According to Google search statistics, my article “What Constitutes Biblical Marriage?” has been the article that has generated the most organic clicks from Google search results out of all of my articles. Along with the follow-up “Towards a Definition of Marriage” and “On Divorce” and its “Redux,” they collectively form a foundational description of biblical marriage.
Over at Sigma Frame there has been an ongoing discussion of what constitutes marriage, with issues of agency, consent, vows, and witnesses. Interestingly there has been a multiplicity of differing viewpoints, rather than a simple binary point and counterpoint. I wasn’t planning to comment, but this comment—written by the tastefully named “Thinking”—caught my eye and it deserves to be highlighted:
“He killed 10000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt and forcibly-but-consensually-took Sela by war”
“Potiphar’s wife caught(Taphas) him by his garment.”
Taphas:
KJV: catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, X surely, surprise, take
NASB: seized, captured, caught, seize, handle, take, took
The straightforward reading is that she grabbed him by the cloak, and he shrugged the cloak off as he fled.
What does your progression of events look like?
Does the father’s unilateral authority to repeal any and all of his daughter’s oaths only apply when her judgement was externally compromised?
No, it does not. There are no limits on that authority except time(‘when he hears’. Some translations say ‘on the day he hears’).
They were both translated as rape in this case, but they’re contextual words that have a broad and mildly metaphorical meaning. The thing that’s different is marital status, so that must be the reason that different words were chosen.
NOT MARRIED, is the important bit.
We both know there is no morality apart from God, and you going ‘but muh moraly heinus’ will not make me backpedal from the solid foundation of God’s word.
All moral judgement flows from God’s character. These were God’s laws for His pet nation, and if you wanna call God’s rulings heinous, well.
— Hebrews 5:12-14
I think I have figured out why different words were used for betrothed and unbetrothed. Sex=marriage means sex-with-virgin=consumnation of marriage. One flesh means that marital sex is definitionally incapable of being rape, which means deepstrength was right that taphaq does not equal rape, and I was right that taphaq does not imply consent.
It’s difficult to find fault in this reasoning. If I had to nit-pick, I would say only that there is a normative way for marriages to be established, and we should follow it, but undesired exceptions to this (e.g. rape; premarital sex) do not negate or invalidate how a marriage is established. In particular, it is both logically and theological possible for rape to be wrong and for it to create a marital bond. These are not mutually exclusive.
The reality is that the father’s unilateral authority to undo his daughter’s marriage (Exodus 22) or her oaths (Numbers 30) stands regardless of whether her consent was completely coerced (i.e. without agency), given with partial agency, or the considered result of full agency. None of these matter: the agency of the woman (or the man!), whether it was witnessed and by whom, and whether there was formal consent (by any party). The only qualification limiting the father is a kind of statute of limitations regarding when he has a right to make his decision.
As for the question of the marriage itself, the only relevant issues are whether sexual relations took place and whether or not the woman was already married (i.e. sex is either a marital act or an act of adultery). As described in the comment below, after sexual relations take place—for whatever reason—there is simply no question about the resulting marital status.
Since so much of the discussion in that comment thread hangs on a finer understanding of Exodus 22:16-17—and I’ve written about this in the past—I’ll reproduce my comment from five years ago:
The difference is largely social and cultural. However, the broader answer is found in Exodus 22:16-17:
The Law gives the father the right to forbid the union, so why does the man have to pay the bride-price unconditionally? In “Man and Woman in Biblical Law”, Tom Shipley writes that it…
“…does not mean he must marry her, but to bestow a dowry because of the marriage that has already taken place via sexual relations.” [part 1 – p46]
Furthermore, he writes:
“That a marriage took place during the seduction is the very premise of this law.” [part 2 – p.67]
But there is another reason why the man must pay the bride price: to make her a bride. If he did not pay, she would be his concubine (i.e. servant-wife). They would still be ‘married’ as a consequence of having sex (as per the above), but she wouldn’t be his [free-]wife. Shipley notes:
“The point is that a man who seduces a woman into marriage without her father’s consent is forbidden to make a concubine out of her.” [part 2 – p.67]
Under Law, a man can’t sneakily have ‘premarital sex’ in order to bypass the normal requirement to marry (i.e. pay the dowry). This is the Hebrew equivalent of a shotgun wedding.
Exodus 22:16 is distinguishing between a free wife and a concubine/servant wife, not between married and unmarried.
