​​​​​​​​​Introduction

This is the second paper on female issues raised by my dear lady wife, the first being that on Abortion. The current paper was brought about by the sexual wrongdoing of Mohamed Al Fayed during his time as owner of Harrods store. The links at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kj2vkjn58o and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9j0kxgmvyo should set the scene for those of you who are not familiar with the story.

The point at issue is related to the belated calling out of sexual harassment charges well after the event. It smacked to both of us as a ‘me to’ exercise to falsely attempt to get some form of compensation from the current owners of Harrods. While my wife did agree that some would no doubt fit into that category she also felt, from a woman’s perspective, that some of them might represent a genuinely delayed calling out through issues, at the time, of fear of losing their job or shame in declaring the incident with work colleagues or family members. As you can imagine we had a lively debate on the matter. This was clearly a case where I needed to interpret the scriptures with some serious input and advice from my spouse who has reviewed and approved this paper prior to its publication. 

There are several sections on sexual matters including rape on the True Bible Code website at Sections J25-J29 of https://www.truebiblecode.com/joining.html. These include definitions of implied rape scenarios and the church’s position related to disfellowshipping of members for various sexual crimes. What follows is a more human and therefore likely a less precise view of the crime of rape. 

 

Definition of Rape

Before starting on the main body of this paper, I thought it best to consider the dictionary definition of rape to help put the topic into its proper context. I looked at several versions and found the best definition for my purposes to be provided at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rape and I quote:

‘Unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the person subjected to such penetration.’

I thought this definition gave a much broader definition than others provided, so I will bear this definition in mind as a I compile the rest of this paper. 

 

God's Law on Rape

Deuteronomy Chapter 22 contains the key items of Mosaic Law on the subject so what better place to start this exercise? Let us have a close look at it. First off, we have the case of a virgin, promised to a future husband, who lies down with another man in the city:

23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22 KJV)

Here the Law considers that, if the damsel did not cry out, then it is not rape but a case of adultery. The implication of being in the city is that it is a highly populated environment where, if the damsel had called out, she would have been heard by someone who could rescue her.

But what if she did not cry out for reason of fear or shame even if someone was in earshot? Well, I am afraid that God’s Law will come before any consideration of any of mankind’s social implications. If she did not cry out then she cannot expect any form of justice from a worldly court. This will be a case solely of God’s vengeance being exacted come His day of judgement (check out my Punishment and Vengeance paper). What if she cried out but no-one heard her even in the city? Once again, I am afraid justice would not be found in any worldly court; as in the previous scenario, she would have to await God’s justice.

Then we have a similar case but where the event takes place in the field:

25 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:
26 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:
27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her. (Deuteronomy 22 KJV)

The implication of the field is that this is a place that is a highly unpopulated environment where the damsel would be unlikely to be heard by someone who could rescue her. This seems to be a more highly charged statement than in the previous two verses in that the word for ‘force’ is used. There seems to be the assumption that being taken in an unpopulated place is likely to be rape whereas the previous case seems to assume that, because the act took place close by other people, that it was more likely to be a consensual act where the woman was unlikely to cry out (except in ecstasy perhaps (LOL))! In the case of Al Fayed does the field count as his country mansion and the city as the premises of Harrod’s I wonder?

In both cases, the crime is to be treated as a capital offence for which the man will pay with his life for proven rape. Pretty harsh treatment perhaps? But if the woman did not/could not cry out who would know? If she was a betrothed virgin then would she keep the tokens of evidence? If it turned out to be her word against his, where else would the evidence be capable of being found? If she accused a particular man, if she knew who he was, is she to be believed that it was not just a cover-up for an illicit affair? I have to say I cannot see how this case can be policed particularly well by mankind. I think, unless there is adequate evidence to make a just judgement, then it will be a case of God executing His vengeance at the appointed time. Check out my Punishment and Vengeance paper on the question of man’s justice compared with that of God.

So, what do the scriptures tell us on the need for evidence/witnesses to adjudicate on a capital offence?

