Hello all,
Recently, I was engaged in a debate, elsewhere with several interlocutors, regarding Verses Deuteronomy 22:28-29. After much back and forth, this was the conclusion drawn, at least by me...?
When this passage was written, women's right's were quite restricted in society. Women needed to marry men, or to remain with their fathers for financial stability. Prior to marriage, the women remained with their father's, where applicable. If a women was known to have relations with a male, prior to marriage, she was considered unworthy of marriage by any other potential mate. And thus, the father could never 'give her away'. And hence, would remain financially responsible for her, for life. A woman's consent, prior to marriage, was likely granted by the father, not the woman. And after marriage, under the contract of Biblical marriage, the woman was then to submit to the husband. Sure, the husband was to fulfill his role in the marriage, but the woman answered to the man. Two notable Verses to reference would be (Ephesians 5:22-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:3). Some would bring up Exodus 22:16-17, as a defense. However, the Verses speak about possible seduction, and not rape. Hence, what constitutes 'rape', verses not 'rape'? And furthermore, was the price, for which the male was to pay, enough to sustain the father's financial obligation to support his daughter for life?
Having established the above, this is essentially where the prior debate left off, at least for me. Why? It started to go off the rails from there....
Moving forward, I would like to explore the following point...
In light of the given passage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), seems as though God's favor was to protect the father more-so than the female victim. Why? Seems as though God's favor was to assure the father is compensated over and above seeking 'justice' for the rape victim. If the female was raped, seems as though her only available options were:
a: The father keeps her, and no other man will ever marry her, (because she is not a virgin).
b: Hand her over to her 'rapist', or the one whom 'seduced' her, where the woman is to submit, under the contract of Biblical marriage, (Ephesians 5:22-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:3).
What is your take on this seemingly precarious predicament?
Recently, I was engaged in a debate, elsewhere with several interlocutors, regarding Verses Deuteronomy 22:28-29. After much back and forth, this was the conclusion drawn, at least by me...?
When this passage was written, women's right's were quite restricted in society. Women needed to marry men, or to remain with their fathers for financial stability. Prior to marriage, the women remained with their father's, where applicable. If a women was known to have relations with a male, prior to marriage, she was considered unworthy of marriage by any other potential mate. And thus, the father could never 'give her away'. And hence, would remain financially responsible for her, for life. A woman's consent, prior to marriage, was likely granted by the father, not the woman. And after marriage, under the contract of Biblical marriage, the woman was then to submit to the husband. Sure, the husband was to fulfill his role in the marriage, but the woman answered to the man. Two notable Verses to reference would be (Ephesians 5:22-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:3). Some would bring up Exodus 22:16-17, as a defense. However, the Verses speak about possible seduction, and not rape. Hence, what constitutes 'rape', verses not 'rape'? And furthermore, was the price, for which the male was to pay, enough to sustain the father's financial obligation to support his daughter for life?
Having established the above, this is essentially where the prior debate left off, at least for me. Why? It started to go off the rails from there....
Moving forward, I would like to explore the following point...
In light of the given passage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), seems as though God's favor was to protect the father more-so than the female victim. Why? Seems as though God's favor was to assure the father is compensated over and above seeking 'justice' for the rape victim. If the female was raped, seems as though her only available options were:
a: The father keeps her, and no other man will ever marry her, (because she is not a virgin).
b: Hand her over to her 'rapist', or the one whom 'seduced' her, where the woman is to submit, under the contract of Biblical marriage, (Ephesians 5:22-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:3).
What is your take on this seemingly precarious predicament?