Also of note is that if the father forbids the union, he is instituting a divorce. Since all divorce is forbidden of Christians, this patriarchal rule no longer applies to us. Thus, when two people have sex, they are permanently married.
Further proof is in Exodus 21:7-10 where a concubine (someone sold for marriage; possesses no rights of inheritance for her children) is explicitly called a wife.
The law in Exodus 22:16-17 presumes that a marriage took place via sexual relations and the subsequent cancellation ends a legal marriage legitimately created by the one-flesh bond. It is a divorce, not an anullment or time travel. You can read more in this and this comment thread with Artisanal Toad. In particular, I note:
A father could force his daughter to divorce her husband in that case, but the punishment (bride price) still had to be paid unconditionally. Witnesses, vows, consent, and agency were all irrelevant, because the marriage took place through the act of sex regardless of whether or not the woman (or man!) approved of the marriage. The only issue was whether or not the marriage would result in divorce then-and-there or else be made permanent.
Fundamentally, no biblical marriage requires a vow (besides God’s previous established covenant of marriage), a witness (besides God’s ever-present witness), consent (besides God’s desire that men and women be fruitful and multiply), permission, or even attraction.
In my next post, I’ll explain why Deep Strength is wrong when he says..
Although, if you’ve read this post, you probably already know what it is.
Could you please say why, after all this, any girl or woman should not run screaming from Christianity?
Absolutely!
But first, to be clear so I don’t respond to the wrong thing, are you referring to the fact that in the Old Testament an unmarried woman could be raped into marriage with her rapist (e.g. as a spoil of war)?
And, to save time, what alternative to Christianity—what superior moral, ethical, and philosophical framework—would you provide? Where should a woman run screaming to instead of Christianity?
You obviously have some (unstated) objection, but I want to know if your objection is rooted in a consistent logical basis.
————————————————————————
The objection to sex=marriage is tightly based on the concept of free will. What framework, outside of Christianity itself, gives you the idea that free will exists in actual reality?
For example, atheism (and its leftist political philosophy) logically entails determinism, where rape isn’t really objectively wrong or even a matter of choice. Just as an anti-incarceration progressive leftist if a black rapist is guilty of rape or if he is actually a victim of “structural and systemic racism.” Under atheism, free will is an illusion, so rape isn’t really a violation of one’s will. It can’t be truly be said to be wrong, only a disruption of current mutable social conventions. Just look at how rape has been brought back as socially acceptable in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. UK police will now punish you for condemning rape.
We can’t find refuge in feminism, for feminism has no philosophical, moral, ethical, or logical basis for free will. It’s ad hoc and arbitrary. Only Christianity can logically condemn rape on the basis of free will.
The vast majority of peoples and civilizations throughout history practiced rape as part of war. It is still quite common today (e.g. among UN soldiers), but it’s not polite to talk about it.
Where can someone find a basis to condemn this practice, if not in Christianity? Going outside of Christianity is running away from the one and only thing that can actually condemn rape.
————————————————————————
Your objection appears to be rooted in emotional “reasoning” rather than objectivity. Have you ever even reasoning critically about this issue?
What do you think would happen, in 800BC, to a woman whose village had been destroyed in war, along with homes and supplies, and her male family members put to the sword, and having just been raped (and possibly impregnated) by a soldier? As a matter of the objective rule of law, how would you have solved this problem?
What do you think would happen, in 800BC, to a 16-year-old virgin who was raped (and possibly impregnated) by a man who had no intention of marrying her? What would happen to such a woman who could not physically work the fields nor would ever be desirable to a man as a wife (because she was no longer a virgin)? As a matter of the objective rule of law, how would you have solved this problem?
The error in reasoning is thinking that, because the Bible doles out a punishment, that it must also approve of the thing being punished. This does not even logically follow! No, the problem is thinking that if we moderns were in charge that we could have done better, even though this has never worked in the history of the world.
The simple fact is that there is no solution for rape. The bad thing cannot be undone. In the Old Testament, the punishment prescribed for rape was one that the women of the time would have generally found most appealing compared to the alternatives. Modern virtue-signaling woman would have condemned her to a short, childless life, likely ending in more rape followed by death by starvation or exposure.
