Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?

Question: "Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?"

Answer: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often pointed to by atheists, skeptics, and other Bible attackers as evidence that the Bible is backwards, cruel, and misogynist, and therefore, not the Word of God. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reads, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” At first glance, this passage seems to command that a rape victim must marry her rapist. Is that the correct interpretation of the text, and if so, how is that not horribly unfair to the woman?

First, it is important to recognize the preceding context. Deuteronomy 22:22 commands the death penalty for adultery; both the man and the woman are to be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 commands the death penalty for both the man and the woman in an instance of a man having sex with a woman who is betrothed (engaged). It seems to be speaking of consensual sex, since the woman does not cry out for help. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 seemingly commands the death penalty for a man who “rapes” a woman who is betrothed.

Second, it is important to understand that the Hebrew words used in Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28 do not necessarily indicate rape. In verse 25, the Hebrew word chazaq is used, and it essentially means “seize,” or “take hold of.” In verse 28, a different Hebrew word taphas is used, and while it has a very similar meaning to chazaq, it is not the same word. In both verses 25 and 28, the Hebrew word shakab is used, and while it literally means “lie down,” it is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse. So, both verses 25 and 28 describe a man seizing and having sex with a woman. While this is a possible description of rape, it does not explicitly refer to rape. Also, the differences in the Hebrew words between Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28, could be interpreted as verse 25 referring to rape, with verse 28 referring to consensual sex. Further, in other Old Testament passages that refer to rape, different Hebrew words are used (Judges 19:25, 20:5; 2 Samuel 13:14, 32; Zechariah 14:2).

Third, we should not read the modern image of a violent rape into Deuteronomy 22:28-29. The passage gives very few details in regards to what is being described. All it describes is a man seizing a woman and having sex with her. To automatically assume that it was a violent encounter with the man brutally attacking the woman is not biblically supportable. It could just as easily be describing a man forcing a woman, with whom he was romantically involved but not betrothed, to have sex with him before she was willing/ready. While that would still be rape, there are definitely different degrees of rape and different amounts of violence that occur in connection with rape.

In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the rape (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her. It seems that Tamar would have rather married Amnon than live desolate and single the rest of her life, which is what happened to her (2 Samuel 13:20). So, if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is interpreted to mean that an un-betrothed rape victim must marry her rapist, it could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive.

It should also be noted that the Old Testament nowhere records a rape victim being forced to marry her rapist. Even if that is the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the Bible nowhere records the command being enforced. Further, if a rape victim being forced to marry her rapist is the correct interpretation, it must be viewed in light of the culture of the time. In the case of Tamar, she would have rather have married her rapist than remain single the rest of her life. Reading modern Western societal mores into ancient Israel warps the meaning of the passage.

Lastly, if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is interpreted as referring to rape, it clearly requires restitution from/punishment for the man who rapes a young woman that is not betrothed. That punishment consisted of two parts: he must pay the woman’s father fifty shekels of silver and he must marry and support the woman for the rest of her life. Fifty shekels of silver was a very substantial fine as at that time a shekel was a measurement of weight and not an actual coin. Some scholars believe it could have represented as much as 10 years of wages for the average person. The fact that a man was in any way punished for rape was revolutionary for that period of time in history. No other ancient legal system punished rape to anywhere near the degree outlined in Deuteronomy 22:22-29. While it is unrealistic to say that because of this command rape never occurred, hopefully the severity of the punishment was a strong deterrent to the exceedingly evil act of rape.

So, back to the question at hand: Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist? While that is a possible, perhaps even likely, interpretation of the passage, it is not the only possible interpretation. Even if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does command a rape victim to marry her rapist, it is crucial to remember that such a fate, as difficult as it would be, was, at least for some, much better than the alternatives.

Recommended Resource: Deuteronomy, Holman Old Testament Commentary by Doug McIntosh.