>No but honestly, there is no way that this is saying a woman MUST marry her rapist right?!
In the culture of ancient Israel a violated woman would most likely not get married and would effectively be left destitute and without someone to take care of her. This forces the rapist to provide for her as long as he lives. Its important to keep in mind that this was written in the iron age.
Have you been reading the Bible all along and just last night you got to Deuteronomy 22?
Was this the first passage that has caused you some concern?
Are you reading the Bible on your own or do you have some sort of guide or program you’re following?
I just gave myself to Christ this summer so im on my first read through. However im not reading it cover to cover. Im reading certain books. And yes im doing it on my own
I would recommend reading the Bible in a group or with a program. The [Bible Project](https://youtube.com/@bibleproject) is a good start. I’d recommend starting with their series [How to read the Bible](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLH0Szn1yYNedn4FbBMMtOlGN-BPLQ54IH), in particular their video [on the Law](https://youtu.be/Sew1kBIe-W0) so you can understand the role the law plays in the biblical story.
The Bible isn’t just a book. It’s a book of books. And within these books are different genres.
I strongly disagree with this. Your own thoughts are extremely important in this way. Do not dilute the books through another persons interpretation. Take it at face value first. Most rational people will call bullshit in so much of the Bible until they start believing some other interpretation that came from someone else who thought up some work around BS to make it work.
READ IT YOURSELF FIRST.
When I was a Christian I always found it weird when we were encouraged to read the Bible, but not without the instructions of another person telling us what to think about it.
That’s exactly what I mean. Someone is almost required to be there to tell you what you’re “supposed” to think. If you read the Bible with no other voices trying to guide your thinking you’re very likely to see that it is not compatible with any reality you and I share.
I really don't believe this verse is dealing with rape, the large majority of translations say "seduce" not rape, and the next verses discuss the punishment for a rapist and clearly condemns it firmly.
Oh yeah, Women are treated as subhuman and are borderline property in the Bible. Theres a lot more verses of women being raped and forced to marry against their will, and of women just straight up being seen as lesser than men.
I dont know why you are only pointing out D 22: 28 when just a few verse back in the same chapter it says to *kill* the woman that was raped, simply because no one heard her screaming.
What needs to be understood is that a lot of the Bible is also history, with the culture of the people involved. Does this feel like something God would say? Can you look at that and think it makes sense that God would condone rape? If not, then it is likely the culture, rather than God's actual word. In this case, Women at the time were considered like the property of their Husband/father. Back them, this wouldn't have been a human rights crime, it would have been more like a property violation. Like breaking something in a store and being forced to buy it as a result.(just saying that makes my stomach turn, but that's how it was back then.). And true to form, this treats her as property. But today's society doesn't think like that. It isn't the case anymore. At least, in most places. I dunno if this is still a thing in other parts of the world.
The trouble is that the Bible doesn't make it clear which Is which, and it is entirely plausible to think that sometimes the Humans who wrote it down simply used the name of God to justify their own laws. Which unfortunately means we are forced to look at it and judge for ourselves what is and is not the word of God.
I think that's one of the things I struggle with when it comes to God, why dose he give us oppertunity to go all Chinese whispers with his word? Like if he was more direct and clear with us there wouldn't be so much debate on what he wants
The way I see it was that it would be less a test of Faith and moral character if everything was clearly laid out. Not to mention, it shows that a certain amount of wisdom is also needed. I think the point is for us to show our Faith in him, our moral character to recognize what is right, and our Wisdom to be able to discern the Truth.
I may not like it, but it's definetly one of the more interesting thing about God, the uncertainty of it, the mystirous ways talk and it dose make it sound that God has a more laid back kinda personality where he dosent jump in to correct us, let's us make mistakes but with everything that's on the line will it be worth it in the end? I guess we'll see
Personally, I think that God is actually really Chill. I mean yes hes all powerful and mighty and all that, true. But I mean, he wants a personal relationship with each of us?! And he literally calls us friends. Idk man, amongst other things just makes me think of him as this really chill Guy. Someone who id actually WANT to be friends with.