6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17 KJV)

15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (Deuteronomy 19 KJV)

A minimum of two witnesses are required, three being preferable to try a capital offence. Assuming the victim counts as one witness then, unless someone else has sight of the act, there would need to be some evidence such as the signs of the woman’s lost virginity to support the claim of rape. Q. But what of a woman who is neither betrothed or a virgin and there were no witnesses? Do they lose their rights in Law against a case of rape that was not consensual adultery or fornication?  I think the answer has to be that it could be so hard to prove the case that it would almost certainly be subject to God’s justice rather than man’s. These days, of course, we may have the provision of DNA evidence, but even this is of little value in proving the act was not consensual

And then we have a case of a young virgin not betrothed who is raped. The phrase ‘lay hold’ certainly portrays the meaning of an enforced act. It also states that they be found, presumably in the act. This case determines that the man will take the damsel to wife. Presumably he would suffer the capital punishment if he refused:

28 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;
29 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. (Deuteronomy 22 KJV)

Q. What if the damsel did not want to marry the man who just raped her? I could understand that she probably would not. Also, what difference would it make if she got pregnant as a result of the rape? I suspect that if the rapist were to fulfil his end of the ‘bargain’ by providing for the victim and potential infant, then that would have to be the end of the matter. However, the victim may find it difficult to find another husband that she wanted to marry. But that would be her choice in the matter. These Laws seem to me to raise as many questions as they provide answers. Much to think about as we proceed. Q. In the above case, what if they are not found? As we determined previously, it seems that this is beyond the wit of mankind to police so, again, it will be left up to God’s ultimate justice: 

3 Why dost thou show me iniquity, and look upon perverseness? for destruction and violence are before me; and there is strife, and contention riseth up.
4 Therefore the law is slacked, and justice doth never go forth; for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore justice goeth forth perverted. (Habakkuk 1 ASV)

7 But Jehovah is seated forever; He has established His throne for judgment.
8 And He shall judge the world in righteousness; He shall judge the peoples in uprightness. (Psalms 9 GLT)

Whilst rapists are not explicitly covered in these following lists, of unrighteous persons to be denied Kingdom entry for unrepentant perpetrators, I think the ground would be covered adequately by fornicators and adulterers in cases of a non-consensual act:

9 Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous ones, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers shall inherit [the] kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6 GLT)

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints;
4 nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Ephesians 5 ASV) 

 

Tamar and Amnon

Let us look at a particular and complex case of rape in the scriptures. This convoluted account takes up the whole of the Book of 2Samuel Chapter 12, so I will just reproduce a few of the key verses to pick out the salient points as we go through it. This case concerns the love that Amnon had for his half-cousin Tamar who was an unmarried virgin. The family relationship made it difficult for Amnon to do anything in public about his feelings within the umbrella of King David’s household:

1 And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name [was] Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her.
2 And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she [was] a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do any thing to her. (2 Samuel 13 KJV)

After discussing his desire for Tamar with his friend Jonadab, Amnon put in place a plan to get Tamar alone in his bed. The result was that Amnon raped the unwilling Tamar who proposed that he should instead talk to the King to go about dealing with his feelings in a proper manner. He ignored her plea and got on with his dastardly deed:

11 And when she had brought [them] unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.
12 And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
13 And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her. (2 Samuel 13 KJV)

After carrying out the rape, Amnon’s love for Tamar changed to hatred. A strange reaction perhaps, but I can only think that the resistance that she put up was not what he had hoped for from his advances:

15 Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her [was] greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone.
16 And she said unto him, [There is] no cause: this evil in sending me away [is] greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But he would not hearken unto her. (2 Samuel 13 KJV)

I think this would be treated as a case of rape in the city. Tamar did certainly cry out but her brother, Absalom, entreated her not to take the matter any further, presumably for fear of disrupting David’s household:

18 And [she had] a garment of divers colours upon her: for with such robes were the king's daughters [that were] virgins apparelled. Then his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her.
19 And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of divers colours that [was] on her, and laid her hand on her head, and went on crying.
20 And Absalom her brother said unto her, Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but hold now thy peace, my sister: he [is] thy brother; regard not this thing. So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom's house. (2 Samuel 13 KJV)