I am a Christian and I agree with you that Christianity is the basis for the belief in free will and for condemning rape. My objection is to your rhetoric, to how one might read the entire post and never guess that you yourself do not think this, because biblical, is what we should do today. So, yes, I’m talking about emotional reasoning and I’m not ashamed of that. If there were a passage in the Bible about being compassionate by castrating instead of killing male prisoners of war, how should Christians discuss that hypothetical? Should we take into account male feelings when we discuss such things?
For that matter, was my pastor in discussing Galatians being a PC wimp when he carefully pointed out that Paul was being “pretty rough” when he wished his Judaizing opponents would castrate themselves? He wasn’t super apologetic for Paul and he didn’t take all day explaining and hemming and hawing, but he did point out that this was Paul being merely humanly aggravated with his opponents. I’m asking you to have similar consideration for women.
I’m seeing more and more of this kind of thing online , more and more men standing up to loudly proclaim, “yes, God thinks you’re inferior. You’re a woman. You stink. And you can only be saved if you agree.” and “BUT it’s BIBLICAL to kidnap and rape women!”
You’ve impressed me in the past as being a man who engages with the Christian manosphere without being a hateful so & so. Although I disagree with you on this and that point, you’ve never struck me as being a hateful so & so. I like you. I want to encourage you. Therefore, I wanted you to know that in this post … yeah, it’s cold, it’s clinical, and I suspect that an unbelieving woman might be mightily confirmed in her unbelief by reading this.
Nell,
Are you suggesting that I’m being hateful? I’ve removed the uncharitable (and wrong) assumption I made about you. I apologize for that. If there is anything I missed, please explain so I can edit anything I have written that has crossed the line.
Or are you suggesting that I take a softer, more emotional or feminine stance?
I often write about things without giving my personal opinion. I often intentionally avoid giving my personal opinion on topics, for reasons I have previously stated. My opinion is, frankly, overrated. Let the ideas speak for themselves.
But you asked me my opinion, and I inferred you were talking about rape producing a marriage. Well, rape does produce marriage, because all sex is marital sex. That this creates a disordered situation is only because our governments do not obey God. If our government was obedient to God, fewer people would stumble over rape producing a marriage because a God-honoring solution could be implemented.
But the fact is, so many women lie about being raped that it is nearly impossible to create an equitable solution to rape. This is, however, not the fault of Christianity or the Old Testament.
In any case, I’ve never once said that we should bring the Old Testament regulations back, except, perhaps, for enforcement of the death penalty for blood crimes (i.e. murder).
If you read tomorrow’s post, which I had already written before your comment, you’ll see that I explicitly object to the belief that women are inferior, or have limited agency. I do not believe limited agency is biblical.
Moreover, I’m an Anabaptist. I don’t think a Christian is even permitted to go to war, let alone destroy homes, kill the men, and take women as spoils. The solution to these problems is to become a Christian and do obey Jesus with regards to violence and sexuality. No Christian is permitted to rape and pillage.
Exactly the same way I’ve discussed the issues above. Pull no punches. Meet it head-on.
No. This is an ideas blog. We can, should, and will stick to the ideas. If someone needs emotional support, they should go elsewhere to find someone who can meet their needs. There are literally thousands of websites, forums, and therapists who will cater to feelings and affirmation. Nobody needs me to do that for them. I offer something that is rare: unbridled honesty. If it isn’t to the taste of a reader, they should leave for greener pastures.
It is a leftist position that every space must be a “safe space.” Leftists can’t bear that there might be even a single place where emotional coddling does not take place. This is, in large part, why male-aspected spaces have been systematically destroyed. The irony is that such coddling makes people incapable of feeling safe.
I know you don’t want to hear it, but yes. Go follow Protestia and you’ll see the slipperly slope fruit of the Cult of Nice. It ends with rainbow flags and criticizing Jesus for being too mean. Your pastor may be far, far away from that, but when someone critizes an Apostle for being too harsh in the literal Word of God, they are already on the path.
I’m sorry, but I won’t apologize for God. The Bible says what it says and I’ll discuss what it says even if that offends. The Bible speaks of the Stumbling Block. Paul wrote of Jesus:
Peter did the same:
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
The truth is harsh and makes people fall away. It’s literally designed to be that way, to force people to choose and to have no excuse for their freely made choice. When a person falls away they have no one to blame but themselves.
