This article serves as a response to a common Muslim argument raised against Deuteronomy 22:28–29. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the biblical text is being misrepresented. This particular claim, which has recently circulated on TikTok a platform known for spreading misinformation, was promoted by the group Bid’ah Dawahgaindest. Unable to refute the Masoretic Text directly, these critics often turn to the Septuagint, commentaries, and selective scholarship in an attempt to support their claims.
This passage has been the subject of scholarly debate, with some interpreting it as referring to rape, while others supported by linguistic and contextual evidence argue that it describes consensual premarital sex. Sadly, many Muslims misquote this verse, stripping it from its historical and cultural context to falsely portray the Bible as morally inconsistent. In doing so, they often commit the tu quoque fallacy, ignoring the troubling implications of their own sources such as the Quran’s support for marriage to prepubescent girls who have not yet begun menstruation. The deeper one explores those sources, the more problematic the issue becomes.
This article aims to answer from the christian perspective, since it is are theological and ethical paradigm being attacked. This article is intentionally in-depth to equip Christians with the necessary sources and reasoning to confidently address potential arguments from an apologetic standpoint, without wavering in their response.
For a more detailed analysis, we encourage you to explore the additional articles linked below.
Muhammad’s Marriage to a Prepubescent Minor
Muhammad and Aisha Revisited: Analyzing the Claims of Muslim Polemicists
The Marriage of Umar ibn Khattab and Umm Kulthum
Revisiting the Age of Aisha Pt. 1 ; Revisiting the Age of Aisha Pt. 2
Revisiting the Issue of Muhammad’s Marriage with a child bride [Part 2]
Qur’an Contradiction The Age of Marriage
Muhammad’s Marriage to a Prepubescent Minor: A Quick Response to a Common Muslim Objection
ISLAMIC FAIRYTALES ABOUT MUHAMMAD’S BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD
Is there a set age for marriage in Islam?
Muta’, Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law
A Salafi Defense of Muhammad’s Marriage to a Minor Pt. 1
A Salafi Defense of Muhammad’s Marriage to a Minor Pt. 2
Aisha’s Condition at the Time of Her Marriage: Post-Pubescent Maiden or Premature Minor?
HOMOSEXUALITY AND PEDERASTY IN ISLAM’S PARADISE?
ISLAMIC ANAL SEX: A CASE OF DISHONESTY
MUHAMMAD: A BEWITCHED SEXUAL DEVIANT
THE BURNING OF APOSTATES AND HOMOSEXUALS
MORE PROOFS THAT MARIYAH WAS MUHAMMAD’S SEX SLAVE
REVISITING ISLAM’S GROSS SEXUAL ETHICS
The Misunderstood Mosaic Law (1A)
To begin, we must first understand what the Torah meant within its original cultural context and how it would have been applied in everyday life. We look at the conclusion at the end of Micheal Jones’ video about The Misunderstood Mosaic Law. See this article for further information and watch the full video here.
“The Torah is culturally dependent and serves as descriptive wisdom on how to live as God’s vessel. We should not be surprised by its lack of focus on certain moral issues that we face today, as these were never its intended concerns. Its primary purpose was to teach Israel how to properly represent the Lord before the ancient nations of the East, who were not grappling with the same moral questions we are now. Rather than being prescriptive, the Torah functions more like Proverbs, guiding Israel on how to think about justice, act with wisdom, and maintain order in God’s presence. Most importantly, it is not a law code or legislation. What we have in the Torah is a collection of judicial wisdom tailored to Israel’s ancient cultural context, showing them what it meant to be God’s representative and what an orderly, holy people should look like. Once we grasp the Torah’s main purpose, we can better understand how it fits within the larger biblical narrative. It was never meant to be an ideal moral code for all people at all times; it was culturally situated and must be read with that context in mind.” Micheal Jones (Inspiring Philosophy)
With the evidence in view, it’s clear that the Torah was not a rigid legal code but a moral guide tailored to Israel’s cultural context. Its laws aimed to direct the Israelites toward righteousness without fully reflecting the entirety of God’s character. However, there are certain sections of scripture that are legalistic. The Levitical laws in Leviticus are used as examples in specific situations. Ultimately, God sought to shape a people who would model moral goodness before the surrounding nations. These teachings regarding laws that were set at a specific time for a specific people are not applicable to Christians today. The moral understanding of the teachings in the Torah and threw out the old testament is what is taken away that Christians use to apply today.
