Marry-Your-Rapist Law in Deut. 22:28-29?

So Deut. 22:28-29 is a weird passage:

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. (NIV)

It certainly, on first glance, seems to imply a pretty horrid law!  But let's slow down.  I think it's important to note that it's unclear that the woman must accept his proposal.  Marriage still requires the woman's consent.  It's merely incumbent on the man to offer the marriage. 

But let's slow down even further.  Let's look at alternative translations of the passage.  Most do not translate the relevant word as "rape".  Here are the alternative translations: 

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act . . .  (NRSV)

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered . . .  (NASB) 

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and takes hold of her and sleeps with her and they are discovered . . . (NET)

The NIV and CSB translate the relevant verb as "rape," while these versions translate it as "take hold" or "seize".  The NET version has a lengthy footnote explaining why the verb should probably not be taken to imply rape.

And, what I think is the most key point--

Deuteronomy oftentimes republishes the same content from Exodus.  So many of the laws are duplicates from prior laws in Exodus.   That's the same case for this law. When we look at the Exodus duplicate, it's clear that rape is not intended: “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." (NIV) Exodus 22:16

"Taphas" is the relevant Hebrew word. Here's the Strong's Concordance on it: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8610.htm

Here's the NET Bible's note on this verse: 

The verb תָּפַשׂ (taphas) means “to sieze, grab.” In all other examples this action is done against another person’s will, as in being captured, arrested, attacked, or grabbed with insistence (e.g. 1 Sam 23:26; 1 Kgs 13:4; 18:40; 2 Kgs 14:13; 25:6; Isa 3:6; Jer 26:8; 34:3; 37:13; 52:9; Ps 71:11; 2 Chr 25:23.) So it may be that the man is forcing himself on her, which is what leads the NIV to translate the next verb as “rape,” although it is a neutral euphemism for sexual relations. However, this is the only case where the object of תָּפַשׂ is a woman and the verb also also refers to holding or handling objects such as musical instruments, weapons, or scrolls. So it possible that it has a specialized, but otherwise unattested nuance regarding sexual or romantic relations, as is true of other expressions. Several contextual clues point away from rape and toward a consensual relationship. (1) The verb which seems to express force is different from the verb of force in the rape case in v. 25. (2) The context distinguishes consequences based on whether the girl cried out, an expression of protest and a basis for distinguishing consent or force. But this case law does not mention her outcry which would have clarified a forcible act. While part of what is unique in this case is that the girl is not engaged, it is reasonable to expect the issue of consent to continue to apply. (3) The penalty is less than that of a man who slanders his new wife and certainly less than the sentence for rape. (4) The expression “and they are discovered” at the end of v. 28 uses the same wording as the expression in v. 22 which involves a consensual act. (5) Although from a separate context, the account of the rape of Dinah seems to express the Pentateuch’s negative attitude toward forcible rape, not in advocating for Simeon and Levi’s actions, but in the condemnation included in the line Gen 34:7 “because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel.” This is very like the indictment in v. 21 against the consenting woman, “because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel.” (6) The penalty of not being allowed to divorce her sounds like v. 19, where the man is punished for disgracing his wife unfairly. His attempted divorce fails and he must provide for her thereafter (the probable point of not being allowed to divorce her.) Here too, if his holding her is not forced, but instead he has seduced her, he is not allowed to claim that his new wife is not pure (since he is the culprit) and so he must take responsibility for her, cannot divorce her, and must provide for her as a husband thereafter.

This together implies a strong case that rape is not, in fact, intended by the passage.

Answering Islam

Just some quick argumentative strategies to use against Muslims:

1. The Qur'an makes no claim that Muhammed performed miracles to verify his message.  This is a basic requirement for new prophets.

The "splitting of the moon" is often taken by Islamic interpreters to refer to the end of the age.  The  Qur'an itself attests that Muhammad was only a "warner."

