Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?

A young woman might be engaged to be married, yet consent to have sexual intercourse with another man. If the man enticed her, being in a city, she could cry out for help (vs.22-23). If she did not, then she was implicated in the guilt of adultery, and both were to be put to death.

In contrast to being in the city, where a woman's cries for help could be heard, a man may have, in the country, forced a betrothed woman against her will in spite of her cries for help (v.25). This was rape, for which the man must die and the woman be held innocent (vs.26-27).

If a man and woman who were not married nor engaged were guilty of having sexual intercourse, the man must pay fifty shekels of silver to the woman's father and keep her as his wife, being forbidden to ever divorce her (vs.28-29). In all of these things God shows the seriousness of having sexual relationships. He intended this only within the marriage bond, and those who today violate this can expect unpleasant consequences, as well as the displeasure of the Lord.

Divorce was only allowed for a physical cause of impediment, Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Adultery between otherwise married couples brought death, Deuteronomy 22:22-24; misconduct before marriage brought stoning to death, vs. 13-21. Rape brought either death or compulsory marriage, vs. 25-29. Causing wilful injury to any person brought identical retribution, “an eye for an eye” by public legal infliction, Leviticus 24:10-20. “Juvenile delinquency”, laziness, disobedience to parents, were punished by death, Deuteronomy 21:18-21. No usury, interest on loans to the poor, was permitted, Leviticus 25:35-37. Murder brought death, no reprieve, Leviticus 24:21.

Deuteronomy 22 appears to contain ordinances to guard the people from want of benevolence and mercy, and of that which would offend the sensibilities of nature, either with regard to tenderness or purity. So also all mixture was forbidden in ploughing or sowing. We find the same with regard to women: they were protected against the dishonour done to them by a brutish, inconsiderate husband; whilst impurity was punished with death.

In Deuteronomy 22 we have a group of different institutions as to questions of righteousness, care, love, tenderness — the smallest matters as well as the greatest — but they are so numerous, in themselves purposely the minutest as well as the most momentous, that to dwell on them one by one would occupy much too long for the present design. All can understand however how the great object here is that God would form the heart of His people in this relationship and measure according to His own affections. God would give them not bare righteous but holy thoughts, and not this only, but mingled with tenderness when called for. This will be found true if the contents of the chapter be duly weighed.

The same principle applies to Deut. 19. They when possessing the land were to separate three more cities of refuge for the unwitting slayer: the murderer must surely die. Landmarks were not to be removed, and testimony guarded. In Deut. 20 we see how the fear of Jehovah controlled war, both within and without. It was not a rival to be got rid of, but the abominable races who in fact held the land, to be destroyed by and for Israel to whom the land was divinely given. But Deut. 21 presents moral truths of interest in the man found slain, the captive woman, the child of the hated wife, and the rebellious son: if these refer to Israel in the land which Jehovah will have hallowed, and to inconsistency judged, the close (we know) points to Him Who became a curse in infinite grace to deliver the people and bless the land: the contrast of all who defile it.

On the other hand Deut. 22 fosters gracious and even delicate feeling, forbids mixture of principle, punishes impurity, and protects the weak innocents against brutality. Again, in Deut. 23 relation to the congregation of Jehovah is guarded, making a difference, and the seemliness even of the camp maintained; the runaway slave shielded from oppression; prostitution and its gain scouted, and interest too from a brother; vows established; kindness enjoined as to vineyard or field, but selfishness forbidden. In Deut. 24 divorce was allowed under law; but the Lord brought in better things under grace. Many and various ordinances follow keeping flesh in check to the end of Deut. 25.

The spirit of all these ordinances is very instructive, and the goodness and the tenderness of God, who deigns to take knowledge of all these things, and to teach His people delicacy, propriety, consideration for others, sensitiveness, and those feelings which, by removing brutality, and softening the hardness of the heart of man, fashion his ways according to that love with which the Spirit of God clothes Himself when He acts in the heart of man. Here, it is true, everything is imperfect. There are things taken for granted here, which form the basis of these ordinances, which the full operation of the Spirit of Christ would entirely take away; divorce, for instance, and other things endured; owing their existence to the hardness of man's heart. But the limitations and conditions, assigned by the law of God, keep in check the wickedness of that will which hardens itself, while it oppresses others.