What Is The Inspired Word of God? (1B)
We direct you to this article here to give you an understanding on how Christians understand what it means for scripture to be inspired by God. Since the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) differ in their readings of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, our discussion will explore both the textual criticism and the proper theological understanding from a Christian perspective. The reason for bringing this up is to explain how Christians approach Scripture particularly when engaging with the MT, the LXX, or the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). We reconcile the textual variants among these traditions through our theological understanding of Scripture. We believe that God, through the person of the Holy Spirit, inspired human authors to communicate His message while incorporating their personal experiences to bear witness to the truth.
As a result, when we encounter differences among the various transmissions of the Hebrew Bible, harmonizing them is not as difficult as it may seem. Theologically, we are afforded the freedom to reconcile these differences without being bound to a rigid, hands-off approach to the text.
Deut 22:28-29 Masoretic Text (1C)
The Masoretic text has been answered already thoroughly (article), so it doesn’t need to be addressed in this article as a whole. The MT will be used in the discussion below.
What is The BIblical Standard for Marriage? (1D)
The biblical design for human sexuality, as established in Genesis 2:24, is a heterosexual, monogamous marriage between one man and one woman. This Edenic model serves as the enduring paradigm throughout the Old Testament, particularly in the Torah’s portrayal of the nuclear family. Phrases like “a man and his wife” emphasize this standard of exclusive, heterosexual union. The Septuagint (LXX) reinforces this by stating, “they two shall become one flesh,” clearly affirming monogamy. While God does not fully bless deviations from His revealed marital design, He graciously offers forgiveness and restoration, always drawing people back to His original Edenic ideal. (article)
PURPOSE FOR THE ABOVE:
The purpose of the above information is to establish a framework for interpreting the Bible from a Christian perspective, particularly regarding the biblical standard of marriage defined as a heterosexual union between one adult man and one adult woman. Any deviation from this divinely instituted model is considered morally inconsistent with biblical teaching.
Relying solely on a scholar’s opinion risks committing the appeal to authority fallacy and fails to address the actual evidence. A rational conclusion should be based on a thorough examination of the collective evidence presented by scholars, not merely on the word of one. For anyone that has studied this topic, scholars are divided on the issue. The evidence will be examined and the idea that Deut. 22:28-29 is about rape will be addressed.
The Meaning of Deuteronomy (22, 1E)
Before getting into the text in question it’s self. We must deal with the surrounding context of Deut. 22:28-29 and Dueteronomy as a whole.
“Moses, when sermonizing at the second giving of the law (Deuteronomy, from the Greek deuter = second, nomy = law), is able to follow the order of the Ten Words.” – The Law of the Covenant, p. 199
Deuteronomy is known as the second law, so it refers to what (scriptures) has already been mentioned. In the context of Deut. 22, leading up to verses 28-29.
“Several pentateuchal laws deal directly with premarital/pre-betrothal sexual intercourse. Indeed, in Deut 22: 1 3-29-the single coherent unit of Deuteronomic case laws [65] that contains the amplification of the seventh commandment, concerning improper sexual relations [66] -all but one verse (v. 22) deals with situations
that today we would call premarital sexual relations. [67] These laws are recorded in this chapter in a general descending order of gravity (i.e., penalty) . Premarital Sex with a Betrothed Virgin (Deut 22:23-27) . After the case law concerning our modern definition of full-fledged adultery between a man and another man’s wife (Deut 22: 22), which was discussed above, there follows further legislation concerning sex with a man’s betrothed virgin, which we today would call premarital sex but which was apparently considered equivalent to adultery in biblical terms, although the term “commit adultery” is never used regarding these situations. [68]
FOOTNOTE:
[66] Kaufman, “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” 1 13. Kaufman shows that the Deuteronomic code amplifies the seventh commandment under several different topics:
( 1 ) Deut 22:9- 1 1 , prohibited mixtures; (2) 22: 13-23: 1 (ET 22:30), regulations concerning improper sexual relations; (3) 23:2-9 (ET 23: 1-8), sexual wholeness and genetic purity as requirements for membership in God’s community; (4) 23:10- 1 5 (ET 23:9-14), sexual purity and cleanness in the military camp; and (5) 23:18-19 (ET 23: 17-1 8 ) , prohibition of cultic prostitutes. As noted in the previous footnote, section 2 is further subdivided, with the bulk of the material constituting casuistic laws related to adultery (22: 1 3-29) , and the single added verse (23 : 1 , E T 22:30) dealing with incest (probably included by attraction to the mention of “father” in v. 29, as Kaufman, p. 1 39, suggests) .
