|
Now as to why a woman was required to scream to assert rape (peace to you all!):
As some might feel, requiring a woman to have screamed in order to assert rape, doesn't make sense. Or does it? Today (and for some time) not so much... and I will get to why not so much in a bit. First, though, to understand the requirement THEN... and by "then", I mean when the "law" was made, one would have to understand the literal situation of the camp when such was set up by Israel while in the wilderness.
Picture, if you can, the "order" of the camp: coming off a large rectangular area were the 12 tribes, three on each "side" of the "rectangle." Now, picture if you can, the tents of ALL of these growing out from that rectuangular center... but only so far. At some point, they must squish in. That "border"... or rather, what was outside it... provides a clue as to why a woman had to have screamed in order to assert rape.
In the CENTER of the camp was the tabernacle and in the MOST Holy chamber of the tabernacle was the Ark (of the Covenant). And emitting from the Ark... was a pillar of fire. That pillar served a purpose: to provide HEAT and LIGHT to the camp... during the night! Remember, they were in the desert - what happens to the temperatures in the desert at night? What happens to the light? And what lives in the desert... but comes out at NIGHT... to prey and feed? Wild animals. Particularly... lions... hyenas... and flesh eating predators!
Hence, the purpose of the pillar of fire was to PROTECT Israel during their time in the wilderness from freezing to death, or being attacked by predators, both human AND beast. Please note, I am not getting into the "holiness" of the Ark or its fire - that's another topic entirely. I am sharing with you the practicality of the Ark, which also existed. Along with representing the presence of JAH (which it absolutely did), it had utility!
So, now, if you can see this large, expansive camp... surrounding this tent, which has a large plume of fire emitting from it at night, let me ask you: who would dare go OUTSIDE the camp, into the dark, in freezing conditions... where predators of all manner lurked? Think: there are children in this camp, babies, newborns, and animals... including THEIR young and newborn. A predatory wild animal could SMELL them all and so one would be foolish to envision such a camp... and NOT see predatory creatures wandering the circumference, just outside the light bit of light... and heat... from the pillar of fire.
Who, in their RIGHT mind... would step OUTSIDE of the SAFETY provided by that pillar? No one... and not risk their own death. Even a rapist. Even if one COULD get a victim outside the camp, how many would bother to stop and take her/him, given the danger to himself? Few. VERY few. Not worth the effort to do so OUTSIDE the camp. And why wouldn't the VICTIM scream, given the danger from her/his captor AND the beastly predators that were surely near? Wouldn't the "smell" of the captor's exertion... and the victim's FEAR cause such beasts to find them? It would!
What if the captor chose to kill his victim? Would they not smell the blood? They would. What if the victim was only strangled - would not the corpse attract such predators, particularly the "wild dogs" (hyenas)? It would. Maybe he could bury his victim. But how deep could he dig before those predators were upon him? Could he fight them off without raising attention to himself? Highly unlikely. And the grave wasn't deep, wouldn't the beasts dig the body up? They would.
So... WAY too risky to try and rape someone OUTSIDE of the camp at night.
How about doing so outside of camp during the day? How, though, could such a one get his victim OUT of the camp, in broad daylight, without SOMEONE seeing him... or someone perceiving that a victim was missing? Nope, too risky that, as well. So, taking someone OUTSIDE the camp, whether at night or during the day was too unfeasible. Too risky, too much trouble. Not worth the very brief end result (and rape was much less likely a show of force and power... and necessity... then as it is today - the culture and customs were greatly different then and marriage was not only encouraged but sought; heck, often planned at birth).
What, though, of raping someone INSIDE the camp? Well, THAT is where the requirement to scream comes in: how could someone scream... with ALL of those people... crowded in such close proximity... with no walls, doors, windows, insulation, drywall, sheetrock, rocks, bricks, cement, car doors, trunk lids... or anything between them... and NOT be heard?!
Okay, let's say he muffled the victim to prevent screaming. Unless he knocked them out first, then there would be resistance wounds to at least show an attempt to avoid abduction/rape was made. Or, at least a bump on the head, bruise, etc. Some indication that the victim didn't go willingly. And again, who could go missing and no one notice? While travelling, perhaps, but once in camp... not so likely. Even so, someone going missing was SO rare, that it took 3 days for my Lord's mother, Mary, to realize HE was not with the caravan when it left Jerusalem.
And who had a tent to himself/herself? People lived with their parents, in their parents' tent... until marriage. So, who had such privacy? Maybe one night, when they were all gathered at Sinai, could someone sneak someone into an empty tent, rape her/him, and no one hear anything. But it would have to have been at one of the tents WAY in the back on the far side of camp! And, again, SOMEONE would have noticed the two were missing, given the importance of the event... and sent looking for them!
