Who Would Marry A Rapist?

October 26, 2010 by EnnisP
Filed under: Answering an Atheist, Old Testament, Parenting

The first write up on the issue of rape can be found in the post
“Slavery, Rape and Gays In The Old Testament”

Someone mentions “rape” and we cringe. The word conjures up images of pain and brutality. It represents the worst kind of violence.

We can just visualize a bully, or group of bullies, forcefully overpowering some hysterical individual for no other reason than to satisfy lust and sadly, the perpetrator is either oblivious to the pain of the victim or stimulated by it.

This describes the worst kind of rapist doing the worst kind of thing to a victim. But is rape always this way?

Even though that description applies to “rape” and it happens this way more times than we like to believe, it is not the definition. Rape has many dimensions and variations and in some cases “victims” are pleasured by the experience rather than banged up. Rape is often described by “situation,” as the following list indicates, but is defined by “consent” not violence or location and the levels of consent have a full range from total abhorrence to willing participant.

The following categories of rape were found in different Wikipedia articles and illustrate the many variations. Levels of consent could vary within each category:

Date rape
Spousal rape
College campus rape
Gang rape
Parental abuse rape
Prison rape
War rape
Rape by deception
Corrective rape
Same sex rape
Duress rape
Incest rape
Statutory rape

It is frightening that sexual abuse happens frequently enough for us to identify so many subtleties but that is what is happening in our day. And, logically speaking, if we are observant enough to recognize different kinds and degrees of rape today, we shouldn’t be surprised to find this insight reflected in Old Testament law and that is exactly what we find.

Although the Bible doesn’t provide a detailed description for every possible rape situation it does provide legislation for the extremes: the most violent and the least harmful, “consent” varying in each case.

I think we should be grateful for the limited list. That approach not only saves a lot of paper in the long run and provides complete perspective on the issue, it saves us the pain of studying through the many possible variations.

The obvious inference is judgments for each case are to be made based on where each occurrence fits on the consent scale. Is it of the most violent type or the non-violent type? Penalties should be shaped according to the details of each case. Our legal system works this way so the rational for this approach is well established.

For the record, we would be more inclined to reject the Bible if degrees of the offense weren’t allowed for in OT regulations.

The two cases which set the boundaries are:

The most egregious – violent, forceful rape described in Deuteronomy 22:25-27. The relevant portion says:

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is engaged, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor (emphasis mine).
The least hurtful – statutory rape described in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which says:

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 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.

Violent rape is equated with murder and the death penalty is invoked. With statutory rape restrictions are far less severe. These are two very different cases.

Even the words used to describe these two situations are different. In the case of violent rape the word “chazaq” (seizes) is used and implies force. In the other, the word “taphas” (take hold) is used which implies responsive grasping. It may be passionate but not aggressive.

For a complete read on these words check out Sam Shamoun’s write up here.

Obviously, these passages, which happen to follow one another in the text, are dealing with two different kinds of rape. One was violent and one was “consensual” but both fall within the broad legal definition of rape, then and now.

Critics love to use the second case – statutory – to imply God is insensitive, uncaring, unknowing and mean toward women since He allowed the “rapist” to marry the “victim.”

Why would God make any woman marry her rapist? they ask. But for that matter how often do violent rapist wish to marry the women they abuse?

This is more an expression of indifference than honest observation. These critics have obviously not read the entire text. It’s like reading the first line of Shakespeare and assuming you understand the rest.

Observing both cases, it becomes apparent that not every incident of sexual misconduct is equal and legal responses must be carefully measured. A close look and honest thought are needed.

The statutory rape case deserves our attention since that is the one by which skeptics are chafed. It involves two people who aren’t engaged and would be described as follows:

A man of adult age – lets say 18 – has sexual relations with a girl who may be mildly resistant but emotionally agreeable to the relationship. She loves the man but is considered legally too young to consent, the reason for her reticence. They may love each other but the indictment is still rape.

There is nothing unusual about this story. The same script is played out often even today.

This is not rape of the worst sort and should not be treated in the same way. That is why, instead of being penalized, the ensuing marriage – which often is the outcome in these situations – was regulated separately.

Consider the following:

Marriage was not a penalty.

The parties involved cared about each other and wanted to be together. Marriage was eventually what they wanted and in this case marriage was allowed, even expected, you might say encouraged, but not required.

Some statutory cases are overturned or not entertained at all when the parties involved get married.

We don’t think it strange when this happens and we shouldn’t accuse God for allowing the same tolerance.

There was one catch. The girl’s father had the right of refusal, the same as today. Even when the boy and girl wish to marry it wasn’t automatic. If the father deems the boy unfit he could refuse the marriage. This allowance is made in 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. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

At worst this situation describes what can be viewed as young misguided love. Turning it into the worst possible kind of rape with the hope of accusing God is shallow and misleading.

The bride price was only a penalty if marriage didn’t follow.

The bride price was money paid by the groom to the bride’s parents. It demonstrated the groom’s ability to support a wife and every self-respecting husband paid this in Bible days. It only became a penalty if no marriage followed.

If the boy didn’t have the money up front he may have been required to wait for marriage until he did. There is no time limit specified on when the marriage took place. Reading between the lines we can imagine the discussions.

