Deuteronomy 22:28-29 presents one of the most morally troubling laws in the Hebrew Bible. The passage mandates that when a man seizes an unbetrothed virgin and lies with her, he must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and marry her, with no right to divorce her as long as he lives.1 Whether this law addresses rape or seduction is debated among scholars, but in either case, the woman's agency is absent from the text, and marriage to her violator is presented as the mandatory outcome.2 This raises fundamental questions: does the God of the Bible require a woman to marry the man who violated her? What does this law reveal about biblical values regarding women, consent, and justice?
What the text says
The passage appears in the context of sexual offenses in Deuteronomy 22. The English Standard Version translates verses 28-29 as follows:
"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." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (ESV)1
The passage contains several key elements: the man "seizes" the woman, he "lies with her," they are "found" (discovered or caught), the man pays fifty shekels of silver to her father, and marriage is mandatory with no option for divorce.1 The woman's consent or refusal is not mentioned in the passage itself.
The parallel passage in Exodus 22:16-17 addresses a similar scenario but uses different terminology and includes an important provision:
"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." Exodus 22:16-17 (ESV)3
The Exodus passage explicitly gives the father the right to refuse the marriage while still collecting the bride-price.3 Deuteronomy 22:28-29, by contrast, does not mention this option, leading to questions about whether the father (or the woman) could refuse the marriage under Deuteronomic law.4
The contested Hebrew terminology
The central interpretive question is whether Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes forcible rape or consensual seduction. The answer depends heavily on how one understands the Hebrew verbs used in the passage.
Taphas: seize or lay hold
The Hebrew verb in verse 28 translated "seizes" is תָּפַשׂ (taphas), which is a primitive root meaning "to manipulate," primarily meaning "to seize; chiefly to capture, wield."5 The word can be translated as "to lay hold of" or "to grasp."5 Most modern translations render taphas as "to seize," whereas older translations generally preferred "to lay hold on."6
Critically, taphas is a different verb from the one used in verse 25, which describes an unambiguous case of rape. In Deuteronomy 22:25, the Hebrew verb is חָזַק (chazaq), which means "to be strong, to seize, to prevail," and is the typical grammatical descriptor to designate rape.7 The use of chazaq in verse 25 but taphas in verse 28 suggests to some scholars that the two passages describe different scenarios: forcible rape in verse 25, and seduction or consensual relations in verse 28.8
However, other scholars argue that taphas can carry coercive connotations depending on context, and that the deliberate change in vocabulary does not necessarily indicate consensual activity.9 The verb taphas itself does not inherently mean force, but it can be used in contexts involving force or capture.5
Innah: violate, humble, or afflict
The second crucial verb appears in verse 29: עִנָּה (innah), translated "violated her" in the ESV. This Hebrew verb appears in the piel (intensifying) form, which adds force to the meaning.10 The root verb anah can mean "to humble," "to afflict," or "to violate."10
In several other passages in the Hebrew Bible where this word is used to describe sexual interaction between a man and a woman—such as Judges 20:5 and 2 Samuel 13:14—it describes a man forcing a woman to have sex against her will, that is, rape.10 In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon seizes his half-sister Tamar and, despite her explicit refusal and pleas, proceeds to overpower her and rape her; the text uses innah to describe the violation.11
However, innah can also describe mistreatment or humiliation without necessarily indicating forcible assault, and some scholars argue that in the legal context of Deuteronomy 22, it may refer more broadly to the violation of social norms and the woman's devaluation, rather than necessarily specifying violent rape.12
The verb chazaq, which appears in the unambiguous rape case in verse 25, does not appear in verses 28-29, adding to the interpretive complexity.7 If the text intended to describe the same crime as verse 25, why use different vocabulary?
Betulah: virgin or young woman
The passage specifies that the woman is a na'arah betulah—a young woman of marriageable age (na'arah) who is a virgin (betulah).13 The Hebrew word betulah is derived from the root btl, meaning "to sever" or "to separate," and stands for "the woman separated (from man)," that is, a virgin, a woman who has had no sexual experience.13 The term is used consistently throughout the Hebrew Bible to mean a virgin.13
In ancient Israelite society, a woman's virginity was directly tied to her marriageability and her family's standing and economic security.14 Once a woman lost her virginity outside of marriage, whether by rape or seduction, she was at extreme risk of being permanently marginalized, and in many cases could be left destitute without prospects for marriage.14 This social reality forms the backdrop for understanding the law's purpose.