[67] As will become apparent below, however, some of these concern sexual relations with a betrothed woman, who in ancient thinking was already legally bound to her future husband by the payment of the bride money even though the marriage was not yet formally consummated, and thus the premarital sexual offense would have been considered adultery.
[68] This seems to be the consensus of scholarship (see Pressler, The View of Women, 3 1 ; Goodfriend, “Adultery:’ 1:82). We could just as well have dealt with this legislation concerning iliicit sexual relations with a betrothed virgin under the section on adultery, above, inasmuch as the betrothed virgin was in a real sense already considered to be a man’s wife even though the marriage was not yet consummated (see esp. Deut 22:24, where raping a woman betrothed to another man is considered “violating his neighbor’s
wife”). The legislation concerning a betrothed virgin is included together with prebetrothal sex in a separate section because the term “commit adultery” is never used to characterize this illicit sexual activity and because some of the legislation in this section involves situations that include both pre-betrothal and post-betrothal premarital sexual activity. In addition to the pentateuchal legislation concerning sexual relations with a woman engaged to someone else, there is another pentateuchal reference to an engaged woman being violated, but this probably occurs in the context of Israel’s being defeated in battle. If Israel should fail to stay loyal to the covenant with Yahweh, one o f the “futility curses” which would befall them was, “You shall become engaged to a woman, but another man shall lie with [lit. ‘ravish’, saga!] her” (Deut 28:30). This passage does not make clear whether the engaged man would be still alive (as a war captive) or would have died in battle when the one to whom he had been engaged was ravished by another. The point of this passage, as with the other “futility curses” in Deut 28:30-33a, is that proper enjoyment is frustrated ( J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy [AOTC 5; Downers Grove, Ill. InterVarsity, 2002 ] , 406).
Davidson, Richard M. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Hendrickson Publishers, 2007, pp. 354–355.
Seduction of a Single Woman (Deut 22:28–29; cf. Exod 22:15–16 [ET 22:16–17])
The section on plural marriage in chapter 5, above, briefly referred to the final case law in Deut 22:28–29 and its parallel in Exod 22:15–16 (ET 22:16–17). Exodus 22:15–16 (ET 22:16–17) provides basic case law regarding the seduction of a single (unbetrothed) woman: “When a man seduces [pātā] a virgin [bĕtûlā] who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price [māhar] for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price [māhar] for virgins.” Deuteronomy 22:28–29 is probably an extension and expansion of the same law: “If a man meets a virgin [bĕtûlā] who is not engaged, and seizes [tāpās] her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated [ʿānâ, in the piʿēl] her he shall not be permitted to divorce [šālaḥ] her as long as he lives.” The law of 22:28–29 does not consider the case of a ravisher who is already married, but the comparative evidence from the fuller treatment of punishment for ravishers found in Middle Assyrian Laws (from about the same era) provides an exception clause for the ravisher who is already married. [83]
The law in Exod 22:15–16 (ET 22:16–17) concerns most likely a situation of verbal persuasion or enticement (the meaning of pātā), but commentators differ on whether Deut 22:28–29 describes a case of forcible rape or seduction (statutory rape). [84] The latter passage indicates that the man “seizes” [tāpās] and “violates” [ʿānâ, in the piʿēl] the woman. The verb tāpās usually implies taking hold of with force, and the verb ʿānâ in the piʿēl (“humble” or, better, “mishandle, afflict, violate”) is used several times elsewhere in the OT to describe clear cases of forcible rape. [85] The passage in Deut 22, however, also seems to indicate that the woman had acquiesced and was a willing partner in the sexual encounter, when it notes that “they [not just he] are caught in the act [wĕnimṣāʾû]” (v. 28).