So, nope, not practical there, either. It would have only been the fools of the camp who would have risked raping someone, given the limited space and lack of privacy IN the camp... and serious danger risked if done outside the camp.
There was another reason, though, too: given the [very] close proximity, the temptation for dalliancing was great. And what was to stop a woman who, after having an affair and becoming pregnant, sought to accuse an innocent man in order to hide the true father? What if she was married... but hadn't had relations with her own husband... but didn't want her lover exposed... and so, blamed poor Joe Schmoe, who none of the women were attracted to and so "of COURSE he did it because he doesn't have a woman!"? Or what if poor Schmoe was secretly gay and so since no one had ever seen him WITH a woman assumed HIM the culprit?
The requirement, then, was to protect innocent men AS well as the honor of those raped:
"Did you scream when Joe grabbed you, Hilda?"
"Well, no, he covered my mouth!"
"Did you fight? 'Cause we don't see no scratches on 'im."
"Well, no, I was scared 'cause he's so tall!"
"Well, did you tell your mom/dad/husband?"
"No, 'cause, well, see... what it was, was..."
"Ah, Hilda, girl. I mean, I know you want someone to take the blame for that baby you's 'bout to have, but how can we blame it on poor Joe? Look at him - ain't nobody else nevah made no accusations like that against him. Girl, you should'a SAID sumthin', what, 9 months ago?! You should'a at least screamed... and you KNOW this, chile'! So, I dunno. Mebbe you and the mister gonna have to work it out between you. Say what? He wants to STONE you?! Ooh, wow, yeah, THAT'S rough, girl. I bet you wish you hadda screamed NOW, huh? Well, lemme talk to Moses, see if I kin git him to get mister to jus' give you a divorce paper or sumthin'. YOU jus' make sure you don't go movin' into some tent with some guy what look like that baby when it gets here, 'tho. 'Cause I'm not sho' even ol' Moses is gonna be able to hold the mister back then. Off'a bof' ya'll... you AN' him. If'n it warn't Joe, ah mean... an' I ain't so sho' it WUZ Joe.. seein' as you ain't screamed o' nuthin. Even so ain't NOBODY can help you then, girl. 'Cause, you know, the rest of the folk's'll stay out of it. Don' nobody wanna get caught up in no do-mesticated squawbles - could get a body kilt, doin' that, sho' could. (Huge sigh) Ah, girl, you done went and got yo'sef all caught up in a BIG ol' mess now, ain't'cha? Well... ah'll pray fo' ya, chile', ah'll pray fo' ya..."
So, okay, THAT was while in the desert. What of later, though, and AFTER crossing the Jordan? Well, two things:
1. They had 40 years to figure out "right" from "wrong"... and how to respond to/deal with a "wrong" such as rape. If they couldn't figure out... in 40 years (and with no TV, computers, iPads, iPods, iPhone, casinos, bars, shopping malls, cinemas, or strip joints to distract them!)... that screaming was a PROTECTION, perhaps to thwart the deed, if not establish grounds to assert rape... or even to protect an innocent man from a FALSE accusation... they weren't really ever going to get it, dear ones. Not really. Hence, they were called "hard-headed, hard-HEARTED, and stiff-necked," by JAH Himself;
2. The Law was not meant to rule over them FOREVER. As Moses TOLD them, there was another prophet coming AFTER him... and it was to HIM they were to listen. So, if that one came (and he did)... and he said something different (and he did)... who did MOSES say they were to listen to? Him and HIS law? Or this "new" prophet... and so HIS "new" law? If they didn't listen to the "new" prophet... were they truly listening to Moses??
Given today's society... and things like walls, insulation, cars, trucks, guns, etc.... to try and tell another that in order for rape to be asserted one must have screamed is ridiculously ludicrous. Most rapes don't take place in tents in the desert. But MORE than that, THIS... from Paul:
"... their minds were closed; indeed, until this very day, the same veil remains over the reading of the Old Testament: it is not lifted, for only in Christ is it done away with. As it is, to this day, whenever Moses is read, their hearts are covered with a veil, and this veil will not be taken away till they turn to the Lord. Now this Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Freedom from what? From THE LAW and its COVENANT... which bound men... to slavery... and death! Which Law/Covenant Christ gave his LIFE... to set us free FROM, those who put their faith in HIM. So as to belong to HIM... by means of the PURCHASE price he PAID.
If one is still looking to the Law Covenant... and so, still looking to Moses, then... one has not been set free. One is still a slave... but an INVOLUTARY slave... and to Death. NOT... to Life (John 14:6) voluntarily OR involuntarily.
Because one is bound... by the whole dang Law... and ALL of its features. So, ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails are OFF... and to eat them is a sin.
I hope this helps, dear ones, and again, peace to you!
Servant to the Household of God, Israel, and those who go with, and a slave of Christ,
Shellama
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
