Would you take the following passages to mean rape?
I say it's rape my friend says it's not. What do you think?
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
If you say no on them explain why. For the second one, what did those soldiers do with the young girls? Adopt them?
- TorgoLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
No. The first is rape and the second is sexual slavery, not rape. There is a difference, at least in the bible.
You will have to read different translations to get the full effect. Some are more graphic than others.
- MathewLv 78 years ago
1) The betrothed woman is considered to have been a willing participant in the sexual relations if she did not cry out for help. This assumes there would have been someone around to be able to help her, which is why it differentiates between "in the city" as opposed to "away from the country."
So, whether it speaks of rape or not depends on whether she cried out in the city, if she was in the country, it is assumed to be rape and she DID cry out, but nobody would be there to save her anyway, so SHE is relieved of any guilt.
2) That is NOT rape, nor any other kind of sexual relations. It is saying that the young girl must be VERY young indeed to still be a virgin while living in the lands of the pagans. The girl was so young that she probably was not well versed in the paganism of her family and so could be spared. The boys were killed because when they grew older, they would turn on the Israelites and attack them for killing their families. The parents were guilty of their sins, and so had to be killed for their sins.
So, no, it isn't speaking of rape.
It should be pointed out that the death penalty was RARELY passed down. In fact, a Sanhedrin that condemned ONE person to death in a 70 year period was considered bloodthirsty. Yes, the death penalty was on the books, but that doesn't mean it was used with abandon, as some folks seem to think.
- Anonymous8 years ago
The first one could be about rape. The woman may have been having an affair. Or she may have been too afraid of being strangled to cry out. People don't like being strangled. Guess the people writing the book didn't understand that or didn't care.
The second one sounds like someone had an army of male virgin-obsessed pedos and put them up as war booty to inspire his soldiers. What would those men do with those girls ? Well, that would probably be rape. I mean, putting aside what they mean by 'young', there's still the fact that those men just slaughtered their whole family. So romance is probably out of the question. A girl trying to not scream or fight b/c she knows she might be murdered for doing so is probably to be expected though.
- Anonymous8 years ago
The woman who cries out is considered to be the victim of rape; the woman who does not is considered to be a consenting partner.
This is a sort of "rule of thumb" for judges who have no other hard evidence available to them. The judge is instructed to conclude it is consensual if there was no vocal protest from the woman and to (in that case) treat it as adultery.
The second verse does not specify rape, though it **may** include rape. Generally speaking, female slaves (which the passage specifically describes) might not have been victims of rape, while concubines (which the passage reasonably includes) were *probably* the victims of what we would call rape. However, in that day and age - the day and age in which concubines were commonplace - how many women would refuse sex with an armed captor? To put it another way: how many women would think that it was out-of-place or wrong for their captor to demand sex? Would the woman of that ancient society commonly be unwilling (as in our society) and thus the victim of rape - or merely reluctant but willing, having the cultural understanding that such was a *duty* **expected** of a captive woman?
My personal opinion? I don't think it's wrong to claim that the second case probably included "rape". However, I *do* think that it needs to be qualified.
Conclusion: The first case is simply a rule-of-thumb instruction for judges whereby they can legally establish rape or adultery in a case where the matter is uncertain. The second can be reasonably said to include rape, but given the cultural values of the time and place that is by no means a certain determination.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Marci BokuLv 68 years ago
First, no, it was adultery. Adultery is breaking a promise to someone and causes the betrothed person to have trouble trusting other people. First, formally break the promise and give reasons why and then you're free to have relationships with other people. The girl didn't cry out, and the man had 'relations' with her, so that implies consent.
Second, I can't imagine Jewish men raping anyone - have you met a Jewish man? Perhaps they would seduce them over time, but I can't imagine rape - it goes against Jewish principles.Source(s): ex-xtian
- 8 years ago
1st one is rape... since she had been violated she would never find a husband. If she ever became pregnant, the child would be fatherless. So the ancients would have rather killed her than subject her to a life of being a depressed, disgraced outcast. The second one has to do with sex in general and the unclean are being accused/blamed for the plague.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Neither one is rape.
The first is adultery since she did not cry out. That would be interpreted to consent.
The second is not talking about married women or it would say so. Therefore this also would be considered adultery.
- littlerockLv 48 years ago
first is rape:
in those days, women had little say in what went on. only virgins were secured a good marriage, and those violated against their will were doomed. however, the woman was punished along with the man, for though the situation might not of been her fault, she was indeed impure from that moment onward.
second is not:
this passage is describing anyone who has been "claimed." Once someone had been in a sexual relationship (including marriage) they were no longer pure for God's purpose.
- Anonymous8 years ago
The first implies that since she did not cry out for help, she must have actually wanted it to happen. Never mind that many times a victim does not scream due to fear, injury and unconsciousness. The other seems moe like murder, kidnapping and rape!
- MoiLv 78 years ago
the first passage makes the point that because the woman did not scream for help that she was a willing party - and so she also deserved death
a scream would have brought her help
the next passage is God directing the actions of his chosen people - there is no rape involved
If the ultimate source of authority tells you that something is okay - then its okay