The scholarly debate
Biblical scholars are divided on whether Deuteronomy 22:28-29 addresses rape or seduction. Both interpretations have significant support, and the debate is unlikely to be definitively resolved given the ambiguities in the Hebrew text.15
The seduction interpretation
Scholars who argue for a seduction interpretation point to several factors. First, the use of taphas rather than chazaq suggests a different scenario from the clear rape case in verse 25.8 Second, the parallel passage in Exodus 22:16-17 explicitly uses the verb "seduces" and describes the same basic legal situation: a man has sex with an unbetrothed virgin, must pay the bride-price, and is obligated to marry her.3 Third, if both passages describe the same situation, Exodus explicitly allows the father to refuse the marriage, suggesting that Deuteronomy should be read the same way even though it does not explicitly state this provision.16
On this reading, the law addresses consensual but illicit premarital sex. The man has compromised the woman's virginity and therefore her marriageability; he must compensate her father with the bride-price and marry her, assuming the father and woman consent.17 The prohibition on divorce protects the woman from being discarded after the man has damaged her reputation.18
The rape interpretation
Scholars who argue for a rape interpretation emphasize the use of innah in the piel form, which in other biblical contexts clearly describes sexual assault.10 The verb taphas, while not as explicitly forceful as chazaq, can carry coercive connotations of seizing or grabbing.9 The phrase "and they are found" suggests that the act was discovered or that there was some public knowledge of it, which would be more consistent with an assault scenario than with consensual sex conducted in secret.19
Moreover, the absence of the father's right of refusal in Deuteronomy—present in Exodus—may indicate that this is a more serious offense requiring mandatory marriage regardless of the wishes of the father or the woman.2 On this reading, the law mandates that a rapist marry his victim and can never divorce her, trapping her in a lifelong marriage to her attacker.20
Comparison of Hebrew verbs in Deuteronomy 221, 5, 7, 10
| Verse | Scenario | Key verb | Translation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22:25 | Betrothed woman | chazaq (חָזַק) | "seizes her by force" |
| 22:28 | Unbetrothed virgin | taphas (תָּפַשׂ) | "seizes her" |
| 22:29 | Unbetrothed virgin | innah (עִנָּה, piel) | "violated her" |
The interpretive difficulty is genuine, and scholars with expertise in biblical Hebrew disagree about the most accurate reading.15 What is clear, however, is that the text itself provides no explicit indication of the woman's consent or agency in determining the outcome.
Context in ancient Near Eastern law
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 can be better understood by comparing it to other legal codes from the ancient Near East that addressed similar situations.
Code of Hammurabi
The Code of Hammurabi, composed around 1750 BCE in Babylon, contained provisions addressing rape and sexual misconduct.21 The code allowed the raped woman to marry whomever she wanted, giving the victim agency in selecting her spouse rather than forcing marriage to the rapist.21 This represents a significant difference from the Deuteronomic law, which mandates marriage to the offender.
Middle Assyrian Laws
The Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL), developed between 1450 and 1250 BCE, included extensive provisions dealing with sexual relations, including rape.22 The vast majority of the listed rules deal with sexual encounters between men and women such as rape and adultery.22 A major distinction between Assyrian and Babylonian law was that Assyrian law was generally more brutal in its penalties.22
The Middle Assyrian laws described multiple rape scenarios, all referring to explicit situations of a man raping a woman.23 In sections dealing with married women, if a man seized a woman by force and raped her, the elders would prosecute him and put him to death.23 For young, single women living in their father's house, the law included provisions similar to those in Deuteronomy, including financial compensation to the father.23
A disturbing feature of the Middle Assyrian Laws was the punishment of rape with the rape of the rapist's wife—a vicarious measure-for-measure punishment.24 Similar vicarious punishments appear in the Laws of Hammurabi, but importantly, none appear in the biblical collections, which restrict punishment to the perpetrator.24 This represents a moral advance in biblical law: innocent family members are not punished for the offender's crime.
