Israelite Marriage Part II: Rape vs. Seduction in Israelitism

    Carrying on to our next stop in the journey of Israelite marriage, in this post, we'll be looking at rape and seduction and the differences between them, followed by a more in-depth look at rape. To follow is a post with a more-in depth look at seduction.

     It's a bit of a sordid topic, but it is important due to the many misconceptions about it and how those misconceptions are perceived. The topic is also a a serious one, and I intend to explain it with due diligence.

[Disclaimer: if not obvious from the title, this is not a post for the kiddies. We're going to delve into some unsavory things, and I'm not one for mincing words]

Behold: Tasteful and topical Classical nudity!

Rape vs. Seduction

    The key problem in this topic is the differentiation of "rape" and "seduction" in the Bible. As with most things, it boils down to translation. In the NIV version of the Bible, the two different words are translated as the same word; "rape". This is obviously an issue for many reasons. I've heard many volleys hurled towards Abrahamic religions in regards to this mistranslation.
     The verses in question are typically Deuteronomy 22:28-29. In the NIV, they read, "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
     The fallout from this translation is huge. The non-religious say, "How could you support a God who supports rape?!". I've heard religious teachers try to explain it away while keeping to that definition, "rape", "Well, this way, the now non-virgin woman would be provided for all her days! So it's a good thing." For an individual male, this leads to the thought, "If a woman doesn't want me, all I have to do is rape her, and we'll be together forever!". I'm sure you can imagine how believing this would cause problems.
     In addition to being disgusting in implication, all of these thoughts are just plain wrong. The word does not mean "rape" at all. When taking the word to the original writing, it means "to lie down", the meaning dependent upon the context. It can mean to lie down for a nap, to sleep, to die, or to engage in sexual intercourse. However, there is no implication of violence or force; the word is restful in all of its connotations (link). It is inappropriately translated as "rape" in many cases of the Bible when the closest word we have in English for it is "seduce". The Bible does not call for a woman to be forced to marry her rapist. The image is completely different; instead, if a woman and a man are fooling around without the knowledge of her father, she may be forced to marry that man.

Rape in the Bible
     Indeed, rape in the Bible is something entirely different and carries a completely different set of consequences. In Deuteronomy 22:25-26, KJV, we see the consequences of rape. "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter."
     The key is the verbs in the respective verses. In verses 25-26, we have the added verb "force" to the "lie down" verb. In the Hebrew, "force" is a similar word, denoting the use of strength and the action of overcoming another's strength (link). Verses 25-26 show a rape. A woman is forced against her will to have sexual relations with the man. It is equated to murder, and rightly so. Unlike in other aspects of the Law, (Deut 17:6) that require more than one witness for a death sentence, this law seems to be an exception. The Bible does not take rape lightly, and nor should we.
     In contrast, verses 28-29 lack the "force" verb. Though there is the word translated (in the KJV) as "lay hold of", it does not bear the same meaning as "force". Instead, it means "to manipulate" or "to use unwarrantably". This man is not so much a rapist as a trickster, using smooth words to gain consent. He's more of the "love 'em and leave 'em" type. Therefore, he is not punished in the same way as a rapist; instead, he is made to take responsibility for the woman he would have left.

To review: "rape" and "seduction" in the Bible are two distinctly separate actions. Rape is equated to murder, where seduction is seen more as a breach of protocol. A raped woman is not treated any differently than any other woman; her status is not affected by her rape.

(Note: Whenever you come across a verse in the Bible that uses "rape" "ravish" "lie down with" "take hold of" etc etc etc, I strongly suggest you research into the matter before making the wrong assumption. The best resource I can recommend is the Strong's Concordance which provides a definition for every translated word in the Bible from its source word)

Shown: Force

Shown: Seduction

Biblical Rape vs. Modern Rape

     If you were reading attentively to the above section, you may have noticed some holes in coverage for the rules. Rape indeed is the same as murder, but what, precisely, constitutes a rape? For one, it is not the same as the modern conception of rape, and for two, it relies on a system of assumptions that may or may not be in place.

     According to the Department of Justice, the legal definition of rape in modern America is, "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim...[the definition] includes any gender of victim or perpetrator, and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, including due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with state statute. Physical resistance from the victim is not required to demonstrate lack of consent" (source).

