The price is that you will never be able to divorce the woman, and he had to make retribution (50 pieces of silver). It also explicitly says she "was not bethroded" or with what we call now 'fiancee'.

I think this is fair. He went 'horsing around and knock the girl off, let him pay for it and support her for the rest of his life, without divorce. That's fair. How  many baby-mothers we have in our society, taking care of a baby, while their "father" is chasing other girls in the meantime. They do not carry the burden. All they do is act as stallions.

The ignorance shown on the answers about the subject itself and how the scriptures deal with it is apalling.

One more thing, the law was there - very much as it is now - but it does not mean people would abide by them. Jesus said it very clearly once "Nathan, behold a 'true' Israelite", and Paul complemented it by adding "because not all who are from Israel are Israel". Sure, you could say "I am so and so, and the bible says so and so", and I say "so, what" the devil knows it too. "By their deeds you will recognise them" "By the love they show one another you will know you are mi disciples"...

Answer 3

But if she is engaged, she's already someone else's "property" and the man is put to death, right? And so is she, if she doesn't scream.

Answer 4

Come one peope. Its all about forgivness and sexual desease. If he has s*x with her then has s*x with another then another what do ya got aids. A part of the reason God says we should not have s*x until we are married is he knew of the sexual desease they held. I know it seem a little brutal But the bible also states if we can not forgive a brother of a sin then God cannot forgive us of our sin. Book of mathew i believe.

Answer 5

The Christians will say "blah blah, that was a different time and age and we lived under a different law.  Back then it was good because blah blah"

Yeah, because females a few thousand years ago didn't mind at ALL having to be married to their rapist.  Somehow.

(Edit) Wow.  I just read a response below, from "Moropac" who said "If god blesses a rape by allowing a child..."  WHAT?  I'm sorry, but when you're saying things like "God blesses a rape" you have severely lost your way.

Answer 6

You're right. You'd think they'd adjust that 50 pieces up for inflation.

Answer 7

omg really?

so if some guy rapes a girl....he marries her 2?

oh and i dont believe in the bible.

why would god not reveal himself but write a book of crazy stories, rules, and ideas that tell you to hate others

Answer 8

I read about this in another question once. A Christian answered it, and I have to admit they answered it pretty well.

In those times, by forcing the woman to wed the man, they ensured that she had someone to support her (he was legally bound to do so) since in those days it was almost exclusively virgins who were sought after as wives. To be an unmarried woman who was not a virgin was in those times a guarantee of poverty.

The woman who was married to this man apparently didn't necessarily need to live with him; he was still however required to support her, much like an alimony.

Whether this answer is correct remains to be seen.

Answer 9

Wow - are you really that naive?  Back then, a woman who had been raped was RUINED, was NEVER going to get a husband (it was a patriarchal society, remember?), and a woman without a husband was nothing - no support, no respect - nothing.  At least if the rapist was forced to marry her, she'd have rights and support under Jewish law.  

And SHE had the right to refuse the marriage; that right is still valid in Jewish law today.

Answer 10

Christians are known for taking only what they want to believe from the Bible.  They'll just find excuses for the rest of the book or totally ignore them.

Answer 11

By forcing the woman to wed the man who raped her ensured that she had someone to support her because he was legally bound to do so for taking her virginity. An unmarried woman who was not a virgin was in those times taboo and usually the woman would have no means of financial support.

Marriages were also arranged in those times and this would be similiar in "forcing" an arrangement by the man who raped her.  Women were treated less than animals in some of the cultures.  It was not God, but the people of that time.  

Jesus has since liberated all women over 2000 years ago when he lifted up the woman accused of adultery and the the conversation with the woman at the well who had several live in boyfriends/husbands.

I hope this helps.

Answer 12

If this is the law given by God why the scriptures are periodically modified?

Answer 13

You'll find all kinds of cool stuff like that in the Bible. And everyone acts like it's perfect, and the ideal way to lead your life. Nice.

Answer 14

I'm pretty sure that in this case, the word "rape" is to mean "engage in premarital s*x."  Back then, any s*x other than vaginal intercourse between a married couple with the intent to create a baby was considered to be a sin.

Answer 15

                                                                                                         This old testament law. We don't live by the old law we live by grace. If a man rapes a girl it is called a sin and has to be brought to justice. The girl is not to blame. Read Romans 1: 26 to the end. You don't know the bible to good. It talks about Homosexual behavior in the scripture in Romans.The  new testament talks about not having pre marital s*x. It is called fornacation. God says what is acceptable and not. The bible is God's word.  

Answer 16

God wouldn't.  But a primitive, misogynistic , sheep herding society would.

Answer 17

If God blesses a rape by allowing the woman to become pregnant, then there is a child who needs a father.

And the needs of the child must come before those of the parents.

Answer 18

The problem is you are judging this by a 21st Century perspective and you need to examine the issue in the light of the ancient society and primitive times in which it happened, where according to the customs of those times, the rape victim would no longer regarded as marriageable and would therefore lose means of interdependent support.

The woman is not forced to marry the rapist; rather, she has the option of forcing the rapist to marry her, and if she does so the rapist cannot initiate a divorce.  Power is given to the woman you see.

Furthermore, the rapist is required to financialy support his victim for the rest of her life and compensate her family as well.

It is quite unlikely in this social context that the victim would refuse this arrangement whereby her violator has to marry and support her; indeed, she might well demand such an arrangement or she might choose to take the money but remain with her family.

