"Rape" in the Bible

[POI]

The current definition of "rape" would <include> a lack of, or complete absence of, consent. The current definition of "consent" would involve permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Alternatively, where women are concerned (in the Bible), I do not recall a woman's consent to be deemed necessary or required? Biblical Hebrew did not have a single legal or technical term that exactly corresponds to the current understanding for the term "rape", which nowadays focuses more-so on a lack of consent in various forms. Such forms involving lack of consent would include: fear - (as a lack of a verbal "no" is not necessarily consent, especially if the person is afraid to resist verbally or physically due to a specific set of circumstances), age - (as it relates to an age of true accountability), slumber - (as it relates to advancement while their partner is asleep), unconsciousness, intoxication, etc... You get the gist... The Hebrew Bible uses several different verbs and descriptive phrases to refer to "forced sexual assault", but not the modern definition of "rape". The Biblical concept of sexual violation was viewed primarily through the lens of family honor, economic consequences, and/or social disgrace, but not the woman's violation of autonomy?

Today, it is mere common knowledge that if a woman does not grant consent to sex, (as explained above), it most certainly can be considered "rape".

I trust we can all reference the Biblical verse(s) which would be deemed (condoned 'rape') in the modern world? Such situational 'rape' would include 1) the spoils of war and/or 2) the bonds of "marriage" as it directly relates to the spoils of war and/or even maybe without. In essence, as stated above, commanded Biblical circumstances existed where a lack of a verbal 'no' does not necessarily grant consent.

For debate:

1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?
2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?
3. How do Christians today appeal to the statement, "rape is wrong", when the Bible itself does not directly express its direct abolition, but instead looks to (condone/permit) 'rape'?

[Face to face]

in conclusion there is one more passage in - Deu 22:24

And bring out you both of them unto the gate of the city them and stone them with stones to death herself the damsel which did not cry out in the city,, himself the man because he spoke that which responded / answered,,,, her,, the wife of his neighbor,, and put away the evil from your midst

verse :24
והוצאתם And bring out - את you - שׁניהם both of them - אל unto - שׁער the gate - אל־שׁער of the city - - ההוא them - וסקלתם and stone - אתם them - באבנים with stones - ומתו to death - את herself - הנער the damsel - אשׁר which - לא־צעקה did not cry out - בעיר in the city,, - ואת himself - האישׁ the man - על because - דבר he spoke - אשׁר that which - “ ענה responded / answered,,,, “ - את her,, - אשׁת the wife - רעהו of his neighbor - ובערת and put away - הרע the evil - מקרבך׃ from your midst

1. the man “ ענה answered responded “ to the sexual advances of the woman who was engaged to another man

2. the woman was not raped - was not hurt, forced and the woman is not voicing that she was raped and forced.

this is the exact word for word translation - exactly,

i was hoping that we could understand the error of making the false claim that rape is a part of Gods plan for a woman and that by simply translating the manuscripts as they were written in their original meaning we can see

the Roman Catholic Church translation was not repaired by the protestant reformation.

[POI]

[Replying to Face to face in post #30]

I'm going to cut to the chase here and fast forward a lot. Under the Bible, "marriage" means a covenant between one man and one woman who will be "one flesh" through the principles of leaving their parents, cleaving to each other, and remaining faithful for life. Key aspects include sexual purity, mutual love and respect, and a lifelong commitment that is seen as permanent until death. The union is intended to be exclusive, monogamous, and publicly recognized, reflecting a deep spiritual bond.

According to the Bible, the hierarchy is as follows (God > Jesus > man > woman > children > slaves > animals > property)

Under the Bible, two passages grant "marriage" under questionable circumstances.

1) Deut. 22 -> The rapist marries the single rape victim.
2) Num. 31 -> The "Israelite" victor in war gets to take virgin war bride(s).

In line with the current further discovery of what actually constitutes as 'rape', and also in line with the fact that women clearly did not have the same rights as men, do you think these 1) rape victims and 2) war brides were legally "raped", after they were ordered into "marriage" for the rest of their lives? It's a (yes or no) question.

[Face to face]

you can be certain that the translation of these passages are mistranslated horribly.

please take into consideration what I have just posted and take a look at the last 4 words of

Deu 21:14  And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. 

please take just a moment and go to GOOGLE TRANSLATE = https://www.google.com/search?q=hebrew+ ... e&ie=UTF-8


copy and paste in the words below and see for yourself the original meaning of what this is saying in
Deu 21:14 

" בה תחת אשׁר עניתה׃  "

then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her - In the place where she answered.

the passage is explaining that after taking in a potential female prisoner of war into your home to be your wife - here is exactly how to treat the woman.

thou shalt let her go whither she will

thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her -

In the place or thing that she answered concerning asking her to become a wife

why would anyone pretend to have scriptures for their faith or scriptures for their claims when the Original meaning and intent has been made so clear and understandable

especially since we have overcome the prohibition on reading and studying the bible - it is so clear ....

[POI]

you can be certain that the translation of these passages are mistranslated horribly.