Both of these laws are probably speaking of a similar (but perhaps not identical) situation of sexual seduction (statutory rape) of a virgin [bĕtûlā] who is not betrothed [ʾārās, in the puʿal pf.], the former emphasizing more the psychological pressure (he “seduces” [pātā] her) and the latter the physical pressure (he “catches, takes, seizes” [tāpās] her). [86] The two laws are complementary (the Deuteronomy passage an extension of the Exodus law), and together they give the whole picture of circumstances and legal consequences. [87] The point here is that the woman in this situation has never been married or betrothed; the seduction includes premarital sexual intercourse. And such activity constitutes an illicit sexual encounter. [88]
The penalty for such distortion of the divine design for sexuality is not death or kārēt (being “cut off”), since there has been no breach in a relationship, such as in adultery. Nonetheless the legislation makes clear the seriousness of the offense. [89] “A man cannot just ‘love her and leave her’: by sleeping with her, he has assumed the obligation to marry her. And he must pay a normal bride-price: he cannot obtain a girl cheaply by first sleeping with her, thus dishonoring her, and lowering her bride-price.” [90] Deuteronomy 22:29 tells us the amount of the bride wealth—fifty shekels of silver—and adds that the man “shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.” The limitation of the man’s right to divorce, as in the law of 22:13–19, serves to protect the woman and provide for her social and financial security. At the same time, such a penalty—the high bride wealth price and the knowledge that no matter how miserable one might try to make the other, they could not divorce—would certainly cause the unmarried, both men and women, to give serious pause before engaging in premarital sex.
Exodus 22:16 (ET 22:17) adds the provision that the father of the violated girl was not required to consent to his daughter getting married to her seducer, apparently in the case where he was already married to another woman (as in the ANE parallel containing an exception clause for the married ravisher, cited above). Presumably this also applied to other situations where the father did not deem such a marriage wise. It should not be assumed that a girl who has been seduced and lost her virginity would not be able to marry—there is no hint of this in Scripture—but her father would not normally be able to command the full bride wealth price. In the case described here, however, the father was still entitled to the full bride-price—which would ultimately belong to the daughter (see chs. 6 and 9 of this study). [91]
Footnotes
[83] MAL A §55 (COS 2.132:359; ANET 185).
[84] Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, trans. Dorothea Barton, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 143, labels it “rape”; in contrast, J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, TOTC 5 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1974), 236, calls it “seduction.”
[85] See Gen 34:2 (Shechem’s rape of Dinah); Judg 19:24; 20:5 (the men of Gibeah’s rape of the Levite’s concubine); and 2 Sam 13:12, 14, 22–32 (Amnon’s rape of Tamar).
[86] Pressler, The View of Women, 35–41, esp. p. 36; Ronald A. G. du Preez, Polygamy in the Bible, ATSDS 3 (Berrien Springs, Mich.: ATS, 1993), 93–97; Jan Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, trans. Ed M. van der Maas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 227.
[87] Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law, 6.
[88] Phillips, “Another Look at Adultery,” 12, points out that the use of the passive perfect in Exod 22:15 (ET 22:16) and Deut 22:28 makes plain that the girl is one who has never been betrothed, not just (as the RSV renders it) one who is not at present betrothed.
[89] Cf. the similar treatment in other ANE law codes: CH §130 (COS 2.131:344; ANET 171) and MAL A §§55–56 (COS 2.132:359–60; ANET 185). MAL A §55, however, adds a talionic element in which “the father of the virgin shall take the wife of the virgin’s ravisher and give her to be ravished.” In the biblical view, it seems that both the sanctity of marriage and the rights of the innocent wife preclude prescribing a lex talionis of equivalent ravishing.
[90] Frymer-Kensky, “Virginity in the Bible,” 91.
[91] Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, chs. 6 and 9.
Davidson, Richard M. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Hendrickson Publishers, 2007, pp. 359–361.