The bride price
Deuteronomy 22:29 specifies that the man must pay the woman's father "fifty shekels of silver."1 This amount represented a substantial sum in ancient Israel. Documents from Mesopotamia and Canaan suggest that the typical bride-price ranged from 30 to 50 shekels of silver, indicating that 50 shekels represented a full bride price in the ancient Near Eastern economy.25
A hired laborer in the biblical period typically earned about one shekel per month, meaning that 50 shekels represented several years of a laborer's income.26 The bride price, known as mohar, was paid by the groom's family to the bride's father as a way to transfer authority over the woman from her father to her husband.27 It served as both compensation and a demonstration of serious intent by the suitor.27
In the context of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the payment compensates the father for the loss of his daughter's virginity and therefore her reduced marriageability.28 The woman herself receives nothing; the payment goes to her father, reflecting the patriarchal structure in which women were viewed as property transferred from father to husband.29
Women's agency in biblical law
A central moral problem with Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is the absence of the woman's voice. The passage does not ask for her consent to the marriage, does not provide her with an explicit right to refuse, and does not acknowledge her as an independent agent in determining her own future.30
In ancient Israel's patriarchal household structure, no one was fully autonomous, not even the patriarch himself, meaning constraints on women's agency must be understood within this broader family structure.31 However, women's lack of agency was far more severe than men's. In the patriarchal system, the male head of the family had great power to contract marriages for his children, with girls leaving their father's house to enter the dominion of the family into which they were marrying.32
Biblical law did include some protections for women's consent in marriage. The acquisition in marriage had to be done with the woman's consent, and any document had to be written specifically in her name.33 However, a ketannah (girl between ages 3-12) was subject to her father's authority, who could arrange her marriage without her agreement.34 After reaching maturity, she would have to agree to be considered married.34
Regarding Deuteronomy 22:28-29 specifically, the text is silent on whether the woman or her father could refuse the marriage. Exodus 22:16-17 explicitly allows the father to refuse, but Deuteronomy does not mention this option.3, 1 Some scholars argue that the Exodus provision should be read into Deuteronomy as an unstated assumption; others argue that the silence in Deuteronomy is significant and indicates that the marriage was mandatory.35
The critical question from a modern ethical standpoint is what consent means in a patriarchal society that offered women no power to refuse.36 Modern definitions of consent depend on informed and cognizant choice made by an autonomous individual, raising the question of what consent means in a world that structurally denies women autonomy.36 Even if we accept that the father could refuse the marriage (based on the Exodus parallel), the woman's own voice is absent from the legal formula.
Apologetic defenses
Defenders of the biblical text have offered various arguments to mitigate the moral difficulties this passage presents.
The "this was protective, not punitive" defense
A common apologetic argument is that the law was designed to protect the woman, not punish her.37 In the ancient world, an unmarried woman who had lost her virginity—whether through rape or seduction—had little hope for economic or social stability, as no other man would marry her.38 By requiring the offender to marry her and prohibiting him from ever divorcing her, the law ensured she would have financial support and social standing.39
This argument has some merit in understanding the law's ancient context. The prohibition on divorce is genuinely protective: it prevents the man from using the woman and then discarding her, leaving her destitute.40 In a society where women depended on male relatives for economic survival, guaranteed marriage provided security that would otherwise be unavailable.41
However, this defense does not fully address the moral problem. Calling the law "protective" assumes that being permanently bound to the man who violated you is preferable to remaining unmarried. This may have been true in ancient Israelite society, where unmarried women faced extreme economic hardship, but it reflects the deep structural injustice of that society rather than excusing the law itself.42 A truly just law would have provided the woman with protection and agency—the ability to choose whether marriage to her violator was the best option for her circumstances.
The "it's about seduction, not rape" defense
As discussed earlier, some scholars and apologists argue that the passage describes consensual seduction rather than forcible rape, based on the Hebrew terminology and the parallel in Exodus.8 On this reading, the couple engaged in premarital sex, and the law requires the man to take responsibility by paying the bride-price and marrying the woman.17
Even if this interpretation is correct, significant moral problems remain. If the sexual encounter was consensual, why is only the man penalized? The woman's consent is not mentioned, nor is her desire to marry the man. The law treats the situation as a transaction between the man and the woman's father, with payment and marriage as the resolution.43 The woman is the object of the transaction, not a participant in it.
Moreover, the prohibition on divorce applies equally whether the scenario is rape or seduction. If a young woman was seduced and the relationship was consensual, why should she be permanently bound to this man with no possibility of divorce if the marriage becomes abusive or unbearable?44 The law provides the man with a wife and prohibits him from divorcing her, but it offers the woman no corresponding protection or choice.
The "the father could refuse" defense
Some apologists point to Exodus 22:17, which explicitly allows the father to refuse the marriage, and argue that this provision should be understood as applying to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as well, even though Deuteronomy does not state it.16 On this view, neither the woman nor her father was forced to accept the marriage; the law merely required the man to offer marriage and pay the bride-price.45
This interpretation is plausible but not certain. If the Deuteronomic law intended to incorporate the father's right of refusal, why not state it explicitly as Exodus does? The silence may be significant.35 Legal codes typically include relevant provisions rather than expecting readers to import them from other texts.