I won’t soften my stance so that women have more positive feelings. I, frankly, don’t write for women. The fact that I have (or, rather, had) so many female readers is not surprising. I’ve always found it easy to talk to and with women. In meatspace I have long been a mediator among women because they value my ability to give solid advice without being driven by emotional reasoning. After all, they have plenty of female friends to fill that role, but very few friends who can serve as an anchor. If my meatspace experiences are any indication, this is why women read this site. If I followed your advice, women would not take me seriously. I suspect you too would lose respect for me.
But appealing to female readers isn’t why I do what I do. I primarily write about masculine issues for male readers. Female readers are welcome, but I won’t tailor what I write to women. It is unfortunate if that offends anyone, but it is the choice and focus I have made.
However, if you believe I have said something that crosses over into sin, please correct me.
That sounds horrible, but I know something. People, by and large, do not believe things because of how topics are presented. They believe whatever they want to believe, not the facts. I believe you are overstating the importance of my presentation. If people agree with me, they’ll be gracious and grant me a huge amount of leeway. If people disagree with me, they’ll judge me harshly and put me on a short leash. But it has nothing to do with me. In the end, it will be their own bias that determines their belief or unbelief.
Very, very few people deviate from this pattern. Some do, but not most.
For example, I had one Roman Catholic—a man—condemn me in no uncertain terms and leave the blog. I had another Roman Catholic—a woman—stick around and rigorously debate me for an extended period. Most of the hostility I receive comes from one common source. Outside that source, my interactions have been far less abrasive, despite my manner and content being largely the same.
The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin and they reject the Holy Spirit’s leanings all on their own. Jesus is a stumbing block. His message scandalizes and causes men to fall away.
So you actually are saying God is saying a woman who survives a violent attack by a serial rapist and murderer should be compelled to spend the rest of her life with him. He shouldn’t spend his life in prison. Would you permit her to recover from the mutilation he put her through before the “honeymoon”? Is it okay with your idea of God if she goes to the ER first? You think that if our society were truly righteous, truly respected marriage, that is what we would do. I thought you thought that was just the unfortunate and misguided custom of long ago, but I misunderstood.
In my own days in Quaker meeting (long ago, I’m a conversative Anglican now) I met some pretty odd beliefs growing out of pacifism, but not this one. You are quite wrong, but God bless you anyway and farewell.
Nell,
But before you read farther, answer me this: do you think it is acceptable for a raped woman to murder her unborn baby through abortion? If your answer is “Yes,” then your moral compass is so far off that you should probably stop reading this comment and this blog entirely. You won’t be morally capable of understanding God’s moral standards.
——————————————————————————
You’ve made a serious error. If you have not fled the discussion, then read what I have written here carefully before you reply.
You certainly know how to read too much into things, put words into my mouth, and so on. Had you read my follow up post, you wouldn’t have said this obviously false summary:
No, that’s not at all what I said. Your comment reflects poor reading comprehension.
What the Bible says is that they are now one flesh, because all sex—whether licit or not—creates the marital bond. Jesus said that this fact is immutable. God literally joins together those who have sex, even when the sex is illicit (e.g. prostitution; rape; incest). That’s why governments should take illicit sex so seriously. The fact that they don’t fully accounts for every one of your problems and objections with this subject.
Notice that while I said that a victim of rape is married to her rapist—because that’s what the Bible teaches—I did not say that the raped woman should be compelled to spend the rest of her life with her rapist. In fact, what I actually said is completely incompatible with this supposed summary that you’ve ascribed to me.
For example:
What you’ve done is conflated two things as if they were one thing: the act of marriage and the morality of sex. The error is yours, not mine. The conclusion you think I made is rooted in that error. Now, let me illustrate your error by way of absurdity:
Let’s say you were born with dwarfism. Should you be compelled to spend your whole life short of stature? Wouldn’t you agree that any and every woman should run screaming away from that kind of Christianity? What kind of God would force a difficult reality onto someone? It’s mean!
This is a fallacious argument from consequences. You object to God establishing the standard that sex always produces a one-flesh bond…
…because there exists some consequences that you don’t like. Because there exists some negative sexual morality (e.g. prostitution; rape; incest), you want to invalidate the significance of the act of marriage itself.
The fact that sex can be used badly does not change what sex is and does.
Such is your demonstrated arrogance that you think you can dictate to God what His standards of sexuality must be based entirely on your commission of a logical fallacy.
