Tags

,

Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

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 her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

On the surface, the verse seems obvious. She needs to marry her rapist. And how could a good God be so cruel?

I’m going to try to make the argument the word “rape” was never intended by Moses and that the NLT actually got it right when it says:

28 “Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If *they* are discovered…”

Not only does the word “rape” here seem cruel, but it causes the case laws to contradict one another. A few verses earlier the law states a man who rapes should be put to death.

25 “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. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor…”

So, does God want a rapist to marry his victim or does he want him to die?

I compared translations and found the NIV to be one of the only translations that used the word “rape”. Most used “seized” or “had intercourse”. The word the NIV translated as “rape” and other translations translated as “seize” is the Hebrew word “tapas”. It means to take hold of something. It can be forceful, but does not need to be. If you look in a concordance, you’ll find other verses using this word to talk about grasping a harp. It’s the word used when Moses grasped the Ten Commandments. It’s also used when Potiphar’s wife grasped Joseph’s arm to seduce him. I’ve never heard anyone suggest Potiphar’s wife was attempting to rape Joseph. It’s the same Hebrew word.

How do we know if this grasping was forceful or not in Leviticus?

I needed to look at the context. Deuteronomy 22 gives laws concerning sexual immorality. First, it talks about adultery within a marriage, then about unfaithfulness in an engagement. Finally, it talks about immorality in circumstances where both man and woman are single.

In the first two categories, God seems concerned with protecting women. For example, God says if a man falsely accuses his wife of adultery, the man should be punished. He then says if a woman is raped and cries for help, but no one is there to help, the rapist should be put to death and the woman is innocent.

It seems odd that God would suddenly become apathetic to the plight of women in verse 28, expecting her to marry her rapist. I think the NIV has made a mistake in translation in this verse. I agree with the majority of translations that treat this as consensual sexual choice.

Here’s another translation, the ESV which is known for sticking with word for word translation:

28 g“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 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.

Remember the word seize is used to seize a harp or in Joseph’s case, to seduce. and notice it says *they* are discovered not *he* is discovered.

Compare this with a similar case law in Exodus 22:

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

If we use the word rape, we have several case laws directly contradicting each other. But if we use seize, or seduce, we have case laws fitting easily together.

Part of properly reading scripture is taking verse in their context and comparing scripture with scripture.

So, no, God does not command a woman to marry her rapist. But if two young people were voluntarily engaged in sexual activity without first marrying, and they were caught, they would be forced to marry.