Furthermore, even if the father could refuse, the woman's own agency is still absent. The decision rests with her father, not with her. In modern ethical terms, a law that grants decision-making power to a woman's father but not to the woman herself fails to respect her autonomy and dignity.46
The "you can't judge ancient cultures by modern standards" defense
A final apologetic strategy is to argue that it is anachronistic to judge ancient Israelite law by contemporary ethical standards.47 All ancient societies were patriarchal, women's rights as we understand them did not exist, and biblical law should be evaluated in comparison to its ancient Near Eastern context, not to 21st-century values.48
There is some validity to this argument as a matter of historical understanding. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 should indeed be read in its ancient context, and by the standards of ancient Near Eastern law, it includes some relatively humane features: it does not permit vicarious punishment of the offender's family members, it prohibits the man from divorcing the woman (providing her some security), and it requires substantial financial compensation.49
However, this defense fails when applied to the central claim of the Bible: that it represents the word of a perfectly good and just God. If biblical law is merely a product of its time and culture, then it cannot be eternal moral truth revealed by God. If God accommodated the patriarchal values of ancient Israel, then the law reflects human moral limitations rather than divine moral perfection.50 Believers who hold that the Bible is divinely inspired must grapple with why God would command a law that treats women as property and removes their agency in determining their own futures.
Theological implications
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 raises profound questions for those who believe the Bible is the revealed word of a perfectly good God. The law, whether it addresses rape or seduction, treats women as objects of transaction between men rather than as autonomous moral agents.51 It provides no mechanism for the woman to refuse marriage to the man who violated her, offers her no voice in the legal proceedings, and awards financial compensation to her father rather than to her.52
Some theologians argue that these laws represent God's accommodation to the fallen state of human society—God worked within the patriarchal structure of ancient Israel while gradually moving humanity toward greater justice and equality.53 On this view, the law was an improvement over the alternatives available to women in that culture, even if it falls short of ideal justice.54
This accommodationist approach has the advantage of preserving both biblical authority and moral sensibility. However, it raises difficult questions about biblical authority itself. If God accommodated unjust social structures in biblical law, how do we know which parts of the Bible reflect eternal moral truth and which reflect temporary accommodation? By what standard do we judge which laws are timelessly binding and which were limited to their cultural context?55
Other theologians argue more forthrightly that this passage reflects ancient Israelite values rather than timeless divine commands, and that believers should recognize the Bible as a human document recording Israel's evolving understanding of God rather than as a perfect revelation of divine will.56 This view preserves moral clarity but abandons traditional claims about biblical inerrancy and divine inspiration.
The fundamental moral problem
Setting aside the scholarly debate about rape versus seduction, and the apologetic attempts to soften the law's implications, the core moral problem remains: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 treats a woman as property rather than as a person.
The woman's voice is absent. Her consent is not sought. Her wishes regarding marriage are not considered. The financial compensation for her lost virginity goes to her father, not to her. The decision about whether marriage will occur rests with men—the father and, implicitly, the offender—not with the woman whose life is most directly affected.57
If the law addresses rape, it mandates that a victim marry her rapist and remain married to him for life with no possibility of escape. If the law addresses seduction, it still removes the woman's agency and treats her sexual activity as damage to her father's property requiring compensation and transfer of ownership to the offender.
The prohibition on divorce, offered as a protective measure, is protective only in the narrow sense of guaranteeing economic support. It does not protect the woman from living with a man who violated her, from potential abuse, or from a lifetime of unwanted intimacy. It assumes that economic security through marriage is preferable to any alternative, but it never asks the woman what she prefers.58
Modern readers, whether religious or secular, generally agree that rape victims should not be required to marry their rapists, that women should have agency in determining whom they marry, and that consent is a prerequisite for just sexual and marital relationships.59 These principles are not simply products of modern sensibility; they reflect fundamental moral truths about human dignity, autonomy, and justice.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 violates these principles. It may have been an improvement over alternative legal arrangements in the ancient Near East, and it may have provided a form of protection for women in a deeply patriarchal society, but it does not reflect moral perfection. It reflects the moral limitations of ancient Israelite culture—a culture in which women were subordinate to men, in which a woman's value was tied to her virginity and marriageability, and in which her father had authority to determine her future.60
Conclusion
Whether Deuteronomy 22:28-29 addresses rape or seduction, and whether it implicitly allowed the father and woman to refuse marriage, the passage presents a law in which women are treated as property, their agency is absent, and their consent is not required. A man who seizes and violates an unbetrothed virgin must pay her father fifty shekels and marry her, with no right to divorce her. This law reflects ancient patriarchal values, not timeless moral truth.
For those who believe the Bible is the word of a perfectly good God, this passage presents a profound challenge. One may argue that God accommodated ancient cultural structures, but this raises questions about which biblical commands are eternally binding and which are culturally limited. One may argue that the law was protective given the alternatives, but this does not explain why a just God would not provide both protection and agency to women. One may argue that the passage describes seduction rather than rape, but this does not address the underlying problem of treating women as objects of transaction between men.
The simplest explanation is that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reflects the values and limitations of ancient Israelite society, not the moral perfection of a divine lawgiver. It may have been progressive by ancient Near Eastern standards, but it is not just by any standard that respects women's autonomy, dignity, and agency. Readers must decide for themselves what this reveals about the nature and origin of biblical law.