I press my readers to think about ideas and think about them critically. Your feelings and emotions are not arguments, and they are not persuasive. Jesus and the Word of God are stumbling blocks. If the consequence of the Word of God offends you, then you’ll fall away, choosing something that confirms what you want to believe rather than what is actually true while convincing yourself that what you did was right. You’ll fit right in with the masses of modern Christians who want to be affirmed and comfortable. If that describes you, then you are not a truth seeker. Does it describe you or not?
Criticial thinking is extremely important. Your comment demonstrates why failing to think critically leads to critical errors.
If the punishment for rape was the immediate execution by hanging of the rapist in front of the town, then the death of the rapist would end the marriage right then and there. It wouldn’t even be possible for a raped woman to be coerced to live with her rapist! This would solve all of the moral objections you have raised without requiring God to bow to your emotional whims. But, and this is critical, our governments do not do this. In fact, in the UK, rapists of a certain ethnicity are not punished for rape at all. The women raped are the ones who are punished for speaking out. But this problem isn’t with God’s standards, the problem is with man’s standards. Man has chosen not to enforce laws according to God’s precepts, indeed man has chosen to subvert God’s standards. Man has created the problem you describe (where a raped woman must stay married to her rapist), not God.
Mankind should recognize how God made sex and act accordingly. God made sex to be married, and so it should structure society around that truth. But the logic of your objection is that God should be forced to recognize how mankind views sex and change his actions instead. This is ludicrious. That’s what commenter Thinking was getting at:
You are backpedaling away—recoiling—from what God has established.
The only reason this topic upsets you is because you’ve commited a logical fallacy. You’ve made an error in reasoning. And you’ve come in here complaining that I’m not showing proper concern, without first fixing your own error.
Now, I will ask this question: why didn’t you consider that one possible response to being raped is that the woman remain unmarried for the rest of her life (e.g. if the State fails in its duty to God)? Why did you assume that a woman married by rape had to live with her rapist? Instead of lashing out to me with an emotional response, you could have thought critically about this issue.
You are illustrating what I said earlier. Your response reflects what you believe about me, not what I believe. It isn’t informed by my actual beliefs. You did not take heed of what I wrote:
You simply proved my point. Despite me clearly stating my beliefs, you nevertheless decided to portray what I had to say in a different light, despite the logical impossibility of what you suggested I believed.
Peace,
DR
The funny thing. Notta one of the “real men” on the other blogs…….podcasts, v-logs….Christian or otherwise don’t have a marriage like anyone in the Old Testament or New for that matter.
Why?
Because sin
Only when a husband and wife are on the same trajectory towards Christ can the marriage work on a semblance. Both understanding their part in the marriage. Both acknowledging their own sins that perhaps may cause it to stumble or get stuck at times.
Hence why Proverbs says over and over and over again for a man to “find a wife” and “choose wisely”
Hence why Christ was so forgiving and understood human nature and wanted true repentance, belief, faith, and trust. To follow Him. Many men…too many men for some reason believe that women are things to have sex with; yet they hold them to standards and expectations that “things” cannot do or even be held to.
This matches their “Game” mindset (which is a foundation of their red pill beliefs) that “attraction isnt a choice for women” and “they just cannot help what they do”
But then whine all day about how “they are not submitting”. Well, they cant. They have no agency on anything, what do you expect?
All their stances are twisted. Its like making a movie about frogs, but starring clams.
A lot of men have pointed me to that tik tok lady, pretty, blonde. She critiques women for their behaviors. She slides into the screen and gives her take.
I dont take advice for dating or marriage from divorced men or women (this woman is divorced, but it wasnt her fault. Trust her…..lol), I did for a long time and it made my situation worse. Also, because she is deemed “pretty” and “standing up for men” she is now supposed to be believed.
The shallowness of the culture on all levels now is absurd. If the woman giving advice was middle aged, past her prime, and had a few extra pounds and (gasp….had ANY makeup on) the same men would be telling her “she’s doing this to fool a simp into marrying her”
The ‘sphere wants all single men and women in the Christian side of things: miserable, angry, stuck and bitter
Deep Strength’s argument is that women have limited agency, saying “The virgin woman in this case exercised some degree of agency in deciding to have sex with this man,” “God upholds the virgin woman’s limited agency in this case…” and “In both cases the women have some degree of agency…” He does state that “This error about no agency…” making it clear that women are not “robots with no agency to choose to do the right thing,” but he very clearly believes that women have lesser agency. Their moral judgment—ability to choose right and wrong—is compromised because they are women. They are inferior agents who are held by God himself to a lesser double standard compared to fathers and husbands.
