Rape And Sexual Laws In The Bible: God’s Law Is Still Holy

Rape And Sexual Laws In The Bible: God’s Law Is Still Holy

         Many critics of the Bible love to fallaciously point out that God commanded a rapist to marry the woman he defiled in Deutoronomy 22:28-29 (ONLY if she was an unmarried virgin not promised to another man). They state “question begging epithets” to prove their point of view. They will say things like, “The Bible is full of evil and commands that a woman who gets raped must mary her rapist! God is sick!” or something like “Your God forces women to mary a man who has raped her! Rape is a horrible thing and forcing a woman to mary a sicko who raped her is completely wrong!” The truth that the Bible states is nothing even close to such claims. Let’s look into the Scriptures deeper.

Christ fulfilled the law

        One needs to understand that the social laws (not the moral and spiritual laws) of the Old Testament were applied to ancient Israel as God’s chosen nation and commanded by God for them and them only. Since ancient Israel does not exist anymore we do not follow their social laws anymore. People worldwide who come to Christ are bound by the laws of their nations (As Jesus taught in Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:12-17, Luke 20:20-26; and Paul emphasized in Titus 3:1, Romans 13:1-7). However, the laws we still follow are the moral and spiritual laws of the Old Testament which transcend the laws of national governments. This is because of what is called progressive revelation where God has revealed more things that progress further knowledge of His nature and fulfillents of His law. Jesus Christ has fulfilled the law of sin and death and has freed believers from slavery to it.

        While it’s self evident that we should live morally correct lives and be spiritually inclined to follow and obey God, some Old Testament laws are now void. Laws like sewing different kinds of seed in the same field (Leviticus 19:19), wearing clothes made of two different types of thread (Deuteronomy 22:11), refraining from certain foods (Leviticus 11) and celebrating certain holidays (Leviticus 23) were specific to ancient Israel (not to mention that Jesus revealed to Peter in a vision that the food laws are now different, Acts 10:9-16). In the New Testament, Colossians 2:16 says, “Therefore don’t let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink or in the matter of a festival or a new moon or a sabbath day.” This is why we don’t have to celebrate sabbath days or go to church only on Saturday like the Seventh Day Adventist cult claims, or why we can eat any kind of animal we want now. We also live in different economies and cultures and are no longer strictly herdsmen or agricultural people. Today many cultures’ only food comes from sources that were unclean to the Jews in ancient times, but now all Christians everywhere can eat anything as it was revealed in Acts 10. God has also revealed that He is also the God of the gentiles and offers them salvation as well and that includes everything in their culture that has to do with day-to-day living and survival.

        God has changed specific social laws and through Jesus Christ He took the punishment for sins and made a way for us to gain righteousness outside of the law by fulfilling it for us. The law was made to show how holy and perfect God is and what He demands, yet no one can keep the law. Only Christ who is God over all (Romans 9:5) could be perfect enough to fulfill it while taking on our sins and dying in our place in order to give us righteousness. We are now set apart spiritually and morally; not socially and politically inside a country as ancient Israel was set apart in the Promised Land. Now let’s get to the main point of this discussion.

Adultery in the Bible

        Sexual laws are not social/political laws, but moral laws. Adultery is and was sexual immorality, and it was punishable by death as explained in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. There are various strict sexual laws commanded by God in the Old Testament that call for the execution of the offender by the Israelite community (read Leviticus 18 and 20). God desired holiness in His nation and preserving sexual purity was very important to God. Adultery in the Old Testament is explained as someone who was married and was having sex with someone they were not married to, or a woman who is promised in marriage to one man and was having sex with another man. This was very serious and God commanded the Israelites to “purge the evil from among [them]” (Deuteronomy 22:23 and 24).

Sexual intercourse consummated the marriage

        In ancient near eastern culture marriage was not affirmed through ceremonies like the ones seen in western culture, such as the modern wedding ceremony and then the “hunny-moon” vacation; nor was it affirmed through signing a marriage license with a government. Marriage was consummated at once by sexual intercourse. There was no legal effect without sexual intercourse and the Bible states that “the two become one flesh” which shows that union in marriage was not simply an emotional attachment between two people, but a physical and literal attachment between two bodies. Sex before marriage did not exist because having sex was equal to getting married in Israelite culture as there was no ceremony ritual before sex that legally confirmed a union between the man and woman as we see in the modern marriage ceremony. They did have celebrations before the sexual intercourse, but that is not what made them married. In western culture the man and woman are pronounced “man and wife” before the hunny-moon sex. Contrary to this, the bride and groom of ancient-near-eastern cultures would go into a tent together and come out married the next morning after having sex. An example of this is in Genesis 24:67 which says, “And Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah and took Rebekah to be his wife.” Evidence of the woman’s virginity would be soaked onto a cloth as proof of their consummation (Deuteronomy 22:17). This showed evidence of proper moral behavior in the community.

