Got Raped? Lucky You! Bible Says You Get A Husband.

Deut. 22:28, 29 – Describes how if a man rapes a woman and is discovered, “…then he shall give unto the damsel’s father 50 shekels of silver and she shall be his wife…” What happens if they are not found during the act? But hey, lucky for the rape victim, right? She gets a husband! Woo Hoo!


18 Responses to “Got Raped? Lucky You! Bible Says You Get A Husband.”

  1. […] And Its Rewards A fellow blogger pointed out the rewards of rape when it is […]

  2. Christians are not under the Old Law. It was fulfilled by Jesus’ blameless life and crucified with him on the cross to make way for the New Dispensation, which is the law of conscience, grace, and redemption. Christians should not be beholden to the laws or codes of Leviticus or any of the other books of the Old Testament. That’s a very common mistake a great many people make. Usually because they don’t read the Bible at all or don’t read it well when they do. HOWEVER, every Christian is admonished by Christ to live as blameless a life as they possibly can.
    Personally, I’m rather brutal in my views of justice. Forgive the man she can and should, but society itself should rise up against the man and reward his behavior with due consequence. Having stated that the victim should forgive the attacker, let me also state that forgiveness of another has nothing to do with the offender. Forgiving others is relieving yourself of the burden of righteous anger in order to empower yourself to get on with your life. It is a very self-serving and self-centered and self-empowering skill; and it’s the greatest skill most of can ever hope to acquire. She forgives him not because she is letting him off the hook for his crime, but because she is taking her power over herself back from him.

    As I think I stated in another post, I think the old law was crucified along with the Lamb precisely because it was barbaric and completely ineffectual at that point in human evolution.

  3. There is more to this than what is shown by just the “bite” we have here.
    First look at the preceding verses Deut 22:25-27 “But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and he rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl. She has committed no sin deserving death “. Also, we have at least 4 instances of Biblical marriages that I can name off the top of my head And I find no precedent for a forced marriage (Isaac & Rebekah, Jacob to Rachel & Leah, Ruth to Boaz) Genesis 24 recounts the story of Abraham’s servant going to find a wife for Isaac, after the servant follows the girl home to her family, he gives her and her family gifts, and then after discussing whether Rebekah should go back with the servant, they say “Let’s call the girl and ask her about it. So they called Rebekah and asked her, ‘Will you go with this man?’ ‘I will go,’ she said”. (Gen 24:57-58) After this, we have the story of Jacob with Leah and Rachel, and although we get the story of Jacob asking Laban (the girls’ father) there is nothing to indicate that either of them was forced into a marriage she did not want (although there was the deception of Laban and Leah) Finally, look at Ruth chapters 3-4. Finally, I know very little of Hebrew or Greek, but here is a link that discusses the variation in the translation of the word “rape” in different passages and how it applies here.

  4. Context is very important, is it not?

  5. doubtingthomas426 Says:

    Context IS important. A woman was forced to have sex with a man who wasn’t her husband. Define the adjective used to describe the act however you want, Mike, the context of the above passage remains the same. The man’s punishment was pathetic and was, in fact, an additional punishment to the woman. Ugly no matter how you look at it.

    Bitterhermit — Nice commentary on the power of forgiveness.


  6. i think it is stupid they should be kept in prision for life

  7. While I respect the opinion . . .
    Imprisonment is as savage to my thinking as is the marriage edict. Especially for life. I’m more inclined to find justice in mutilation than I am in imprisonment. Okay, well, actually, I find imprisonment totally inadequate and woefully misapplied. For aggravated sexual battery, I think that physical castration is apt consequence; it ensures that there will be no further offense of this nature. Better healthcare, specifically in the arena of mental health, and a generally healthier, more educated society is the best answer. That is – prevention of misconduct is far superior to punitive, or even reactive, enforcement of laws and social mores.
    The heart of the matter is this: we need to all and each be self-responsible and teach others to be consciously so as well, especially our youth. That’s my opinion, anyway.
    Skinner 🙂

  8. Comment regarding this issue left on my main page:

    Comment by Jared responding to a comment by Lone Wolf:

    Lone Wolf said — “And you trying to justify that unjustifiable, evil and ridiculous part of the bible that says a rape victim has to marry the rapist only make you look evil. There in no justifiable reason to force a rape victim to marry her rapist, it it makes it even worse that the only punishment for the rapist is he has to pay the girls father, it only shows that woman to the bible are property.” —

    It is important to understand, anything we seek to approach ethics and morality, where we come from in through. No doubt, when we look around we are in an imperfect world. God speaks of “heaven” in the bible, and he makes it clear that the only thing that is going to make heaven possible is us living in a new world with perfect “sinless” bodies. What this is saying is that we won’t have the some moral fallicies that we exist with now, but it will be Heaven, perfect and beautiful. Now, this is quite ideal. It is far from what we see with our eyes now. The Bible also presents something called “The Law” which you are citing here. This “Law” exists because of the fact that we live in a fallen world. If, in theory, the law could be followed to the T by every individual than theoretically, according to the Bible, the Kingdom of Heaven could exist right now, in front of our eyes. But the Bible also makes it clear that this is not possible…which seems crazy? If It isnt possible why even give us the law? The law was given to reveal somthing inside of us, so that we might accept Grace as the path to heaven.

