If you ask an atheist, you will likely be told that the Bible is a truly grotesque book, filled to the brim with horrific evil which is commanded, and even committed, by none other than God Himself.
If you ask a Christian, we'll tell you the Bible is a complex book requiring diligent study, not merely a cursory reading. There are certainly some passages that are confusing to modern Western audiences, but nothing that justifies the emotionally charged rhetoric we see from atheists.
If you diligently study the Bible (which requires more than reading a few out-of-context verses found on atheistic blog pages), it quickly becomes obvious that the Christian perspective is the correct one.
One of many charges atheists bring against Scripture is that it encourages, condones, or is otherwise supportive of rape. There are two main ways they do this. The first is to claim the Bible is inexplicably silent on the issue, a claim that is both easily refuted, and instantly contradicted by the other claim. Rather than being silent on the issue, there are a number of verses atheists cite which they claim are in favor of rape.
Is Scripture really silent?
First, let's utterly destroy the idea that the Bible does not make its stance on rape clear. Usually, to prove their point, the atheist will either say "thou shalt not rape" is not among the 10 commandments (which is a quarter truth), or will cite one of the very few ceremonial laws they actually know, claiming God is quite clear on pork and shellfish (seriously, ask them to name a third unclean animal, they will quickly run to Google), yet is somehow silent on rape.
In reality, we only need 3 verses to prove the Bible is quite explicitly opposed to rape. In Deuteronomy 22:25-27, we read "“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her."
Here, we see that rape is a capital crime. A man who commits rape is to die, because rape is equal to murder, which is another crime requiring death. A woman who is the victim of rape has done absolutely nothing wrong, and isn't covered by the usual rules regarding sexual immorality. Even a man who becomes aware of an active rape situation is expected to intervene and save the victim.
From this, we actually see that we fall quite short of the Bible's standard in our culture, not because we are severe against rape, but because we are not quite severe enough. In fact, as I show in my article "Why I now believe in rape culture", modern society is surprisingly tolerant of rape. I of course encourage you to read that article for more details, but the pertinent piece of information for this article is that while we are shockingly tolerant of rape, the Bible makes it very clear: A civilian may kill a rapist to prevent (but not avenge) rape, and the government is required to kill rapists to avenge rape.
On top of this, going back to the 10 commandments argument, it's important to remember that the 10 commandments are not the entirety of the law. In fact, in Matthew 22:35-40, we read "Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”"
This one statement means that atheists who so heavily emphasise the 10 commandments literally do not know the basics! There are many more commands in Scripture than just these 10, and they obviously know it because they cite them. Furthermore, with the relevant information, we see that although rape is not explicitly cited in the 10 commandments, it is implicitly covered by them. If rape is akin to murder, then the 6th commandment is against rape. Furthermore, lust, which is a common motivator for rape, is equated with adultery (Matthew 5:28), meaning the 7th commandment also covers the very desire to rape, even before it actually occurs. And of course, going by the principle that the entire Law and the Prophets hang on the two commandments to love God and love your neighbor, rape simply isn't justifiable in Christianity.
How atheists twist Scripture to defend their lie
So that's the first atheist argument dead on arrival. The Bible is absolutely clear on the morality of rape, more so than our own culture. But of course, an atheist doesn't believe the Bible is the word of the Living God. Therefore, they can fully acknowledge the fact that it does say rape is a capital crime worthy of death, yet still claim there are places elsewhere in Scripture that support it. The Bible, they say, contains contradictions. This would be a valid claim if they could bring a single confirming example.
Of course, I'm going to contend they can't, but that doesn't mean they don't try. Nor does it mean their attempts are not valiant. They still ultimately fail, but if you're not ready for them, they can trip you up. So, rather than just dismiss them, my plan for the rest of this article is to first give an illustration by quoting the Bible on a completely different issue, making it say something you will intuitively understand it absolutely does not say. With the analogy in mind, I want to examine some examples of the Bible supposedly condoning rape. Before I do that, however, I also want to lay a foundation for refuting the ones I won't be addressing in this article.
First, here is the Bible quote I referred to: "Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up...". This is a direct, copy and paste quote from 1 Corinthians 15:15. Taken on its own, especially to the uninformed reader, this seems like quite the confession. It would seem that Paul (the author of 1 Corinthians, and a hand chosen Apostle of the Lord) has been caught lying about the resurrection, and is admitting it. Christianity is firmly grounded on this event. If God raised up Christ, that is the ultimate proof Christianity is true. If God did not raise up Christ, Christianity is a lie, no matter what. So if the Bible says God did not raise up Christ, the Bible says Christianity is a lie.
Of course, while this verse is found in Scripture, the interpretation I gave is invalid because of a concept called "context". Context is relevant information surrounding a text which determines its meaning. In the case of 1 Corinthians 15:15, Paul is not confessing to fabricating the resurrection, nor has he been caught doing so. Rather, he is posing a hypothetical scenario for purposes of exposing a hole in the Corinthians' own understanding of the concept of resurrection. In order to sustain any claim that the Bible is supportive of rape, atheists must similarly deny or ignore the context in one way or another. There are three main ways in which they do this.
The first is to find a passage which describes (or appears to describe) rape, but is not prescriptive. The second is to find a passage that is prescriptive, but is not describing rape. The third, which I find is probably the most annoying, is to heavily rely on a specific translation. Let us clarify these three things in more detail.
Descriptive of rape, but not prescriptive
First, the descriptive, but not prescriptive. Far too many atheists, having never actually studied Scripture (or worse, knowing the following information, but actively lying about it), believe the Bible is basically a straightforward list of commands. Thus, if the Bible describes rape, that is seen as condoning it. In reality, the Bible is not just a straightforward list of commands. Rather, it is a collection of documents spanning many genres. Most notably, the Bible contains a lot of history, and as anyone who grew up reading Terry Deary books knows, history is "horrible, but true".