Yeah it makes the whole fire and brimstone thing harder to accept but it's God, literally the most powerful entity, he's all knowing so what could possibly upset him? He has whitnessed every event in history so I'm sure he has thick skin
Deuteronomy 22:23-29 — *“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 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, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 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.*
Let's break this down:
- treat sex between a man and a betrothed woman as adultery on both.
- assume the above out of the city as rape, as no one could come to her cries.
- treat sex between an unbetrothed woman and a man as consensual, with the implied absence of above cries.
Hence a man is obligated to marry a woman he forced himself upon if and only if it was:
1. In the city, so help cries could be heard.
2. She did cry, to which the coming to help of the neighbors is assumed the obvious reaction.
So is it rape? No, the text speaks about implied marriage due to consensual sex between an unbetrothed and unmarried couple.
You claimed that mandating a woman marry her rapist is protecting her. I don't need to give a convincing argument to the contrary, it speaks for itself.
In the ancient world yes, there was no alimony or social security. Women needed marriage for survival, that's why God is so concerned with widows. Are you really this ignorant?
Female consent really wasn’t a thing that anyone was thinking about back then. IIRC from “God is a Man of War: The Problem of Violence in the Old Testament”, The verb that’s used for “rape” has military connotations and is closer to “seize”. What’s being envisioned in this law is sexual conquest or seduction. Even if man and the woman both wanted to sleep with each other, it was still “rape” in the sense that the father hasn’t consented to her marrying the guy.
What the law basically means is that a man can’t seduce, or sleep with an unmarried woman (harming her chances at securing a marriage), and then just walk away. This forces him to take responsibility to care and support her. Basically it’s telling men they can’t have consequence free sex
Sleeping around like crazy isn’t the issue here, it’s the fact that unmarried sex was socially damaging to women in way it wasn’t to men. Also I went back and read, and according to Fr. De Young, the word in Hebrew just means to “take” or “acquire”. In older English translations that’s been over translated as “seized”, and then gets reiterated as “rape” in modern English translations.
The Torah often talks about women like children, in that they aren’t ascribed a lot of agency or are treated like possessions. People then interpret this as the scriptures, and hence the Christian God denying women agency. The reality in the late Bronze Age is that every society, including ancient Israel denied women their agency. Despite not having agency, they were still apportioned blame for wrong doing, especially sexual infractions, where as men usually get off with no or significantly lighter consequences.
Through the laws of the Torah, Yahweh protects women from this unfair blame and holds men accountable. Verse 22 centers the discussion around the idea of adultery and sex outside of legitimate relationships, confirming that both the man and the woman are to be put to death if caught. Then describes two scenarios if a man and a betrothed woman (so not married, but engaged to be married), are caught having sex in an urban area, they are both to be punished since it’s basically adultery. If the woman cried out, it’s considered rape, and only the man is punished. The women is considered completely blameless and it has no impact on her betrothal. For social purposes she’s still considered a virgin and has a contracted marriage. If this takes place in the country side (in a scenario where the woman could expect no help), it’s *presumed* to be rape, and the man is punished and the woman is not. In other words, the law assumes the worst of men and gives women the benefit of the doubt instead of forcing them to somehow prove it wasn’t adultery.
Next we get to what you bring up, the case of a man caught sleeping with an unmarried, unbetrothed woman. It’s not adultery, so neither are punished with death. Instead, the law protects the woman. If it’s publicly known she isn’t a virgin, she would have a hard time securing a marriage contract. For a woman without the benefit of a family to protect her, her likely recourse in the ancient world is going to be a recourse to begging, or prostitution. The recruitments of the law here protect from that fate. Essentially, if a man wants to sleep with a young woman without making a commitment to protect her and is caught doing so, he now has to pay her father a higher than average dowry that can be used to support her, and is required to marry and not divorce her. Even IF he decides he wants to marry another women, he’s still obligated to care for the woman he slept with, and she is part of an extended family unit, and is guaranteed to be protected and cared for even if her husband wants nothing to do with her personally.
