22

Some translations, such as the NIV, render the phrase “and lay hold on her, and lie with her” as “rapes her.” However, in context, this is an inaccurate translation. The passage does not describe forcible rape, but illicit sexual relations.

1. The Hebrew word here for “lay hold on her” is tāp̄aś and it means “seize, catch, handle, grasp”. It is used for holding an instrument (Gen 4:21), handling a shield (Jer 46:9) or a sickle (Jer 50:16) and in this case consensual intercourse.

2. Contrast this with Deut 22:25, the word in Greek is ḥāzaq, and it is completely different. It has the idea of holding tightly, not merely grabbing it. As we will see this is the passage describing rape.

The broader context of Deuteronomy 22 distinguishes clearly between violent assault and consensual intercourse. The only passage in this chapter that explicitly describes rape is Deuteronomy 22:25, where force is clearly stated and the man alone is condemned to death.

1. The penalty for rape, clearly defined with the word “force”, is death not marriage:

   ”...and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die...for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter” (Deut. 22:25–26)

2. If the woman does not cry out, it is not considered rape but consensual:

   ”ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city” (Deut. 22:24)

3. If the woman does cry out, it is a clear sign of rape:

   ”For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.” (Deut. 22:27)

The key phrase in Deuteronomy 22:28 is “and they be found,” instead of “and he be found” which implies a consensual act in which both parties are involved. There is no mention of her crying out. Compare: in verse 24, the woman does not cry, indicating consensual sex; in verse 27, she does cry, but no one hears her, indicating rape.

1. A direct parallel to this verse in Exodus 22:16 where he is also required to marry and we see it’s explicitly consensual: “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.”

   1. These are seen as complementary: Exodus covers seduction without force, while Deuteronomy adds post-act discovery and stricter permanence, distinguishing both from rape

2. (nimtze’u) comes from the root מצא (matza), meaning to find, discover, or come upon.

   1. It is in the perfect (or sometimes contextually past) third-person plural, so “they are found” or “they were found.” The use of “they be found” implies the act has already occurred and is discovered afterward, rather than interrupted mid-act.

3. The use of “they be found” implies the act has already occurred and is discovered afterward, rather than interrupted mid-act.

Therefore, since the woman in verse 28 does not cry out, this scenario describes two people fornicating. Because becoming “one flesh” through sexual union is serious, God commands that if they engage in this act, they must marry. This requirement would serve as a serious deterrent to casual sexual relations, since Israelites would realize they might be bound in marriage as a result.

The phrase “because he hath humbled her” initially sounds, to modern readers, as though it refers to rape. However, Deuteronomy 22:24 uses the same language to describe consensual sexual relations, where the man is also said to have “humbled his neighbour’s wife.” In that case, the act is clearly not rape. In both scenarios, the woman is a virgin. She is described as having been “humbled” because the loss of her virginity created serious future consequences.

Even when the act was consensual, the blame for the loss of her virginity was placed on the man. This is because she would no longer possess the tokens of virginity (Deut. 22:18), which the man, in effect, “took” from her. As a result:

1. A virgin daughter was under her father’s household protection

2. Premarital sex severely damaged her future prospects

3. She could be left vulnerable, unmarriageable, or economically exposed

The man was therefore forbidden from putting her away “all his days,” ensuring the woman’s protection. The law thus:

1. Forces responsibility upon the man.

2. Prevents him from using her and discarding her.

3. Secures her future by binding him to her permanently.

The payment of fifty shekels of silver functions as a bride-price (dowry), but with an important punitive aspect. In ancient Israel, a bride-price was normally paid by the groom to the bride’s family to compensate for the loss of the daughter from the household and to formalize the marriage. In this case, however, the payment is not voluntary or celebratory. It is imposed by law because the man has already “humbled” the woman.

1. Compensation to the father

   The father lost the ability to arrange a normal marriage for his daughter. The fifty shekels compensated for that loss and the damage done to the family.

2. Financial penalty on the man

   The amount was substantial and imposed without negotiation, emphasizing that this was a punishment, not a voluntary bride-price.

3. Protection of the woman

   The payment helped secure the woman’s economic future, especially since her marriage prospects had been harmed.

4. Deterrence against exploitation

   The cost and the lifelong marriage requirement prevented a man from using a woman sexually and then abandoning her.