Deuteronomy 22:28-29; Exodus 22:16-17 — Why Did God’s Law Require an Israelite Man Who Had Sexual Relations with an Unengaged Virgin to Marry Her and Never Divorce Her?

Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Free for All

$5.00

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (UASV) states: “If a man finds a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.” Similarly, Exodus 22:16-17 (UASV) states: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a bride price for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he will weigh out silver according to the bride price for virgins.”

The modern reader is often deeply troubled by this legal requirement under the Mosaic Law. The law seems to impose an additional burden on the victim, yet it was intended to function as a severe deterrent and protection for women within the social and legal framework of ancient Israel. An accurate understanding requires careful historical, linguistic, and legal contextual analysis using the objective Historical-Grammatical method.

Understanding the Hebrew Text

The Hebrew wording in these verses must be properly examined to grasp their legal intent.

In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the Hebrew term na‘arah betulah refers to a young woman of marriageable age (na‘arah) who is a virgin (betulah). The phrase lo-’orasah designates that the woman is not pledged or betrothed. The critical term utepasah means to seize or forcibly take, indicating control over the woman against her will. In Jeremiah 37:14, a similar form of this verb describes Jeremiah being seized by force. The word innāh, translated as “violated her,” implies humiliation and rape. Thus, this passage describes forcible sexual assault.

Image illustrating the legal setting of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17.

In Exodus 22:16-17, the term yepatteh means to entice, seduce, or deceive. Here, the man persuades or manipulates the virgin into sexual relations, which under Israelite law also constitutes a severe transgression against both the woman and her family. Although there may not be overt physical force, it is regarded as coercive rape, exploiting naivety or vulnerability.

Cultural and Legal Context in Ancient Israel

Ancient Israelite culture must be understood on its own terms. It was fundamentally different from the modern Western social structure. In Israelite society, a woman’s virginity was directly tied to her marriageability and her family’s standing and economic security. Once a woman lost her virginity outside of marriage, whether by rape or seduction, she was at extreme risk of being permanently marginalized. In many cases, she could be left destitute, without prospects for marriage, and her family could be shamed and financially impaired due to the loss of an anticipated bride price.

The bride price, or mohar, served as both compensation and a demonstration of serious intent by the suitor. In Deuteronomy, the fine was set at fifty shekels of silver, a large sum, demonstrating the seriousness of the offense. According to Leviticus 27:3, the value of a male aged 20 to 60 was 50 shekels, making this penalty equivalent to the full life valuation of a grown man, illustrating the gravity of the crime.

In Exodus, if the father of the girl refused to allow the marriage, the violator still had to pay the full bride price. The father’s right to refuse demonstrates that the marriage was not automatically imposed on the woman and her family but rather placed the moral and legal obligation squarely on the offender. The stipulation in Deuteronomy that the offender “may not divorce her all his days” was a restriction designed to prevent any further abuse of the woman’s dignity by abandonment after having been compelled to marry.

Purpose and Ethical Function of the Law

The purpose of these laws was not to condone the man’s action or minimize the trauma inflicted upon the victim. Rather, they functioned to:

Provide immediate material and legal protection to the violated woman, securing her rights to financial stability and social inclusion.
Prevent the offender from compounding his wrongdoing by discarding the woman after taking advantage of her.
Serve as a severe deterrent for any man who might think of violating a woman, knowing it would result in lifelong legal obligations and heavy financial penalties.

From the divine perspective reflected in the Law, the woman was not the guilty party. The offender bore the consequences. The phraseology in both passages targets the man: he must pay, he must marry, he may not divorce.

Theological Considerations

The Mosaic Law was never a permanent moral code for all societies across all times but a legal and theocratic system for the nation of Israel. As Paul later wrote in Galatians 3:19, “Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made.” This legislation addressed real injustices in a fallen human society. It did not define the ideal of relationships; rather, it provided societal regulation in light of human sinfulness.

Christians are not under the Mosaic Law (Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:18). Today, the protection of women is rightly upheld through legal means involving criminal prosecution, not by forced marriage. But in ancient Israel, this law provided both deterrence and protection, which were progressive compared to the treatment of women in neighboring cultures such as Mesopotamia or Canaan.

Ancient Israel Versus Modern Misconceptions

Bible critics often attempt to impose modern Western cultural norms onto the ancient Israelite legal framework, which distorts the purpose and moral intent of the Law. They overlook the fact that in ancient Israel, an unwed woman who was violated had virtually no other legal recourse without such legislation. By modern standards, the law may appear harsh or incomprehensible, yet within its historical context it was highly protective and restorative.

The text also indicates that marriage would not occur without family consent (Exodus 22:17). It is reasonable from the text and the surrounding culture to understand that neither the girl nor her family were compelled if the father refused. The commandment placed a duty upon the man, not an obligation upon the woman.

Conclusion

The statutes in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 provided structured responses within the theocratic nation of Israel to serious offenses against women’s dignity and family honor. These measures acted as both deterrent and compensation. The enforcement of lifelong marriage obligations on the offender prevented the additional humiliation and marginalization of the victim. While this legal prescription does not translate into modern Christian practice, it stands as an example of divine legislation providing the highest possible protection to the most vulnerable within the severe societal constraints of its time.

You May Also Enjoy

Obedience to God or to Men?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).