Featured Is spousal rape allowed in the Bible?

[Scooter]

Still some doubts...

It isn’t perfectly clear so some doubt is warranted I suppose. Personally, I see a man forcing himself on a woman in verse 25 and being executed as a result while in verse 28 I see a man and woman having to marry for having sex.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Still some doubts...

It isn’t perfectly clear so some doubt is warranted I suppose. Personally, I see a man forcing himself on a woman in verse 25 and being executed as a result while in verse 28 I see a man and woman having to marry for having sex.

Here's what I think the other side could say. The main reason the rapist in vs. 25 is punished is only because he's dipping in someone else's property. The female victim belonged to another man. While there was no property issue in vs. 28 since the woman was unmarried. I wonder if this had any bearing on the English translations that use the word "rape" in vs. 28.

BUT, you are also right to bring up that vs. 28 doesn't explicitly say rape or force, nor does it mention the woman resisting (although even that doesn't mean she consented, but technicality you get where i'm going). So from that standpoint, it leaves the door open to say that vs. 28 does not involve rape. I wonder if this had any bearing on the English translations that used the word "seize" instead of rape in vs. 28.

I feel like opposing lawyers would have a lot of fun defending their client based on these set of laws! lol

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Ok after looking at the chapter as a whole, I am convinced verse 28 does NOT refer to rape. Look back at verse 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:. Here we are told if a man "force" a woman, that is rape. The rapist was to be put to death. The word "force" is not used in verse 28. In fact, verse 28 says if both the man and woman are found, then the man must marry the woman. Verse 28 indicates both the man and the woman were willing participants and therefore must marry. So no, the Bible does not teach that a victim must marry the man that raped her.

I hope you’re right.

And please notice that I’m pulling for the Bible. The human situation is too important to do otherwise.

 

[bbyrd009]

It doesn’t surprise me because basically the Bible has a 10-year-old child’s view of morality. You’ve got to follow the rules, the rules are hard, but you’ve still got to follow them.

There’s nothing about us being free people living in a free society. Or very little.

• and no, society wasn’t free back then. So, no wonder.

Good points, esp. about living in a free society.

I see that patriarchy was the norm back then and it seems women had little to no say on a lot of issues. For instance, women couldn't choose who to marry; they were simply given to a man as part of an arranged marriage.

A long time ago, someone tried to tell me that the passages in Deuteronomy dealing with rape were not part of God's morals, but instead were part of Moses's civil rules. I brushed that off as being a way to explain away these passages, but I'm open if anyone wants to explain that view further or explain something else.

fwiw the law was given and later deemed to be inadequate in the NT, implying that the giving of law was a stopgap measure to address where ppl were at at the time

but we really dont have to go ancient to discuss the spousal rape thing, since it is still legal in several states, i think? And even in states where it isnt, good luck getting a conviction i bet

 

[bbyrd009]

It doesn’t surprise me because basically the Bible has a 10-year-old child’s view of morality. You’ve got to follow the rules, the rules are hard, but you’ve still got to follow them.

Imagine trying to apply some of those rules in modern-day society. Imagine telling a woman today that she has to marry her rapist ... ha.. The person to suggest that would probably be charged as an accomplice to sexual assault!

believe it or not i could provide recent links for that, even in the US! Hard to believe though, i know

 

[AgnosticBoy]

believe it or not i could provide recent links for that, even in the US! Hard to believe though, i know

Really? I would imagine in some small rural town. I could make a joke about the Mormons, esp. the FLDS, but don't wanna offend anyone.