Did Old Testament Law Force Women to Marry their Rapists?

Published On: September 10, 2025

**Editor’s Note: This post is part of our series, ‘Satan’s Lies: Common Deceptions in the Church Today’…

Viral misinformation abounds on social media. Consider this claim: The Bible commands rape victims to marry their attackers. The charge is levelled against Scripture with increasing frequency, especially targeting Deuteronomy 22:28-29, and triggers immediate emotional responses and outrage.

The confusion is understandable, especially since some popular translations, including the NIV, unfortunately use the word “rape” in this passage. The translation choice, while perhaps well-intentioned, creates unnecessary misunderstanding. Other translations are more careful to preserve the distinction the Hebrew text actually makes. On careful reading, we begin to see something remarkable emerge: God’s protective heart shining through even this challenging passage…

THE PASSAGE UNDER FIRE

Let’s examine the text carefully, comparing translations and analysing what the Hebrew actually reveals. The evidence strongly suggests this passage addresses consensual premarital relations, not violent rape.

Translation differences create confusion. The ESV renders Deuteronomy 22:28-29: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found…” Unfortunately, the NIV translates this as: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered…” The NIV’s translation choice has fuelled much of the controversy, but it’s not supported by the Hebrew text.
Hebrew terminology indicates consensual relations. When Scripture describes violent rape, it uses chazaq (to seize by force) and depicts the woman crying out for help, as in verses 25-27 of the same chapter where the rapist faces execution. But verses 28-29 use taphas (to lay hold of), which can describe taking initiative without implying violence. The different Hebrew terms signal different scenarios entirely.
The phraseology suggests they were discovered together: The wording, “they are found” implies both parties were discovered together in a compromising situation, not that a victim was found and rescued. If this were violent assault, we’d expect language about the woman’s distress or calls for help, as appears elsewhere in Scripture when describing actual rape.
The parallel passage confirms consensual context. Exodus 22:16-17 describes the identical scenario: “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.” Even the NIV uses “seduces” here rather than “rapes,” confirming these passages address consensual premarital relations that require the man to take responsibility.

UNDERSTANDING ANCIENT CONTEXT

To modern readers, any arrangement limiting a woman’s choice seems oppressive. But we must understand the ancient world on its own terms. In that society, a woman’s economic survival and social standing depended largely on male protection—either from her father or husband. An unmarried, non-virgin woman faced devastating social and economic consequences.

The Mosaic Law wasn’t creating this reality; it was addressing it with unprecedented protection. While surrounding cultures like Babylon or Assyria offered women little recourse, Israel’s law placed binding obligations on men who engaged in premarital relations.

Consider what the law actually required: The man must pay the bride price (50 shekels—a substantial sum), marry the woman, and never divorce her. This wasn’t punishment for the woman; it was permanent financial security and social protection. The man bore the consequences for his actions through lifelong responsibility.

Importantly, Exodus 22:17 indicated the father could refuse the marriage entirely: “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins.” The woman wasn’t forced into marriage against her family’s will.

REFORMED HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES

Scripture interprets Scripture. When we compare this passage with others addressing sexual violence, we see consistent patterns. The Bible consistently condemns rape and protects victims. David’s response to his daughter Tamar’s rape shows the horror Scripture associates with such violence (2 Samuel 13). The account doesn’t endorse the crime but condemns it.

Context matters supremely. These laws operated within a theocratic society with specific cultural and economic realities. They represent God working within human limitations to provide maximum protection for vulnerable people.

Progressive revelation shows us Christ fulfils and transforms these protective measures. Where the Old Testament provided temporal protection through marriage laws, Christ offers ultimate protection through redemption and the promise that all wrongs will be made right.

ADDRESSING LINGERING CONCERNS

“But this still seems restrictive by modern standards.” Indeed, it does—and that reveals how far we’ve come in protecting women’s rights and economic independence. But we must judge ancient laws by their effectiveness within their context, not by modern standards they were never meant to meet.

“What about the woman’s autonomy?” The father’s veto power suggests family involvement in protecting the daughter’s interests. While this differs from modern individualism, it operated within a system designed to prevent exploitation and abandonment.

THE HEART OF GOD REVEALED

When we examine these passages carefully, we discover not a harsh deity demanding cruelty, but a loving God working within human limitations to protect the vulnerable. The law prevented men from using and abandoning women, ensured financial support for potential mothers, and provided social stability in a dangerous world.