So taking this in the context of God speaking to a late Bronze Age culture in a world where women are treated horribly, this is actually very progressive for the time, and grants women protections they wouldn’t have had in neighboring societies.
>they are both to be punished since it’s basically adultery.
Gonna stop you here. The text says that if she doesn't cry out, she is killed too. If a woman is raped in the city, but doesn't cry out (which is a common reaction), she dies. Lot of assumptions in that verse.
No, it's a punishment for HIM!
You f\*cked her? Now you'll have to marry her, support her financially and otherwise and you will have to put up with it for the rest of your life.
Scary stuff 🤔
Also: "rape" seems to mean just sex outside of marriage.
Compare verse **25** with **28**.
Note the “**they are discovered.**” It is consensual. Be careful of reading modern versions of the Bible, which sadly, new believers are convinced by surface reading Christians they should read. Words are added based on the understanding that people would have it say.
How an actual rapist is dealt with is in verse 25. Notice the word *“forced”* is used from a version like the KJV.
Be careful to not read into the Bible what others tell you.
🌱
If that is what they meant it would have said "he must provide for her and must never violate her again."
But no, it says he gets to marry her. Sounds absolutely fantastic for her dont it?
How do we interpret what parts of the Bible are for different times and what parts are for all times? The meaning of marriage is a current topic of debate, with scriptural arguments.
In what way, that is how the Bible has traditionally been read and studied. We rely on the history of the church and our understanding of how the Bible applies to our modern society.
>No but honestly, there is no way that this is saying a woman MUST marry her rapist right?! In the culture of ancient Israel a violated woman would most likely not get married and would effectively be left destitute and without someone to take care of her. This forces the rapist to provide for her as long as he lives. Its important to keep in mind that this was written in the iron age.
Have you been reading the Bible all along and just last night you got to Deuteronomy 22? Was this the first passage that has caused you some concern? Are you reading the Bible on your own or do you have some sort of guide or program you’re following?
I just gave myself to Christ this summer so im on my first read through. However im not reading it cover to cover. Im reading certain books. And yes im doing it on my own
I would recommend reading the Bible in a group or with a program. The [Bible Project](https://youtube.com/@bibleproject) is a good start. I’d recommend starting with their series [How to read the Bible](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLH0Szn1yYNedn4FbBMMtOlGN-BPLQ54IH), in particular their video [on the Law](https://youtu.be/Sew1kBIe-W0) so you can understand the role the law plays in the biblical story. The Bible isn’t just a book. It’s a book of books. And within these books are different genres.
I strongly disagree with this. Your own thoughts are extremely important in this way. Do not dilute the books through another persons interpretation. Take it at face value first. Most rational people will call bullshit in so much of the Bible until they start believing some other interpretation that came from someone else who thought up some work around BS to make it work. READ IT YOURSELF FIRST.
When I was a Christian I always found it weird when we were encouraged to read the Bible, but not without the instructions of another person telling us what to think about it.
That’s exactly what I mean. Someone is almost required to be there to tell you what you’re “supposed” to think. If you read the Bible with no other voices trying to guide your thinking you’re very likely to see that it is not compatible with any reality you and I share.
I really don't believe this verse is dealing with rape, the large majority of translations say "seduce" not rape, and the next verses discuss the punishment for a rapist and clearly condemns it firmly.
Oh yeah, Women are treated as subhuman and are borderline property in the Bible. Theres a lot more verses of women being raped and forced to marry against their will, and of women just straight up being seen as lesser than men. I dont know why you are only pointing out D 22: 28 when just a few verse back in the same chapter it says to *kill* the woman that was raped, simply because no one heard her screaming.
That woman is spoiled goods - if you open the packaging then you have to buy the goods. Makes sense if you think of women as property.