Hahaha! I'm using the "Newly Revised Standard Version". This is one of the most commonly used and accepted versions in higher learning, when also used in conjunction with learning and knowing Hebrew and Greek respectively.

I do not recall you answering my one question. I will repeat. It's a (yes or no) question:

Under the Bible, two passages grant "marriage" under questionable circumstances.

1) Deut. 22 -> The rapist marries the single rape victim.
2) Num. 31 -> The "Israelite" victor in war gets to take virgin war bride(s).

In line with the current further discovery of what actually constitutes as 'rape', and also in line with the fact that women clearly did not have the same rights as men, do you think these 1) rape victims and 2) war brides were legally "raped", after they were ordered into "marriage" for the rest of their lives? It's a (yes or no) question.

[Face to face]

hello, thanks again for taking time to reply.


I did my best to present the exact " word for word " Hebrew to English translation on the previous page. If you have time please go back just one page and read the Scripture I had translated for - Deu 22:28

HERE THE PASSAGE IS NOT ADRESSING THE SUBJECT OF RAPE, -- RAPE AND VIOLENCE IS NOT EVEN THE ISSUE THAT IS BEING ADDRESSES IN - Deu 22:28

THE PASSAGE IS JUST A MANDATE UPON THE MAN WHO WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE REGARDLESS OF HOW HE MANAGED TO TAKE AHOLD OF A WOMAN AND HAVE SEX WITH HER


there you will find that the passage was explaining simply that if man catches a woman alone and manages to have sexual intercourse with her he is obligated to pay the father regardless of wither or not the woman chooses to become his wife. THE PASSAGE EXPLAINS


The previous passage in Deu 22:25  explains


:25 if the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 

the Hebrew word here describing : " RAPE " : is force meaning =
" חָזַק " châzaq = meaning -==== to use force, strength, to fasten upon; to seize, to bind, restrain, conquer: - catch, constrain

the passage you are referring to is Deu 22:28 



:28  If a man " lay hold " on a woman

here the Hebrew word is not describing necessarily rape but uses a completely different Hebrew word as the word ותפשׂה means - " to seize," " " "to take hold of," "to catch," or "to handle".

the passage is not intending to give a punishment for rape but rather stipulates that the man who catches woman and takes ahold of her, however it may be, by using any force or just by catching her off guard and unprepared to say no - the man is still responsible to the woman and her father in a fanatical manner and also in a marriage where the man is forced - - A FULLY AUTOMATIC MANDATE -- upon the man,

he must take the woman as a wife if - “ IF “: perhaps : “

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3863.htm - = “ ולו “ =

- ולו תהיה IF -


- ולו תהיה IF HE HAD - לאשׁה A WOMAN - תחת UNDER HIM - אשׁר WHO - ענה ANSWERED, - RESPONDED

this totally changes everything about the situation, - - the passage is simply saying that the woman still has a choice to stay with the man and “ IF “: perhaps : “ she becomes his wife

he cannot put her away all of his days.


the Hebrew word is not describing rape but uses a completely different Hebrew word as the word ותפשׂה means - " to seize," " " "to take hold of," "to catch," or "to handle".

Gen 39:12  And Ruth caught him by his garment

Jer 2:8  they that handle the law
Gen 4:21  as handle the harp and organ. 
Jer 46:9  handle and bend the bow. 

Yes the man man may have used force - and yes the women may have been complicit

this is what the passage is explaining - its not going into detail of saying exactly what the case may be but its saying regardless if it was a forced sexual act or if the woman was responsive - either way

the man is responsible and can never get out of the marriage and must pay the father.


please remember that there are 3 total instances of rape in the Old Testament and in all three cases where rape occurred - whole cities were destroyed to punish the rapist, in every single event where rape occurred in the Bible the rapist and all who protected the rapists were all killed

rape was a full automatic death penalty. God does not fool around with rape

[Face to face]

The word ותפשׂה

means to "to seize," "to capture," "to take hold of," "to catch," or "to handle".

it is a very universal word with a very wide implication


It implies manipulating something with the hands.

also a an act of - Surprising / Stopping - it can mean catching someone off guard or stopping

also it mans - to " Find "

Active Discovery: To "find" can mean to succeed in achieving or obtaining something.

The active sense of searching for and subsequently "catching" or "seizing"

Unexpected Encounter: You might "find" something by stumbling upon it, a chance discovery that still results in you "taking hold" of the new information or object.''


Legal/Situational Context: In certain biblical laws, like the example in Deuteronomy 22:28 ("If a man finds a young woman... and seizes her"), "finds" refers to the discovery of a person in a specific situation, followed by the act of taking hold of them.