     The Biblical definition is a little trickier to pin down. For one, the only type of rape we are given is male-on-female. Female-on-male rape is not addressed (more on that in the "assumptions" section), nor is male-on-male rape directly addressed. Instead, we must string together a series of examples to form a picture of what was considered rape.

1. When a man physically forces a woman to have sex with him (implied any kind of sexual goings on); this is seen as the equivalent of murder (Deut 22:25-26)
2. Male-on-male rape is possibly worse than male-on-female rape: 

• In Genesis 19, Lot is confronted with a mob who wish to "know" the two angels who are currently visiting. Hoping to placate the mob, Lot offers his two daughters instead, making the point that they are virgins. The crowd threatens to "do worse" to Lot and begin to attack him. Luckily, at this point, the angels strike the mob with blindness. Now, this is a loose example. For one, Lot was not the best guy (see, offering up his daughters to a fate equal to murder), and this took place before the Law was given. However, we see from his attitude that, at least to Lot, it would be preferable for his daughters to be raped than for his guests.

• To support this, we see another story, this one featuring a Levite, in Judges 19. The Levite is travelling with his concubine, and an old man invites them to stay at his home. That night, a mob appears and demands to "know" the Levite. The old man offers his own virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine, saying, "but unto this man do not so vile a thing". The mob refuses, but the Levite gives them his concubine. They rape her to death.The resulting outrage from the nation of Israel results in the near extermination of the entire tribe of Benjamin. Like the above example, this one is not perfect. For one, a Levite should not have a "concubine"; she should be his wife, fully. Secondly, though both the old man and the Levite consider the violence the mob intends to be horrific, giving up the concubine to be raped to death is not a good act. The Bible does not support allowing others to be murdered; however, this does show how desperate the old man and Levite were to prevent this male-on-male rape.

     Missing from the Biblical definition are female-on-male rape and forced consent. In the Bible, we do see three examples of what could be considered female-on-male rape today. 

    The first is Lot's daughters. In the later half of Genesis 19, we see that Lot's daughters, thinking the whole world was destroyed, decide to get their dad drunk and sleep with him to preserve humanity. Their plan is a success, and both become pregnant, eventually giving birth to the Moabites and the Ammonites, respectively (being two of the Enemy Nations to Israel for the rest of the Bible). However, what the daughters did is not considered rape; instead, it is like the scenario in Deuteronomy 28:29; they tricked their father, but he did, in fact, consent. When going to the original translation, we find "and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, but he did perceive when she arose" (Gen 19:33), and her sister follows suit the next night. The younger sister pulls off the same trick. The second daughter's success shows us the full story; though Lot did not necessarily know what was going on the first time, he did know the second, and yet he still allowed it to happen, showing that he did not mind. As a result of their incest, we see the birth of two enemy nations to Israel (in this way, it is similar to the story of Sarah, Abraham, and Hagar). Also, note the lack of the "force" verb. 

Terrible dad. All I'm sayin'.

     The second example is that of Judah and Tamar, found in Genesis 38. Due to a long series of circumstance, Tamar is the widowed daughter-in-law of Judah, son of Jacob. she dresses up like a prostitute, seduces Judah, then blackmails him with incriminating evidence once she discovers she is pregnant. She gives birth to twins, and becomes an established member of the family. Though not so heinous as the actions of Lot's daughters, Tamar's seduction is just that; seduction. She tricked Judah into believing she was a prostitute, but he did, ultimately, consent. Judah even says Tamar acted more righteously than he did (Gen 38:26), putting her actions firmly into the "not rape" category.

     The third example is Potiphar's wife and Joseph, found in Genesis 39. In this chapter, Joseph is acting top-slave for Potiphar, an official of Egypt. Joseph is a bit of a hotty, and before long, Potiphar's wife takes an interest in him. She tries to seduce him, saying, "lie with me" (Gen 39:7), but Joseph refuses. After some time of this song and dance, she catches Joseph alone, "and she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out." (Gen 39:12 KJV).  The key verb in this verse is "caught". Though the word is translated as "caught", it is the very same verb used to show seduction--"to manipulate". Just like in Deuteronomy, when a man seduces a woman, Potiphar's wife was attempting to seduce Joseph. Her intent was not to bump him over the head and have her way with him. Instead, she manipulated his clothing, saying, "come have sex with me". Because Potiphar's wife cannot "force" Joseph, she turns to "manipulation" instead.

