Why does the Bible say a woman must marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? Historical and Cultural Context In the ancient Near East, a woman’s security and future prospects often depended on a formal marital arrangement. Societies commonly placed strong emphasis on a father’s guardianship of his unmarried daughter, with provisions to safeguard her social standing and economic well-being. Deuteronomy 22:28–29 must be read within this historical framework: “(28) If a man comes upon a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, takes her, and has relations with her, and they are discovered, (29) then the man who had relations with her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife. Because he has violated her, he must not divorce her as long as he lives.” In ancient culture, a single or disqualified (i.e., no longer a virgin) woman might find it difficult, if not impossible, to secure marriage or provision. This law sought to prevent a man from exploiting her, then discarding her without consequences. The command imposed a binding requirement that he provide both financially and socially for the woman he victimized. Distinguishing Between Different Situations Deuteronomy 22 deals with multiple sexual misconduct scenarios. Earlier verses (Deuteronomy 22:25–27) describe a violent rape scenario involving a betrothed woman. There, the attacker is condemned to death, and the victim is considered innocent with no penalty. By contrast, verses 28–29 address a man’s sexual encounter with a woman “who is not pledged in marriage,” which focuses on compensatory and long-term provisions for her. Hebrew scholars often observe that Deuteronomy 22:25–27 uses a term denoting outright, forceful sexual assault, while verses 28–29 use a different verb. This latter verb can convey taking or seizing—though many translations label it “rape,” it can include other exploitative or coerced scenarios. Regardless of the exact degree of force implied, the man is held responsible for a lifelong commitment that removes any possibility of dismissal or divorce. Legislative Purpose This law served as a deterrent and a protective measure. First, the requirement of financial payment (fifty shekels of silver, a substantial sum in that era) demonstrates that a grave offense was committed. Second, forcing the man into lifelong responsibility meant he could not abandon the woman to social and economic peril. In a context where virginity was culturally tied to marriage prospects, this legislation was a safeguard to ensure that a man who caused the loss of a woman’s marriageability would face permanent obligations. When weighed against surrounding Ancient Near Eastern codes (e.g., portions of the Laws of Hammurabi suggest fines or less severe penalties for sexual offenses), Deuteronomy’s insistence on lifelong responsibility for the offender offers stronger, not weaker, protection for the woman than many neighboring societies provided. Father’s Role and Possible Refusal A related passage in Exodus 22:16–17 suggests that if a man seduces a virgin, the father could refuse the marriage, although he would still receive payment for damages to his daughter’s prospects. Ancient rabbinic tradition and some interpreters maintain a similar principle may be implied in Deuteronomy: the father could forbid marriage if he deemed the man unsuitable. Thus, the biblical mandate does not necessarily force the woman (and her father) into an unqualified arrangement; it rather removes the man’s ability to dissolve or escape responsibility. This reading is supported by the fact that Deuteronomy 22:29 states, “He must not divorce her as long as he lives.” Placing divorce off-limits for the man underscores that the woman’s welfare was to be protected indefinitely, not temporarily. Protection for the Vulnerable The law acted as a safety net in an era where a woman’s wellbeing rested heavily upon marriage due to cultural norms and economic constraints. While the modern reader may recoil at the thought of any scenario in which a woman would marry her attacker, the ancient legal mechanisms aimed to secure her long-term security, livelihood, and social standing. It is also important to differentiate legal recourse from moral ideal. The same passages emphasize that abuse is a serious transgression—and, when involving a betrothed woman, the penalty was death for the perpetrator (Deuteronomy 22:25–26). The text consistently reflects the intention of deterring any violation. Comparison to Modern Sensibilities Modern societies rightly regard sexual violence as an act requiring strict legal action. Deuteronomy’s legal code, operating in a radically different cultural and legal environment, imposed a heavy financial and lifelong burden on the offender, effectively removing the option of discarding or financially harming the victim. Today, independent legal recourse and support systems exist for survivors, and social constructs have changed significantly. Yet the biblical requirement served to bind the offender to permanent material support for the victim. It was not the ideal, but a legislative measure reflecting divine concern for justice and provision within the context in which it was originally given. Conclusion Deuteronomy 22:28–29 must be understood against its historical backdrop, linguistic nuances, and the ancient world’s social structures. The Scripture’s intent was never to trivialize a woman’s suffering. Rather, it imposed harsh consequences on the man, guaranteeing ongoing care and security for the woman he wronged. In Deuteronomy’s day, provisions like these served to deter exploitative behavior and protect women from becoming outcasts in a deeply patriarchal society. When interpreted responsibly—in view of its cultural and legal framework—the passage stands as a protective measure, even while its expression differs greatly from modern legal systems. |
    |