David got to hear of these events and was clearly very angry. However, he took no significant action against Amnon, presumably since he viewed this as a family matter within his own household:

21 But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth.
22 And Absalom spake unto his brother Amnon neither good nor bad: for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar.
23 And it came to pass after two full years, that Absalom had sheepshearers in Baalhazor, which [is] beside Ephraim: and Absalom invited all the king's sons. (2 Samuel 13 KJV)

Despite Absalom’s caution towards Tamar, he clearly had great anger against Amnon for the raping of his sister. So much so that a full two years had passed when he engineered the unlawful killing of Amnon:

28 And Absalom commanded his servants, saying, Mark ye now, when Amnon's heart is merry with wine; and when I say unto you, Smite Amnon, then kill him; fear not; have not I commanded you? be courageous, and be valiant.
29 And the servants of Absalom did unto Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king's sons arose, and every man gat him up upon his mule, and fled. (2 Samuel 13 ASV)

So, what have we learned from this lengthy account of rape and its consequences? First off, any topic that takes up a whole chapter in the scriptures (and the full story of the after-effects on this rape spills over into Chapter 14), it must be deemed pretty important by our God. We learned that according to the Law, Tamar was raped in the city and did cry out. However, the powers that be, her brother and the King, decided to take no punitive measures on the perpetrator at that time. Instead, her brother Absalom decided to exact his own justice on Amnon by arranging his murder. Whilst this was the correct punishment, it was not judicially arrived at and was some two years after the event. Following on from this, Jonadab, David’s nephew confirmed to him that Absalom had killed Amnon due to his rape of Tamar:

32 And Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David's brother, answered and said, Let not my lord suppose [that] they have slain all the young men the king's sons; for Amnon only is dead: for by the appointment of Absalom this hath been determined from the day that he forced his sister Tamar. (2 Samuel 13 KJV)

Given his murder of Amnon, Absalom decided to abide by God’s Law relating to capital criminals and fled to live outside of David’s city:

38 So Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was there three years. (2 Samuel 13 KJV)

According to the Law, Geshur would have been Absalom’s city of refuge:

28 For he ought to dwell in his city of refuge until the high priest's death, and after the high priest's death the manslayer may return to the land of his possession. (Numbers 35 NWT)

I think this chapter is provided for us as an example as to how the Law of Moses should be applied when it comes to rape and murder. 

 

Not Rape?

Is this commandment a case of rape?

10 When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and Jehovah thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive,
11 and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife;
12 then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21 ASV)

These verses do not make it clear as to how far the female captive made a willing wife. It seems to me that she would be under some considerable sense of fear if she did not agree to go with her captor.

I think it is worth mentioning that the same Hebrew word ‘וַיְעַנֶּהָ’ for ‘humbling’ is used in the following clear-cut case of rape which I cover in the next section of this paper:

2 And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; And he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her. (Genesis 34 ASV)
2וַיַּרְא אֹתָהּ שְׁכֶם בֶּן-חֲמוֹר, הַחִוִּי--נְשִׂיא הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּקַּח אֹתָהּ וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֹתָהּ, וַיְעַנֶּהָ. (Genesis 34 WLC)

I think we can then say that in the captive’s case, her captor is then permitted to penetrate her so that she would become his wife. As a captive, she had little say in the matter, since she was still likely acting under a sense of fear had she resisted. So, I think we must consider this to be a case of allowable rape under the Law as it would be one of the spoils of war. Well, you ladies may not like this much but, compared to the deaths of all her menfolk….. This is not a general invitation to all warriors that they may take a captive woman to wife after a successful battle. This must be carried out as part of a holy war in fighting Jehovah’s cause. Consequently, I think this example would be of little application in today’s evil world, unless the current nation state of Israel comes under Jehovah’s umbrella of protection? Check out my earlier Nations paper.