Biblical Assumptions for Rape

     The examples in this section lead us to the second difference between modern and Biblical ideas of rape. Biblical considerations of rape depend on a web of assumptions that must be in place. 

1. No single, unbetrothed woman will be raped (Deut 22)
2. A raped woman must fight back or resist (Deut 22:25-27 and 22:24). This will not only lead to the capture of her rapist and prevention of the rape, it will dually serve to prove her innocence in the matter.
3. People will help prevent rape (Deut 22:24, 22:27)
4. No one will lie about rape (Gen 39:14-18, Deut 25-27)
5. Men are upright, honorable, and ultimately good (Gen 19 and 38)

     Ultimately, it boils down to one big assumption: The only way for a person to get raped is if a woman is alone with no one to help her. If there are people, she will be saved. If a man remains sober, he will not be raped, and if he is upright, he will not be tricked.

Explanations for Assumptions

1. One of the reasons people tend to go with the "a woman must marry her rapist!" idea is the different descriptions of women in the verses. In Deuteronomy 22:28, the woman described is specifically an "unbetrothed" woman. In the verses 25-27, the woman is betrothed. This leads many to assume it's a matter of property--it's okay to rape a woman who belongs to no man, but not okay to rape a woman who does belong to a man through betrothal. To make clear, "betrothal" is the de facto state after marriage is promised but not yet consummated. However, it is not a matter of property, as shown by the verbs, "to manipulate into sex" versus "to force to have sexual relations". What this shows is an assumption that in a good and proper world, unbetrothed women would only be seduced, not raped by force. I am not sure why this is the assumption; my guess is that unbetrothed woman were either A) too young to be betrothed, making the seduction a case of child molestation, B) not left on their own, disallowing them from being  in a field, unprotected, at risk to a rapist. Betrothed women, on the contrary, were often given "married" status, meaning they were not protected in the same way as unbetrothed women. Where an unbetrothed woman would live with her family, probably with familial guardians when she walked abroad, a married or betrothed woman was free to live with her husband/fiance, and if her husband was busy, she might indeed be walking alone where she could be preyed upon.
2. The whole goal of the "fight back" clause is to prevent the rape. The idea is presented in the negative sense, "If she was raped in a city, that means she didn't cry out, which would have prevented the occurrence". However, this assumption relies on other assumptions--that the people would hear her screams, that she would be free to scream--her mouth would not be covered, and she would not be unconscious. 
3. Linking to the above assumption, there is another that follows; that people, hearing a woman scream, would arrive in time to defend the woman and capture the rapist. As we saw in the stories of Lot and the Levite, the opposite is sometimes true. Sometimes, people will hear the screams and A) do nothing or B) join in the rape. 
4. In the rules about rape, we see that a woman screaming means instant death for the perpetrator. However, this law only works if the woman does not lie. We see in the story of Joseph that he is imprisoned unjustly due to the false report of Potiphar's wife. According to Israelite law, rather than prison, Joseph would have been executed; all that is required is the scream of the woman. However, the Bible does acknowledge Joseph's imprisonment as wrong; therefore, the law relies on honesty.
5. In modern American law, a drunk/high man who has sex with a sober person has been raped. His state disallows consent on his part. However, the Bible takes a hard stance against drunkenness, (Proverbs 20:1, 23:29-35, Ephesians 5:18, Isaiah 5:22, Hosea 4:11, and many more places), and the implication is this: if a man allows himself to become drunk, anything that happens as a result of his drunkenness is his own fault, or, as the adage goes, "A drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts", this time turning "words" to "actions". Lot sleeps with his daughters because he is drunk. Because Judah is drunk with lust, he sleeps with a prostitute who is actually his daughter in law. Only Joseph escapes the seduction before him, because he is a sober and upright man. 

Conclusion

     The key issue with the Biblical assumptions is this; once one of them is broken, it all falls in; in a perfect world, people would follow the Law, and none of these other laws would be necessary. Any scoundrel or nonbeliever evil enough to break the Law would be apprehended immediately by righteous people and summarily punished. Men would be sober enough to fend off any unwanted advances. However, we do not live in a perfect society. We have occurrences that fall outside of these rules; we can only do our best in regards to these things.

Also; the Law does not call for a woman to marry her rapist!!! For a  more in-depth look at seduction, check out the next post!