What’s the point of denying that women have no agency, but simultaneously claim that it is so limited that they are to be treated in such an infantile way? Lastmod, I understand you to be saying that such limited agency is functionally equivalent to no agency at all. If women can’t be trusted to act on their own agency without the oversight of a man who second-guesses their every choice, then they are no better than children.
Of course, nothing in scripture actually says this. It’s all a speculative inference based on what the text is supposed to mean (if you have the right decoder ring) rather than what it actually says.
In fact, the very text he cites proves that he is wrong when it hands out the same punishment for adultery to the man and the woman. Isn’t it curious that the father doesn’t get to override that? Why isn’t he allowed to cancel her vow or decision to marry?
In the United States, the President has veto power over anything that congress does. But that power is limited. Vetoes can be overridden. Without the ability to override vetoes, Congress would just be a figurehead to the authority of the President. They would, effectively, have no agency. You can call that “limited” agency if you want, but it is agency that is entirely dependent on another. I consider that to be no real independent agency at all.
The Christian Manosphere understands a young woman’s right to make vows similarly. She can make all the vows she wants, but her father has full veto power. He’s the one in charge. She’s just a figurehead. You can call that “limited” agency if you want, but it is agency that is entirely dependent on another. I consider that to be no real independent agency at all.
When I say that the Christian Manosphere believes that women have no agency, what I mean is that it believes that women are inferior and have no independent agency. Nothing they do on their own is subject to their own agency without the possibility of oversight. Considering that the patriarch acts as both president and (real) congress, a daughter has about as much real agency as the king or queen of England.
“Dependent agency” is not in the category of free agency. What is agency if it is not free? Free agency entails that whatever the agent decides is binding on the higher authority that it represents. If a woman was a free agent—if she didn’t have no agency—then whatever decisions she made would be binding on her father or husband. Thus, by the fact that every decision she makes can be cancelled, we rightly conclude that limited agency (i.e. dependent agency) is no agency at all.
Slaves, servants, children, older daughters, and (apparently) wives and mothers, are not agents of the patriarch. Adult sons (apparently) are. But, good luck finding this in the Bible.
Pingback: Biblical Marriage and Agency - Derek L. Ramsey
I don’t know if you were saving the following verse for the next post on the topic, but I find it relevant.
1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall be one flesh.”
I didn’t cite the verse in my posts, but is the foundation that sex outside of a formal marital situation between a properly married man and woman is still a marriage. I don’t know why people find this concept so difficult, but as Nell Perkins shows above, they commit logical fallacies that tie them up into emotional knots. Perhaps that is the explanation.
All sex produces a one-flesh bond.
Sex with a virgin, a spouse, another person’s spouse, a parent, a sibling, a child, a prostitute, a rapist, etc. Most of the ones on this list are illicit. They are examples of the sinful application of sex.
It is possible, indeed completely true, that sex can simultaneously be both bad and produce a one-flesh bond. In fact, the obvious solution to this problem is to give the death penalty to anyone who wilfully engages in illicit sex.
Good luck getting that through our sex-obsessed culture.
I wonder why Nell Perkins blames God for setting up his standards the way he did rather than putting the blame on mankind for refusing to accept God’s standards.
I also really have a problem with the idea that being “forced” to be married to your rapist makes God a monster, as if mankind doing bad things is supposed to have no harmful consequences. Should a woman, whose husband and sons have been murdered and her village burned to the ground, be allowed to undo those things based on some cosmic calculus of justice? Bad things happen to people and the consequences of those things don’t get undone just because you have bad feelings about it.
If a person is kidnapped, they remain kidnapped until their kidnapper no longer has them kidnapped. If a person is married, they remain married until their partner is no longer alive. The solution to kidnapping is taking the person away from the kidnapper. The solution to rape is taking the rapist away from their life, freeing up the person that they have enslaved.
The objections to “being raped=being marriage” are logically equivalent to “kidnapping=being kidnapped.” You solve kidnapping by not being kidnapped anymore, and you solve rape by not being married anymore.
This is not complicated.
I also really have a problem with the idea that being “forced” to be married to your rapist makes God a monster, as if mankind doing bad things is supposed to have no harmful consequences.
Yeah, it is also unfair that people are being forced to die for their murderer’s anger and evil, but that’s the way God made murder work. I wonder why they don’t spend as much mental energy being mad at God over that fact?
