In Bible Are Rape Victims to Marry Their Rapists?

Deuteronomy 22
28If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver,e and she must become his wife because he has violated her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives.

“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” (Ex 22:16-17).

In both cases, the man must pay; either with money or by marrying the woman he seized
and never divorcing her, but in the end, the father has the final say… not the man or the woman.

You can look anywhere you want in the Bible and you won’t find one single example
where the rape victim was forced to marry the rapist against their own will. source

Back up a couple of verses, and it will be [there] that you find what is to happen to a rapist and his victim.

Deuteronomy 22:25 KJV - "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die . . ."

This particular woman (above) cried out for help because she was being raped. But the woman in verse 28 is a woman who did not call out for help because she liked what was happening to her. Therefore, this man who took the woman's virginity, out of respect and honor to the woman (who held a low place in society), is to be cared for, for the rest of her life.

On Biblehub there is parallel of each translation dozens on top of one another.

Verse 28 on several translations literally uses the word rape.

Verse 29 basically every translation other than KJV uses the word “violated her”.

Say translations on Verse 28 saying rape are wrong. But on verse 29 all the other translations say violated.

Violated sounds like assault.

In the KJV how do you “humble” a girl by having sex with her as if humbling a girl with sex is ok? When or how is a virgin girl who is “seized” (most translations use “seized”) and then “humbled” can mean to be something other than violated against a girls will?

2 TimothyGroup

Could we talk private someway it only lets u on here if you pay. Is it cool if you email me and respond on here if that’s ok? My email is

[email protected]

Agree, I don't believe verse 28 is talking about rape.

Do not dispute over words when they are synonyms. This is pointless. Rape and Violation may be considered the same in this particular instance.

It is wasting dialogue time and efforts.

The girl is "cheapened"/degraded, or humbled, by sleeping outside of marriage. You can see that the word "humbled" is also used in the context of adultery, so the word doesn't have to mean rape. Violated means he took her virginity. It is interesting that verse 28 also says "they" be found, kind of implying both are guilty. I do think the girl, being a naive virgin especially for those times, was seduced, in that sense she was violated or even tricked. However, I don't think verse 28 describes the traditional definition of rape.

22 mIf a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman (this is adultery): lso shalt thou put away evil from Israel. 23 If a damsel that is a virgin be nbetrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath ohumbled his neighbour’s wife (this is adultery): pso thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man ||force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die (this is rape): 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 qIf a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found (this is seduction/fornication); 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath rhumbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Violated is a word only used as a negative for assault without consent. How can violated be used in any other way than a harm against the girl? The word she was “seized” is also used. So if young virgin girl was harmed violated in any way against her will, what would be the normal thing happen in today’s world?

Consider the difference in the above verses you posted where the women were either married or betrothed.

This woman was unmarried and not betrothed either. So maybe because there was no honor lost by a man married or betrothed it made it much different and she is forced to marry the man who violated and seized her. Or unmarried unbetrothed women don’t have the same rights or looked on as highly.

Thought will be the same as doing it, male and females have broken the law and very easy to do, and easy to not notice it, its just as guilty.

A rape victim is a purson who has been sinned against, not a person who has sinned. God is a merciful forgiving God who wipes our sins away as if they never happened if we repent, not a God who would punish a victim further.

Blik is that what the Bible says? Or is that your idealized view? What does this say? If she was seized and VIOLATED does that sound consensual? It then says she must marry the man. The difference in the other verses was she was not betrothed. Maybe if she had been betrothed because the man who was betrothed honor was violated she wouldn’t have to marry. Women were not looked at as the same rights or as men.

Deuteronomy 22
28If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver,e and she must become his wife because he has violated her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives.

Praise God that He instituted the New Covenant......Grace. That Jesus FULFILLED the Law, and we are NO LONGER under such as what is being discussed here.

IMO; people will have a far better life in Jesus the Christ IF they can get past believing they are STILL under, and must be obedient to, the Law of the First Covenant.

It may be easier for some to understand that those who believe Jesus Yeshua are free of the law for the curse of the law, death, was on the cross also...............

Where women were treated slightly above cattle, I can only imagine how the hardened hearts of this people would reluctantly put into practice these laws…even if it isn’t recorded. There are thousands of people written about in the Bible, yet millions existed. We today have a respect and admiration for women that was not shared even a hundred years ago in the Americas and still not shared worldwide. Just look at how disgusting and debased humanity can be. Kidnapping and injecting women with heroine to control them for human trafficking. If I ever encountered such filth I would have no problem snuffing each and every one of them out. Such evil deserves no mercy.