Some Muslims will make a reference to the Hadith to show that Muhammad performed miracles.  But the Hadith are much later tradition and are not universally accepted by Muslims (see: Quranism).  Plus, they'd seem to conflict with the Qur'an's teaching that Muhammad was merely a warner.

2. The Islamic claim that the Christian scriptures have been corrupted through history is demonstrably false given the manuscript evidence. 

Taken from ReasonableFaith: Of the approximately 138,000 words in the New Testament only about 1,400 remain in doubt. The text of the New Testament is thus about 99% established. That means that when you pick up a (Greek) New Testament today, you can be confident that you are reading the text as it was originally written. Moreover, that 1% that remains uncertain has to do with trivial words on which nothing of importance hangs.

3. Islam makes historical claims that are very likely false, like the claim that Jesus did not die on the cross.

4. Christianity (and Judaism) insists that all new revelations of God must be consistent with prior verified revelations. The Qur'an is not consistent with prior revelation, and thus should be rejected. 

Implicit in this is the idea that God's revelation cannot be corrupted once made.

5. Muhammed misunderstood the nature of the Trinity, thinking that Mary was God's consort.

6. We can motivate the doctrine of the Trinity on independent philosophical grounds.  Swinburne's method.

7. The Qur'an itself has severe manuscript corruption.  The Sanaa manuscript demonstrates this, as well as the order by Uthman to destroy alternative versions of the Qur'an.

8. The Qur'an has internal inconsistencies.  For instance, its treatment of the Injil is inconsistent, both calling them the Word of God, claiming that the Word of God cannot change, and then claiming that the Injil have been corrupted.

Surah Al-E-Imran (3) 3 and Surah Al-Maeda (5) 68 for claims that the Injil are divine revelation. Surah Al-Anaam (6) 34 and  Surah Al-Kahf (18) 27 for the claim that Allah's words cannot be changed.  Common claims by Muslims that the Bible has been corrupted.

 For more: https://jonathanmclatchie.com/a-simple-reason-why-the-quran-cannot-be-the-word-of-god/

9.  The Satanic Verses objection is strong.  See here: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/comparing-religions-viii-honest-messengers/

McClatchie on Arguing from the Bible

Just gonna post this without comment.  Taken from Jonathan McClatchie:

It is very common to be asked by skeptics to provide evidence for the veracity and trustworthiness of the New Testament accounts by appealing to sources that are external to the Bible itself. This typically reflects a series of fundamental misunderstandings on the part of the skeptic, regarding both the New Testament and epistemology. First, it must be clarified that the New Testament does not constitute a single book, but rather a collection of twenty-seven books composed by as many as nine separate authors, which later came to be compiled into a single volume that we call the New Testament. It is thus possible in principle to adduce multiple attestation for an event even while limiting the scope of one’s analysis to the New Testament itself (though, of course, care must be taken here since multiple authors reporting the same information does not necessarily imply independent access to information). Second, it is sometimes thought that, since the reliability of the New Testament is the item under question, to appeal to the New Testament itself while building the case is to beg the question in favor of what one is seeking to prove. However, such a concern is misguided. To see the folly of this thinking, consider a courtroom defendant who takes the witness stand and is cross-examined by the prosecuting attorney. Clearly it makes no sense to argue that the defendant’s own testimony is not admissible because it is the credibility of their own alibi that is under scrutiny. Marks of internal consistency, dovetailing with other witnesses in regards to incidental details, provision of unnecessary details, knowledge under cross-examination of information that is surprising on the falsehood of the testimony, as well as other characteristics, can be indicative of the credibility of the defendant’s alibi. Third, it is popular to allege that the New Testament cannot be admitted as evidence because its authors are biased in favor of the truth of the events that they report. However, this is not in itself a reason to discount witness testimony. Consider a survivor of the holocaust who gives her testimony of having survived a Nazi concentration camp. Clearly, in such a case, the witness is not dispassionate about the events he or she is reporting. But should that have a significant impact on our trust in the survivor’s testimony? Few would argue that it would. Thus, a witness’ testimony can still be admitted as evidence even if the witness has a relevant bias. In some cases, bias can even count in favor of a witness’ testimony, such as in cases where information is provided that the witness would have motivation not to disclose (for example, in the case of the holocaust survivor, if they were to note some act of kindness of one of the camp guards). This of course relates to the criterion of embarrassment, often used in gospel studies, where details that are counter-productive to the evangelist’s cause is taken as evidence supporting veracity precisely because of their bias.