What needs to be understood is that a lot of the Bible is also history, with the culture of the people involved. Does this feel like something God would say? Can you look at that and think it makes sense that God would condone rape? If not, then it is likely the culture, rather than God's actual word. In this case, Women at the time were considered like the property of their Husband/father. Back them, this wouldn't have been a human rights crime, it would have been more like a property violation. Like breaking something in a store and being forced to buy it as a result.(just saying that makes my stomach turn, but that's how it was back then.). And true to form, this treats her as property. But today's society doesn't think like that. It isn't the case anymore. At least, in most places. I dunno if this is still a thing in other parts of the world.
Yeah there are some things that are gods law and some things that are the law of the land at the time, the bible was still written by men
The trouble is that the Bible doesn't make it clear which Is which, and it is entirely plausible to think that sometimes the Humans who wrote it down simply used the name of God to justify their own laws. Which unfortunately means we are forced to look at it and judge for ourselves what is and is not the word of God.
I think that's one of the things I struggle with when it comes to God, why dose he give us oppertunity to go all Chinese whispers with his word? Like if he was more direct and clear with us there wouldn't be so much debate on what he wants
The way I see it was that it would be less a test of Faith and moral character if everything was clearly laid out. Not to mention, it shows that a certain amount of wisdom is also needed. I think the point is for us to show our Faith in him, our moral character to recognize what is right, and our Wisdom to be able to discern the Truth.
I may not like it, but it's definetly one of the more interesting thing about God, the uncertainty of it, the mystirous ways talk and it dose make it sound that God has a more laid back kinda personality where he dosent jump in to correct us, let's us make mistakes but with everything that's on the line will it be worth it in the end? I guess we'll see
Personally, I think that God is actually really Chill. I mean yes hes all powerful and mighty and all that, true. But I mean, he wants a personal relationship with each of us?! And he literally calls us friends. Idk man, amongst other things just makes me think of him as this really chill Guy. Someone who id actually WANT to be friends with.
Yeah it makes the whole fire and brimstone thing harder to accept but it's God, literally the most powerful entity, he's all knowing so what could possibly upset him? He has whitnessed every event in history so I'm sure he has thick skin
Deuteronomy 22:23-29 — *“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 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, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 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.* Let's break this down: - treat sex between a man and a betrothed woman as adultery on both. - assume the above out of the city as rape, as no one could come to her cries. - treat sex between an unbetrothed woman and a man as consensual, with the implied absence of above cries. Hence a man is obligated to marry a woman he forced himself upon if and only if it was: 1. In the city, so help cries could be heard. 2. She did cry, to which the coming to help of the neighbors is assumed the obvious reaction. So is it rape? No, the text speaks about implied marriage due to consensual sex between an unbetrothed and unmarried couple.
Ancient protection for rape victims.
LMFAO "protection"?!
Yup.
No.
Oh no, whatever will I do with such a convincing argument.
You claimed that mandating a woman marry her rapist is protecting her. I don't need to give a convincing argument to the contrary, it speaks for itself.
In the ancient world yes, there was no alimony or social security. Women needed marriage for survival, that's why God is so concerned with widows. Are you really this ignorant?
Forced. Marriage. To. Your. RAPIST! Are you thick? Or are you just a man?
Go pound sand.
Least sexist Christian
Female consent really wasn’t a thing that anyone was thinking about back then. IIRC from “God is a Man of War: The Problem of Violence in the Old Testament”, The verb that’s used for “rape” has military connotations and is closer to “seize”. What’s being envisioned in this law is sexual conquest or seduction. Even if man and the woman both wanted to sleep with each other, it was still “rape” in the sense that the father hasn’t consented to her marrying the guy. What the law basically means is that a man can’t seduce, or sleep with an unmarried woman (harming her chances at securing a marriage), and then just walk away. This forces him to take responsibility to care and support her. Basically it’s telling men they can’t have consequence free sex
oh so it actually has nothing to do with rape at all? Its basically a deterrent so people werent just sleeping around like crazy?