        In the Old Testament, if a man seduced a virgin (not promised to another man) who willingly had sex with him, she was considered his wife and the man had to pay the bridal price for her with no exceptions and treat her as his wife. Exodus 22:16-17 states,

When a man seduces a virgin who was not promised in marriage, and he has sexual relations with her, he must certainly pay the bridal price for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must pay an amount in silver equal to the bridal price for virgins.

It should be noted that verse 17 implies that the male was the instigator and at fault for leading the virgin into seduction, and his punishment was paying the bride price as she had become his wife because of the sex. He had to pay the bride price even if the father of the girl refused to let her live with him. It is also important to understand that the father had the option of keeping his daughter from living with the man who seduced her. Obviously, if the female liked the male and wanted to be with him then they could live together in their marriage, unless of course the father still refused for some reason (which could be a result of many different situations such as his character). Even if the woman did not live with the man, the man still could not marry someone else. If he tried or had sex with anyone else he would be killed.

Rape punishment in the Bible

Rape was punishable by death and was considered equal to murder in the Bible. Deuteronomy 22:26 says that raping a woman is a case “just like one in which a man attacks his neighbor and murders him.” Rape was not seen as something small, but a huge deal deserving the execution of the one who committed it (Now days, rape is not seen as big of a deal and rapists are never executed, and are barely given any time in jail). The death penalty happened when a married person or someone promised in marriage committed adultery with someone they were not married to and vice versa (this applied to both males and females who were involved with adultery). Both people involved in the adultery were put to death and rape falls under this category of adultery; but in the situation of a rape only the rapist was punished because only the rapist committed the sin. The victim was not punished as it was not their fault. A different situation where the rapist was not put to death was when a virgin who was not married or promised to another man for marriage was raped. This is where many anti-Christians and atheists get excited and start making their baseless claims. The passage many Atheists and people who hate the Bible love to make mention of is Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which says:

If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.

One must take a very close look at this passage and apply it to the other scriptures about sexual morality. The Bible does command that a man who commits rape is forced to treat her as his wife and pay the bride price (50 shekels if and only if she was an unmarried virgin who was not promised to another man), but that does not mean the woman is forced to live with him or even have sex with him. This can be understood from Exodus 22:16-17 mentioned above which is the law for seduction. The father could “absolutely refuse” to allow his daughter to be given to the rapist, but the rapist still had to give the bride price. To suggest that a woman seduced (being seduced implies a willingness to engage in sexual activity by giving into temptation) does not have to live with her seducer, but a woman who was raped (an unwilling participant in the sex act) is forced to live with her rapist is absolutely absurd! So no, the Bible does not command that a woman is forced in marriage and forced to live with and treat a rapist as her husband with sexual intercourse for the rest of her life. It is simply wrong and illogical to get that out of the text and is a weak argument.

        It should also be considered that rape in ancient Israelite culture was without the violent influence of modern pornographic media that is a constant pollution (with its instant access on the internet and pay-per-view cable) in the minds of men (and even women!) today. It is plausible to understand that rape in the biblical context of ancient Israel during the time of Moses was based on sexual passion instead of power, hate, and violence. The story of Jacob’s daughter Dinah being defiled by Shechem, who was a Hivite prince is an example of this kind of desire. For it says in Genesis 34:2-4,

When [he] saw her, he took her and raped her. He became infatuated with Dinah, daughter of Jacob. He loved her and spoke tenderly to her. ‘Get me this girl as a wife,” he told his father Hamor. 

Obviously, if a man brutalized a woman, or was out to commit sadistic torture he would be executed for it. But the rape discussed in the Bible was motivated by passion and not sexual sadism.

        Eventually later, of course, Israel went far into the depths of depravity during the time of the Judges and the outrage towards violent, sadistic, rape that resulted from the gang rape and death of a woman is seen in Judges 19. Even though the rape laws were strictly expressed towards men who had sexual desire for a woman, a person has to admit that rape is a horrible offense and in no way is it something to be understood as “not a big deal.” The emotional pain a woman goes through after being raped is terrible. But this in no way proves God to be unjust.

        The rape law of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and the law of seduction in Exodus 22:16-17 go hand in hand and are strictly social laws. This proves that it is not true that the bible teaches that women who are raped should be forced to marry their rapists. That is an atheist myth and an ignorant attempt to discredit God as being immoral. God is holy and just and there was a cultural and social reason for the bride price law which benefited the woman and protected her with provisions for her life, and was a punishment to the rapist. Rape itself is immoral and applies to moral law, but the bride price and marriage consequence is strictly cultural and social; and was commanded only for ancient Israel.

Conclusion

        A woman who was not a virgin would not be able to marry another man because of the culture. If she could not get married, no one would take care of her and if her family died no one would provide for her. Also, the bride price punishment and provisions for her was a punishment to the rapist and it eased the burden that would have been left on her family to pay for her provisions for life. So the rapist had to take her as his wife and provide for her, even if the father of the rape victim “absolutely refused to give his daughter to him.” She could live at home and the rapist still had to pay and provide for her. But if the woman was forgiving and the man changed his heart toward her then she could live with him as a wife if her father allowed it. Still, no matter what, the rapist was then unable to marry another woman his entire life. If he tried to, or had sex with another woman, he would be stoned to death. If he decided to stop supporting her with provisions and livelihood he would be stoned to death as well. He had to support her no matter what! This was a strict punishment and it served as a warning for men to behave properly with morally sexual character.

        The laws of the Old Testament were so harsh that they would cause fear in people to live correctly. There are no examples of any of the rape laws actually being carried out in the Bible so it is safe to assume that these laws served to put the fear of God in the hearts of men more than anything else. With Christ’s death on the cross, the substitutionary atonement for humanity’s sins, and within the social and political context of the nations a person lives in today, humans are no longer bound by these social laws of the consequences of rape and seduction. They are bound by the current modern nation’s laws (many being less harsh toward the rapist than the Old Testament laws).

        In modern cultures, a woman who is raped can still marry someone else, as physical virginity is not a mark of a person’s true purity. A person’s purity is found ONLY in Christ Jesus who paid the penalty for sins that gives people forgiveness. Sex outside of marriage is a sin that deserves death and separation from God (it is adultery), but it is forgiven with a new life born in Christ. Christ came to save sinners from the law’s punishment of eternal death in hell; and humans are not saved into a law of outward works, rituals and social constructs; but a law of freedom in Jesus Christ that wipes away sins past, present, and the future failures people will commit. It gives us a heart that desires to follow God both morally and spiritually which transcends cultural and social laws. Therefore, God is not unjust to command the laws He did in the Old Testament.  He is also proven to be a wonderful loving God of grace because of what Christ did in the New Testament. He forgave our sins and no longer bounds us to the social laws commanded to ancient Israel. God’s Law is still holy!

26 thoughts on “Rape And Sexual Laws In The Bible: God’s Law Is Still Holy

  1. I’m having a problem with your differentiation on which law is moral and which is social. You classified Deutronomy 22:23 and 24 as moral laws but Deutronomy 22:28 and 29 as social. There are less than five verses separating them and nothing in the chapter as far as I could see differentiated these two sets of laws.

    So I’m just wondering how you were able to put these two laws in different categories.

    • Its called using common sense when reading the bible. Your problem is you are trying to discredit Christianity the same way cults and atheists commonly try to do it (while always failing) by saying there is not a definitive statement that says “These exact laws are only social and should only be followed for this time right now, and these laws over here are moral laws that must be followed eternally.” You arn’t going to find a statement like that. It’s called using logic and reason to understand that God commanded the Jews to do a lot of religious rituals, act on punishments for things, and deal with situations in their cultural and society. These old testament laws were not written to describe to modern atheists what is and isn’t a social law. They were simply written to the Jews of the time who understood it. Obviously RAPE is a moral sin, but the way a society deals with rape is social. Just like the American death penalty in certain states is social but not a moral law. Some states do not impose the death penalty.

      Less than 5 verses and a chapter does not discredit my conclusion that such laws were social and others were moral. It’s called using logic. It is self evident. You must look at the whole of the Bible to understand every distinct part. You can’t just say “Wow, within the spaces of 5 verses and within this chapter it does not say the difference between social and moral laws, therefore all Christians must follow every single law in the old testament to the letter.” That is a false assumption.

      We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”

      Jer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” This is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, 9:15; and 12:24.

      Heb. 8:13 explicitly says, “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”

      God instituted laws which were consistent with the culture of the times, ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, and helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected God’s holiness.

      You need to take a class on hermaneutics if you can’t understand this.

      • Sorry but I’m still a bit fuzzy. If you’ll indulge my ignorance on the matter. I agree that the distance between the verses don’t discredit your conclusion but I still fail in seeing the difference between them in the sense that one is social and the other is moral. Again, I apologize (it may be just me) but could you explain the logic on how their different.

        And if I’m not intruding too much I have a follow-up regarding your point in Luke 22:20. How do you reconcile that with Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”. Thanks.

    • It seems funny you claim you have “ignorance” on the matter. I find that somehow you KNOW I am right but are trying to find loopholes so you can discredit Christianity. You ask me to explain the logic of how they are different after I already explained above the very thing you ask me to do. Do you knowhow to read? Do you understand logical reasoning? Refer to the above reply before your last response and read it over again.

      Luke 22:20 says, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” This new covenent fulfills the old covenent int hat Jesus Christ died in the place of sinners so we are not bound by the law of sin and death. Read Romans 6-7 right now and figure this out. Then go back and re-read my article, especially the beginning where I refer to social laws in the new testament. Please read the verse references. This is not too hard. The Bible commands us to follow the laws of our lands. You seem to completely miss the point of ancient Israel as a nation with its theocratic laws, and this ancient nation no longer existing in that theocratic form. The world awaits the return of Christ in the second advent for a new reign by God.

      Also, why don’t YOU do me a favor and explain what Heb. 8:13 means when it says, “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”

      What does “he made the first obsolete” mean if we should still follow every single ancient Israelite law exactly as it says in the bible including setting up a tabernacle, setting up an Ark (which does not exist anymore) for the Glory of God to manifest itself (which does not happen anymore until Christ’s return), as well as making gold lampstands, etc etc etc….you completely lack common sense when you interpret the Bible if you think that we need to still follow all the old testament laws.

      I am wondering if you are even being intellectually honest with me since every answer you ask is already in the article I wrote. It feels as though you are trying hard to stump me and find a loophole so you can hate Christianity.

  2. You suggest that sexual union binds people together in a marriage union automatically. How did you come to that conclusion?

    • Exodus 22:16-17 says, “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.”

      This was in the article. This makes it obvious that ancient israelite culture had no concept of pre-marital sex. Sexual intercouse was marriage if it was with a virgin, but her father could intervene as is stated in verse 17.

      Genesis 24:67 talks about the story of Isaac and Rebekah. It says, “Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” It is very uncomplicated to understand that Isacc publicly went into the tent and had sex with her and thus they became married.

      This shows that such laws and custums were societal and not moral laws that are eternal and must be fallowed by people everywhere. A Christian in American culture can have a marriage ceremony and then a hunny-moon vacation where sex is later performed and still be morally acceptable to God. The groom does not have to publicly go into a tent owned by his mother and then have sex with her and show her blood on a cloth to the community in order to morally be married to her anymore; and this is still holy and God honoring.

      The problem is you atheists love to try to pidgeon hole every single thing into one category so you can say, “Ha ha you don’t follow what the bible says!” When in reality the Christians you love to point fingers at do follow the bible. It is just you are to ignorant to understand it; as such simple truths such as the difference between jewish societal law and eternal moral law is too complicated for you to grasp in your “natural” man-centered mind.

  3. Your conclusions on moral vs social are incorrect. The bible is the word of law, as written. No interpretation is allowed. Using words like self evident, then berating someone w a question simply shows how weak your argument really is. The facts are women were property, bought and sold by men with the bridal price, and raping a virgin carried no punishment other than the monetary. He could continue to rape her the rest of his life, because he paid for her, whether they lived together or not. Married women were different, because she was another man’s property, not because rape was heinous.

    • Everything you have just said is completely bias and your own opinion that you desire to be found in the Bible because you have your own agenda. You have provided no reasons for why I am wrong. You have simply just spouted off your own ignorant opinion.

  4. Thank you for you very well balance, insightful, and helpful article. I have printed and saved, and with your blessing distribute as opportunity arises. Good stuff. God is good, and his Word faithful. Anyone who is transparently, sincerely seeking truth will find it in His Word – though it might take time, and effort – but then that is comparable to the motivation and hunger for truth eh. “Blessed are those who hunger for righteousness, for they will be filled”. God bless you valuable and helpful ministry!

    • Hey thanks alot for the encouragment. This question was always asked by atheists or the accusation of rape in the bible was always brought up. So I decided to really figure it out and actually reading the bible you know that there is no way at all the bible supports rape and its just a false assumption made up by people like richard dawkins. Anyway yes you can print it and hand it out. Just tell them where you got it and who wrote it thanks. Cite me.

  5. Hey again. Awesome to see that you are a Christian who does and teachers Martial Arts! I am a Missionary / Pastor in New Zealand (A native of New Zealand) and I also teach Marital Arts (Thought rusty with a few cob webs) – Jesus is my Life! I was hoping maybe we could keep in touch – since we have this in common in Christ – and I am sometimes in the South of the States where my sponsoring / sending church in ‘Cedar Creek MBC’. I don’t know how the Lord might use our contact – but who knows. It is exiting to see you passion for Christ, you well grounded faith, and a love or the Marital arts. I trained under Zen Do Kai free style, had my own dojo a ways back, and have a self defense syllabus I developed hoping it would lead to opportunities to share Christ. I am now Pastoring in a little Town called Pahiatua in New Zealand, with a couple of mission points. Anyways…be great to keep in touch. My email is carlbromley@gmail.com God bless Brother! Carl Bromley.

  6. Pingback: Rape And Sexual Laws In The Bible: God’s Law Is Still Holy | Doubting Thomas

  7. I take issue with this statement of yours: “Even if the woman did not live with the man, the man still could not marry someone else. If he tried or had sex with anyone else he would be killed.” referring to Exodus 22:16. I know in Deuteronomy 22 in a similar situation the man is forbidden from ever divorcing her, but where does it say if he tried to have sex(or marry) anyone else he would be killed? I see that no where in the Bible. I agree the act of sex most of the time meant marriage, but if the father overrode and said no then the marriage is null and void, it was ultimately the father’s choice to force the man(or allow the man) to take his daughter as wife.

    • Wrong.

      If a man raped a woman as stated in the verse he was given the punishemnt of paying the bride price and she will have to be his wife and he cannot reject her. If the Father refused him to take her her into his home he was still her husband and is bound to take care of her for the rest of his life. If he has sex or tries to marry someone else that is adultery and punishable by death. Apparently you missed this…and just because the father says he refuses to let his daughter live with the rapist who is now bound to her it does not make the marriage null of void. He is still punished with providing her needs for the rest of his life no matter what.

      • I agree he had to pay the bride price no matter what. But there is nothing that would stop her father from allowing her to marry another man. Also there is nothing that would stop this rapist from marry another woman. You have not shown scripture to support your position. In fact even if the father did force him to take her as his wife, nothing would stop him from marrying another woman(Polygamy was not forbidden as the Mosaic law not only allowed for it, it regulated Polygamy)

        • The woman to marry another man? No one would marry someone who was “de-virginized” in their culture. That is how their culture was. You would not marry someone who is not a virgin.

          The rapist had to pay for her needs for life and basically was to take care of her. The rapist still cannot marry another person, since he is taking care of her. And I did support my position with scripture all over my article please refer to it.

          Polygamy was not commanded by God. it was something people did on their own. The Old Testament Law does not teach people to marry more than 1 woman. Deut. 17:17 states, “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.”

          Whether or not the rapist married someone else, he would be paying her bride price no matter what. And the fact is she still does not have to live with him or even have sex with him. Yet he still pays and she is considered his wife.

          The Mosaic Law does not regulate or tech polygamy that is false. Deut. 21:15 is the only verse someone could say “regulates and endorses” polygamy. Scholars say that the Hebrew can be translated as “has had 2 wives.” It could be before the Exodus or maybe 1 wife died and he has another with more children. The verse is not regulated plygamy, but proper inheritance to children.

          If Deut. 17:17 commands that a king should not marry more than 1 wife, its common sense it is a negative thing and looked down upon and no one should do it.

        • Another interesting verse is Exodus 21:10-11 where it talks about a daughter sold as a slave to a master who might take her for his son to marry. If the son did marry another wife he had to keep providing for her no matter what.
          I still dont think this is commanding or saying “polygamy is great!” it is simply stating a reality that is possible that people do. God tolerated it but did not condone it as the design for marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. Gen. 2:24.

          People in the ancient Israelite theocracy most likely were not going to go around marrying multiple wives. In the past it did happen with patriachs before the LAW. Witht e bride price being so much a person is hardly going to afford a lot of wives. Also, who is going to marry a rapist? “Oh you just raped that woman and now paid the bride price? Of course I’ll marry you!!” I dont see that being realistic.

          Also like I said in my article these laws are not reported as being carried out in any story and seem to serve more as a threat to instill fear for proper behavior in the people than for people to say “Oh yeah ill rape this un-married, un-betrothed virgin its cool, I got 50 shekels! In fact I got 100 so ill just marry another chick later anyway sooo yeah…” That is hardly the attitude. Lets be realistic here.

          • By your own admission passages like Exodus 21:10(and there are others) in the Mosaic law that regulate polygamy. You are simply reading in your own thoughts on monogamy verse polygamy. No I am not a in a polygamous relationship but I choose to read and understand the Bible through God’s design and the period it was written rather than through a 21st century westernized view. God never condemns polygamy – and even in his warning to kings about multiplying wives he is referring to foreign wives that will lead their hearts astray(as Solomon did). You make this assumption “People in the ancient Israelite theocracy most likely were not going to go around marrying multiple wives” and have no idea of its truth. The reality if a man was even moderately wealthy he would have multiple wives. Some of these wives may have been former servant girls that he purchased. And yes In Old Testament times wives or servant girls were seen as property and that is why adultery was viewed as property violation by one man of another man’s property. Again I realize this is all an abhorrent to 21st century western(Romanized and Feminized) thought but it is a Biblical reality. One the biggest blows to anti-polygamy is when God scolds David for taking Uriah wife when he had given him his “master wives”(referring to Saul’s wives) – “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.” When I was growing up in churches I used to see Pastor’s twist themselves in pretzels trying to explain away this passages and I used to believe them until I decided to take off my post Roman era, 21st century blinders and see things as they were, not as I wanted them to be.

          • I am going to have to disagree with you. And you just assumed the passage talked about a King being the husband of one wife is only refering to foreign wives. NO verse in the bible states that. But it does warn kings not to marry multiple wives. There is no specific given. Stop being a hypocrite in how you interpret the bible.

            Given the evidence of wht Scripture says I can safely assume in aplausible manner that, no, Israelites in Mosaic law time most likely did not go around marrying multiple wives. LAter in the period of the judges they did though, because like it says in that time “people did whatever they pleased.”

            Genesis 6 talks about powerful men grabbing as many wives as they wanted for themselves, and the Lord then says he saw mankind as corrupt. God was using this as an example of their wickedness for in the next verses it says “God saw that man’s wickedness was widespread on the earth.” The example given was taking many wives. This is right after a genealogy, with no other examples of wickedness given.

            Genesis 2:24 says “man joins with his wife and the 2 become one flesh.” If it is okay for Adam to marry alot of wives how is he 1 flesh with all of his wives? He isnt. Unless you believe orgies are also biblical and acceptable.

            That verse’s phraseology only means that God in His providence had given David all that was Saul’s. It is not a blow to anti-polygamy. You have to ignore the rest of the bible to assume that God commands we should marry more than 1 wife and its okay.

            And no those verses don’t “regulate” polygamy in the sense God designed polygamy and is setting forth how he wants it to work out. The verses do say the consequences of actions will be dealt with in certain ways. It does not promote or praise polygamy that is your own assumption.

  8. As far as the rapist goes – most of your answer is based on pure assumption. You assume the rapist could never marry anyone else, nothing in the Scriptures or historically supports that. I agree with you that it was difficult for a non-virgin woman to get married, but it was not impossible. Many women would loose their husbands in war(and thus not be a virgin) and other men would redeem them like Boaz did with Ruth. In fact if a man’s brother died, he was required by the Mosaic law to marry his non-virgin sister-in-law to raise up an heir for his brother. And no there was no stipulation(unless he was already married).

    • The leverite marriage was to the brother yes, but it also says “She shall not be married to someone outside of the family.” This could include cousins of the deceased husband, or uncles, or anyone. If the brother was already married he is not forced to marry her and she can marry someone else in the family.

      And yes non-virgin’s ion leverite marriages, and obviously widows. But even you agree that it is difficult for a non-virgin to get married. So I think it is safe to assume, and assumptions are not always wrong because the evidence suggests things, that the rapist is bound by her to provide for her.

      What your logical conclusion would be is that a man, as long as he has the money, can safely rape any non-virgin he wants without consequence except that she become his wife and he pays the bride price. And he can do this as much as he wants and also marry other women.

      It is not a false assumption to think that other women would not marry a rapist who raped other women.

      You can believe what you want. I stand by my beliefs and I believe the evidence points to my conclusions. We are going to have to disagree.

  9. The author was citing (I am so sorry if I make mistakes, English is my fourth language) that rape back then was not the same as rape now, giving the example of the prince who raped an innocent girl. Rape is rape, whether committed by a dirty homeless vagabond (who keep in mind might be much nobler than the best prince in the eyes of God) or a prince (a man of status due to money; I’ve never met a poor prince). If you are engaging in religious discussions, please be humble enough to leave the material world aside. Rape is rape is rape, or you are used to a society where women will be delighted to be ‘raped’ by a prince. Towards the end of your chapter I read that I am going to hell ( being a Muslim). What kind of justice you base your argument on, the fact that I am a good, honest, loyal, never drink alcohol, never used any drugs, never smoked, never stole, never tried consciously to do evil to my fellow man, never, never, never….Will a just God compensate me with hell for the sample act of taking responsibility for my deeds and not relying on somebody else to pay the price for me????? absurd, just absurd.
    let me enlighten you a little with my background which was inspired by Islam:
    *we claim, and we are not ashamed to say it, that the bible and the old testament could not have been preserved intact during all this time..ask any scholar about the literal authenticity of the Bible
    * we claim that God spoke the same language throughout, that’s why, we as Muslims, cannot say God said back then and now the word is different, this is non sense, the logic has to be consistent otherwise I won’t believe in a God that changes his mind all the time (read the Koran)
    *the Koran is not an Arab book, the Koran was sent to humanity as a whole, I feel sorry for you if you are afraid to read a book that changed the course of humanity (if one was recommended by Oprah, you would hurry to buy it and read it). When the Koran was revealed to Mohamed, there were but Christians, Jews and pagans around him, in other words, my ancestors were either Christians, Jews or pagans that converted to Islam.
    *Islam says the adulterers,if both married, deserve to be stoned to death, but and this is a big but, you had to have two male witnesses, or one male witness and two female witnesses, witnessing the EXPLICIT act (which is almost impossible, unless they go public…then you really deserve a harsh punishment)
    *prince rape doesn’t feel softer than a rape by a criminal, sorry rape is rape (call a spade a spade)
    *the idea of God changing the laws to suit you! why? what is so special about you as Christians compared to other God’s creations? does God discriminate on the basis of race, religion (we know he does on the basis of handicap; if a man lost his testicles, he should not enter the altar,,deutoronomy)> this is really non sense, I tried to find justification for these things, I struggled and struggled, but couldn’t come up with one, please help me.
    *”Suppose you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God hands them over to you and you take captives. And suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home, where she must shave her head, cut her fingernails, and change all her clothes. Then she must remain in your home for a full month, mourning for her father and mother. After that you may marry her. But if you marry her and then decide you do not like her, you must let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NLT)
    So much Sympathy:)
    * there are dozens and dozens of verses like these in the Bible, please help me understand, I want to believe in a JUST God, here is another:
    *”You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their father’s wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 20:4-5 NAB)
    Oh my God, what did the first generation do, let alone the the fourth!?

    • The rape was not about violence or sadistic sexual torture as it is most often in serial killers now days. The rape was from passion. Rape is rape yes but its not all the same kind of rape or the same motives.

      And yes you will go to hell because you are self righteous and believe you are perfect and by your own merit God is obligated to let you into heaven. Its really about you, not God. You deny the need for a Savior and assume your sin does not need to be punished because you outweighed it with good. You are just the same as a pharisee from the bible except a Muslim.

    • THE PERFECT EXAMPLE FOR MANKIND

      THE PERFECT MUSLIM

      And surely thou hast sublime morals
      (Surat Al-Qalam 68:4).

      Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
      (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:21).

      Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly.

      ALLAH’S ARITHMETIC: 54 INTO 9 GOES NICELY

      THE WANKING PERVERT FROM MECCA

      A marriage is engaged in by 2 consenting adults.
      Do you really believe a 6 year old child would desire to marry a 51 year old man?
      Do you think that is what she would choose?
      Do you think a 9 year old girl would desire to have sex with a 54 year old?

      The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the “Holy Prophet” of Mecca married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and WANKED BETWEEN HER THIGHS FOR 3 YEARS and consummated/RAPED her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

      MUHAMMAD: HIS SEX LIFE, SEX ABUSE & CHILD MOLESTING

      Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly. Let us investigate how did the prophet live Islam; how did the prophet apply the eternal teachings of God in his daily life? In this search for the historical Muhammad, we will utilize the Islam’s holy books, its own writings.

      MUHAMMAD’S MOLESTATION OF BABY AISHA

      Muhammad fantasized about baby Aisha before soliciting her from her father.
      Sahih Bukhari 9.140
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      Allah’s apostle said to me, “you were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘if this is from Allah, then it must happen.

      AISHA’S FATHER DID NOT APPROVE AT FIRST

      Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.
      Sahih Bukhari 7.18
      Narrated ‘Ursa:
      The prophet asked abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “but I am your brother.” the prophet said, “you are my brother in Allah’s religion and his book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

      MUHAMMAD WOULD THIGH WITH BABY AISHA

      HOW TO THIGH & GET HIGH

      Now let us see how thighing is practiced on a female child & who began this evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was 6 years old until she reached 9 years of age (Fatwa No. 31409). The hadith mentioned the prophet Muhammad started performing literal sex with Aisha ONLY when she reached the age of 9 (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89).

      Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.

      According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

      Imagine a man of 51 removing the clothes of a 6-year-old girl and slipping his erect penis between her thighs, rubbing her until he ejaculated and his semen ran down her thighs. To this day, this is considered a benevolent act on the part of the adult male “not wanting to harm her.” What harm could be inflicted upon a young girl mentally and emotionally if not a grown man showing her his penis and stripping her of her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her legs?

      Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.

      Before she reached puberty, he began to have sex with her. Let us see what the fatwa said about the prophet of Islam and his child-bride, Aisha.”Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar).

      The inquirer asked the following: ‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers ?’

      After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age.

      That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers’” (Fatwa No. 31409).

      Thighing of children is practiced in many Arab and Muslim countries, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and the Gulf countries. Also evil practices like altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant), (Reported by Baharini Women’s Rights Activist, Ghada Jamshir)

      AISHA WASHING SEMEN FROM MUHAMMAD’S CLOTHES

      From the Hadith of Bukhari:

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

      Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

      I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

      ALLAH & MOHAMMED SANCTIONED THE RAPE OF FEMALE CAPTIVES:

      RAPE JIHAD:

      Sahih Muslim Book 08. N 3371Marriage

      Chapter: Al-Azl (incomplete sexual intercourse): Coitus Interruptus.

      Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women;

      and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them.
      So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?

      So we asked Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

      REMEMBER:

      ISLAM TEACHES THAT RAPE IS ORDAINED OF GOD

      ALLAH & MOHAMMED SANCTIONED RAPE

      Al-’Azl
      Al-’Azl, (العزل) also known as coitus interruptus, is the practice of having sexual intercourse with a woman but withdrawing the penis before ejaculation. Apparently al-’Azl with female captives and slaves was a pretty important topic for Muhammad and his companions as evidenced by the abundance of Hadith material on the subject.
      Practiced during Muhammad’s lifetime & ALL OVER EUROPE TODAY
      Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle .
      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:135
      Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interrupt us while the Quran was being revealed. Jabir added: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle while the Quran was being Revealed.
      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:136
      When RAPING your captive, it’s better if you do not pull out at the end
      THIS IS ISLAM

      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus(RAPE WITHOUT PREGNANCY)?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to PULL OUT. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

      Sahih Bukhari 3:34:432

      Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence.”
      Sahih Bukhari 3:46:718

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s