The Bible tells us that a rapist must pay the father of the raped girl fifty shekels of silver, and marry the girl, and that the rapist may not put her away.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version)
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
My read of this is, "Buddy, you break it, you bought it." If a man chooses to break a virgin's hymen, thus reducing her value to her father, then he must pay the dowry and be responsible for supporting her for the rest of her life . . . since no proper man will want her after that.
But does this require the daughter to marry the rapist?
I propose that the daughter doesn't have to actually marry the rapist; it is the rapist who is required to marry the daughter, not the other way around.
This, we know, is for the protection of the father and the daughter; the father, so he need not bear the cost of supporting a spinster, and the daughter so that she has the opportunity to wed and raise children. And because she might already be pregnant with the rapist's seed.
But if she wishes not to be wed, or has been so damaged that she can't bear children anyway, why put her through that? She should be allowed to waive her right to marriage, if she so desires. That just leaves the father to be compensated.
This could be handled by the rapist providing "rapee support" to the father on a regular basis, following the initial lump sum.
If the rapist can't provide the necessary income, the daughter would be on her own. She could go forth and become a harlot, or perhaps a television weathergirl. In any case, her father would not have to support her any longer.
So, it seems the choices for the girl are:
I think this is a more compassionate approach to a difficult verse. What do you think?
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version)
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
My read of this is, "Buddy, you break it, you bought it." If a man chooses to break a virgin's hymen, thus reducing her value to her father, then he must pay the dowry and be responsible for supporting her for the rest of her life . . . since no proper man will want her after that.
But does this require the daughter to marry the rapist?
I propose that the daughter doesn't have to actually marry the rapist; it is the rapist who is required to marry the daughter, not the other way around.
This, we know, is for the protection of the father and the daughter; the father, so he need not bear the cost of supporting a spinster, and the daughter so that she has the opportunity to wed and raise children. And because she might already be pregnant with the rapist's seed.
But if she wishes not to be wed, or has been so damaged that she can't bear children anyway, why put her through that? She should be allowed to waive her right to marriage, if she so desires. That just leaves the father to be compensated.
This could be handled by the rapist providing "rapee support" to the father on a regular basis, following the initial lump sum.
If the rapist can't provide the necessary income, the daughter would be on her own. She could go forth and become a harlot, or perhaps a television weathergirl. In any case, her father would not have to support her any longer.
So, it seems the choices for the girl are:
Marry the rapist and be supported for the rest of her life;
Stay home with her father, who will receive money from the rapist to support her; or
Be tossed out in the street by her father.
The good news is that she has choices!Stay home with her father, who will receive money from the rapist to support her; or
Be tossed out in the street by her father.
I think this is a more compassionate approach to a difficult verse. What do you think?
Comment