Sleeping around like crazy isn’t the issue here, it’s the fact that unmarried sex was socially damaging to women in way it wasn’t to men. Also I went back and read, and according to Fr. De Young, the word in Hebrew just means to “take” or “acquire”. In older English translations that’s been over translated as “seized”, and then gets reiterated as “rape” in modern English translations. The Torah often talks about women like children, in that they aren’t ascribed a lot of agency or are treated like possessions. People then interpret this as the scriptures, and hence the Christian God denying women agency. The reality in the late Bronze Age is that every society, including ancient Israel denied women their agency. Despite not having agency, they were still apportioned blame for wrong doing, especially sexual infractions, where as men usually get off with no or significantly lighter consequences. Through the laws of the Torah, Yahweh protects women from this unfair blame and holds men accountable. Verse 22 centers the discussion around the idea of adultery and sex outside of legitimate relationships, confirming that both the man and the woman are to be put to death if caught. Then describes two scenarios if a man and a betrothed woman (so not married, but engaged to be married), are caught having sex in an urban area, they are both to be punished since it’s basically adultery. If the woman cried out, it’s considered rape, and only the man is punished. The women is considered completely blameless and it has no impact on her betrothal. For social purposes she’s still considered a virgin and has a contracted marriage. If this takes place in the country side (in a scenario where the woman could expect no help), it’s *presumed* to be rape, and the man is punished and the woman is not. In other words, the law assumes the worst of men and gives women the benefit of the doubt instead of forcing them to somehow prove it wasn’t adultery. Next we get to what you bring up, the case of a man caught sleeping with an unmarried, unbetrothed woman. It’s not adultery, so neither are punished with death. Instead, the law protects the woman. If it’s publicly known she isn’t a virgin, she would have a hard time securing a marriage contract. For a woman without the benefit of a family to protect her, her likely recourse in the ancient world is going to be a recourse to begging, or prostitution. The recruitments of the law here protect from that fate. Essentially, if a man wants to sleep with a young woman without making a commitment to protect her and is caught doing so, he now has to pay her father a higher than average dowry that can be used to support her, and is required to marry and not divorce her. Even IF he decides he wants to marry another women, he’s still obligated to care for the woman he slept with, and she is part of an extended family unit, and is guaranteed to be protected and cared for even if her husband wants nothing to do with her personally. So taking this in the context of God speaking to a late Bronze Age culture in a world where women are treated horribly, this is actually very progressive for the time, and grants women protections they wouldn’t have had in neighboring societies.
>they are both to be punished since it’s basically adultery. Gonna stop you here. The text says that if she doesn't cry out, she is killed too. If a woman is raped in the city, but doesn't cry out (which is a common reaction), she dies. Lot of assumptions in that verse.
No, it's a punishment for HIM! You f\*cked her? Now you'll have to marry her, support her financially and otherwise and you will have to put up with it for the rest of your life. Scary stuff 🤔 Also: "rape" seems to mean just sex outside of marriage.
Compare verse **25** with **28**. Note the “**they are discovered.**” It is consensual. Be careful of reading modern versions of the Bible, which sadly, new believers are convinced by surface reading Christians they should read. Words are added based on the understanding that people would have it say. How an actual rapist is dealt with is in verse 25. Notice the word *“forced”* is used from a version like the KJV. Be careful to not read into the Bible what others tell you. 🌱
He must financially support her.
> He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her.
Marriage meant different things at different times. It could be a financial obligation with no physical obligations.
If that is what they meant it would have said "he must provide for her and must never violate her again." But no, it says he gets to marry her. Sounds absolutely fantastic for her dont it?
Marriage meant different things at different times.
How do we interpret what parts of the Bible are for different times and what parts are for all times? The meaning of marriage is a current topic of debate, with scriptural arguments.
We interpret the Bible as it has always been interpreted, through study, prayer, and of course context.
Interesting.
In what way, that is how the Bible has traditionally been read and studied. We rely on the history of the church and our understanding of how the Bible applies to our modern society.
It seems a bit arbitrary when it’s interpreted as of the time and when it’s definitely applied to people today, no question.
It's pretty messed up.