THE LAW OF MOSES REQUIRE A WOMAN TO MARRY THE MAN WHO RAPED HER?

WHY WOULD THE LAW OF MOSES REQUIRE A WOMAN TO MARRY THE MAN WHO RAPED HER? 

THIS JUST SEEMS SO WRONG.

If you browse atheistic websites or books criticizing the Scriptures, you may hear the allegation that the Law required a woman to marry her rapist. This supposed fact is used to support the claim that the Bible is morally suspect and oppressive to women. But is it true? A careful reading of the Bible will show that the Law of Moses did not require a woman to marry her rapist.

This question comes from a misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 22:28-29: “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.” Various Bible versions (e.g., NIV, CSB) translate the words “seizes her” as “rapes her” and so it certainly may seem that this woman would be forced to marry her rapist.

But a closer reading of Scripture shows that this verse was actually designed as a protection for a young women. It focuses on a woman who has been seduced by a man and engaged in consensual sexual relations with him. A closer look at the original meaning of the phrase “seizes her” shows that this should be understood as referring to seduction, not rape. Here’s why:

THE CONTEXT OF THE LAW

The context of this statute indicates that this phrase refers to seduction and not rape. The previous paragraph (Deut. 22:25-27) describes the law about an actual rape and uses a different Hebrew verb (chazaq), meaning “forces” or “overpowers.”

The word used in the passage under discussion has a different word (the Hebrew verb tapas), translated “seizes,” indicating that there is a distinction in meaning being made with the rape of the previous verse. The word chazaq clearly indicates force, but the word tapas used here does not imply any kind of forcible attack or assault. The lexical differences of these two different verbs and the nearness of their uses in two adjoining paragraphs indicate that these refer to two different situations—the first to rape and the second to seduction.

Another distinction with the previous paragraph (Deut. 22:25-27) is that rape is treated differently than the situation being discussed in this passage (Deut. 22:28-29). First, in determining whether a rape occurred, the girl cried out but there was no one present to hear her (Deut. 22:27). In the second case, the issue of crying out is not even raised, demonstrating that a forcible attack was not being addressed. Second, the consequences are different in the two paragraphs. In the first case of rape, there was no charge against the woman but the punishment for the rapist would be execution; the crime of rape was viewed as a capital offense (Deut. 22:25). In the case of seduction, the consequence for the man was to marry the woman he mistreated (Deut. 22:29). He was not allowed to love her and leave her. He had to take responsibility for the woman. By reading the passage in context, it is evident that the issue being addressed in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is seduction and not rape.

THE SENSE OF THE VERB

The verb in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, translated “seizes,” literally means “captures” or “takes hold of” Yet, it can have a figurative sense, as it does in Ezekiel 14:5, in the phrase “to lay hold of the hearts”. The sense is more of persuasion than assault. The same verb is also used in the story of Potiphar’s wife’s seduction of Joseph, when she seized him, seeking to persuade him to sleep with her (Gen. 39:12). The verb itself can have the idea of capturing a woman’ feelings, not forcible sexual assault.

INTERACTION WITH OTHER PASSAGES

Additionally, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 must be read intertextually, meaning in association to other passages of Scripture. First, the parallel law, found in Exodus 22:16-17, uses a different Hebrew verb (patah), translated “entice,” and plainly refers to seduction, not rape. This is important because the passage in Exodus is referring to the same situation as in Deuteronomy. Exodus contains the first statement of this law, while Deuteronomy is a repetition and exposition of that same law. If the first statement of the law was clearly referring to seduction, so then the second one (Deut. 22:28-29) must also refer to seduction.

Second, when examining all the rape stories found in the Bible (Judg. 19:25; 2 Sam. 13:11-14), they use the verb “over-power,’ as found in the rape law in the previous paragraph. They never use the verb tapas used in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, showing that rape was considered distinct from seduction.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER

To summarize, the law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is about a man who took hold of a virgin, or seduced her, so that she consented to have sexual relations with him. It describes a man’s behavior that could include using sweet words or flattery but not physical force (i-e., rape). The resulting danger would be that, after having slept with this young woman, he would cast her aside and bring shame to her.

Therefore, as Old Testament scholar Meredith Kline states, the law requires that this “seducer of an un-betrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce.”

FINAL THOUGHTS

Although this law might be offensive to modern sensibilities, it was not designed to be unkind to a young woman but actually to protect her from having a man take advantage of her. It was intended to protect her honor and, even more, to prevent her from destitution.

In that culture, marriage was a necessity for economic stability. If she slept with this man consensually and he did not marry her, it would be unlikely that another man would take her as a wife. Moreover, this law provided financial support for a child that might have been born of this illicit union and served as a deterrent against seduction, premarital sex, and abandonment.

So rather than see this law as harmful to a woman, it should be viewed as helpful. Moreover, it guarded against the exploitation of women and held men accountable for their sexual behavior.