Terry,
A strange marriage covenant, indeed, that is based upon the captivity of
the woman. She is forced, as a prize of war, to enter into a marriage not
arranged by her parents, who may well have been killed by the Israelite
victors (or her mother was also made captive and forced into another
marriage following the death of her husband--the scenarios could be varied),
and so now she is obligated to follow the "law of sexual relations"? Sorry,
I don't buy it.
While I appreciate Paul's dictum that wives and husbands should honor
the obligation to maintain sexual relations, all things being equal, I do
not think this includes spousal rape.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Challenge #2
> Bob,
>
> As soon as I hit the send button, I knew that this question would
> come up. I am not interested in state laws, but in the Biblical
> perspective. It seems to me that consent in sexual relations is an
> implication of the marriage covenant. Don't get me wrong
> here--spousal abuse is possible and to be abhorred (and prosecuted
> both in the church and by the state). Also, the call to husbands to
> love their wives and treat them well is also noted.
>
> But wives are obligated to have sexual relations with their husbands;
> it's part of the terms of the marriage covenant. One of the antidotes
> to sexual immorality found in 1 Cor. 7:3-5 speaks to the
> "requirement" of sexual relations in marriage:
>
> "The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise
> the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone
> but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not
> belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other
> except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote
> yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not
> tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
>
> So...back to the point. When a Israelite man took one of the captives
> to be his wife, a marriage covenant was entered into that included
> the legitimacy of sexual relations--hence, we're not talking about
> rape here. God's law does not command rape. We may be talking about
> marrage customs that are quite distant from our own, but we are
> talking about marriage here and not promiscuous "rape and ravage"
> conquest.
>
> TG
>
>
>
> >Terry writes:
> >
> >> I know that this may be a controversial question, but here goes: "Is
> >> it possible to rape one's own wife?" If the answer to that question
> >> is "no", then clearly, these women have not been raped, even though
> >> they may have been made wives by no choice of their own. But then
hasn't
> >> it only been fairly recently that women had much say in who would
> >> be their husbands?
> >
> >I believe that spousal rape is a crime in a number of state
jurisdictions,
> >if not all. It is well known that one form of physical abuse of a wife
by
> >her husband is to forcibly rape her as a way of humiliating and
terrifying
> >her.
> >
> >In a society in which women have few or no rights and are treated as
> >property, it may be difficult or impossible for a woman to seek redress
for
> >such an abuse of her person. Once again we have here an example of the
> >difficult issue of whether moral behavior is to be considered an
expression
> >of local or historical custom, or whether there are certain elements of
> >morality that are the expression of natural law (in the Thomistic sense):
> >in Christian terms, are there some actions that are simply wrong or
immoral
> >because they consistute an abuse of someone who bears the _imago dei_? I
> >would contend that there are. If that be the case, then rape is rape,
> >whatever the circumstances.
> >
> >Bob Schneider
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
> >To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> >Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 11:53 PM
> >Subject: RE: Challenge #2
> >
> >
> >>
> >> With respect to the so-called rape of the women in the "conquest of
> >> Canaan" passages, I offer the following:
> >>
> >> Who's to say that the women involved didn't consent to becoming
wives
> >> having been spared from the destruction of their people? It seems
> >> that these passages insist on a humane treatment of these women,
> >> giving them time to mourn, etc. Also, they are to be made wives, not
> >> just raped and then thrown aside. Even if they are divorced, there
are
> >> restrictions on how they are to be treated: "You must not sell her
or
> >> treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
> >>
> >> I would also suggest that being taken captive to become a wife in
> >> this context is an act of mercy. This woman's life was spared and
> >> they became part of the covenant community.
> >>
> >> I know that this may be a controversial question, but here goes: "Is
> >> it possible to rape one's own wife?" If the answer to that question
> > > is "no", then clearly, these women have not been raped, even though
> >> they may have been made wives by no choice of their own. But then
hasn't
> >> it only been fairly recently that women had much say in who would
> >> be their husbands?
> >>
> >> Wanting to go very slowly when it comes to finding fault with
scripture,
> >>
> >> TG
> >>
> >> --
> >> _________________
> >> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
> >> Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
> >> Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
> >> grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
> >> phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
> >>
>
>
> --
> _________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
> grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
> phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 14 2002 - 23:41:12 EDT