    So I will sum up my argument here. It a world where forgiveness, love, and mercy reign, a young woman marrying her rapist would speak wonders of the forgiveness, and reconciliation power of God. It wouldnt be easy, but then, if that young woman truly was with God in relationship, then she would be eternal, and if she truly would spend an eternity in joy with Christ after death, then this act would be easy and would demonstrate that to her rapist, and may bring him to repentence, which could bring another individual to eternal joy. Thus a temporal sacrafice for eternal joy cannot even be considered a sacrafice.

    Now I understand, you, being athiest, dont believe in an eternal soul. And I will admit, it is truly critical to belive in an eternal soul to even begin to take the bible seriously. So I will ask a question. Being athiest….or agnostic or whatever your belief system is, what is your viewpoint on life after death?

    Its late, if that doesn’t make sense, I’ll give it another shot later. Now I must sleep.

  9. Comment regarding this issue left on my main page:

    Mike’s comment:

    Jared, in response to the rape situation:

    Perhaps I did not communicate my point well with the rape issue. A more accurate translation of that passage might read, “If a man SEDUCES a girl”. (See the Contemporary English Version) How do I arrive at that conclusion? First, look at the text around that passage. All the girl would have to do is say “I cried out and no one heard me,” and her rapist would have been put to death. Also, as I have stated. There is no biblical precedent anywhere for a woman ever being forced to marry a man against her will. Thirdly, yes I dug below the surface pulling out lexicons and dictionaries and cross-referencing to see the intent of the original writers.

    I believe that the Deut22 passage was more a ban on “one night stands” (consensual) I know that that is an anathema to this post-sexual revolution age of free sex, serial monogamy, and oral sex is not sex, but I believe the regulations on sex stand as a public health policy that prevents the spread of STDs among other things and promotes social responsibility.

  10. Comment regarding this issue left on my main page:

    Comment by Lone Wolf:

    Jared: The fact that the bible has many contradictions shows its not the word of God. The contradictions are not relatively few and small, there are many in comparison to the bibles size and some are huge, particularly between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
    Pertaining to the rape verse: None of that justifies or make the it less evil. A just and loving God would never make such a law. It is barbaric.

    Mike: As I’ve said, the authors of the new translations of the bible have a tendency to sanitise the bible and make it fit a more modern version of Christianity. Its quite possible that the original Hebrew said seduce but the older translations are more reliable despite there problem and mistranslations. It is also possible that a single word meant seduce and rape in Hebrew and its meaning was dependant on how it was used (like “fly”) how ever looking at the wording
    Young’s Literal Translation

    28`When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,

    Darby Translation

    28If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

    28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    American Standard Version

    28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    The original Hebrew may not have used a single word than meant “rape”.

    Crap. The thread example is King James Version.

  11. Comment regarding this issue left on my main page:

    MysticWino’s comment:

    It makes sense to me that it means ’seduced’ rather than ‘rape’. But, technically, some find them the same thing. If she’s underage, secuction equates to rape in the view of many people. If she’s of age and simply fell for a Don Juan, then I don’t really see any barbarity in making him honest. The King James version was notoriously bad about skewing translation to suit certain sexual politics – I don’t recall specifically what and where. I quit reading KJV when I found Shakespeare and the NIV; I needed the separation for peace of mind. Also, somewhere back in that long-ago day, I was convinced that the NIV was a better translation than the New American or the KJV. Again with the faith thing . . . I got that impression from someone else, and took it on faith that they knew what they were talking about.


  12. Comment regarding this issue left on my main page:

    Comment by Lone Wolf:

    The rape/seduce word idea only works is the original Hebrew used 1 word but even then its a long shot at best. But given many of the translations say “force her and lay with her” in one way or another it may be that they did not have or use 1 word that meant “rape” but something more like “force her to have sex with him”.

    And as I’ve said, the older translations are more reliable as the author tried to sanitise the bible.

  13. Comment regarding this issue left on my main page:

    Mike’s comment:

    Thanks, Lone Wolf. But I’ll tell you another way it works, and we don’t have to guess at the meaning of “fly”. In my original response, on GOT RAPED LUCKY YOU I posted a link to sam shamoun’s website answering islam, where he goes into detail about this passage. I posted it so everyone could check it out for themselves. But sam shamoun shows (say that 5 times fast) that the first several verses use a two word phrase,

    “taphas” means to catch or seize. Then “shakab” which normally refers to a voluntary sexual act. so to seize and then have sex means rape.