The same God who gave these protective laws is the one who “executes justice for the fatherless and the widow” (Deuteronomy 10:18) and who, in Christ, welcomes the marginalised and broken. The cross demonstrates God’s ultimate response to all victimisation and injustice.

CONCLUSION

Viral accusations against Scripture often crumble under careful examination. The claim that God forced rape victims to marry their attackers is based on superficial reading and cultural misunderstanding. When we apply sound hermeneutical principles and consider ancient context, we discover laws designed to protect women, not exploit them.

This doesn’t minimise the genuine struggles people have with Old Testament passages. But it does demonstrate that patient, careful study reveals God’s consistent character of justice and mercy throughout Scripture. In an age of quick takes and shallow thinking, the church must model the intellectual rigor that honours both God’s word and honest inquiry.

The Bible can withstand scrutiny when we’re willing to do the hard work of understanding it properly. And when we do that, we consistently find not a harsh deity, but the same loving God who gave His Son for our redemption.

DID OLD TESTAMENT LAW FORCE WOMEN TO MARRY THEIR RAPISTS? RELATED FAQs

What do the leading Reformed scholars say about Deuteronomy 22:28-29? Daniel Block, in his acclaimed Deuteronomy commentary, emphasises that this passage addresses consensual premarital relations, not rape. Eugene Merrill similarly notes the Hebrew terminology distinguishes this scenario from the violent assault described in the preceding verses. John MacArthur has argued critics who claim this passage endorses forcing rape victims to marry their attackers are guilty of “eisegesis”—reading their own assumptions into the text rather than drawing meaning from it.

How does the 50-shekel bride price compare to other ancient penalties? 50 shekels of silver was a substantial sum—roughly equivalent to several years’ wages for a common labourer. For comparison, the penalty for stealing an ox was only five oxen (Exodus 22:1), and a slave’s life was valued at thirty shekels (Exodus 21:32). This hefty fine demonstrates the seriousness of the offense and ensured the man couldn’t treat the situation lightly. The amount also provided significant financial security for the woman’s future.
What happened if the woman was found pregnant from this encounter? While the text doesn’t explicitly address pregnancy, the marriage requirement would ensure the child had legal status and inheritance rights through the father. In ancient Near Eastern culture, children born outside marriage faced severe social disadvantages. The mandatory marriage provision protected both the woman and any potential offspring from the social and economic consequences of illegitimacy.

Why doesn’t the passage mention the woman’s consent to marriage? Ancient marriage customs operated through family systems where fathers held protective authority over daughters’ marriages. The father’s veto power (explicitly mentioned in Exodus 22:17) served as the woman’s protection against unwanted unions. Additionally, in a culture where unmarried, non-virgin women faced destitution, marriage often represented the woman’s best option for survival and social standing, making consent more likely than modern readers might assume.

How do other Reformed theologians like John Calvin interpret this passage? Calvin understood these laws as God’s merciful accommodation to protect women in a fallen world. He emphasised that while the ideal would be chaste relationships leading to proper courtship, God provided protective measures when people failed to live up to that standard. Calvin saw the permanent marriage requirement as preventing men from treating women as disposable and ensuring they faced the full consequences of their actions through lifelong responsibility.
What’s the significance of the “no divorce” clause in this law? The prohibition against divorce was specifically protective for the woman, preventing the man from abandoning her after satisfying his desires. In a culture where divorced women often faced poverty and social ostracism, this guaranteed her lifelong financial support. Reformed scholar Gordon Wenham notes this made the man’s commitment irreversible, forcing him to consider the permanent consequences before acting irresponsibly. It’s essentially a deterrent wrapped in protection.

How does this law compare to similar regulations in other ancient cultures? Israel’s law was remarkably progressive for its time. The Code of Hammurabi allowed men to abandon women after seduction by paying a fine, while Assyrian laws often punished the woman as well as the man. Israel’s requirement of permanent marriage and support with no option for divorce was unique in providing maximum protection for the woman. As William Lane Craig notes, these laws show God working within cultural limitations to provide the greatest possible protection for vulnerable people.

DID OLD TESTAMENT LAW FORCE WOMEN TO MARRY THEIR RAPISTS? OUR RELATED POSTS