Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is one of the more controversial passages in the Bible that relates to issues of rape and marriage. At face value, it seems to suggest that if a man rapes a virgin, he must marry her and pay a fine to her father. However, there are several factors to consider in properly understanding and applying this passage.
Here is the full text of 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.”
There are a few key contextual points to make about this passage:
- This law was given in a particular cultural context where virginity was highly valued and critical for a woman’s prospects of finding a husband. In that context, this law was meant to protect the victim by ensuring she would still have the possibility for marriage.
- While problematic through a modern lens, having the rapist marry the victim would have been seen as a just punishment and remedy in ancient Israelite society. The rapist would bear the responsibility and face social stigma.
- The passage is focused on one scenario – the rape of an unbetrothed virgin. It does not address other contexts of rape or non-virgins.
- The law implicitly condemns rape as a crime through the remedy prescribed. The rapist does not simply walk away but faces consequences.
- The passage should be read through an ancient patriarchal cultural lens, not as a direct command for all cultures throughout history.
With this cultural and contextual understanding, here are several reasons why this passage does not mean the Bible condones forced marriage between a rape victim and rapist:
1. The passage does not condone rape
First, it is clear the passage does not condone or justify rape in any way. The act is recognized as a crime requiring remedy. The law aims to bring justice and care for the victim, not give license for men to freely rape women.
The rapist faces consequences through paying a fine and the ongoing social shame of marrying his victim. He does not simply walk away without repercussions for the crime. The passage acknowledges the woman’s loss of virginity would greatly impact her life and marriage prospects in that culture. The law sought to provide a resolution, however imperfect.
2. The aim was protection of the victim, not the rapist
In an ancient patriarchal context where a woman’s virginity was highly prized, rape would have been devastating for a woman’s prospects of marriage and reputation. While problematic today, compelling the rapist to marry the victim and pay her father would have been intended as a protection for her.
Rather than facing a life of shame and destitution, the law ensured she still had a shot at marriage and a secure future. The rapist was punished through paying a fine and facing community stigma. He also could not subsequently divorce the victim, which provided her long-term economic stability.
So while the approach seems unjust from today’s perspective, the intent was to protect the victim in the patriarchal and economic realities of that ancient culture.
3. Forced marriage is not explicitly condoned
It is also important to recognize the passage does not explicitly endorse or command forced marriage between a rape victim and rapist. The text simply outlines consequences and responsibilities for the rapist.
There is scholarly debate about whether the union mentioned would have in reality been optional for the victim and her family. The text leaves room for the possibility they were not forced to go through with the marriage.
Either way, the passage should not be used to insist victims of sexual assault must marry their assailants. That notion represents a significant misapplication of this text.
4. Old Testament laws were limited in scope
It is also vital to remember that Old Testament laws like this were time-bound. They applied to the particular cultural and ethical context of that period of history for the nation of Israel.
Christians recognize that some Old Testament commands and laws do not carry forward as direct doctrines for all peoples and all times. This is arguably one such instance where the passage had a context-specific application.
As part of the Old Covenant, this law served a specific purpose at that point in Israel’s history. However, it does not represent a mandate for all cultures across all eras.
5. Application requires great care and nuance today
Because of the vast differences between ancient Israelite society and cultures today, application of this passage must be undertaken with great caution and care.
There are principles embedded in the passage worth considering, such as concern for victims of sexual assault and seeking their protection and justice. However, the specifics of the remedy are foreign to modern societies’ approach to rape and forced marriage.
Wise interpreters and preachers will grapple honestly with the text but avoid dogmatic application of the specific command. There is room for debate, all while upholding scriptural authority.
6. Other factors rule out a dogmatic application
Beyond the cultural distance between ancient Israel and today, there are several other factors that make a rigid application of this passage unwise:
- As mentioned, the law addressed one scenario – rape of an unbetrothed virgin. It did not cover all instances of sexual assault.
- There are legitimate questions about whether forced marriage was even intended or would have occurred.
- Numerous other Bible texts speak against sexual immorality and uphold consent.
- No New Testament passage repeats this specific command or endorses forced marriage after rape.
- Christians see some Old Testament laws as no longer binding after Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant.
Due to these realities, the passage should not be interpreted as a blanket biblical endorsement of compelled marriage between rape victims and assailants.
7. The Bible values consent within marriage
As a whole, the Bible clearly presents marriage as a covenant requiring the consent of both parties. Passages like Deuteronomy 22:28-29 dealt with remedying violations of consent, not overturning the general principle.
For example, 1 Peter 3:7 instructs husbands to honor their wives. Ephesians 5:25 commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. These instructions imply a marriage built on mutual consent and sacrificial love, not force.
So this disputed passage in Deuteronomy should be read in light of the Bible’s broader endorsement of consent within marriage covenants.
8. Marriage has changed dramatically since ancient Israel
It is also essential to recognize that marriage as an institution has changed dramatically between ancient Israelite culture and modern societies. Biblical instructions for marriage must be read within their original context.
In ancient Israel, marriage was largely a social, familial, and economic arrangement. Romantic love and consent were not always primary factors. Women were frequently treated as the property of their fathers or husbands.
Today, marriage depends on the free consent, choice, and romantic love of both partners. The differences are so substantial that direct modern application becomes impossible. Instructions to ancient Israel don’t necessarily align with marriage norms today.
9. The overall biblical ethic values consent
While this disputed passage raises questions, the overall ethic of the Bible values consent, opposes rape, and condemns forcing sexual relations.
Passages like Exodus 22:16-17 addressed consensual premarital relations, in contrast to nonconsensual rape. And 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 only endorses sexual relations in marriage through mutual consent.
The Bible consistently presents God as a God of justice, acting on behalf of the oppressed and vulnerable. Forced marriage contradicts those values.
So this passage in Deuteronomy should be interpreted through the lens of the broader biblical stance against nonconsensual sex and injustice.
10. Scholars acknowledge the ethical difficulties
Given all these contextual, cultural, and interpretive factors, biblical scholars widely acknowledge the ethical difficulties in this passage. There is no consensus this text should dictate modern sexual ethics.
Many scholars argue it reflected an imperfect ethical compromise within the ancient patriarchal culture of Israel. It sought to achieve protection and justice, however inadequate by today’s standards.
So there is room for Christians to admit the shortcomings of this passage while still affirming the authority of scripture. This text simply does not settle modern debates about sexual ethics.
11. Christians should stand against nonconsensual marriage
Given all these considerations, most Christians today would oppose any policy forcing victims of sexual assault to marry their attackers. They uphold consent as essential to marriage.
While caring deeply about scriptural authority, they recognize historical and interpretive complexities in applying Old Testament case laws today. This passage does not override biblical values of justice and compassion.
Christians should continue to listen to victims and advocate for their protection and wellbeing. Forced marriage perpetuates injustice and must be rejected.
12. The debate requires caution, nuance and wisdom
In conclusion, this controversial passage requires a nuanced, compassionate, and thoughtful interpretation. Christians should reject dogmatic insistence that rape victims must marry their assailants based on this text.
But the text still demands wresting with, not dismissing. It has enduring relevance for valuing protection of the vulnerable and seeking their justice and restoration. Yet the exact application today remains debatable.
As on many complex biblical and ethical issues, humility, grace and wisdom are required in discussing and applying this disputed passage’s implications for sexual ethics today.