Or she could marry him but not live with him as his wife and not perform any "wifely" duties for him. Being legally married the rapist was prevented from being with any other woman and the victim (as a married woman) now had her honorable place in society restored

The payment the victim's father got was related to another ancient practice, the dowry. A girl who is married becomes part of a new family, which she now relies upon for support; at the same time, her former family loses her support and assistance in their daily survival, but gains nothing practical in return - hence the dowry.

The effect of the dowry was to make up for that loss of essential support, and in light of that, payment by the rapist to the father is fair.

Now considering the implications of all what a rapist would be required to do under this law it was probably a very clever way of keeping the crime of rape to an absolute minimum.

For the victim and her familly it was also the best solution under the circumstances of those times and it would be hard to think of any fairer way of resolving this matter?

Old Testament laws were a temporary measure to bring some law and order to a primitive, violent people and until society evolved to the extent that those simple laws could be replaced with more complex ones.

Some of those old laws seem harsh by our modern standards but we need to remember the Old Testament Mosaic law was originally given to a nomadic people, a people who would not have permanent homes for over a generation, and even after that would not have strong buildings, police, prisons, or any of the trappings of law enforcement in our world.



A person who was a chronic law breaker or a bad influence on that society was a danger to their survival and had to be eliminated because there was no place to keep him alive in custody. Death was therefore the  penalty for many crimes under that law, because the influence of the criminal could not be contained in any other way and there was no other way of dealing with the law breakers.



The Old Testament law also provided standards and rituals for the faith as well as structure for the society of those times, health regulations for the control of disease, moral direction, and quite a bit of law was focused on preventing Israel from following the false idol gods of their neighbors.



Much of Old Testament law was therefore just for Israel or just for that particular point in time -  a temporary measure until society evolved further.  



An imperfect analogy is the maturation of a child. You have one set of rules for a toddler that at some point become a fairly different set of rules for grade school child and then a whole lot of new rules for teenagers and then you have certain standards for mature Adults.



We can see in the Bible that over the Centuries God progressively updates most of the rules to fit the times, circumstances, and the people to whom He give them and to take into account their changing circumstances.



As for what law still applies to us today - Jesus confirmed that the 10 Commandments still applied, but his blood on the cross replaced the old cleanliness, purification, atonement, sacrificial and temple worship laws plus he did away with stoning adulterers and blasphemers, killing rebellious children and a lot of that much stricter Old Covenant stuff because civilisation had changed since the time of Moses. The old nomadic life had given way to a more agricultural based life with many people now living in towns and cities and had better facilities for dealing with these problems.



Homosexuality was reconfirmed as still being a sin, Jesus made the divorce laws tougher but he did away with the dietary laws and eased up on the Sabbath laws (He said the law was made for man, not man for the law because the priests had become too strict, too unbending), plus he told us to love one another and to forgive one another.



These new covenant laws have served us well for the last 2,000 years (if people actually followe

Answer 19

This was a law God set for the Israelites in the Old Testament period after they left Egypt.  

We have to know a little history to understand this.  Women back then had hardly any rights. Especially a single woman.  So I believe God set this rule so if the woman conceived she wouldnt be alone, her father could help her financially with the money the guy payed him, and if you see God said the man couldnt divorce her but God didnt say the woman couldnt divorce him.  God gave men and women the right to divorce.

Answer 20

whooooaaaaaat!

sorry can't help but good question, thanks to you I may read the bible today.

Answer 21

Isn't it great the way people are saying "it was different back then, women had it rough".

Uh... couldn't God have commanded that the rapist hand over 80% of his earning for the rest of his life and that all people dare not disrespect a woman who has been violated in such an unspeakable way?

I think that would've been better than commanding that she marry the rapist.  Sure, times *were* different, but if God had so commanded, surely his people had to obey no matter how odd his command may've seemed.

Answer 22

Like in any religion there are people who misinterpretated or corrupted religious scripture. i think this might be the case here too. i'm not a christian though but i know that the same things apply to my religion but the problem is not with the scripture itself but the interpretation of some.

Answer 23

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 24

You can't project a modern understanding of the value of women onto the culture of ancient Israel.  The world was very different back then.  Women had no value in the culture.  God was teaching the people of ancient Israel, who did not know any better at the time, to respect women.

If those rapists would not have been forced to marry the women that they violated then those women would not have been able to marry anyone.  Men back then wanted to marry virgins.  Women who couldn't marry in those days were in a very bad situation.  They couldn't work.  They couldn't own property.  They would be forced to beg for their food for the rest of their lives.

God was telling the rapists that they must take care of the women that they violated for the rest of their lives.  His law was a demonstration of His love for women.

Answer 25

This was a case of pressured seduction and/or fornication. If an unscrupulous man felt at liberty to have s*x 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.

Answer 26

Something a lot of people don't think about....

Joseph could have had Mary stoned to death for carrying a child that was not his.

In those days, for some reason it was the woman who was blamed for such things, even though common sense says that it is NOT the woman's fault when rape occurs. IF a young woman in old testament times was raped, she would have been viewed as "used merchandise", and NO man would have married her, even though she didn't ask for what happened. The law provided for the woman to be cared for in the event such a horrible thing should occur.

Very messed up. I was abused as a child, raped as a child, and raped as an adult. I almost married the man who raped me as an adult. (I broke it off after the rape occurred, though I didn't press charges.) I'm glad I saw what kind of a man he was before we said our vows and not after. I'd be either miserable or dead had I gone through with the marriage. I can't imagine having to be married to the man who did such a horrible thing to you. I guess in biblical times, they didn't care much about the mental health of individuals.

Answer 27

I guess you don't know then that the NT replaced the OT?

Are you then one who married her rapist?