Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
Although I agree that ancient Mesopotamia was a cruel and bloody place, and that the Old Testament contains many hair-raising passages, it is important not to get carried away, and to try to put those passages in context -- like the one above, for example.
A raped woman had zero chance of marrying, unless she was already betrothed to someone. Women in ancient Mesopotamia could not rely on careers in banking or true love, so marriage was the only way in which they could be provided for. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is actually an attempt to compensate the rape victim. The rapist must marry her -- which is to say, he must provide for her; and he must do so for as long as she lives, without the benefit of divorce that would otherwise have been available. I don't know the Christian position on this passage, but Jewish scholars interpret it further to mean that in this marriage, the rapist would assume all the obligations of a husband with none of the privileges, while the victim, by contrast, would enjoy all the privileges of a wife with none of the duties.
|
As compared to our modern 'sensibilities' we might think of females as being treated poorly in the OT times.
However from a different viewpoint, females were protected.
Consider widows. A widow went to her husband's eldest brother and he was required to add her as one of his wives.
She was always to be within an established household.
And according to the same sets of laws, when a man took additional wives, he was required always provide each previous wife with the same level of standard of living as she had enjoyed before the new additional wife.
So in the case of a widow and her husband having no brothers, she went to her husband's near kinsmen, who were required to take her as a wife.
We see with the story of Ruth and Boaz, the closest near kinsman could not afford to take a second wife without hurting his first wife, so he had to refuse Ruth. Which left Boaz to take Ruth.