The result is that the Bible is also full of things that are horrible, but true, including a few examples of rape. But it is vital to understand the difference between the descriptive (what is) and the prescriptive (what ought to be). Nothing drives this point home more than the simple fact that the Bible describes some actions performed by the most evil being in all of history: Satan himself! The Bible constantly warns us that the devil plays an adversarial role in our lives, seeking to destroy us, and being so full of pride that he actually believes he can take God's throne.
Among the works of the devil are the temptation of Eve, the persecution of Job, the failed coup of Heaven, and even the attempted temptation of Christ Himself. But no serious atheist is going to say "the devil was a murderer from the beginning, and he's in the Bible, so the Bible condones murder". That is an obviously stupid argument that no one would ever make or fall for. In the same way, while the Bible does genuinely describe some very nasty descriptions of sexual violence, this is not indicative of God's approval. They are mentioned because they happened, not because they are supposed to.
Aside from describing Satan and his works, it's important to note that even when describing righteous men, such as Noah, Abraham, and David, the Bible never says they are devoid of sin, and rather explicitly tells us all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We even find that prophets are so evil that upon encountering God directly, they often lament their own wretchedness. Isaiah, for example, writes "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The Lord of hosts." (Isaiah 6:5). This ultimately means even if a righteous man is described doing something, this does not necessarily make it right. Context must be taken into account.
Prescriptive, but not descriptive of rape
On top of descriptive passages, there are prescriptive passages, but what we find is that they never prescribe rape. This is the reverse of the previous point. The Bible is not 100% prescriptive, but it is not 100% descriptive either. It's worth pointing out that certain prescriptions are also tied to a specific covenant. This means you will even find some commands in the Bible, like the prohibition on shellfish we mentioned earlier, which do not apply universally. Furthermore, not all of God's immediate commands align with His permanent will.
We see this in the issue of divorce, for example. God makes it quite clear that He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), yet in the Old Covenant, He made temporary concessions regarding the practice, which He still makes some provision for in the New Covenant. This is not because divorce is good, but because divorce is inevitable.
One might compare this to the military. The military may be described as a "necessary evil". War is atrocious, and we all know it. Why, then, do we train and equip people with the specific purpose of waging it? Simply because you lose every war you don't fight. It is bad to kill Nazis, it is worse to let Nazis gain, or retain power.
Now again, God never prescribes rape, not even in a "lesser of two evils" kind of way. This is because rape is one of the greatest evils one can commit, again, being equal to murder. But there are some prescriptive verses, which we will look at shortly, which can be made to sound like rape.
Dodgy translation
One thing that really doesn't help Christians here is the simple fact that the Bible is not originally an English document. It is an ancient book, primarily written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic - and old forms of these languages, for that matter. Picture the King James version. How often to we use "thee", "thou", and the like? The irony is, outside of a religious or historical context, we don't. We just don't talk like that anymore, it's an old book, more than 400 years old. In much the same way, modern Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic speakers do not speak, or write, in the same way as the original Bible was written.
What this means is that even the highest quality translations can sometimes be unhelpful. And I'll note, although I am not such a person, many Christians are quite passionate about their translation preferences.
Regarding this particular issue, the NIV tends to be the worst offender. If you do a search on a Bible study platform, you will notice not many translations even use the word "rape". The NIV, however, places it in some of the most awkward places. Now, I am not among those who will recklessly dub the NIV the "Not Inspired Version", nor am I especially wedded to the KJV. Rather, I hold a fairly standard, rational position on the inerrancy of Scripture: The Bible, as it was originally inspired, is infallible, but there is no such thing as a perfect English translation. I can afford to say that the NIV gets it wrong sometimes, and that other translations are better.
Furthermore, arguments which depend on a particular translation - especially one in a specific language from a specific era - are inherently invalid. Regardless of whether or not you believe the Bible is God-breathed, you know for a fact His prophets and Apostles were not running around quoting the NIV, or even the KJV. Thus, it should be abundantly obvious that translation-specific arguments can never work.
An all-encompassing strategy
The above information lays the foundation for understanding any possible verse an atheist might claim is supportive of rape. We're about to look at some examples, but of course it would be unrealistic to list and address every example an atheist might cite. Thus, a wise strategy is to ask the atheist in question for their best few examples. I recommend limiting them to a maximum of three. This is helpful for two reasons. First, just as the Philistines fled when Goliath was killed, the thorough destruction of the best examples immediately makes the rest highly questionable. If your best three examples are that bad, why would your next three be expected to fare any better?
But this strategy also enables you to test the integrity of the atheist in question. An honest atheist will earnestly consider your points and adjust their arguments accordingly. By contrast, a dishonest atheist will turn it into a game of Whack-A-Mole. You refute one verse, and without even acknowledging the answer, they'll move on to the next one. In the case of the latter, Jesus has two pieces of advice for you: Cast not your pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6), and kick the dust from your feet (Matthew 10:14). In other words, if someone knows the Bible does not condone rape, yet continues to insist it does, leave them to their delusion. You can't help them.
With the foundations laid, we can examine a few examples of Biblical passages which, in the atheist's mind, support rape, and put these principles into practice. As I said, it is unrealistic to list and address every passage atheists cite, but using these principles, you will be just as able to refute the ones I don't address here.
Exodus 21:7-11
Exodus 21:7-11 is an example of a verse that is prescriptive (and temporarily so), but is not describing rape. It says "“And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."
Even without the extra charge of rape, this passage is quite difficult when interpreted through the lens of our culture because while it doesn't describe rape, it does deal with slavery. While I have little doubt readers coming across this topic for the first time will want in-depth answers to the issue of slavery as well, it is not immediately relevant to this article. Click here for a general response to the issue of slavery, or visit the Moral Objections section to see all relevant articles Bible Brain has published on the topic.