Yeah, I can’t post this everywhere, but our loving God’s solution to capital sexual immorality always ends the fleshly union and any further bothering of the victim by the offender and has a stunning zero recidivism rate.
In the case of the Jewish Biblical patriarchal system and an unbetroth virgin, either way a man is selecting the virgin’s husband for her, whether it is her father or her rapist. At least the rapist is selecting a man that is highly attracted to her, and not just a boring dependable decent fellow who might be convinced to agree to taking her without truly being infatuated with her.
Folks don’t seem to grok that she was property to be transferred, and her husband was not normally ever going to be left entirely to her own choosing unless she eloped before her father had betrothed her to anybody, and her father forgave the insult and acquiesced to them remaining married in defiance of his patriarchal authority.
Everybody’s still mentally coming at marriage from the “will of the vestal goddess” Feminist perspective instead of thinking that it is holier when a man (who naturally knows men better, and loves her) picks her husband for her, whether that be her father, her custodian, or her rapist.
In Judges chapter 21 the 600 remaining fighting men of the tribe of Benjamin are given 400 virgins who just had their parents killed and when there weren’t enough of them to go around, they then had another big rape-fest where the remaining warriors of Benjamin by agreement all rushed upon the dancing virgins at a big festival and each one, by force, captured a virgin to make his wife. I always thought that was a pretty romantic sounding event, even if it was a complete surprise to the hot virgins that many of them were going to be leaving that night with a surviving warrior husband who had picked them out of the crowd of virgin dancers and chased them down and caught them.
The problem with people’s thinking is that they’re all too religiously committed to hearkening to the voices of women, instead of following our patriarchal God’s ways. They prefer the satanic inversion to God’s righteousness. People today are mad that a rapist takes away a female’s choice instead of that he takes away a patriarch’s choice. Forgetting that when you allow defiling women their choice, the “choice” inevitably ends up being society destroying stuff like legalizing sexual immorality, abortion, infanticide, No-Fault divorcing their children’s father, the sexual defrauding of their husbands, and the sexual disorientation of their own children.
Precisely. I noted something similar in today’s post.
Moderns can only read the Old Testament and interpret it in light of modern feminists’ notions of sexuality, rather than how women of that age actually thought.
Contrary to the Feminst assertions, the Old Testament did not mandate that a raped woman be coerced into living with her rapist. It coerced her rapist into living with her as his free-wife. She was not coerced, because the law gave the woman what she already wanted, while not giving the man what he wanted. It was an overwhelmingly pro-woman law. It defended both her interests and the interests of her family.
Moderns can’t understand how a woman would consider the greater evil to be forced away from her rapist husband.
This is why the reaction of Tamar in 1 Samuel 13 makes absolutely no sense to Moderns. First, she objected to attempted rape by her brother, viewing it as the abomination that it is. But, her reaction was to implore her would-be rapist to marry her formally! Then, after he actually raped her, she declared something to be even worse than the rape itself: not staying married to the rapist. In both cases, she tried to coerce him into marrying her!
The modern feminist believes she knows better than every other women that has ever lived. She declares Tamar a victim and invalidates her free will to choose for herself. The feminist further declares that God evil. Deep down she is certain that God made a mistake in not instituting modern feminism.
Yet, neither Tamar nor God would have agreed with the Feminist. Such sheer arrogance!
The biggest outrage to the Modern is that another woman might want to live with her rapist. This biggest crime to feminism is not patriarchy or men, it is women who don’t toe the line.
Of course, as you note, the death of the rapist would solve the problem permanently. So, what have Feminists done to improve the situation?
Under feminism, rapists don’t get the death penalty. That might make the rapists feel bad. And, if they are just the right race or ethnicity, they don’t even get punished! As officially victimized groups, they get special privileges (such as being permitted to gang rape young women walking alone on the streets). Feminists have taught us that victim classes don’t get punished. Rapists are victims too, don’t you know? Oh, how enlightened modern women are!
In today’s enlightened society, if a father has a daughter who is raped, he will go to jail for life for killing her rapist. Otherwise that rapist will be especially unlucky if he gets 2 years in prison. Plus, he’ll probably decide he’s a woman, get transferred to a woman’s prision, and rape a few more women without consequence. Oh, how enlightened modern women are!
Pingback: Rape, Abortion, and Marriage - Derek L. Ramsey