A verse that haunts me.

[AudioArtist]

It's funny how I often come here to see the Orthodox interpretation of difficult verses and other Christian matters! I hope you don't mind me asking random questions like this, even though I am not a proper Orthodox believer.:) My problem is with this verse....


Deuteronomy 22:25-29

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Why on earth would a woman want to be married to her rapist? How could God decree a law like this? I know in that culture, if a woman was to loose her virginity, nobody would have her. But still; making her marry her rapist!?

There are many things in the Old Testament I can just get over. This isn't one of them.

I'm not asking this to cause trouble. It's just really bugging me. Is there any theology that deals with how to cope with the O.T?

[Michael the Iconographer]

It's funny how I often come here to see the Orthodox interpretation of difficult verses and other Christian matters! I hope you don't mind me asking random questions like this, even though I am not a proper Orthodox believer.:) My problem is with this verse....


Deuteronomy 22:25-29

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Why on earth would a woman want to be married to her rapist? How could God decree a law like this? I know in that culture, if a woman was to loose her virginity, nobody would have her. But still; making her marry her rapist!?

There are many things in the Old Testament I can just get over. This isn't one of them.

I'm not asking this to cause trouble. It's just really bugging me. Is there any theology that deals with how to cope with the O.T?

I could be wrong, but that verse is making the man who wronged the woman take accountability for his actions and since no one would want her because she had been robbed of her virginity it was making sure she was taken care of for the rest of her life.

[AudioArtist]

I could be wrong, but that verse is making the man who wronged the woman take accountability for his actions and since no one would want her because she had been robbed of her virginity it was making sure she was taken care of for the rest of her life.

Thanks.

But wouldn't a rapist treat her appallingly? And couldn't rapists use this law as a way to get a woman they wanted...by raping her? :)

[countrymouse33ad]

Under the Law, a habitual rapist would not have lived long if caught.

I don't think this law was formulated for what we in our society tend to think of as the typical rapist who commits the crime as a violent act. (I don't buy the idea that all rapes fit that category.) This law was about a simple lack of self-control, something similar to what we call date-rape, and assured that the perpetrator had to take responsibility for his actions and that, as Michael said, the girl would have a husband, since she could no longer be married to anyone else.

[prodromos]

But wouldn't a rapist tread her appallingly? And couldn't rapists use this law as a way to get a woman they wanted...by raping her? :)
In Jewish culture the married couple did not live far from their parents and inlaws. Raping a woman in order to secure her as your wife would not exactly endear you to your new father inlaw, and you can be sure he would be keeping a close eye on you to make sure his daughter was treated with respect.

Remember too that many marriages were arranged back then, so a young woman couldn't always expect to marry a man she actually liked.

John

[countrymouse33ad]

Remember too that many marriages were arranged back then, so a young woman couldn't always expect to marry a man she actually liked.



Good point.

Try putting yourself in the position of the girl in question. At that time a woman's only honorable career was to be married and have and rear children. To go husbandless was a great shame in that society. Why would a girl want to marry her rapist? Since she would no longer be a virgin, she could marry no one else! Neither could she inherit her father's land, and so, once her father died, she had nothing, and had to depend upon another male relative's obligation to take care of her. Her only alternatives would have been to sell herself into slavery or take up prostitution.

[e=mv^2]

- warning IANO (I am not Orthodox) -
I hope you do not mind if I add my $.02
Anytime you are reading the Bible - especially the Old Testament - It is helpful to remember who the passage was written for and in what context. Take into account the fact that this was written specifically for the Jews and look at what the Jewish law says for jews, marriage and sex (especially before marriage) - then read this passage. It makes much more sense then. You have a man that is forced to take care of his victim for the rest of her life. If you ignore the above then you have a victim that is forced to marry her attacker.

It is interesting to note that this would not work at all today. In the absence of the rest of Jewish law, culture, and life this goes from being a punishment for the attacker to being a punishment for the victim. This is an excellent example of the need to take into account the audience, circumstances, and original purpose of the text.

Sorry if I jumped in where I should not have.

[Michael the Iconographer]

- warning IANO (I am not Orthodox) -
I hope you do not mind if I add my $.02
Anytime you are reading the Bible - especially the Old Testament - It is helpful to remember who the passage was written for and in what context. Take into account the fact that this was written specifically for the Jews and look at what the Jewish law says for jews, marriage and sex (especially before marriage) - then read this passage. It makes much more sense then. You have a man that is forced to take care of his victim for the rest of her life. If you ignore the above then you have a victim that is forced to marry her attacker.