Polygamy in the OT

Why did God not condemn polygamy in the OT? 

Polygamy was contrary to God’s original creation intention: (Gen 2:22-24)
Polygamy was introduced by the line of Cain: (Gen 4:23)
Polygamy is mentioned as leading men astray (1 Kings 11:3, Deut 17:17)

These sorts of passages all seem to lead to a strong implicit condemnation of polgamy.  The OT prophets are also noted by the Jewish Encyclopedia to have never been polygamists, and to have often used the practice of polygamy as an illustration of Israel's unfaithfulness to God  Yet, as Paul Copan argues, there may even be a very explicit condemnation of polygamy in the OT.  Occuring in Leviticus 18:18: “And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.”  As Copan points out, the sense of “sister” here may be quite broad.  In 1 Sam 1:6, we see that Elkanah’s wives Peninnah and Hannah were called “sisters,” yet were not literally siblings.  It seems that the sense is that they’re fellow female Israelites.  If this is right, then the OT does expressly forbid the taking of a second wife.  (This is the interpretation also taken by the Qumran community in the second century B.C.)

There are however passages in the OT that seem to regulate the practice of polygamy (Exodus 21: 7-11).  Do these not show an implicit approval of the practice?  No.  The effect of such regulations isn’t so much as to approve polygamy so as to regulate an ongoing practice.  Take laws that aim to regulate abortion, either by forbidding the practice after the second trimester or enforcing stricter medical rules.  The effect of these laws isn’t so much as to approve abortion as to regulate the way it’s practiced.  A similar thing can be said in regards to the OT’s regulation of divorce. As Jesus pointed out, divorce was never God’s intention and the OT regulations were given as a way to control the sinful practice.

My Positions in Eschatology

I favor Historical Premillenialism (Chiliasm).  It's a very messy teaching, but is nevertheless taught by Rev. 20.

The nature of John's discussion of the first and second resurrection in ch. 20 of Revelation preclude a symbolic reading and forces the Chiliast view.  

I'm Post-Trib.

Rapture = The Second Coming.  We'll meet Christ in the air, sure, but not to disappear.  We'll descend with him at that same moment to rule on the earth.

Millennial reign is a special reward for the martyrs mentioned in Revelation (Mounce).

666 = Nero Caesar, the final anti-Christ will be in the spirit of Nero, just as John the Baptist was "in the spirit of Elijah."  Perhaps there's some element of double-prophecy in this symbol, in that the final anti-Christ will have some relation to 666.

The Nero Redivivus myth probably stand behind the "who was, who is not, and who will be" sayings.  This is not problematic in light of the symbolic nature of Nero.

Mark of the beast is a spiritual mark.

As Craig Keener says, if it weren't for Revelation 20 I'd be an Amillennialist.

I don't know what I think of a rebuilt temple.  I think the Olivet discourse primarily refers to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but double prophecy is possible (compare: "Out of Egypt I called my Son").  There's also vague references elsewhere (Thessalonians?) in the NT about the anti-Christ sitting in the house of God.  I'm somewhat disinclined to accept a rebuilt temple.  

Jesus does, and clearly so, switch to prophecy about the Eschaton within the Olivet Discourse, though much of it is about 70 A.D.

144,000 is symbolic for the multitudes of the entire Church.

There will be a large conversion of Jews at the end (Romans 11).

The four empires of Daniel:  Babylon, Persian-Mede, Macedonian, Roman.  

The rock that destroys the statue = the Church.

Daniel 11 primarily refers to the Seleucids and Ptolemies.  He switches to the Eschaton somewhere later in the chapter.