While not directly related, the issue of slavery is, of course, important context to this passage. Thus, we need to have some understanding of the Biblical version of slavery. And I do mean "the Biblical version". This is an important distinction to make, because while every culture throughout history has practiced slavery, they have not all done so equally. Slavery is not unique to ancient Israel, but it is unique in the way God regulated it.
Now, as we have previously noted, God's immediate commands are not always in line with His permanent will. Just as God hates divorce, yet regulates it due to its inevitability, God hates slavery, yet regulates it due to its inevitability. Thus, the unique feature of Biblical slavery is that it was designed to protect the rights of the slaves, not to protect the practice of slavery.
We see a glimpse of this in the passage at hand. A unique feature of Biblical slavery is that it is a primarily voluntary practice. The penalty for kidnapping a person, or being found in possession of a kidnapped person, is death (Exodus 21:16). But there are economic reasons, be it to pay of a debt to one's master, or even just to escape poverty, that one might choose the life of a slave.
We actually see implications of the voluntary nature of this contract even in the passage in question. Notice, if the master is displeased with the slave, he is said to have dealt deceitfully with her. In the meantime, if he is displeased with her, he shall let her be redeemed, and if he fails to fulfil his obligations to give her the full rights of either a daughter or a wife, she goes free automatically, no one has to pay anything for her freedom.
So where is the rape in this passage? Is there even one single hint of sex without consent? Perhaps if you forget that in a Jewish context, sex before marriage is the sin of fornication, you might read "If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself..." as "if she does not submit to sexual activity during the engagement period", but other than that, I am utterly baffled as to why any atheist would read rape into this passage, especially given how bad it already seems to a Western reader.
A final thought on this particular passage (and indeed, one that applies to every similar verse or passage) is that although the law is prescriptive, it is also restricted to a specific covenant. Christians in the modern world are not expected to obey this law, or to lobby for similar laws to apply in our own countries.
I like to compare the logic to contract law. If you sign a rental agreement, that is prescriptive for you. You are expected to pay your rent, and treat the property according to any terms and conditions found within the contract. But you're out of your mind if you think I'm going to pay your rent because you have a contract with your landlord. In the same way, the law of Moses, while it does include aspects of moral law, primarily consists of laws that are both reformative and theologically significant, but also temporary. God promised there would be a new covenant, and in the New Testament, He explicitly tells us this new covenant is here, and therefore the old has disappeared. In other words, as awful as this verse sounds to Western minds, the absolute worst an atheist can pin on it is that God took a world in which slavery was already a prevalent feature, then opted for gradual reform over instantaneous abolition. Rape is not even present in this temporary reformative law, so it cannot be argued it proves Christianity condones rape.
Numbers 31:7-18
Numbers 31:7 is yet another example of the prescriptive, but rape is not being described. That being said, verse 18, in particular, can at least be made to sound like it is condoning rape. The full passage reads "And they warred against the Midianites, just as the Lord commanded Moses, and they killed all the males. They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of those who were killed—Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. Balaam the son of Beor they also killed with the sword. And the children of Israel took the women of Midian captive, with their little ones, and took as spoil all their cattle, all their flocks, and all their goods. They also burned with fire all the cities where they dwelt, and all their forts. And they took all the spoil and all the booty—of man and beast. Then they brought the captives, the booty, and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of Israel, to the camp in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, across from Jericho. And Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle. And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately."
The context of this particular passage extends backwards many chapters. Beginning in chapter 22, we see the Israelites camping out in the plains of Moab. While Israel had no hostile intent towards Moab, and was explicitly told to leave them alone (Deuteronomy 2:9), Balak, the king of the Moabites, feared them greatly. Thus, he conspired with the Midianites, and also sent for Balaam, promising him great reward if he would curse Israel. However, Balaam could not do this, recognising that the Lord was on their side. Therefore, he instead blessed them.
But Balaam's greed got the best of him, and so he suggested an alternative strategy. He could not curse the Jews directly, because they had the Lord's favor, but if he could turn the Jews against the Lord, they would lose that favor and call a curse upon themselves. Therefore, they sent women into the camp to entice the Israelites, who caved to temptation. They slept with the women, the women invited them to sacrifice to their pagan gods, and naturally, this ticked God off, so He ended up killing 24,000 of them with a plague. Thus, God commanded Moses and the community to treat the Midianites as enemies, since the Midianites treated them as enemies with this trap (Numbers 15:16-18).
All of this lays the context for Numbers 31. The specifics of the crime for which the Midianites were being punished is of vital significance here. A significant portion thereof was enticing the Israelites to commit sexual immorality with them. In other words, the women were guilty of sexual enticement, but the Israelites were guilty of caving to that enticement.
So, first things first, bringing the Midianite women back was perhaps one of the stupidest things the fighters could have done in this scenario. Read the original verse again: "“Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately." What do we notice here? "Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, (...) Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately."
Thus, we see the real reason for sparing the virgins. They were innocent of the crime in question. Thus, the only remaining question is what to do with them? Rape them? No, that isn't what Moses meant by "But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately." For one thing, that doesn't even make sense in light of the motivations for this battle. Neither God, nor His prophet, are going to be so angry about the Israelites having sex with the Midianite women that they're going to say "well you may as well go ahead and have sex with the rest of them." You'd have to be insane to understand this passage like that.
On top of this, it's essential to note that literally the entire Bible, from the creation of Adam and Eve, right up until the New Testament, places an extremely heavy emphasis on marriage as the only legitimate context for sex. God did make concessions, such as allowing for divorce and polygamy, but in order for sex to be legitimate, marriage was essential. Sex outside of marriage is considered adultery and fornication. As Jesus said, "...whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28). With this in mind, those who contend this passage permits the rape of war captives must demonstrate that doing so is a rare exception to this otherwise very explicit rule. Failing this, they have no case.
Of course, there are two ways they can try this. The first is to use one of the passages we shall address later in this article, but the second is to argue that actually, there is historical precedent for this. Ancient Near Eastern cultures did have a rather nasty habit of not only taking war captives, but raping them too. The problem with citing this precedent is that the explicit point of the Mosaic Law was so the Jews did not commit the same sins as the nations surrounding them (e.g. Deuteronomy 18:19).
This is actually a vital key to understanding Mosaic law. The law exists not to bring a new practice into existence, but to prohibit, or at least regulate, an existing one. In this case, yes, ancient Near Eastern cultures did practice raping war captives.
But there's a difference between taking war captives and raping war captives. Obviously, Moses was angry they were taken in the first place, but the guilty ones were killed. What to do with the innocent survivors, however? Setting them free would be one possibility. It's important to consider, however, that this would have been both dangerous, and ironically cruel. It would have been cruel because the surviving women had neither home to return to, nor men to protect or provide for them. They would have been easy pickings for a cruel world, with its many predators, and even violent raiders. It would have been dangerous because any survivors would undoubtedly have assimilated into the remaining Moabite towns, and possibly come back with a thirst for revenge. A better alternative? Assimilate them into Israelite culture. A culture where not only would they have had greater rights than the surrounding nations would afford them, but ultimately, would come to know the Lord God of Israel.
This assimilation could not possibly have involved rape, but the phrase "for yourselves", when specifically combined with "virgins", may be interpreted that way without the above context. If not rape, what could it mean? Well, first, as we will examine later, there is protocol for marrying war captives. But this was neither essential, nor even possible for the younger ones. They would instead have either become servants or daughters. In all cases, this would have granted them greater rights than any other culture of that time, and would certainly have been preferable to the practical death sentence of turning them loose.
Finally, once again, it's essential to note that this command is not universal, nor indicative of the will of God. The worst part about it is the Midianites were not on God's hitlist. Had Balak not panicked and come out against them, the Israelites would have passed right into the promised land leaving the Midianites untouched. Thus, this is a specific situation that wasn't even tied to the initial covenant! It is a one time command that did not define military doctrine even in the Old Covenant, much less is it prescriptive for the modern day. Most relevant to the topic of this article, there is no way to justify the atheistic claim that it ever supported rape.
Deuteronomy 20:10-15
This is yet another example of a prescriptive passage that does not describe rape. Unlike the previous example, this is a general, Old Covenant principle of military doctrine, specifically dealing with the rules of engaging far off cities which are not specifically given to the Israelites as an inheritance (i.e. are not within the promised land). The passage reads "“When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it. And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you. Now if the city will not make peace with you, but war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the Lord your God gives you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations."
First, note the contrast between the women in this passage, and the women in Numbers 31:7-18. Noticeably absent from this passage is the specificity of their virginity. In the case of the Midianites, who weaponised sex, only the virgins were spared, because they had obviously not done this. In Deuteronomy 21:10-15, by contrast, the women are spared regardless of their virginal status. This reinforces the non-sexual nature of both commands.
But even on its own, the passage makes it quite clear that this is not about sex at all. Of course, usually, an atheist will not quote the full context. What they want to focus on is "But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself" (v14), but I was pleasantly surprised that the atheist who prompted me to write this article began at verse 10, clearly showing the vital context.
Beginning at verse 10, we see that the context is fairly simple. When Israel comes into conflict with a city outside their borders, there are two options: "You make peace with us, you survive, you serve us. You make war with us, we win, you serve us." Why are the women the only survivors? Because men make up both the fighting force, and the social hierarchy. Sparing the men would (as numerous examples of sparing the men showed) create future problems. Destroying them eliminated those problems.
It's worth noting that aside from these military doctrines being defined, we do see them being actioned later on. In Joshua 9, for example, the Gibeonites, knowing they could not hope to survive if the Israelites sought to destroy them, made a desperate dash for survival, tricking the Israelites into making a covenant with them. By pretending to be from one of the far off cities defined in Deuteronomy 20:15, they sought peace, and made the covenant by which they may receive it. Even after the deception came to light, Joshua and the Israelites honored the covenant they had made, sparing the Gibeonites, but enslaving them. No rape was committed, neither is it reasonable to expect it ever would be.
As per usual, it's important to note that this is an old covenant prescription suited to its historical context, but not universally applicable. We are not expected to apply it in a New Covenant system.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 says "“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her."
"Rape!", the atheist cries. In reality, this is a prescriptive passage that is not dealing with rape. Instead, it is an Old Covenant doctrine designed to make the best of a bad situation. When war breaks out, there are important questions to ask, starting with what you do with the members of the opposing side you don't kill? Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives a partial answer to that question.
For extra context, it's important to note that marrying foreign women was problematic. In particular, Deuteronomy 7:1-6 expressly forbids marrying the former inhabitants of the promised land, lest they sway Israeli hearts towards paganism. Thus, the wisdom, let alone the ethics of marrying a captive woman are questionable, and would be questioned.
So of course, here, the Israelites are told yes they can, but there's a protocol by which her rights are protected. If you commit to marrying her, you're obligated to her. She loses her captive clothes (obviously replaced with a culturally appropriate alternative), her hair and nails are trimmed, and she is given a month to mourn for her deceased parents. Already this seems like an odd requirement if rape is in view. But once that month is over, marriage is permitted.
But what if it doesn't occur? What if, during this time, the man changes his mind and no longer wants to marry her, or if he does marry her and regrets it? She goes free because he has humiliated her. She goes free on the basis of her dignity, something highly unusual for prisoners of war in the day, and even somewhat unexpected from God Himself. Not unexpected from what we know, on the basis of the fullness of revelation as it has been passed down to us. But unexpected from the perspective of those who had not yet received that fullness. In the ancient world, women were always undervalued, even in their own cultures. But to God, even the daughter of a pagan has sufficient value to preserve her dignity.
Of course, we need to pay attention to what, exactly, the humiliation is. It isn't, and could not reasonably be, rape. Not that rape isn't humiliating, that is of course one of the many things that makes rape so horrible. But the humiliating things here are being taken as a bride, only to get jilted, and of course the process by which that occurs.
So once again, we see no rape here. It's a valiant effort on the part of the atheist, but the context neither implies, nor allows for rape. What we see instead is a very specific law designed to provide an exception to the rule against marrying foreign women, and to protect the rights of the war captive in ways other surrounding cultures absolutely would not. Furthermore, once again, this is neither God's ideal, nor is it applicable under the New Covenant.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Perhaps the most ironic thing about the citation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is that it immediately follows Deuteronomy 22:25-27, the passage which tells us rape is equal to murder, and is therefore punishable by death, whereas the woman has done nothing wrong. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 follows this verse, and is prescriptive under the Old Covenant. However, whether or not it describes rape depends on the translation you read. In the NIV, it says "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 NIV's rendering is not unique, but is also not universal. This is for good reason: It's not correct. In fact, the relevant word is used many times throughout Scripture. We see it in:
Genesis 4:21: "His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes."
Genesis 39:12 "She caught him by his cloak and said, “Come to bed with me!” But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house."
Deuteronomy 9:17: "So I took the two tablets and threw them out of my hands, breaking them to pieces before your eyes."
1 Kings 11:30: "and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces."
Proverbs 30:9: "Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God."
Jeremiah 46:9: "Charge, you horses! Drive furiously, you charioteers! March on, you warriors—men of Cush and Put who carry shields, men of Lydia who draw the bow."
Ezekiel 22:11: "“‘The sword is appointed to be polished, to be grasped with the hand; it is sharpened and polished, made ready for the hand of the slayer."
Ezekiel 27:29: "All who handle the oars will abandon their ships; the mariners and all the sailors will stand on the shore."
Ezekiel 30:21: "“Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt. It has not been bound up to be healed or put in a splint so that it may become strong enough to hold a sword."
Amos 2:15: "The archer will not stand his ground, the fleet-footed soldier will not get away, and the horseman will not save his life."
And many more besides. So, unless you want to believe people raped cloaks, swords, shields, bows, oars, musical instruments, stone tablets, and the very name of God, you have to play some very stupid games to insist Deuteronomy 22:28 is the one time in which "tāp̄aś" (תָּפַשׂ), which literally never means "rape", is appropriately translated as rape.
Perhaps the reason the NIV makes this unusual, and frankly very poor translation choice is that tāp̄aś is appropriately rendered "seizes", as it is in the NKJV rendering of this verse. But even this does not imply rape. Even lacking context, consensual sex tends to involve a certain amount of "seizing".
But frankly, that particular interpretation is "entry level". You read the verse (preferably in a less sloppy, more accurate translation), you figure out all possible meanings, you go with the one that seems most likely. But a diligent Bible student will see there is more context, both within the passage, and without.
First, let's deal with the context provided outside the passage. It's worth noting that "Deuteronomy", the name of the book in which the passage is found, literally means "second law". But the implication of a "second" law implies the existence of a first. It should not surprise us, therefore, that the content of Deuteronomy can be found across the rest of the Torah. In particular, we have a parallel law in Exodus 22:16-17: "“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins." (Emphasis mine).
This is the identical scenario. A man finds, and has sex with, an unmarried and unbetrothed woman, and as a result, he is required to pay her father the standard dowry and either marry her, or, as Exodus adds (or rather, as Deuteronomy omits), he may have to just pay the price and be sent away without her. Now, notice the absence of the physical seizing in the Exodus version. Here, he only seduces the woman, which may be considered a metaphorical "seizing". So, in the Deuteronomy version, the term need not require threat or force (and indeed, in some cases, that would be the opposite of its meaning, playing an instrument requires a particular kind of "seizure"), but in the Exodus version, rape is so noticeably implausible that I have never, to my memory, heard an atheist attempt to use it.
But this is where an atheist might attempt to argue from the in-passage context, not only defending their claim that verses 28-29 describe rape, and prescribe a rape victim marrying her rapist, but that even verses 25-27 do not prescribe death for rape, but specifically for raping a betrothed woman. Verse 25, they claim, specifies the betrothal of the victim, whereas verse 28 applies to unbetrothed women.
Clever as this may be, the objection is disarmed when we back all the way up to verse 13. This whole passage deals with a quick succession of laws pertaining to sexual immorality. Verses 13-19 deal with the accusation that a husband had found his wife to have slept with another man prior to him (without disclosing it, there are separate protocols dealing with marrying non-virgins). In this case, the accusation is false, and the husband who brought it is punished. In verses 20-21, the accusation is proven true, and the woman is executed for harlotry.
From here, we find that the connection is not between verses 25-29, with the betrothal status being the key element. Rather, the connection is between verses 22-27, with the key element being the probability of adultery. The scenarios are contrasted: A couple have sex in the city, the woman does not cry out (with the theory being her cries would likely be heard), the sex is assumed consensual. Keeping in mind, in cases where death is the penalty, reliable witness testimony is required (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15). This standard was so highly regarded that even when the Jews were actively seeking to convict Jesus of wrongdoing, the fact that the false witnesses they brought could not agree on the charges consistently frustrated them (Mark 14:55-59).
In other words, the reason Deuteronomy 22:25 focuses on the betrothal of the victim is that Deuteronomy 22:22-23 focus on the betrothal status of the victim, not because verse 28 contrasts it with an unbetrothed victim. Both verses 28-29, and the corresponding law in Exodus 22:16-17, are the Jewish equivalent of a shotgun wedding. You treated her like your bride, you shall take her as your bride. But if it comes to light that you raped her, you die like a murderer.
Judges 5:30
I have vague memories of hearing a preacher speak about how all Christians have a role to play in the Church, which he followed up with a joke about how "even the worst of you can serve as bad examples." Well, many true words are spoken in jest, and the book of Judges is testimony to this. In stark contrast to its canonical forerunner, Joshua, the book of Judges chronicles Israel's gradual descent into anarchy. Throughout the book, God sends various heroes, called "judges" (hence the book title) to save the Jews from the chaos their disobedience summons upon them, yet aside from Israel's constant refusal to follow their good example, the judges themselves are often highly flawed individuals. With that in mind, the book of Judges is a largely descriptive book, which contains some of the most shocking imagery in the entire Bible.
With that being said, Judges 5:30 is relatively tame. When an atheist cited it to me recently, I couldn't help but laugh. It reads "‘Are they not finding and dividing the spoil: To every man a girl or two; For Sisera, plunder of dyed garments, Plunder of garments embroidered and dyed, Two pieces of dyed embroidery for the neck of the looter?’"
What's especially amusing about this particular verse is it is a part of a song (Judges 5:1). In other words, while it does have meaning, we don't need to take it with a high degree of wooden literalism. If, for whatever reason, you do not understand the meaning of a song, you can pass it by and study something a little easier.
But in this case, the difficult thing isn't understanding the song, but rather, reading some kind of justification for rape into it. When we read from verse 24, and read on to verse 31, we see that this portion is speaking about a very specific enemy of God, namely Sisera, who was killed by a hero named Jael, and that the song is asking for God's other enemies to likewise perish. In other words, if Sisera really was a rapist, it got him killed, and the woman who killed him is portrayed as a hero. I don't know what was going through this atheist's head when he sent me this, but it indisputably proves his lack of diligence, along with the intellectual laziness of anyone else who cites this verse in this way.
Judges 21:10-24
Judges 21:10-24 is indeed a very strange, notably descriptive verse which not only doesn't prescribe rape, but the worst interpretation of it would actually be in direct conflict with God's commands. This, again, is not an uncommon theme in the book of Judges. Many things described within are in direct conflict with the law of God, and this is the very reason for the troubles God sends throughout.
The passage reads "So the congregation sent out there twelve thousand of their most valiant men, and commanded them, saying, “Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead with the edge of the sword, including the women and children. And this is the thing that you shall do: You shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman who has known a man intimately.” So they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known a man intimately; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. Then the whole congregation sent word to the children of Benjamin who were at the rock of Rimmon, and announced peace to them. So Benjamin came back at that time, and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh Gilead; and yet they had not found enough for them. And the people grieved for Benjamin, because the Lord had made a void in the tribes of Israel. Then the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who remain, since the women of Benjamin have been destroyed?” And they said, “There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe may not be destroyed from Israel. However, we cannot give them wives from our daughters, for the children of Israel have sworn an oath, saying, ‘Cursed be the one who gives a wife to Benjamin.’ ” Then they said, “In fact, there is a yearly feast of the Lord in Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”
Therefore they instructed the children of Benjamin, saying, “Go, lie in wait in the vineyards, and watch; and just when the daughters of Shiloh come out to perform their dances, then come out from the vineyards, and every man catch a wife for himself from the daughters of Shiloh; then go to the land of Benjamin. Then it shall be, when their fathers or their brothers come to us to complain, that we will say to them, ‘Be kind to them for our sakes, because we did not take a wife for any of them in the war; for it is not as though you have given the women to them at this time, making yourselves guilty of your oath.’ ” And the children of Benjamin did so; they took enough wives for their number from those who danced, whom they caught. Then they went and returned to their inheritance, and they rebuilt the cities and dwelt in them. So the children of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family; they went out from there, every man to his inheritance."
It cannot be denied that this is a strange and morally dubious passage. Following a war between most of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin (ironically, a war which was sparked by the brutal gang rape and murder of a concubine), the remaining 11 tribes had sworn not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite men. But this cut the tribe of Benjamin off from the rest of Israel, causing great mourning for the loss. So they hatched the "brilliant" plan to wipe out Jabesh Gilead and take their virgin women as wives for the tribe, but that wasn't enough. Plan B? One could suggest they had the Benjamites pick up girls at a dance and elope with them, but for sake of argument, let's just say they erupted from the bushes, threw sacks over a bunch of girls, and dragged them off to be sex slaves. What does the law of God say about kidnapping? "“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16).
If an atheist wants to be really snakey here, he can pick up on the gendered language in the verse. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand. But this can be easily reversed: He who kidnaps a man, or if he is found in his hand. Using this logic, women couldn't be the victims of many crimes, but also couldn't commit many either. In reality, The Law often uses gendered, primarily masculine language neutrally. It's unreasonable to assume Exodus 21:16 only applies to male kidnapping victims, especially since Scripture views men and women as playing different roles, yet being equal in dignity (e.g. Galatians 3:28). Thus, if we assume the Benjamites committed the absolute worst form of kidnapping, the law technically required every one of them to be put to death for it.
But the thing about this passage is that it is near the end of the chapter, and near the end of the book of Judges. So near, in fact, that there is only one verse left in the entire book. It would be lazy not to read it. "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
Suddenly we see why this verse is so often left off when this passage is cited. Remember when I said Judges chronicles Israel's descent into anarchy? Well, right here, we have that anarchy portrayed. With no king, no one was actually enforcing God's laws. This allowed some of the worst crimes imaginable to be committed with minimal consequence. In other words, the most prescriptive lesson in Judges 21 is the need to set up a competent government.
2 Samuel 12:11-14
This is one of the more interesting examples in that it is not prescriptive, nor does it necessarily describe rape. The passage in question says "Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’ ” So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.”"
To understand this, we need to understand three things: The immediate context (what lead up to this?), the fulfillment (what happened as a result), and most importantly, the sovereignty of God.
The reason the sovereignty of God matters here is that while this passage is descriptive, it is describing something God Himself takes credit for. "I will raise up adversity", "I will take your wives", "I will do this thing." Thus, whatever "this thing" is describing, be it good or bad, the Lord Himself did it.
The sovereignty of God is by no means an entry-level topic. You will not understand it from a cursory reading of Scripture, and you certainly won't understand it if you are so blinded by hatred for God that you will twist His word to be supportive of rape. But those who are committed to learning the complexities of theology will discover the truth.
It is perhaps more useful to look at a different example. One that not only gives more details, but is also more commonly discussed in both theological discussions, and throughout Scripture itself: The Pharaoh of Egypt.
The Pharaoh of Egypt gives us a clear picture of the sovereignty of God because he is specifically designed for it. "For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”" (Romans 9:17, cf. Exodus 9:16).
Straight away we see a key phrase: "For this purpose...", or "for this reason...". God is not an arbitrary being. He does not act on a whim, according to how He feels at any given moment. His every action is driven by purpose. A particular cause.
This is where things often get difficult with atheists. Often, in their minds, they are the judge of God. They get to judge not only His actions, but His reasons for them. If they don't like those actions or reasons, then He either can't exist, or if He does, He is evil. In reality, as the creations, humans have no power over the Creator. Morality is determined by His purpose. What gives an atheist the right to say otherwise? Amazingly, a common atheistic attack on Christianity - the Euthyphro dilemma - applies to them if they attempt to judge God's actions or purposes.
But whatever an atheist thinks of God's behavior, the fact remains that He is sovereign, and He has reasons for everything He does, be it actively (such as creating the heavens and the Earth), or passively.
And it is possible to do things passively. In the case of the Exodus, God repeatedly hardens Pharaoh's heart, but the account does not read as if He took manual control of Pharaoh to do it. Rather, Pharaoh's heart is hardened by other means. For example, in the initial contact, Moses turns a staff into a snake, but Pharaoh's heart is hardened when his own sorcerers did the same thing. Later on, during the plague of frogs, Pharaoh agrees to release the Israelites if God will cancel the plague, but his heart grows hard when God does so. "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the Lord had said." (Exodus 8:15, emphasis added).
So, how did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Manually? No, this is impossible: "...for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed." (James 1:13-14, emphasis mine). Even in the Exodus account, before God ever promises to harden Pharaoh's heart, we see that God was already "...sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand." (Exodus 3:19).
From this, we see that even when a villain does something that is actively against the direct will and command of God, God is able to take credit for it. God uses sin sinlessly, and as Joseph noted many years prior, what man means for evil, God means for good (Genesis 50:20).
With all of this in mind, we return to the passage in question, back to David's punishment. God tells David He will do this thing, but what exactly is it? Does it involve rape? In truth: Possibly. But not essentially. First, a little background context as to what David is being punished for.
To understand this, we only need to back up one chapter. In brief, it's a time of war, but David himself is not off fighting. One night, he takes a walk on the roof of the palace, and he sees a naked woman taking a bath. Her name is Bathsheba, and being very attracted to her, he summons her, and they have an affair. The problem is, she's already married to a man named Uriah - one of David's soldiers. To make matters worse, the affair leads to pregnancy. So David tries to cover up his affair, first by summoning Uriah under the pretext of seeking updates on the war. He then sends Uriah home in the hope he would sleep with Bathsheba, and the resulting child would appear to be his. But Uriah, feeling solidarity with his fellow soldiers, refuses to go home and enjoy any food, drink, or intimacy, instead camping out in front of the palace. Thus, David formulates a new plan: Have Uriah sent into a fruitless battle, and have the army withdraw from him so he is killed. This works, and David marries Bathsheba.
2 Samuel 12:11-14 is a part of the immediate follow up. God sends Nathan the prophet to tell David about two men: A rich man with many sheep, and a poor man with just one, which he cares for deeply. The rich man steals the poor man's sheep and prepares it as a meal for a traveller. Hearing this story David becomes enraged, and begins speaking threats against the rich man, until Nathan reveals it was a parable; he is the rich man, with the poor man being Uriah, and the sheep being Bathsheba.
So of course, God punishes David with permanent adversity, including from within his own household. This is later fulfilled in his son, Absalom, who begins a campaign to take David's throne, and in 2 Samuel 16:20-23, we read "Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give advice as to what we should do.” And Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you are abhorred by your father. Then the hands of all who are with you will be strong.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the top of the house, and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. Now the advice of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as if one had inquired at the oracle of God. So was all the advice of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom."
And so we see the fulfillment of God's promise: David did it secretly, but this thing took place in the sight of all Israel, on the very same rooftop from which David first saw Bathsheba. It's important not to read rape into this passage. It is possible that the concubines were unwilling, but there is no direct proof of this. In fact, given that God had promised adversity would come from within David's own household, it is possible these concubines were quite willing participants in Absalom's treason.
Furthermore, we must acknowledge the parallel between David's actions and his punishment. While some suggest David raped Bathsheba, this is not evident anywhere in Scripture. This silence is actually quite conspicuous. Aside from the fact the Bible does contain explicit depictions of rape, the very same book describes one. In chapter 13, David's son Amnon rapes his daughter, Tamar. Both Tamar's objection (v12), and Amnon's force (v14) are noted. This is not the case with either David's affair with Bathsheba, or with Absalom's actions with the concubines. If the author of Samuel intended to portray either action as rape - keeping in mind all three events are noted as being disgraceful - it is very likely he would have noted it. Thus, we can argue from his silence here.