It is interesting to note that this would not work at all today. In the absence of the rest of Jewish law, culture, and life this goes from being a punishment for the attacker to being a punishment for the victim. This is an excellent example of the need to take into account the audience, circumstances, and original purpose of the text.

Sorry if I jumped in where I should not have.

No need to appologize! You are exactly right. It is most important to take into account the historical/social/cultural context of anything we read, especially the Old Testament! Very well said.

[Dust and Ashes]

This is especially true of the New Testament as well. Consider the problems if the NT is viewed as a manual, written with no real context, for starting and running a church. When the NT is viewed as a collection of letters written for various churches already in existence to help deal with issues that had come up, and also considering the cultures involved, it makes so much more sense and fits together so much better.

[Michael the Iconographer]

This is especially true of the New Testament as well. Consider the problems if the NT is viewed as a manual, written with no real context, for starting and running a church. When the NT is viewed as a collection of letters written for various churches already in existence to help deal with issues that had come up, and also considering the cultures involved, it makes so much more sense and fits together so much better.

Excellent point there! The NT is NOT a manual on how to run a Christian Church but should be more like medicine that was given to an already living church that was struggling with everyday life.

[Xpycoctomos]

I just want to say that I think that is wacked out and I am just glad to NOT be under the Old Law that was highly deficient. I know that probably isn't the best thing to say from a theological point of view, but I would never accept money from my daughter's rapist let alone allow him to ever be in her life. Those poor women.

John

[moses916]

well in the middle east, most conservative families would have their daughter marry the guy she slept with, however its different then obviously being raped...but i dunno i see a little connection, because the girl mite not like the guy, but her parents would force her to marry the young/old man she slept with... (mainly seen amongst my muslim friends)

[AudioArtist]

Thanks for the responses.

I understand that taking into account culture and context is important, but if taken as the literal Laws of God, these rules still pose problems. God is supposed to be the same yesterday, today, and forever after all, and under Him people followed them for hundreds of years.

Things like this make sharing the faith especially hard, because unbelievers will always use them as ammunition.

I do thank you again for taking the time to respond, however.:)

[e=mv^2]

these rules still pose problems.

How? Those rules were for the jews. Just the jews. Not the gentiles. Unless you are a jew it should pose no direct problem.

God is supposed to be the same yesterday, today, and forever after all, and under Him people followed them for hundreds of years.
God has not changed. He is the same today as always. It appears that you are reading this as if it pertains to you. It does not. It never has. This was a law for the jews. Only the jews.
The law was part of the Old Covenant. We are not under that Covenant. We are seperate from it. It was not until Christ that were were adopted.

People that get legalistic and start spouting off laws should have a look at Acts 15.

Things like this make sharing the faith especially hard, because unbelievers will always use them as ammunition.
Not if you can explain it properly. It makes perfect sense. You just have to have the proper understanding. Does that make any sense?

Maybe this will help?
From the jewfaq on marriage: (http://jewfaq.org/marriage.htm)
Acquiring a Spouse

Mishnah (http://jewfaq.org/defs/mishnah.htm) Kiddushin 1:1 specifies that a woman is acquired (i.e., to be a wife) in three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a binding marriage.

Acquisition by money is normally satisfied by the wedding ring. It is important to note that although money is one way of "acquiring" a wife, the woman is not being bought and sold like a piece of property or a slave. This is obvious from the fact that the amount of money involved is nominal (according to the Mishnah (http://jewfaq.org/defs/mishnah.htm), a perutah, a copper coin of the lowest denomination, was sufficient). In addition, if the woman were being purchased like a piece of property, it would be possible for the husband to resell her, and clearly it is not. Rather, the wife's acceptance of the money is a symbolic way of demonstrating her acceptance of the husband, just like acceptance of the contract or the sexual intercourse.

To satisfy the requirements of acquisition by money, the ring must belong to the groom. It cannot be borrowed, although it can be a gift from a relative. It must be given to the wife irrevocably. In addition, the ring's value must be known to the wife, so that there can be no claim that the husband deceived her into marrying by misleading her as to its value.

In all cases, the Talmud specifies that a woman can be acquired only with her consent, and not without it. Kiddushin 2a-b.