Since the scripture tells us that the woman was allowed to grieve for her, presumably dead, parents I think it safe to say that she was not betrothed. Consequently, she would be free to choose a husband, so we are not here dealing with a potential case of adultery. If she had been married, I expect that her husband would have been killed in the battle so, at worst, she would have been widowed and thereby still enabled to marry

After consummation, if the captor decided he did not really like the woman after all, she would be free to go wherever she wanted but no longer as a captive. Given that the captor’s treatment of the woman in this case is described as ‘humbling’ her, this sounds very much like rape. Given her captive state however, this would not be deemed rape by Law since her captor took her to wife. In these circumstances, the captive woman would be given the reparation of her freedom for her trouble.

If we compare this to the case of Amnon and Tamar above, we have the common thread of the man deciding that, although he desired the woman, he did not enjoy carnal relations with her and so rejected her and no longer wanted her to wife. On the face of it, this all seems to be loaded very much in favour of the man but check out my Male Chauvinism paper on these issues.

Clearly Tamar did not get pregnant from her brief encounter with Amnon otherwise this would have been presented in that previous account. Let us consider the situation that the captive woman got pregnant from the intercourse. I think, if that had been the case, the following verses from Deuteronomy 21 would be brought to bear:

15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his. (Deuteronomy 21 KJV)

So, if a hated wife bears a first-born son, that son is to be given his full first-born rights. On that basis I think a hated captive woman would remain the captor’s wife whether he liked it or not. Once again, I am not certain that the woman would have much say in the matter if she were unhappy in the marriage. Given she had been a captive, I expect that she would be happy with her son/daughter and that they would both be well provided for in the captor’s household. N.B., I have no intention of commenting on a first-daughter’s rights since this would likely lead into a whole other topic area that I do not wish to cover here since it already appears in my earlier Male Chauvinism paper.
 

Dinah and Shechem

Let us have a detailed look at Genesis 34 and the rape of Dinah by Shechem as mentioned in the previous section. As I pointed out above, the use of the word for ‘humbled’ strongly suggests that the act was not consensual, although there is no claim that she cried out. Perhaps it was in the field?

1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
2 And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; And he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her. (Genesis 34 ASV)

However, there is one distinct difference in this case compared to the previous instances. After their intercourse Shechem clearly loved Dinah. Whether that was reciprocated by the girl again is not made clear, although she may have responded positively to his smooth tongue:

3 And his soul clung to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. And he loved the girl, and spoke to the heart of the girl. (Genesis 34 GLT)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, Dinah’s brothers were very angry at what had transpired between Shechem and their sister:

7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard [it]: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done. (Genesis 34 KJV)

Notwithstanding the details, Shechem attempted to make good of his actions:

11 And Shechem said to her father, and to her brothers, Let me find favor in your eyes, and what you say to me I will give.
12 Heap on me ever so much bride-price and gift, and I will give as you say to me; but give me the girl for a wife. (Genesis 34 GLT)

Despite being a Hivite, Shechem made his offer in accordance with the Law of Moses:

16 And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. (Exodus 22 ASV)

Nonetheless Dinah’s brothers refused the offer given he was a gentile:

14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that [were] a reproach unto us: (Genesis 34 KJV)

In response to this, all the Hivite males agreed to get circumcised so that Shechem could marry Dinah:

24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city. (Genesis 34 KJV)

However, this was really a ploy by Dinah’s brothers to take vengeance for her rape. Something of an over-reaction, one might say, since they went out when all the Hivite males were recovering from their circumcision and slayed them all:

25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out. (Genesis 34 KJV)

Jacob was clearly angry at his sons for their extreme action. I suspect if they had just killed Shechem and perhaps his complicit father, Jacob would have been satisfied. However, Jacob now feared reprisals against his household from the other gentile nations around them:

30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I [being] few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house. (Genesis 34 KJV)

So, what did God have to say about all these goings on? He told Jacob to pack up his bags and take his whole household to Bethel whilst they destroyed any false idols that his family had been worshipping. This was so that they could escape from the influences of the gentile nations around them and return to worship the one true God unhindered:

1 And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.
2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that [were] with him, Put away the strange gods that [are] among you, and be clean, and change your garments:
3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. (Genesis 35 KJV)

God had nothing to say about the revenge exacted upon the Hivites for Dinah’s rape. He used the whole episode to protect Jacob’s household from the gentiles. The takeaway from this is that God put the protection of His people as His top priority and did not therefore object to the murder of the idol-worshipping Hivites. Harsh justice, perhaps, but the worship of false idols is about the worst crime one can commit in God’s eyes.