But of course, even if we assume the absolute worst interpretation here and insist that David raped Bathsheba, and thus Absalom raped David's concubines, we cannot feasibly argue that God is condoning any of this. All of this is seen as negative. David's actions are cause for punishment. Absalom, who is portrayed as a scoundrel in rebellion to God, is doing evil, regardless of how consensual any sexual activities involved are. Even God's own part in it is not one of joy. As we read elsewhere, "For He does not afflict willingly, Nor grieve the children of men." (Lamentations 3:33). Thus, it is illogical to cite this passage as supportive of rape.
Zechariah 14:1-2
Similar to David's punishment for his adultery with Bathsheba, Zechariah describes a time when Jerusalem, as a whole, will be punished. It says "Behold, the day of the Lord is coming, And your spoil will be divided in your midst. For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city."
A recurring theme in the Bible is the ongoing struggle between God and man. God endlessly extends a hand of peace towards man, but man is endlessly idolatrous, seeking his own idols, and often persecuting God and His prophets.
The book of Zechariah is little different, speaking of the rebellion of the Jews, and how they seek God's blessings, but not His instruction. But God's consistent message throughout Scripture is that you can't have it both ways. Obedience alone brings blessing, but disobedience brings punishment.
Zechariah 14 is the concluding chapter, and it actually has a wide variety of interpretations. If you read the commentaries, you will find they are divided on whether this is a past event to be taken figuratively, or a future event to be taken literally. This, already, removes the necessity of considering rape.
But for sake of argument, as always, we are going to take the worst possible interpretation: God is saying there will come a time, in Zechariah's future, when Jerusalem will be attacked, and the result will be its women being raped.
Once again, this cannot be supportive of rape, because it is not prescriptive. Rather, it is a negative thing intended by God, in His sovereign power, as a punishment for rebellion. This is not something He enjoys, but there is a purpose to it: The redemption of the penitent, and justice against those who refuse.
Did God rape Mary?
The fact that I have to address this particular claim, quite frankly, is more embarrassing than the rest of the previous verses combined, but there are enough atheists genuinely arguing from God's impregnation of Mary to warrant a response.
There are two ways atheists try to argue here, the first way being that Mary was allegedly too young to consent to this, and the second way being the implication that whether or not she was old enough, she never did.
The second way is the easiest to answer, because it can be done in two words: "Prove it". For centuries now, there have been no reliable records on the age of Mary. Click here to read a more detailed and direct response to a similar claim made by Muslims on Mary's age. In short, there is no evidence that Mary was too young to have a child, and ample evidence to the contrary. Not to mention, God obviously knew what He was doing.
The argument that she didn't give consent is similarly easy to answer, this time in a more positive sense: Simply read the account in which she is chosen. This can be found in Luke 1:26-56. Verse 38, specifically, shows Mary telling Gabriel "...Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.”..." For those in the back, who may not have heard, "Let it be to me according to your word." That's a 9 word way of saying the single word "yes".
In verse 39, we read that Mary went to visit her relative, Elizabeth (who had similarly conceived John the Baptist in spite of being an old woman), and they begin rejoicing together. Verses 46-55 then depict Mary singing a song of praise because of all this. Her spirit rejoiced in God, her savior (v47), that all generations would call her blessed (v48), that God has done great things for her (v49), and so on and so forth.
I should probably mention at this point that Mary was still a virgin. God did not take the form of a man and sleep with Mary. As Isaiah foretold, the virgin conceived (Isaiah 7:14), and Mary remained a virgin until she had given birth to Christ (Matthew 1:24-25). How can rape, i.e. sex in the absence of consent, occur if sex does not occur at all? This is, by far, the most insane example of a rape accusation atheists make, yet they make it often enough that it requires this response.
The ultimate plot twist
Throughout this article, we have looked at several passages atheists claim prove the Bible is supportive of rape, and shown that they fail in one of three main ways:
The passage is prescriptive, but doesn't describe rape.
The passage is describing rape, but is purely descriptive.
The argument depends on a particular translation.
The Bible does make its position on rape quite clear. Rather than condoning it, it describes rape as directly equivalent to murder, and both crimes are punishable by death. But here's the ultimate irony. This is the very reason rape is immoral! See, morality is a metaphysical concept. You can't bottle it, you can't measure it, you can't type it into a calculator. It follows similar logic to our own laws. You can't say something is "legal" or "illegal" if there is no government to declare it so. Therefore, when you remove the ultimate governing force by denying the existence of God, you remove the very foundation for calling rape evil in the first place. Instead, you put morality squarely in the hands of human beings, and the one who is "right" is the one with the biggest gun.
The Christian faith provides an objective foundation for morality because morality is based on the nature, authority, and design of God. That is why we can say, with maximum confidence, that rape is evil, it is equivalent to murder, both crimes do call for capital punishment, and at the end of our lives, we will find ourselves before the throne of the God who will absolutely hold us to this divine standard. But if there is no God, all moral deeds are equal. Love and hate, peace and war, crime and order, it doesn't matter. So basically, while the Bible utterly condemns rape, atheism justifies it without need for a god or a holy book. This does not mean an individual atheist will necessarily condone rape, but it does mean any atheist would be 100% consistent if they did.
Conclusion
Contrary to atheistic assertions, the Bible does not encourage, condone, or otherwise support rape. Without exception, all instances of sexual activity that could even be described as rape are framed in a negative light. In truth, there is only one context in which sex is legitimate: Marriage, which is not only designed to be a consensual, but a specifically loving institution. This is because Christianity's two foundational rules are to love God with everything we have, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Rape, by definition, is one of the least loving things a person can do, and therefore, is one of the most evil. It is a complete and utter perversion of sex, and is therefore an abomination. Furthermore, it is compared to the crime of murder, a crime for which God demands an account in the form of the perpetrator's blood. No, the Bible absolutely does not encourage, condone, or otherwise support rape. In order to have any hope of escaping the everlasting fires of Hell, a rapist must repent, and be covered by the blood of the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
AI usage
AI was not used in the production of this article.