With this in mind, the “laws” in Deuteronomy 22 should not be understood as one-to-one applications for every possible situation. Rather, they address overarching categories of potential scenarios. This approach is common throughout the Old Testament Law some commands were drawn from narrative examples to shape moral understanding, while others were situational laws meant to guide responses to specific circumstances, not to mirror daily life directly. Then there are some that follow in to the category of commands that were meant to be followed as it was written or orally transmitted. These laws do not represent the full expression of God’s morality, but rather reflect a specific, divinely appointed time in redemptive history. The Hebrew law was revealed for a particular time and people, guiding them toward a higher moral reality, a standard ultimately fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah.
The Interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Within Its Ancient Cultural Context and Christian Thought (1F)
The meaning of Deuteronomy 22:28–29 is often misrepresented. This passage is not a command condoning rape. Instead, it describes a civil law requiring a man to marry a woman with whom he has had premarital sexual relations. Whether the act is interpreted as consensual or not (which is not the point in this section of the article). The Masoretic Text allows for the possibility of seduction, and unlike Deuteronomy 22:25–27, it does not use the harsher Hebrew word for force (chazaq), which clearly denotes force in the violent sense. The Septuagint (LXX) emphasizes the man’s responsibility, not suggesting consent but also not focusing on the woman’s guilt.
Critics particularly some Muslim polemicists, often misrepresent this passage as a divine command to marry a rape victim, claiming it legitimizes sexual violence or even permits the rape and marriage of young girls. These claims are often projections, rooted in the allowances found within Islamic law, rather than an honest reading of the biblical text. But this is a category mistake. The text nowhere endorses rape; rather, it lays out a legal consequence for premarital sex: the man must take lifelong responsibility for the woman and cannot divorce her. This law functioned as a protective measure in a society where a woman’s virginity carried serious social and economic implications.
In the ancient Near Eastern context, a woman who lost her virginity outside of marriage would be mistreated socially. Women in that society depended on men for provision and protection, and being unmarried after such an event could leave them destitute. The law ensured that the man could not exploit her and walk away. It was not a reward for wrongdoing but a form of social justice, ensuring the woman would not be left without support.
To interpret this as divine approval of rape is to misunderstand the purpose of the law. It was meant to maintain societal and ethical order, not to condone evil. In fact, the same chapter (Deut. 22:25–27) makes it clear that if a man rapes a woman who is betrothed, he is to be put to death. The Bible is consistent in condemning rape.
Quote Richardson here on Deut. 22:25-27 here
We also see from biblical narratives that the mentality of women in ancient times regarding such matters was different than ours today. For example:
- In Genesis 34, Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is raped by Shechem. After the act, Shechem seeks to make the relationship official by asking to marry her (Genesis 34:4–12). However, Jacob and his sons are clearly reluctant and deeply angered by the proposal especially her brothers, who considered it an outrageous act of disgrace (Genesis 34:7). While Shechem’s actions are inexcusable, the request for marriage reflects the cultural understanding at the time, where marriage was often seen as a way to restore a woman’s honor and provide social and economic stability after such a violation.
- In 2 Samuel 13:11–16, Tamar is raped by her half-brother Amnon. Afterward, she pleads with him not to send her away, saying, “Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me” (v. 16). This plea is not approval of the act it reflects the reality that being abandoned after such a violation would leave her desolate in that society.
These stories do not justify rape, but they illustrate how women in ancient Israel viewed marriage as the only remaining lifeline after their social standing had been compromised. That context is crucial to understanding Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Moreover, applying modern values without historical context leads to presentism the fallacy of assuming today’s norms always applied. Ancient laws often reflect God’s accommodation to a fallen world, not His ultimate ideal. These civil regulations were not expressions of God’s eternal morality, but rather measures to preserve justice and order within a particular culture. Even if the passage in Deut 22:28-29 is referring to rape, it would still have to be understood in it’s cultural context of what was considered valuable to maintain society, while also looking at the individual and how they feel.
In summary, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not about endorsing rape; it is about protecting the woman and upholding social ethics in ancient Israel. It seeks to hold the man accountable and ensure the woman’s survival and dignity in a patriarchal system not to condone immorality.