I am not sure how this would play out today. Would a raped girl’s family be allowed to murder all idol-worshipping Harrod’s employees whilst escaping to a country without an extradition treaty with the UK? Hmm… I suspect God would not be too unhappy at this but the law of the land would have something rather different to say on the matter. A case of vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord; check out my Punishment and Vengeance paper. 

 

Cry Rape

Rape is not always what it seems. There can be cases where a woman cries rape, for whatever motivation takes her, where no such act has occurred. Such was the case of Joseph and the wife of his Egyptian master Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah. She made eyes at Joseph and asked him to bed her. A request that Joseph rightly refused:

7 And after these things, it happened that his master's wife lifted up her eyes to Joseph, and said, Lie with me.
8 And he refused, and said to his master's wife, Behold, my master does not know what [is] in the house with me, and all that he owns he has given into my hand.
9 No one in this house [is] greater than I, and he has not withheld anything from me except you, because you [are] his wife. And how should I do this great evil and sin against God?
10 And it happened, as she spoke to Joseph day [after] day, he did not listen to her, to lie beside her, to be with her. (Genesis 39 GLT)

After these refusals she enticed Joseph again, taking the opportunity when none of her husband’s men were in the house. This time he fled her but left a garment behind which would be used as ‘evidence’ that he had been with her. She then called out to the men of the house claiming she had been raped by Joseph and he had fled and left his garment behind:

11 And it came to pass about this time, that [Joseph] went into the house to do his business; and [there was] none of the men of the house there within.
12 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.
13 And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth,
14 That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice:
15 And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out. (Genesis 39 KJV)

So, I think that it is certainly possible that men can be the victims of this false claim of rape from a lying woman. This is the type of case that really needs some hard evidence or witness that the act of rape was actually committed. Man’s justice may not always be adequate to get to the truth of the matter. This is another case where God’s justice is required. It is a case such as this that has called into question, to my mind, the late claims of rape against Al Fayed.

 

Gang Rape

This section was conceived from another recent rape case, related to a man who invited numerous men to rape his drugged wife over many years while he filmed them at it. This particular case, frankly, does my head in to even think about it. For those not in the know here is a small taste of the crime: https://apnews.com/article/gisele-pelicot-france-rape-trial-avignon-mazan-b52c6894b74890573d6ac5e38394f245. 

Well even God could not have thought to put such a case into the Scriptures. However, there is an account of a Levite’s concubine which sounds very similar to the story of Lot and the Sodomites’ desire to ‘know’ his angelic visitors. One difference here is that the Levite offered his unfaithful concubine to the homosexual crowd, an offer that they took up. For the interested reader, I have already written extensively on both these accounts in my earlier paper on Lot’s Daughters.

Anyway, whatever the rights and wrongs prior to this event, this was clearly a case of gang rape. And not just rape, since the concubine was discovered dead in the morning resulting from her treatment during the night:

22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain base fellows, beset the house round about, beating at the door; and they spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into my house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a virgin, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not any such folly.
25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man laid hold on his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way; and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, with her hands upon the threshold.
28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going; but none answered: then he took her up upon the ass; and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. (Judges 19 ASV)

The other difference in comparing this account with that of Lot (which account briefly occurs in the following section) was that the perpetrators, although base fellows, were nonetheless of the house of Benjamin rather than Sodomites. The rest of Israel were informed of their misdeed:

3 And the sons of Benjamin heard that the sons of Israel had gone up to Mizpeh. And the sons of Israel said, Speak up. How did this evil happen?
4 And the man, the Levite, husband of the woman who had been murdered, answered and said, I came into Gibeah which [is] to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to spend the night.
5 And the men of Gibeah rose up against me. And they went around the house against me at night; they had in mind to kill me, and they raped my concubine, and she died. (Judges 20 GLT)

There then followed a bloody civil war between Israel and Benjamin which came with God’s blessing to punish the House of Benjamin:

18 And the children of Israel arose, and went up to Beth-el, and asked counsel of God; and they said, Who shall go up for us first to battle against the children of Benjamin? And Jehovah said, Judah [shall go up] first. (Judges 20 ASV)

23 And the children of Israel went up and wept before Jehovah until even; and they asked of Jehovah, saying, Shall I again draw nigh to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? And Jehovah said, Go up against him. (Judges 20 ASV)

28 and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days), saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And Jehovah said, Go up; for to-morrow I will deliver him into thy hand. (Judges 20 ASV)

35 And Jehovah smote Benjamin before Israel; and the children of Israel destroyed of Benjamin that day twenty and five thousand and a hundred men: all these drew the sword. (Judges 20 ASV)

This account puts the crime of rape into a much worse context than we have seen previously. God was clearly very angry at the unmitigated rape and murder of the concubine at the hands of the Gibeonites. Clearly this was also a case of murder but also a crime committed by one branch of His own people against another. The support that the Benjamites gave to their brethren that committed the heinous deed was no doubt also an aggravating factor. One is left wondering, with all these added factors, just how far the act of rape actually figured in God’s thinking. Nonetheless it does demonstrate that the effects of the act of rape do not end there. There are likely follow-on consequences for the rapist, victim and her family to consider.

On a somewhat different tack, Jehovah Himself has used the rape of a nation’s women as part of His punishment upon them for worshipping false idols. As I mentioned earlier, Jehovah sees idol worship as a higher level of crime than rape. I think this would be because idol worship is a crime against Jehovah whereas rape is a crime against women.

How individual cases of this gang rape will be judged by God, and by God alone, I do not know since the rape of one’s enemies’ women would not likely be seen as anything other than an act of war by the invading army in those times. In this context these verses prophesy the destruction of Babylon and the rape of their women by the Medes:

16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and [as for] gold, they shall not delight in it. (Isaiah 13 KJV)

The nation of Israel's women also did not escape God’s punishment at the hands of the Egyptians and Assyrians for their own unfaithful worship:

11 They ravished the women in Zion, [and] the maids in the cities of Judah. (Lamentations 5 KJV)

The following verses sound like a much greater warning for Israel for a day yet to come perhaps?

1 Behold, a day of Jehovah cometh, when thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (Zechariah 14 ASV)

 

Male Rape

This paper began with the Al Fayed case which solely related (as far as we know!) with the sexual abuse of females. But to be a victim of rape and abuse is not the sole province of women. Men and boys can also suffer rape where rape is defined as stated at the beginning of this paper.

This form of rape was brought to my attention for inclusion in this paper by the media coverage of the recent calls on the Archbishop of Canterbury to resign as the overseer ultimately responsible for the cases of paedophilia exposed inside the Church of England (C of E). Check out: https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-report-reveals-church-of-england-cover-up-of-abuse-from-barrister-john-smyth. The C of E is by no means the only religious organisation that suffers from this issue; check out https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58420270 where both genders of vulnerable children and young adults can be the victims. Male sexual abuse seems to be rather more commonplace than one might have expected, according to one abuse support source: https://www.survivorsuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/A-Resource-for-Male-Survivors-of-Sexual-Abuse_SurvivorsUK-and-LSG.pdf.

So, what do the scriptures have to say about male rape? Probably the best example of, admittedly attempted, male rape occurred in the account of Lot prior to his escape from Sodom:

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19 KJV)

As stated above under the Gang Rape section, the account of the Levite’s concubine bears clear similarities with this tale of Lot. In both cases the evildoers seemed to prefer having non-consensual sex with other men rather than women; read into that what you may! In both cases, a woman (or two) was offered to the men as an alternative. I find it a little more than interesting that, in both cases, females were offered as an alternative to the requested male(s). In Lot’s case, the logic would be that the abuse of a male angel might reasonably be seen as being a higher level of crime than that of a human woman. Unsurprisingly, though, the rape of an angel by a human is not a commandment covered by the Law of Moses! But in the former case, the rape of a man was seen as a higher level of sin than that of a woman. Frankly I do not understand the logic here since both crimes are classified as capital offences under the Law. For further comment on this aspect please refer to my earlier paper on Lot’s Daughters.