    But the final line in Deut 22:28, the Hebrew writer SWITCHES VERBS on us.(for whatever reason the English did not) Instead of using “taphas” to seize or catch. He says: “If a man PATHAH (meaning entices or lures) a virgin and she shakab (has sex with), then he shall have to pay the bride price etc.

    I’ll repost the link here

  14. Comment regarding this issue left on my main page:

    Comment by Lone Wolf:

    Now I don’t know Hebrew and I don’t know anything about the guy so I can’t comment on what he said. But I can say this. Could PATHAH also mean rape? I don’t know if could or not.
    I can leave you with this though, there is more rape in the bible

  15. Comment regarding this issue left on my main page:

    Comment by Lone Wolf:

    I did a quick googe search for deuteronomy 22:28-29 i found this ( ) which links to this ( ) which is a rebuttal Shamoun to Sam Shamoun.

  16. Comment regarding this issue left on my main page:

    Mike’s comment:

    Please pardon my hiatus from the discussionI haven’t really had the time to research and reply until now.

    But, yes I had previously seen answering-christianity and I dismissed it for a couple of reasons. The site makes claims that the Bible says that Paul performed oral sex on Timothy after circumcising him. (among other things) This does not offend. I don’t believe in censorship. And if Sami Zataari wants to say that, well that’s his right.

    But, in regards to our present (or recent) discussion, I find two (at minimum) problems with Zataari’s argument. 1) He’s simply ignoring the fact that taphas CAN mean something else. (as well as “anah” which can mean to humble or to humiliate and I’ll discuss this later). I think this brings us back to a statement you made earlier, Lone Wolf, about if one word can have 2 meanings. Taphas can definitely mean to capture or lay hold of. But, Strong’s concordance lists it as coming from a primitive root of “manipulate”. And Shamoun demonstrates it used in Jeremiah 2:8 as “deal”. The KJV of that verse says “those who HANDLE(taphas) the law. (Here, “handle is obviously figurative). Taphas is also used to refer to those who “handle the harp and lute” and “those who handle the pen”.

    The other problem I have with Zataari is his reaction to the woman not screaming means she consents. I notice you use that “holding a knife” analogy on your site as well. But Glen Miller of Christian-thintank says that what we have in the Bible is not the ENTIRE Jewish law, and that judges of that time could apply the law as it fit on a case by case basis. As we do today in courts. So, reasonable people could conclude based on any number of clues whether a woman was consenting or not.

    Which brings me to the other point. Zataari says that the woman MUST be raped because consensual sex would mean she would be put to death. That is not necessarily so. There is no law that says that if 2 consenting unmarried adults engaged in sex that they must die.(except adultery or homosexuality) Perhaps Zataari is referring to the “bloody sheet” law.

    The thing about the bloody sheet is that it is as much about deception as anything else. In the OT, a marriage was an agreement between two families, not just two individuals. A bride price was negotiated partially based on whether the woman was a virgin. Now the bride price or “mohar” was given to the bride’s family, but was set aside for the bride in the event that her husband died prematurely or he divorced her. It became hers in place of alimony. Which is not really a bad idea. But, the bloody sheet was called into account if the bride was accused of deceiving the families (her own and the grooms). Just a note, but Miller also cites sources where one woman told the rabbi that women in her family generally didn’t bleed when the hymen was broken and another woman said that she lost her hymen having to continually climb her father’s steep stairs and these accounts were perfectly acceptable. My point is that by “humbling” (anah) this means that the act has lowered what she can negotiate for the mohar.

    No doubt, you will find those who continue to translate the passage as rape. But I think at least we’ve got an “either or” translation. But if you insist on the rape meaning, before you say the guy got off easy, consider this. Societies create laws first as deterrents to prohibit unwanted behavior. And second to somehow compensate victims. The 50 shekels of silver is equal to FIVE YEARS WAGES. Plus the offender had to support the woman for the rest of her life, which would replace what he had taken from her to start with. ( A home, heirs, etc). So no, the “rapist” isn’t “getting off”. As far as actually marrying her. Well, like I said, the laws were judged on a case-by-case basis. I’m sure that there will be a response or 2 to this post. But, I will be out of town for a week and won’t be able to post any replies soon.

  17. Lone Wolf Says:

    A continuation of the conversation here
    Mike: given that pretty much all translations I’ve read of those verses says “cease” “capture” or something like that shows plus the arguments in the link I posted it seems as though it means rape. since the majority of translation mean rape given my ignorants of the Hebrew language to my knowledge rape is the best translation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: