Is God...sexist?

[stovebolts]

Let's look at the context. This is a continuous quote of Deut. 22:23-29 in the ESV (a conservative translation:




We have 4 cases in a row, which come after a test for virginity.

• Case 1: Consensual adultery.
  • Punishment: death for both. Very simple. Complicated situations then come next.
• Case 2: Adultery (betrothal was closer to marriage in Hebrew culture than it is today) that begins as rape but becomes consensual since the woman did not resist. In a city.
  • Punishment: death for both.
  • Implied that if she cries for help, only the man dies.
• Case 3: Adulterous rape, in an open country where no one could help her.
  • Punishment: only the man dies.
• Case 4: Rape that is not adulterous; no betrothal and certainly no marriage. No consideration of where it took place, or if she resisted or not.
  • Punishment: The man marries her and gives the father the brideprice.

Why does adultery receive the death penalty? In Israelite culture, marriage represented the relationship between God and his people Israel. Thus to defile marriage with adultery receives the death penalty because it parallels blasphemy.

You wanted me to give context, not just pull out a verse? There it is. Now, in the context, case 2 and 3 are clearly rape because they talk about the woman calling for help and resisting. Case 4 though, is it rape? the word translated "violated" is ‘in·nāh. That appeared earlier in case 2, where we see "he violated his neighbor's wife", in the context of crying for help, and thus in the context of rape.

Most tellingly, remember 2 Samuel 13? David's son, Amnon, rapes his sister, Tamar. In verse 22, we see, "But Absalom [David's other son] spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated his sister Tamar."

I have exposited the context and done a word study. The study has confirmed that it is a rape law. I've also addressed the background behind death for adultery. If there are flaws in my argument, please point them out.

EDIT: Valerie Tarico summed it up well : "The punishments for rape have to do not with compassion or trauma to the woman herself but with honor, tribal purity, and a sense that a used woman is damaged goods."

You’ve done a good job putting information on the table.
Now, show me a working understanding and tell me the why.

 

[T. E. Smith]

You’ve done a good job putting information on the table.
Now, show me a working understanding and tell me the why.

According to the law of the Torah, women who are raped but neither married nor proposed, should marry their rapist, who should only pay the brideprice.

Shall we establish this today? If it is wrong now, why then?

 

[eddif]

According to the law of the Torah, women who are raped but neither married nor proposed, should marry their rapist, who should only pay the brideprice.

Shall we establish this today? If it is wrong now, why then?

I might as well get in trouble.
Then:
Proof of virginity was presented.
No proof no marriage.
The daughter could probably stay at home in shame
If she cried out she would be innocent.

Now the sorry gentile way:
5th marriage who cares anyway.

Why:
To get into heaven someone has to pay the price for sin.
Either the sinner in hell.
Or
The shed blood of Jesus.

Jesus is the bridegroom.

eddif

 

[Randy]

According to the law of the Torah, women who are raped but neither married nor proposed, should marry their rapist, who should only pay the brideprice.

Shall we establish this today? If it is wrong now, why then?

When Tamar was raped by her half-brother, Amnon she pleaded with him not to send her away I guess since she was no longer a virgin there was seen disgrace and shame. But Amnon sent her away.

Society has changed and many women are not virgins before they get married. Such a law would not be accepted in this day and age.

The law also had a eye for a eye but Jesus taught different.
The way of perfection is love.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.


You say many Christians told you God doesn't hear prayers. I tell you He knows even the number of hairs on your head. He is aware of your prayers and you so don't throw yourself down and put Him to the test. I am not sure what your asking God but would probably have asked to pray with you. When I was little the prayer I said every night was the Lords prayer. "Our Father who art in heaven....."

I have this testimony.
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”

’In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

The gift of God is something noteworthy to ask for. You can state Jesus said to ask so I am asking.
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

My advice is if at all possible on any given matter find out what Gods Will is they get on His side. Jesus as the Christ explained everything. He is the canon. It is Gods will to believe in Him. Follow Him.

 

[stovebolts]

According to the law of the Torah, women who are raped but neither married nor proposed, should marry their rapist, who should only pay the brideprice.

Shall we establish this today? If it is wrong now, why then?

Again, Torah teaches discernment. It is not legalistic to the letter.
Another poster quoted, An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. This law teaches restraint and limits compensation. Our criminal system follows this same philosophy where there are maximum sentences but that doesn’t mean everyone gets the maximum.

Let me ask you this. The law you disagree with and call unjust, what do you think the purpose was?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Again, Torah teaches discernment. It is not legalistic to the letter.
Another poster quoted, An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. This law teaches restraint and limits compensation. Our criminal system follows this same philosophy where there are maximum sentences but that doesn’t mean everyone gets the maximum.

Let me ask you this. The law you disagree with and call unjust, what do you think the purpose was?

It is legalistic; many passages speak of following "all the words", not just the principles, and the NT writers all are agreed that the law is highly legalistic, and that's why they present their religion as a better evolution of Judaism.

The purpose for why he should marry her is given: "because he has violated her." This sounds like a non-answer to us in modern culture, but for the Israelite culture, it apparently would have been naturally understood that a man who violated a woman was supposed to marry her. Obviously this cannot apply in the other cases in this passage, since the other cases received the death penalty for at least one participant, and so no marriage could take place.

Apologist Kyle Butte argued, "It is clearly evident from the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22 that rape is not being discussed in verses 28-29... Verses 25-27 give a clear instance in which rape is being discussed... The text says that the man who committed the crime shall die." But he's quite wrong, because the earlier passages make very clear that it is a betrothed woman, and an unbetrothed woman in v. 28-29. He neatly ignores this crucial distinction. The death penalty is not for rape, it is for adultery (which could be committed by the man only, in the case of rape).

 

[Free]

It is legalistic; many passages speak of following "all the words", not just the principles, and the NT writers all are agreed that the law is highly legalistic, and that's why they present their religion as a better evolution of Judaism.

Of course it's legalistic, that is why it is constantly referred to as the Law or the Law of Moses. But that is not "why they present their religion as a better evolution of Judaism." Christianity grew out of Judaism because of the numerous prophecies of the Messiah, and that Messiah is Jesus. It's a continuation of the same story.

The purpose for why he should marry her is given: "because he has violated her." This sounds like a non-answer to us in modern culture, but for the Israelite culture, it apparently would have been naturally understood that a man who violated a woman was supposed to marry her. Obviously this cannot apply in the other cases in this passage, since the other cases received the death penalty for at least one participant, and so no marriage could take place.

Apologist Kyle Butte argued, "It is clearly evident from the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22 that rape is not being discussed in verses 28-29... Verses 25-27 give a clear instance in which rape is being discussed... The text says that the man who committed the crime shall die." But he's quite wrong, because the earlier passages make very clear that it is a betrothed woman, and an unbetrothed woman in v. 28-29. He neatly ignores this crucial distinction. The death penalty is not for rape, it is for adultery (which could be committed by the man only, in the case of rape).

Verses 23-24 discuss the betrothed woman who willingly sleeps with another man; they are both guilty. Verses 25-27 are about the rape of a betrothed woman, hence only the man is guilty. Verses 28-29 are about the seduction of an unbetrothed woman, where the woman is guilty of giving in but the man bears the brunt of the guilt. Copan states that "various scholars see Exodus 22:16-17 as the backdrop to this scenario. Both passages are variations on the same theme." It would fall "under our contemporary category of statutory rape."

So, Copan gives two courses of action suggested by Ex 22:16-17 and Deut 22:28-29:

1. The seducer must marry the girl and provide for her for the rest of her life, with no possibility of divorce. However, the girl is not required to marry him.

2. The father has the right to refuse marriage and demand the payment that would have been required for a bride. The girl has to agree and, again, isn't required to marry the seducer. In this way she will still be treated as a virgin.

Copan also makes the point that since she has been sexually compromised, it would have made finding another husband difficult, if not impossible. As such, "Her well-being is actually the underlying theme of this legislation."

As I stated previously, things are often more complex then a simple reading may suggest. There is the theological, cultural, and historical contexts that need to be taken into account.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Hey, this webpage is long and has multiple parts to it, but I def recommend reading it:

https://www.christianthinktank.com/femalex.html

 

[T. E. Smith]

Of course it's legalistic

Right, just that stovebolts said it wasn't (if I'm understanding him right).

Christianity grew out of Judaism because of the numerous prophecies of the Messiah, and that Messiah is Jesus. It's a continuation of the same story.

However, I don't think Judaism looked forward to Christianity; Christians imposed their views upon the Tanakh.

Verses 23-24 discuss the betrothed woman who willingly sleeps with another man; they are both guilty. Verses 25-27 are about the rape of a betrothed woman, hence only the man is guilty. Verses 28-29 are about the seduction of an unbetrothed woman, where the woman is guilty of giving in but the man bears the brunt of the guilt. Copan states that "various scholars see Exodus 22:16-17 as the backdrop to this scenario. Both passages are variations on the same theme." It would fall "under our contemporary category of statutory rape."

So, Copan gives two courses of action suggested by Ex 22:16-17 and Deut 22:28-29:

1. The seducer must marry the girl and provide for her for the rest of her life, with no possibility of divorce. However, the girl is not required to marry him.

2. The father has the right to refuse marriage and demand the payment that would have been required for a bride. The girl has to agree and, again, isn't required to marry the seducer. In this way she will still be treated as a virgin.

Copan also makes the point that since she has been sexually compromised, it would have made finding another husband difficult, if not impossible. As such, "Her well-being is actually the underlying theme of this legislation."

As I stated previously, things are often more complex then a simple reading may suggest. There is the theological, cultural, and historical contexts that need to be taken into account.

Of course apologists will argue that verses 28-29 do not refer to rape. My question for Copan is, if this was in any other religious text, would we be so apologetic about it? Because if not (and I am sure not), then we are committing special pleading and being inconsistent. As I stated earlier, the background suggests that this is rape (https://christianforums.net/threads/is-god-sexist.90574/post-1670042), but when he cites Exodus 22, he fails to note:

1. Exodus 22 speaks of "seduction", Deut. 22 of "seizing".
2. Exodus 22 says nothing about violation, but Deut. 22 explicitly uses that word, used often to refer to rape.

The cases are clearly different. In Exodus 22 we have seduction and in Deut. 22 we have seizing and violating. The two courses of action he suggests are both problematic:

1. "The girl is not required to marry him" - Copan fails to note that the woman has no say, only the father has a say in the matter. Sure, some fathers would take their daughter's wish into account, but others would not, and the law does not require the daughter's wish to be considered.
2. Yes, "the father has the right to refuse marriage and demand the payment that would have been required for a bride," that's definitely correct. But where does Copan get the idea that "the girl has to agree"? That's nowhere in the passage. She is required to marry the seducer if her father accepts. Notice that the default course of action is marriage; it is only when the father "utterly refuses" that this can be changed.

Yes, like I mentioned earlier, a sense of "used goods" would have made it harder for her to get a husband. Yet God's law ought to have radically challenged this misogynistic sense of a "used" woman, rather than conforming to it. The law in Deuteronomy 22, by conforming to the culture, does nothing to change this awful situation.

 

[Northman]

The girl has to agree

That isn't there.

 

[T. E. Smith]

That isn't there.

And this is not the only time Copan invents things. He says,

Another marked improvement is in the release of injured slaves themselves (Exod. 21:20-21). This is in contrast to their masters merely being compensated, which is typical in the ANE codes.

Really? Let's look at the verses:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Where does Copan get the idea that injured slaves are released? Dead slaves are the only ones avenged but since they are dead, that obviously can't mean they're freed. Instead, what we have here is that you can beat a slave nearly to death and the master will not be punished at all. The reason given is that a slave is "his money." The slave is said to be property, not a human being. Of course, Copan does not actually quote this verse, he just cites it in parenthesis and hopes no one will investigate.

This, I have noticed, is typical apologetic strategy.

 

[D-D-W]

Of course it's legalistic, that is why it is constantly referred to as the Law or the Law of Moses.

Perhaps a bit OT, but "Law" is not the best translation for "Torah." Better to be translated "teaching." Law is a 2ndary meaning.

"But," you say "we are not talking OT Hebrew but NT Greek."

OK. So the word is "nomos." The word the LXX used to translate Torah. It has law as its primary meaning and teaching as its 2ndary. It was probably the closest word they could find at the time. And since the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora used the LXX, that word was used in the NT as well. But the underlying meaning is Torah - teaching; especially when it says "law of Moses."

 

[T. E. Smith]

Perhaps a bit OT, but "Law" is not the best translation for "Torah." Better to be translated "teaching." Law is a 2ndary meaning.

"But," you say "we are not talking OT Hebrew but NT Greek."

OK. So the word is "nomos." The word the LXX used to translate Torah. It has law as its primary meaning and teaching as its 2ndary. It was probably the closest word they could find at the time. And since the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora used the LXX, that word was used in the NT as well. But the underlying meaning is Torah - teaching; especially when it says "law of Moses."

Agreed. The LXX here is a bit like how we translate shalom. "Peace" is inadequate, but no English word fully captures the scope.

 

[stovebolts]

It is legalistic; many passages speak of following "all the words", not just the principles,

I don’t think you understand what I am asking, nor do I believe you understand the fullness of scripture. Torah teaches discernment, not legalism. People teach legalism.

The law states that one must not work on the Sabbath. Is one allowed to circumcise on the Sabbath?

What happens if Passover falls on a Sabbath? Are they allowed to continue in their preparations?

Jesus tells a story about legalism…. A Priest from the line of Aaron passes by a man half dead and because the Priest knows that the law says if he touches a dead body, he will be unclean and unable to perform his duties. As a result, he fails to assist the man. This is legalism.

Jesus reminds us elsewhere of a Priest who showed discernment to King David and allowed David and his men to eat the Shewbread of the tabernacle which was authorized in scripture only for the Priests. The Priest who allowed this was not found in sin, for he rightly divided the law.

One most famous example is when Jesus is in the desert for 40 days and Satan quotes scripture. Jesus replied with scripture. We see a lot of these types of exchanges where people try to cancel scripture with scripture, but that’s not what Jesus was doing. What he did was rightly discern the situation and applied the proper passage which was to be lived out.

To recap, Torah teaches discernment. Man teaches legalism.

Do you still believe Torah teaches legalism?

 

[Northman]

And this is not the only time Copan invents things.

That's what I normally find when I open any commentary.

 

[Northman]

One most famous example is when Jesus is in the desert for 40 days and Satan quotes scripture. Jesus replied with scripture. We see a lot of these types of exchanges where people try to cancel scripture with scripture, but that’s not what Jesus was doing. What he did was rightly discern the situation and applied the proper passage which was to be lived out.

For the sake of this topic, I find this to be especially true. So much scripture, whether it's the beginning of the book where God curses women to be under the authority of men or the middle of the book where Jesus affirms roles, gets straight up ignored.

The open living with the stance where women have binding say over men via something like "a vote" is serious sin. A nation in that state shouldn't expect too much mercy. The bending and twisting type legalism that enables such a thing is terrible.

 

[stovebolts]

According to the law of the Torah, women who are raped but neither married nor proposed, should marry their rapist, who should only pay the brideprice.

Shall we establish this today? If it is wrong now, why then?

Ok, I tire of this. You are partially right and partially wrong. I hope you are willing to learn something.

Verse 25 states that the man who rapes a woman must be put to death, the woman is innocent.
Why is she innocent? Because she cried out. Please see verse 27.

Verse 28 and 29 address the woman who did not cry out.
Why would a woman not cry out? And what does it mean, “cried out”? See Genesis 4:10.
the Kathubah dowry is 50 shekels.

Moral of the story.. if your a virgin and your not married and you have sex, your as good as married. The man who has sex with her has violated her and the family. See Deuteronomy 22:13-18

 

[D-D-W]

Moral of the story.. if your a virgin and your not married and you have sex, your as good as married. The man who has sex with her has violated her and the family. See Deuteronomy 22:13-18

AND - he can never divorce her. Deut 22.29.

Interesting Talmud story - that when God appeared atop Mt Sinai to give the 10 commandments, (which the entire literature structure is a ketubah - marriage contract) God held the mountain OVER the entire people, thus forcing them to agree and precluding God ever divorcing them.

You may say that HE divorced the Northern Kingdom, that is true; But HE never did the southern Kingdom. (Judah)

 

[stovebolts]

AND - he can never divorce her. Deut 22.29.

Interesting Talmud story - that when God appeared atop Mt Sinai to give the 10 commandments, (which the entire literature structure is a ketubah - marriage contract) God held the mountain OVER the entire people, thus forcing them to agree and precluding God ever divorcing them.

You may say that HE divorced the Northern Kingdom, that is true; But HE never did the southern Kingdom. (Judah)

Many are not aware that the covenant at Sinai was Kathubah and those same are unaware that water baptism is also an expression of Marriage.

What’s interesting at Sinai is the marriage was never consummated before they committed adultery with the golden calf. Hence Yom Kippur

 

[Free]

However, I don't think Judaism looked forward to Christianity; Christians imposed their views upon the Tanakh.

Of course Judaism didn't look forward to Christianity. They looked forward to the Messiah, who happens to be Jesus, and his followers are called Christians. The first many followers, including those closest to and commissioned by Jesus, were Jews. Hence, when they write about things in the OT and use those verses in a more nuanced way, they are not wrong for doing so. The Bible uses much progressive revelation, which is why the NT brings more light and understanding to the OT, but one cannot understand the NT without the OT.

Of course apologists will argue that verses 28-29 do not refer to rape. My question for Copan is, if this was in any other religious text, would we be so apologetic about it? Because if not (and I am sure not), then we are committing special pleading and being inconsistent. As I stated earlier, the background suggests that this is rape (https://christianforums.net/threads/is-god-sexist.90574/post-1670042), but when he cites Exodus 22, he fails to note:

1. Exodus 22 speaks of "seduction", Deut. 22 of "seizing".
2. Exodus 22 says nothing about violation, but Deut. 22 explicitly uses that word, used often to refer to rape.

Just because one is an apologist doesn't mean that their arguments come out of thin air. I know what you stated earlier and my point is that you're wrong--it is not rape. Just because the idea of rape is in an earlier verse doesn't mean that every verse that follows is rape. The whole point of the passage is to give guidance for justice for different violations.

You need to learn to actually study, rather than simply read. There are two different words being used in verses 25 and 28. In verse 25, "force" is chazaq, and means "to be strong, to prevail, to take strong hold." In verse 28, "seize" is taphas, and means "to lay hold of, to hold." Copan is correct when he states that the verb in verse 28 is weaker than that in verse 25, where it is clearly rape. This also begs the question as to why two different verbs are used if the intent in meaning was the same. This supports Copan's assertion. Further to his point, is that verse 28 mentions that "they are found," not "he was found." That means both are guilty, not just him. This, again, suggests that although there is pressure from the man, there is some willingness (or eventual giving in) on the part of the girl, and so is akin to seduction and statutory rape.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/chazaq.html

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/taphas.html

The cases are clearly different. In Exodus 22 we have seduction and in Deut. 22 we have seizing and violating.

I have shown that they are essentially the same.

The two courses of action he suggests are both problematic:

1. "The girl is not required to marry him" - Copan fails to note that the woman has no say, only the father has a say in the matter. Sure, some fathers would take their daughter's wish into account, but others would not, and the law does not require the daughter's wish to be considered.
2. Yes, "the father has the right to refuse marriage and demand the payment that would have been required for a bride," that's definitely correct. But where does Copan get the idea that "the girl has to agree"? That's nowhere in the passage. She is required to marry the seducer if her father accepts. Notice that the default course of action is marriage; it is only when the father "utterly refuses" that this can be changed.

Copan cites another source for the idea that the girl has some say in the matter. Perhaps it ultimately comes from extant Jewish commentary. The point of the text is for the girl's well-being, to make sure that if someone violates her, she is going to be looked after.

Yes, like I mentioned earlier, a sense of "used goods" would have made it harder for her to get a husband. Yet God's law ought to have radically challenged this misogynistic sense of a "used" woman, rather than conforming to it. The law in Deuteronomy 22, by conforming to the culture, does nothing to change this awful situation.

Why, because you say so? Because you want to read your modern understanding of something back into an ancient text? I don't think you understand the issues involved with trying to change certain cultural norms. Going all-out and radical often is not the right way and can backfire. It's about changing the attitudes and ideas behind the norms in small steps.