(a) The first part treats of marriage with a captive taken in war, — a distinct permission, of course, of marriage with a Gentile, where there was not the hindrance of such a ban as rested upon Canaan.

Here, as we know by our Lord,s words, in the law of marriage, we find, more than any where, the failure of the law. The hardness of man's heart forbad, until grace should come, the full restraint of absolute righteousness. Polygamy and divorce, as practiced among the nations round, could only be modified by partial curbing of the will and prevention of mere lawlessness. It was reserved for Christianity to restore woman to her original place in creation by the side of man.

Yet here, where most of all (and that is surely the reason why the commandment takes the peculiar form it does,) the woman was in the hand and power of the man, he was fenced round with prohibition. She must be given the wife's place, allowed a month for natural sorrow over the separation from her kindred, perhaps to test also somewhat the reality of the affection that has sprung up in him. If the tie is formed, she can never be enslaved again; and should she be divorced, is free to go whither she please.

Thus it would seem that what is emphasized is the government of the will — the putting restraint upon desire, so that at least it shall not be lawless; and this, with regard to a captive, the legitimate property of the conqueror according to the customs everywhere else prevailing, is a witness to the character of Him who ruled in Israel, which we must estimate, not by the full light of Christianity now come, but as contrasted with what was around. Thus seen, it becomes indeed the dawning of the day.

Our reply to all these questions is, at once, simple and direct; and it is this, the very passages which we might least expect to find and on the page of inspiration teach us, in their own peculiar way, the moral material of which we are made, and the moral depths into which we are capable of plunging. And is not this of great moment? Is it not well to have a faithful mirror held up before our eyes in which we may see every moral trait, feature and lineament perfectly reflected? Unquestionably. We hear a great deal about the dignity of human nature, and very many find it exceedingly hard to admit that they are really capable of committing some of the sins prohibited in the section before us, and in other portions of the divine Volume. But we may rest assured that when God commands us not to commit this or that particular sin, we are verily capable of committing it. This is beyond all question. Divine wisdom would never erect a dam if there was not a current to be resisted. There would be no necessity to tell an angel not to steal; but man has theft in his nature, and hence the command applies to him. And just so in reference to every other prohibited thing; the prohibition proves the tendency — proves it beyond all question. We must either admit this or imply the positive blasphemy that God has spoken in vain.

But, we have said, there is another valuable lesson furnished by this section of our book which now lies open before us. It teaches us, in a manner peculiar to itself, the marvellous way in which God provided for everything connected with His people. Nothing escaped His gracious notice; nothing was too trivial for His tender care. No mother could be more careful of the habits and manners of her little child than the Almighty Creator and moral Governor of the universe was of the most minute details connected with the daily history of His people. By day and by night, waking and sleeping at home and abroad, He looked after them. Their clothing, their food, their manners and ways toward one another, how they were to build their houses, how they were to plough and sow their ground, how they were to carry themselves in the deepest privacy of their personal life — all was attended to and provided for in a manner that fills us with wonder, love and praise. We may here see, in a most striking way, that there is nothing too small for our God to take notice of when His people are concerned. He takes a loving, tender, fatherly interest in their most minute concerns. We are amazed to find the Most High God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, the Sustainer of the vast universe, condescending to legislate about the matter of a bird's nest; and yet why should we be amazed when we know that it is just the same to Him to provide for a sparrow as to feed a thousand millions of people daily?

If a man had married a woman and afterward charged her with not being a virgin when he married her, the case was heard in the gate (the place of judgment). If her parents brought the clear evidence before the court that she had indeed been a virgin, so that her husband was falsely accusing her, then the man should be punished, being fined one hundred shekels of silver, which was given to the father of the young woman. But he would be required to keep her as his wife and was forbidden to divorce her (vs.13-19). We should naturally question, Was this fair to the wife? But this is one of the results of being under law. The wife would have to wait for eternity to balance this matter. How different is the case under grace, where believers have received the grace of God, so that they may show grace to one another. In the world today there are cases far more unfair than this one, but what a difference will be made if only souls are saved by faith in the Lord Jesus!

On the other hand, if the wife had been guilty of fornication and had hid this from her husband, she was to be stoned to death (vs.20-21). This was solemn judgment, but again, this was under law, and the same judgment cannot be carried out under grace, though the crime is abhorrent to God. But grace seeks to restore rather than to condemn.