As part of the wedding ceremony, the husband gives the wife a ketubah. The word "Ketubah" comes from the root (http://jewfaq.org/defs/root.htm) Kaf-Tav-Bet, meaning "writing." The ketubah is also called the marriage contract. The ketubah spells out the husband's obligations to the wife during marriage, conditions of inheritance upon his death, and obligations regarding the support of children of the marriage. It also provides for the wife's support in the event of divorce (http://jewfaq.org/defs/divorce.htm). There are standard conditions; however, additional conditions can be included by mutual agreement. Marriage agreements of this sort were commonplace in the ancient Semitic world.

The ketubah has much in common with prenuptial agreements, which are gaining popularity in the United States. In the U.S., such agreements were historically disfavored, because it was believed that planning for divorce would encourage divorce, and that people who considered the possibility of divorce shouldn't be marrying. Although one rabbi (http://jewfaq.org/defs/rabbi.htm) in the Talmud (http://jewfaq.org/defs/talmud.htm) expresses a similar opinion, the majority maintained that a ketubah discouraged divorce, by serving as a constant reminder of the husband's substantial financial obligations if he divorced his wife.

The ketubah is often a beautiful work of calligraphy, framed and displayed in the home.



So you see under Jewish law - having sex is one way that you aquire a wife. (makes you think twice about premarital sex eh?)



You can take the fundamentalist off the soapbox but unfortunately.......



well.... we keep talking anyway.

[ufonium2]

I'm with countrymouse. It's really not much different than a "shotgun wedding" here. I had an uncle who got a girl pregnant, ran off, and was literally tracked down (by his brothers) dragged back, and forced by his family to marry her. Just like it was an unescapable stigma to be unwed and pregnant then (in the 50s) it was an unescapable stigma to be an unwed non-virgin way back.

I also agree that the kind of anonymous, violent act we call "rape" today was probably not what the OT had in mind. Communities were much smaller and closer then; there weren't a lot of strangers. I think the "date rape" idea is probably closer to that situation.

[Xpycoctomos]

Ufonium's post adds perspective. However,I still think its messed up unless their idea of "rape" was very different than ours then, at best that offers perspective. Also, the "shotgun weddings" Ufonium speaks of also add perspective to the stigma. I suppose what I should say is that the idea of "stigmatizing" a woman for being pregnant and unwed is messed up and from that flows a VERY imperfect system (of pressuring or forcing one to marry the one-night stand) that has succssfully added to the number of abusive homes not to mention the women who have abortions (or are pressued by the boyfriend/one-night-stand/etc to have one) to avoid this stigma.

But, that really isn't a refute of Ufonium's post as she was only trying to add perspective to the deal, which she did for me :)

John

PS: Ufonium... aren't you from New Orleans? Where are you now? If this is so, glad to see you here and on the net. Is there a thread regarding the TAW/OBOB members that have been affected by Katrina?

[xristos.anesti]

I think that Energy is making a very fair point that many should be aware off.

People for some reason think that if the law changed the God changed.

That is illogical and a fallacy.


You have an example when a same parliament delivers two different laws. It is still a same parliament.

So is with God. He changes laws and covenents as He see fit. The old testament is actually not a unified one testament (covenant, contract). It is a complex of at least 5 different covenants.

Two of Adam, One of Noah, One of Abraham and One of Moses.

And then the New Testament of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.



God changes laws because we are changing, not Him. God does not change, but for our sake He changes laws.

The old testament is exactly that, OLD. It has been fullfilled and done away with, it is a shadow and the reality is Christ. We have new commandements.

Some commandements from the old have been keept in their changed form, some are new.

God does not change in Himself. But for the sake of us staying alive, He changes conditions that He set up originally, for if He did not, we would have been gone - maky years ago.

God does change His laws and in that stayes unchanged in Himself.

God is not a Law. God is Divine Being, Law is a set of rules (of a contract).

[moses916]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to xristos.anesti again.

:(

[xristos.anesti]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to xristos.anesti again.

:(

Well, that is just not good enough!!!

Fix it!!





^_^

[moses916]

The CF system is being a rebel... :cry:

[ufonium2]

PS: Ufonium... aren't you from New Orleans? Where are you now? If this is so, glad to see you here and on the net. Is there a thread regarding the TAW/OBOB members that have been affected by Katrina?

You've got your poor, predominantly Black, and ineptly managed cities confused. I'm from Memphis. If something like this had happened to Memphis, 50,000 people would've died, the mayor would've made money from it, and somehow he still would get re-elected next time.

I live in Kentucky now, though.:)

[Matrona]

You've got your poor, predominantly Black, and ineptly managed cities confused.

You crack me up. ^_^