By the way, the money was likely a means of support for the violated girl, should marriage not follow, since she might be less attractive to suitors afterward. King David’s daughter, Tamar, is a case in point.

She was raped by a half brother, Amnon, and afterward resigned herself to a life of solitude and isolation, never to marry. Nothing in the Bibles suggests she couldn’t get married but her situation had a particularly nasty twist. Once he raped her, Amnon then rejected her, kicking her out of his bed and life.

She was, however, willing to marry Amnon, her rapist. In her words, rejecting her after the fact was worse than raping her to begin with. You can read about it in 2 Samuel 13.

Marriage in those circumstances would have been more honorable and less stigmatizing in that culture. Not easy, I know, but workable. God didn’t make it that way, public opinion did but that does raise an interesting question about marriage.

Today people get married for love, or so they say, but what does that really mean? What do people really love about marriage? Are we motivated by the love of commitment and stability or the love of pleasure and convenience? We say, “till death do us part” but do we have the honor to live by that rule.

Note: I’m not being insensitive to those who have experienced divorce. It was allowed in Bible days and is accepted today also. In some cases it is more honorable to get a divorce than to stay married. In other cases the dishonor of one party does not reflect poorly on the other. “Divorce” is another topic for another post but for now, marriage in the case of statutory rape presents unusual circumstances that are difficult to understand without getting into the “honor” issue.

As backward as they were in Bible days, honor was a big issue in marriage arrangements. I’m sure there were days when Sara wanted Abraham to take a hike. She may have used those very words but, honorably, she stuck around and today is recognized for it.

Divorce was never allowed.

In those cases where marriage was the outcome the husband was never allowed to file for divorce. This represents the only absolute stricture but only negative minded people see it as a penalty. It was a reminder that love and commitment are to be enduring features of marriage.

I doubt seriously that violators were mature enough to understand this but it does serve as a warning to anyone who contemplates crossing the lines.

How often did this type of thing happen?

I couldn’t say but it was a different world in those days. People weren’t as restricted sexually and sexual mores didn’t define leaders or anyone else like they do now.

Abraham fathered a child, Ishmael, by his wife’s handmaid, Hagar but he was still God’s specially chosen leader.
Jacob had multiple wives but he was still God’s man.
Judah fathered a child by his daughter-in-law, Tamar, but his descendents were still the leading tribe in Israel.
David had multiple wives, committed adultery with another man’s wife and then murdered her husband to cover it up but he was still a man after God’s own heart.

None of those situations are directly relevant to the question of rape but they do reveal a world with a different perspective. People then, allowed things sexually that we don’t consider appropriate today.

Men felt particularly free to impose themselves on women as they wished. Not right, I know, and God never endorsed the attitude, although some would like to accuse Him for it. The question is, how do you change these trends? Well, Old Testament laws were designed to do that.

The regulations on rape represent a reshaping of the mindset. Even women captured in war were to be treated with respect. “War rape” was not allowed. Very different to what was often done or what critics often suggest about the Israelites.

But, the one incident that influenced this regulation more than any other was the rape of Dinah, the sister of Simeon and Levi, by Shechem.

Shechem loved Dinah and asked her brothers for permission to marry. The brothers were by nature vengeful and agreed to the marriage on the condition that Shechem and all the men of his village are circumcised. They were being deceitful. Their real intention was revenge.

Shechem and the villagers agreed thinking this would establish an alliance between the two groups making the deceit even more treacherous.

Following circumcision, when all the males were quite sore, Simeon and Levi descended on the city killing all the males thus showing that even the rapist in some cases can be over penalized.

So, with this regulation God was neither endorsing rape nor belittling women. He was encouraging a level-headed approach to human relationships.

Keeping both regulations in mind, we are able to make sensible decisions in response to the various ways in which sexual offenses occur.

What do you THINK!AboutIt?

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 – When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Comments

5 Comments on Who Would Marry A Rapist?

Slavery, Rape and Gays in the Old Testament | NowTHINK!AboutIt on Tue, 26th Oct 2010 12:07 pm

[...] For additional material on this topic refer to the post “Marry Your Rapist” target=”_blank” [...]

CD on Wed, 19th Jan 2011 7:44 pm

I struggled through your commentary on rape. I know your purpose is to bring relevancy of Old Testament writings to modern day culture, but I found the topic of sexual assault much too broad to be focused on just rape. Our society is rampant with unreported sex crimes. And rape is not at the top of the list. How about forcible sodomy? Yes, if statistics were correct, I believe this woud be at the top. I would argue that leniency is NOT on option, no matter what level of sex crime has been committed. Sexual assault punishment should be enforced with no regard for the criminal. We have neglected the victim in this society, and that is why most are shy to report it. Thanks!

EnnisP on Thu, 20th Jan 2011 7:00 am

Thanks CD. This is not an easy topic to discuss and I struggled to get it right. Maybe your response is an indication that I didn’t quite hit the mark.

CD on Thu, 20th Jan 2011 9:13 pm

No, not an easy topic at all. But I commend you for your efforts! I enjoy reading your commentaries and would encourage you to continue to speak your mind as inspired! CD

EnnisP on Fri, 21st Jan 2011 12:13 pm

Thanks for the encouraging remarks, CD.

Hope to see you again in the comments.

Speak your mind...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!