In the previous case the woman was accepted, but in Lot’s case the angels took charge of the situation to prevent any sexual abuse taking place:

11 And they smote the men that [were] at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. (Genesis 19 KJV)

Both the words of Lot and the actions of the angels clearly indicate that the proposed action of the Sodomites would be an act of evil. But what commandment covers the sexual abuse of a man? I think Leviticus covers the ground adequately:

22 And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18 LXXb)

13 And a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing, dying they shall die; their blood [shall be] on them. (Leviticus 20 GLT).

The first of these verses makes it clear that a man should not have sexual relations with another male, regardless of whether it is consensual or not. The second verse identifies that it is a capital offense but here is intended for a consensual homosexual act. Given the commandments associated with female rape, I think one can reasonably take the view that, in the case of a non-consensual homosexual act, it will only be the perpetrator that would face the death penalty. Subject to that, all the detailed thinking and uncertainty that applies to female rape as previously indicated, should likely also apply to male rape. The items missing would be that there would be no signs of lost virginity or the risk of an unwanted pregnancy arising.

In addition to the Law, Paul makes it clear in his first letter to Timothy, that it is sinful to lay hands on a man. Whilst this is a general statement against physical abuse of another man, I think this also adequately covers a  case of male rape:

22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure. (1 Timothy 5 KJV)

 

Synopsis

1. This paper has its roots in the debate about the validity of the late calling out of a charge of rape.
2. The definition of rape used is that of penetration enforced without the victim’s consent.
   
3. The Law of Moses requires the victim to cry out at the time of rape. Without this, it may prove impossible to try in a human court of law without a minimum number of two witnesses or physical evidence. A genuine victim may have to await God’s justice come Judgement Day. The Law of Moses treats a case of genuine rape very seriously in considering it to be a capital offence requiring the first death of the perpetrator.
   
4. If the victim were not betrothed, the rapist would be expected take her to wife and to provide for her. I expect this would not necessarily be wanted by the victim, who could not then expect the full force of the Law to be applied to the perpetrator.
   
5. The rape of Tamar by Amnon tells us that there may be long-term consequences, from an act of rape, that impact on the lives of those connected to the victim and the perpetrator. The crime of rape is most definitely a capital offence worthy of a harsh punishment.
   
6. Deuteronomy 21 covers the case of the acceptable (to God) rape of a captive woman. Since this was intended as an outcome from a battle carried out in Jehovah’s name, it is of little consequence today, I think.
   
7. The rape of Dinah by Shechem amplifies the message from the rape of Tamar with the added ingredient that idol-worship is a worse transgression than mass-murder in God’s eyes.
   
8. False claims of rape, such as that made by Potiphar’s wife against Joseph, are what caused me to write this paper in the first place. This proves to be a different perspective on why hard evidence is required in cases of rape.
   
9. The rape and murder of the Levite’s concubine ended up having dire consequences for the Children of Israel. A further and extreme example of rape having serious long-term implications for all affected by the crime.
   
10. God has used gang rape against His enemies, including Israel for their idol-worship. Another case clearly that idol-worship is a far worse crime in God's eyes than either rape or murder.
    
11. While male rape was not in my purview when I started this exercise, it is a crime that should not be ignored amidst all today’s feminist rhetoric
    

 

Conclusion

Rape is clearly treated as a serious capital offence in Scripture. Apart from inclusion in the Law of Moses, there are several highly detailed accounts of rape in the Bible. As I suspected, Scripture supports the notion that rape is a potentially very difficult crime to adequately police by mankind. Crying out long after the event cannot stand up in the court of man. God will no doubt seek retribution on the guilty ones come Judgement Day. As serious a crime as rape is, with all its potential long-term consequences on kith and kin, God sees idol-worship as a worse crime. Rape is a crime against humanity, idol-worship is a crime against God. Amen.

​

Date of Publication: 19th December 2024

The Horrific Rape and Murder of The Levite's Concubine

Jewish Lords' Witness

Courtesy of fromreformationtoreformation.com

​​Rape