Therefore, "find" serves as a suitable translation in contexts where the discovery is linked to the physical or consequential act of taking hold or capturing

the man happens to find or take ahold of a woman - its not saying or implying force nor ruling out force

its simply giving the man a law that he is responsible for his actions and he is obligated to marry any woman he happens to take hold of -

its like a mockery of a man who stumbles into a field and suddenly find a woman and lays hold on her and has sex with her .......... well. The man is responsible and this is not something he can do without consequences

the thought of rape and violence and force is not even a part of the passage, The DEATH PENALITY is given in the previous passage for rape of a married woman, the next passages moves into a lighter form of sexual assault that presents the assault as something the man does who expects to take ahold of a virgin and expect to get away.,

no........ the man is forever indebted to the woman and must be prepared to pay the father immediate payment and his commitment and obligation to the woman will be a lifetime commitment for him - regardless of what the woman and her father chooses..

he will be unable to marry another woman and is under a lifetime commitment forever indebted and will have a rape conviction that will follow him for the rest of his life.


in the Bible the father is mandated by law to take care of his daughter until she is married.

the father is not even allowed to marry another wife unless he can fully and completely provide for his daughter

Exo 22:16 And if a man seduces a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 BUT If her father utterly refuses to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.


E xo 21:7 is really saying

:10 If he { the Father } takes himself another wife; the food, the raiment, and her marriage, shall not be lessened or withheld. - FROM HIS DAUGHTER

Verse 10 was saying that If a Father who is in debt has a daughter

and that If he takes Himself another wife after He knows his daughter is coming back home after she has ended her contract or her boss is not satisfied fully with her performance or feels the debt is not paid due to whatever circumstance. ……

…….that the father while taking in another wife or taking in anyone else into His household, he shall not diminish the daughter's rights and clothing and the daughter's marriage potential, rights and abilities……... { and overall basic rights. } as a daughter..,.,..

In other words - - The daughter always holds a heritage right and the right to get married no matter how much the father is in debt and the father is obligated to care for his daughter by law.

the law was a mandate that the father always care for his daughter and take charge of her considerations and well being and comfort and safety and the daughter always holds a heritage right to the home of the father. - regardless of how much the father is in debt...

BY LAW - the father is obligated to his daughter this responsibility is even over the father taking a new wife, his daughter comes first ..,... by law...

[POI]

[Replying to Face to face in post #36]

Nothing here is useful. The 3 given instructions are. endorsing "rape". You know it. Everyone knows it.

1) No woman, who was spared from genocide, would want to freely "marry" one of the participant killers of her entire family, via Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
2) No woman, in their right mind, would want to freely "marry" their rapist, via Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
3) No woman, who was spared in war, is going to want to willfully become the spared plunder of her entire family's killer, via Numbers 31:17-18.

Since no woman would ever freely choose these circumstances, and yet these laws/provisions are given anyways, we're talking about 'rape.' Hence, the Bible endorses 3 kinds of 'rape', as the OP explains. All you are giving here is a bunch of apologetic excuses so you can sleep better at night. Thanks, it is entertaining to read and all, but no one is really taking your responses here seriously.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Forced sex is a crime and zero blame on the woman Deuteronomy 22:25–27 (ESV)

We don't need verbal consent, not even today. Body language is enough.

Jesus taught against many things like rape and slavery when he said, love others as yourself.

[POI]

Forced sex is a crime and zero blame on the woman Deuteronomy 22:25–27 (ESV)

This is why 'rape' is in quotes, via the OP topic title. Notice the passage you quoted. The crime is that another man ruined the promised woman's worth. He took her virginity. She is now damaged goods.

However, in verses 28-29, if the man forces himself onto an "unpromised" woman, he gets to keep 'raping' her for life, "legally" -- via, marriage.

We don't need verbal consent, not even today. Body language is enough.

According to Deuteronomy, the chapter you decided to quote BTW, if you were to 'rape' a single virgin, you are ordered to marry her. Which means you then have 'legal' rights to keep "entering" her for life. The Bible expresses nothing about HER consent. The only transaction required is to pay the father. She has no say in the matter.

Jesus taught against many things like rape and slavery when he said, love others as yourself.

If the 'golden rule' applies everywhere, it would be absolutely redundant to tell folks what NOT to do. And yet, Jesus goes out of his way to still tell folks what NOT to do anyways. Further, the New Testament does not explicitly mention the word "rape", or provide specific new laws about it; instead, it addresses the act through broader moral commands against sexual immorality, sin, and violence. The principles found in the New Testament align with the Old Testament condemnation of sexual assault as a severe sin against both a person and God. And we covered what the OT mentions, as you brought up in Deuteronomy 22.

Face it AFG, the Bible condones certain types of 'rape.' And no one is being fooled by your given "Christian apologetics".

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #39]

It is not saying if he rapes her but if he seduces her.

25–27 >> ḥazaq = overpower, violent force. Treated like murder. Man dies. Woman has zero blame. 28–29 >> taphas = seize, take hold, often used for seduction, not assault.If the text meant violent rape again, it would reuse ḥazaq. It doesn’t. It’s addressing premarital sex that bypasses the father’s authority, not violent assault. Marriage here is a penalty, not a prize. The man pays the maximum bride-price. He loses the right to divorce. He is legally bound for life. In that culture, that removes his freedom. No man wanted that outcome. If this were a rape loophole, it's the dumbest loophole.


Love others as yourself does apply everywhere. The reason Jesus and the apostles still told people what not to do is because those were the things they were doing. He was correcting their errors. They were not raping, so no need to bring it up.