Does Deuteronomy 22:28–29 Command a Rape Victim to Marry Her Rapist?

Does Deuteronomy 22:28–29 Command a Rape Victim to Marry Her Rapist? 

One of the most misunderstood and misused passages in the Bible is Deuteronomy 22:28–29. Critics often claim it teaches that if a man rapes a woman, the victim must marry him. Understandably, this interpretation has caused confusion and outrage. But is that what the text actually says?

Short answer: No.

A careful reading—especially in its ancient Hebrew context—reveals that Deuteronomy 22:28–29 is not about violent rape, and it does not command a victim to marry her attacker.

The Passage in Question

Deuteronomy 22:28–29 (ESV)

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”

At first glance, the words "seizes her and lies with her" sound like rape. So why doesn’t this passage describe punishment for the man? Why is he forced to marry her instead?

To answer this, we must consider two key distinctions in Deuteronomy 22 and the broader cultural context.

1. The Hebrew Language Distinguishes Between Consensual and Forced Acts

In Deuteronomy 22:25–27, the law clearly deals with rape:

“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.” (v. 25)

Here, the word ḥāzaq ("seizes") is used, and in this context, it is clearly violent and non-consensual. The woman is innocent and is explicitly said to have done nothing deserving death (v. 26).

However, in verses 28–29, while the same root word (ḥāzaq) appears, the context and vocabulary shift. The girl is not betrothed, and there is no mention of crying out or resistance, which was a crucial cultural marker of consent or lack thereof. Ancient law codes emphasized the woman’s cries for help (or lack of them) as a sign of whether the act was consensual or forced, especially in rural settings where help would be unlikely.

In this case, the passage likely refers to a seduction, not a violent attack.

This understanding aligns with Exodus 22:16–17, a parallel passage:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”

Notice here: the father has the authority to refuse the marriage—even if the sexual act has occurred. That alone proves the woman was not being forced into marriage.

2. This Was About Social Protection, Not Punishing the Victim

In the ancient Near Eastern world, a woman’s virginity was tied to her economic and social security. If she was not a virgin at marriage, she was often considered unmarriageable, through no fault of her own.

Deuteronomy 22:28–29 is part of a case law system aimed at:

Protecting the woman’s future from social disgrace.

Forcing the man to take lifelong responsibility for his actions.

Imposing a financial burden on the man (fifty shekels was a large sum—equivalent to several years’ wages).

But again, this assumes the act was not violent rape. In cases of actual rape, as seen in verses 25–27, the rapist was to be executed, not married.

3. The Woman’s Consent and the Father’s Authority Were Still Central

Although Deuteronomy 22:28–29 doesn’t explicitly say whether the woman had a choice, the cultural assumption—based on the Exodus 22 parallel—is that the father could refuse the marriage.

This means that, while the man was liable to pay, the woman and her family were not required to go through with the marriage.

If this had been a case of true rape, the man wouldn’t have had the option to marry at all. He would have been punished, possibly with death.

Why This Matters

Some have used this passage to claim that the Bible is archaic, abusive to women, or morally backward. But such claims arise from misreading the text outside its historical, cultural, and linguistic context.

Here’s what Deuteronomy 22:28–29 is not:

It is not about a violent rape victim being forced to marry her abuser.

It is not a moral endorsement of sexual coercion.

It is not a timeless command for all cultures.

Here’s what it is:

A case law for situations where a young, unmarried couple had sex (Dinah).

A requirement that the man take lifelong responsibility.

A protection for the woman’s dignity and future in her cultural context.

A bridge toward a higher ethic, ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

Conclusion

When read carefully, Deuteronomy 22:28–29 does not command a rape victim to marry her rapist. It deals with a different scenario—one of premarital consensual sex, not sexual violence. The man is held accountable, and the woman’s family retains authority to decide the outcome.

Far from being a barbaric law, this passage—when rightly understood—shows God’s concern for justice, dignity, and restoration in a broken society.