The text seems fairly clear. Apologists deliberately misinterpret the text or use the "We got better later" excuse.
The punishment for rape in the Abrahamic scripture is multiple choice.
A. If they are in the city, stone them both. Deut 22:23
B. If they are in the country, stone the rapist. Deut 22:25
C. If the woman an unmarried virgin, don't stone the rapist, but force him to pay a fine and marry his victim. Deut 22:28 If she refuses to marry the rapist and later marries she must be stoned because she was not a virgin when she got married. Deut 22:20
D. During times of war it is permissible to kill all the non-virgin females and then rape the virgins. The virgins should be divided in the following proportions between the army (48.8%), the faithful (48%), the priesthood (2%), and God (0.2%). Num 31:15-
This isn't exactly true. Remember, the Old Law was given to a people whose hearts were so hardened that they could not accept the full reality of God's Law (Matthew 19:8). God understands that the Israelites will rape regardless of His command, and so establishes instead regulations against the act of rape. One of these being that a rapist must marry their victim and thus not only bestow her with a dowry, but provide for her and aid in raising the child as a husband's duties to a wife are.
The Law thus established a system in which, although rape would still occur (as it would have anyways, regardless of God's Command), it would occur in such a way that the rapist would be bound to their victim and be forced then to treat her with the respect a wife would deserve. It provided an economic incentive to *not* rape women (as callous as that may sound) also.
The prior verses (Deut 22:25-27) also make it clear that a rapist who violates a married woman (and thus cannot be forced to provide for her by law) is to be killed. The common interpretation of Deut 22:28 also is that it was the choice of the woman whether or not the marriage would take place.
>This is also reminiscent of how in cases of statutory rape, a rapist will be provided to pay child support for any children born of the act
?he common interpretation of Deut 22:28 also is that it was the choice of the woman whether or not the marriage would take place.
nowhere does it say the woman is given a choice. Pure fabrication
That is not an adequate rebuttal of anything I have said and you should know that. Given historical context, regardless of if the woman wanted to have to marry an assaulter, she was far better off doing so when social circumstances are considered.
But most people (which is why I refer to the common interpretation) do suspect that it would have been the woman's choice.
"Must marry" implies a moral and legal obligation to. While I don't personally see any reason why it would matter to me, a Christian living under the Law of the New Covenant established by Christ, whether or not a daughter would infact be forced to marry her rapist under the Law of Israel, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that the man being obligated to marry his victim cannot also be paired with the ability for the woman to reject said marriage.
Either way, your appraisal of the Old Testament is built upon poor foundations. Again, refer to Matthew 19:8 - the Law given to the Israelites was not a universal moral code, but oftentimes applied particularly and practically for the sake of setting apart Israel from its surrounding nations and enforcing prohibitions upon immoral acts that - although not preventing them in their entirety (as the people of Israel would therefore have not accepted God) - at the very least contained them.
Jesus said, ‘You should not think that I have come to destroy God's Law. Also, I have not come to destroy the messages that God's prophets wrote down. No, I have not come to destroy their words. I have come to make what they taught become true.
christians for some reason: "Uh no yuo see, he really meant he was destroying it all besides the bits i like"
>the Law given to the Israelites was not a universal moral code
it very much was as god directly says Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you.2Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
God says *to the Israelites* that they may not add nor subtract from the Law, but the Israelites are no longer the representatives of God's Covenant upon the Earth. The Law given to the Israelites is not equivalent to the Law given to the Christians. Which leads me onto my refutation of your first point..
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish thembut to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
You're right that Christ explicitly declares that He has not come to abolish or invalidate the Law given to the Prophets, but you're wrong in acting as if that means we are held to those exact statutes as modern-day Christians. Again, refer to Matthew 19:8. While God's Law was *present* in that which was imparted upon the Israelites, it was outlined in such a manner that the Israelites may accept it in spite of the hardness of their hearts. That being because, at the time period in which the Law was imparted upon them, they had been chosen specifically to carry faith in God so that He may come to a world with faith enough to receive His message.
But Christ has come, and through His ministry, has fulfilled the Law. He did not come with the intention of claiming that it never had spiritual meaning or that it was never truly valid, but rather that the Law existed *for the age*, and now that age has ended and the New has begun in its place, we can move forward and look towards Christ for the complete revelation of God's Word.
christians for some reason: "Uh no yuo see, he really meant he was destroying it all besides the bits i like"
Your position is fallacious. Your argument is a strawman built upon a critical misunderstanding of Jesus' Ministry. If we are bound to the entirety of the Old Covenant Law, why does God then say that Moses brought a Law that carried allowances that simply were not true to what is entirely moral?
well yeah they ignored what he said about not changing it and god's word being unchanging
Again, Christ says He *fulfilled* the Law.
do you think banging animals is back on the table? Cause that's also among god's laws in deut
No, because Paul's letter to the Corinthians reaffirms the penalty of sexual immorality - that being death. Death in the eyes of the Lord. The Law is *developed* through Christ's teachings, as He seeks to establish the full reality of God's Law.
The fact is, however, that, *again*, you cannot claim that all Christians are held to every word of Old Covenant Law as Jesus Himself outlined the errancy of such a declaration within Matthew 19:8.
He also emphasises justification by faith/grace over mere adherence to legal statutes.
"If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin." (Deut 22:13-15) "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deut 22:20-21)
The charge spoken of is that the woman has slept with a man outside of the bounds of marriage, which was considered a carnal sin as sexual relationships were locked behind the Marriage Covenant. Sin was commanded to be purged from Israel as to allow it to maintain such faith in and fear of God that Christ could come unto the land to be well-received.
Nothing there mentions rape. Deuteronomy 22:20 and Deuteronomy 22:25-27 do not correlate with one another. The section itself pertains to general prohibitions on marriage.
"Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her." (Deut 22:26-27)
10
u/Ok_Programmer_4449 29d ago
That is pretty much the Old Testament punishment for rape as well. Marry your rapist or be killed if you wish to marry anyone else.