Why does the Bible teach that a raped woman must marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? Understanding Deuteronomy 22:28–29 in Context Deuteronomy 22:28–29 reads: “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her must pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her. He may not divorce her as long as he lives.” At first glance, this passage is deeply troubling to many modern readers, as it can sound like condemning a woman to forever remain with a perpetrator against her will. However, understanding the legal and cultural setting of ancient Israel clarifies many nuances in this law. The Broader Cultural and Legal Setting Ancient Israelite law functioned within the broader framework of the ancient Near East. Women in many ancient cultures faced extremely vulnerable conditions if they were no longer considered “virgins” for prospective marriage. In Israel, fathers traditionally oversaw the welfare of their daughters, including her marriage arrangements. Consequently, a woman wronged by a man lost her prospects of a stable future and financial security, especially in societies where marriage and inheritance laws offered the primary safety net. While modern cultures operate with social services, legal protections, and modern judicial processes, ancient systems often placed the burden of security directly on the family. Thus, Deuteronomy 22:28–29 introduced legislation aimed at ensuring a harmed woman was not cast aside without provision. It also held the man accountable, including strict financial obligations. Tension between “Rape” and “Seduction” It is critical to note that the Hebrew word sometimes rendered as “seizes” or “forces” (Hebrew: תָּפַשׂ, taphas) can denote a range of meanings, including “capture” or “take hold of,” but it does not always imply violent assault. There is ongoing scholarly discussion on whether Deuteronomy 22:28–29 refers exclusively to rape or also covers cases of consensual premarital sexual activity. 1. Exodus 22:16–17 Parallels: Exodus 22:16–17 describes a parallel scenario: “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he must pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins.” The verb there involves “enticing,” which suggests a context that could be consensual or at least less overtly violent. 2. Similar Language, Different Emphasis: While Deuteronomy 22:25 applies to an obvious case of rape involving a betrothed woman (thoroughly condemning the offender to death), verses 28–29 appear to handle a different situation: a man and an unbetrothed virgin found together illicitly. The text lumps them under “seizes,” but it retains a separate legal outcome from that of a clear assault against a betrothed woman. 3. Scholars and Linguists: Many Hebrew scholars, such as those who have worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls or the ancient Septuagint, argue that the language in Deuteronomy 22:28–29 can include scenarios of seduction or partial willingness, making it more akin to forcing a quick sexual encounter without the father’s permission. This nuance is further supported by versions like Exodus 22:16–17, which emphasize the father’s ability to refuse the marriage if he deems it necessary. The Protective Intent of the Law Although the wording can strike modern readers as harsh, a major intent of Deuteronomy 22:28–29 was to protect the woman from being abandoned to societal reproach or poverty. In ancient Israel, a woman who was neither a virgin nor married could suffer great social stigma. 1. Financial Restitution: The payment of fifty shekels to the father functioned as a bride-price and reparation for wrongdoing. It ensured the father and family received the customary dowry or compensation they had lost because of the man’s actions. 2. Lifetime Obligation: The man “may not divorce her as long as he lives” (Deuteronomy 22:29). Whereas other men could divorce their wives under certain circumstances (Deuteronomy 24:1–4), this man forfeited that right. This stipulation was meant as a severe consequence to the man, making him permanently responsible for the woman he had wronged instead of handing him an easy escape. 3. Comparisons with Neighboring Cultures: In many ancient Near Eastern law codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, there were harsher practices that left the victim with little to no protected status. By contrast, the Mosaic Law demanded an enduring stance of responsibility, placing a high cost upon the man for his misconduct. Father’s Right of Refusal According to Exodus 22:16–17, a father retained the authority to refuse the marriage of his daughter, even if the man had seduced or violated her. This principle indicates that the woman’s family had leverage to protect her further if the father judged the man unsafe or unfit. The father could deny the marriage altogether while still requiring financial restitution in the form of the bride-price. This biblical parallel suggests that Deuteronomy 22:28–29 should not be read in isolation. Rather, it must be read alongside other passages that shed light on the rights and protections afforded to women under ancient Israelite legal norms. Distinguishing Betrothed from Unbetrothed Deuteronomy 22 makes a clear distinction between a betrothed and an unbetrothed virgin. In the case of a betrothed virgin who was raped, the rapist faced the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:25–27), emphasizing the seriousness of violating someone already pledged to be another man’s wife. In contrast, when the woman was not betrothed, the remedy under discussion shifts from capital punishment to enforced lifetime adherence and financial recompense. These separate legal outcomes display the covenant community’s focus on preserving marriages already pledged, while offering a different protective measure for someone unbetrothed. Historical Examples and Archaeological Insights Archaeological findings from sites such as Tel Dan and Hazor provide details on daily life and societal norms, including marriage contracts and bride-prices. Some discovered marriage stipulations require restitution for dishonoring a potential bride, giving us a glimpse into how economic, familial, and cultural expectations interplayed. These artifacts, when examined in tandem with Scripture, illustrate that making material restitution and continuous commitment was a central theme of the time. In a culture where divorce or abandonment could spell disaster for a woman, the forced perpetual obligation was a protective strategy uniquely woven into Israel’s laws. Addressing the Moral Concern Modern readers rightly recoil at any idea of forcing a woman to live with someone who might have physically harmed her. Interpreters note that the biblical text: 1. Provides Consequences for the Man: The man is penalized financially and loses the privilege ever to divorce. This is not a trivial “escape route” but a burdensome, lifelong duty. 2. Acknowledges Family Oversight: Exodus 22:17 ensures the father (representing the family’s protective role) can block the marriage if it is detrimental to his daughter. 3. Upholds the Dignity of the Woman in Ancient Context: The law does not treat the woman as disposable property. Instead, it legislates a system in which her physical security and livelihood are to be maintained. Biblical Principles of Compassion and Justice Throughout Scripture, God’s character emphasizes protection for the vulnerable. Deuteronomy 10:18 reveals that God “executes justice for the fatherless and widow.” Laws that at first sound harsh can be better understood as legislative steps to safeguard women from exploitation in a context with fewer societal safety nets. This aspect of protective legislation is also seen in other commands: gleaning laws in Leviticus 19:9–10 ensured the poor had food, and so-called Levirate marriage laws in Deuteronomy 25:5–10 provided for widows in a family line. Such patterns underscore the consistent biblical theme of preserving life, dignity, and provision. Conclusion Deuteronomy 22:28–29 has provoked many questions and moral challenges for modern readers. When studied in its ancient Near Eastern context: • It imposes substantial financial and lifelong marital responsibility on a man who has wronged a woman. • It prevents the perpetrator from discarding her, mitigating her societal vulnerability. • It must be read in harmony with Exodus 22:16–17, which highlights the father’s authority to refuse the marriage altogether. • It aligns with a recurring theme in Scripture: protecting those who would otherwise have minimal legal recourse. While the text can appear jarring to contemporary eyes, understanding the cultural and legal background clarifies the underlying desire to establish justice, accountability, and long-term provision. For ancient Israel, “she shall become his wife…he may not divorce her all his days” meant forcing the unethical man to bear the enduring responsibility for the harm he caused—thereby limiting the scope for further injustice and ensuring the woman was not abandoned in a vulnerable state. |
    |