Summary of 1A – 1F
With all the above in mind, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, when properly interpreted through its linguistic, historical, and theological context, does not condone or command rape but describes a civil statute requiring a man to take full marital and financial responsibility for premarital sex with an unbetrothed virgin-serving as a protective measure in an ancient patriarchal society where a woman’s social and economic future was tied to her virginity. This law, like others in the Torah, was not meant as a one-to-one moral prescription for every situation, but functioned as judicial wisdom tailored to Israel’s cultural context, guiding them toward justice and order. Contrary to the distortions of modern Muslim polemicists who often project their own tradition’s ethical issues (such as child marriage) onto the Bible this passage, read within the broader biblical ethic and consistent condemnation of rape (e.g., Deut. 22:25-27), aligns with the Christian view of inspired Scripture as a theologically unified whole across the Masoretic Text, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls, and as part of God’s progressive redemptive revelation.
Discussing and refuting the misinterpretation of Deut. 22:28-29 LXX in Depth
I want to briefly address certain Greek words that are often used in arguments against Christians, particularly in relation to Deuteronomy 22:28, where their meaning is narrowly interpreted to falsely suggest a single, fixed definition and usage of Greek words.
LXX Brenton’s Septuagint Translation
25 But if a man find in the field a damsel that is betrothed, and he should force her and lie with her, ye shall slay the man that lay with her only. 26 And the damsel has not committed a sin worthy of death; as if a man should rise up against his neighbour, and slay him, so is this thing; 27 because he found her in the field; the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to help her.
28 And if any one should find a young virgin who has not been betrothed, and should force her and lie with her, and be found, 29 the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the damsel fifty silver didrachms, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he shall never be able to put her away. – Deut 22:25-29
Swete’s Spetuagint
25Ἐὰν δὲ ἐν πεδίῳ εὕρῃ ἄνθρωπος τὴν παῖδα τὴν μεμνηστευμένην καὶ βιασάμενος (971) κοιμηθῇ μετ᾽ αὐτῆς, ἀποκτενεῖτε τὸν κοιμώμενον μετ᾽ αὐτῆς μόνον, 26καὶ τῇ νεάνιδι οὐκ ἔστιν ἁμάρτημα θανάτου. ὡς εἴ τις ἐπαναστῇ ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ τὸν πλησίον καὶ φονεύσῃ αὐτοῦ ψυχήν, οὕτως τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτο· 27ὅτι ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ εὗρεν αὐτήν, ἐβόησεν ἡ νεᾶνις ἡ μεμνηστευμένη, καὶ οὐκ ἦν ὁ βοηθήσων αὐτῇ.
28Ἐὰν δέ (1437) τις (5100) εὕρῃ (2147) τὴν (3588) παῖδα (3816) τὴν (3588) παρθένον (3933) ἥτις (3748) οὐ (3756) μεμνήστευται (3423), καὶ (2532) βιασάμενος (971) κοιμηθῇ (2837) μετ᾽ (3326) αὐτῆς (1473), καὶ (2532) εὑρεθῇ· (2147) 29 δώσει (1325) ὁ (3588) ἄνθρωπος (444) ὁ (3588) κοιμηθεὶς (2837) μετ᾽ (3326) αὐτῆς (1473) τῷ (3588) πατρὶ (3962) τῆς (3588) νεάνιδος (3494.1) πεντήκοντα (4004) δίδραχμα (1323) ἀργυρίου, (694) καὶ (2532) αὐτοῦ ἔσται (1473-1510.8.3) γυνή, (1135) ἀνθ᾽ ὧν (446.2) ἐταπείνωσεν (5013) αὐτήν·(1473) οὐ δυνήσεται (3756-1410) ἐξαποστεῖλαι (1821) αὐτὴν (1473) τὸν (3588) ἅπαντα (537) χρόνον (5550).
“Force, Seize, Press” Βιασάμενος (971)
First, When analyze the Greek word Βιασάμενος, according to the strongs defines as force, to seize, to press. Many will highlight the word force but ignore the other meanings.
Βιασάμενος, doesn’t translate directly into Hebrew to a specific word as it can very, as Bible Hub has noted:
Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: While there is no direct Hebrew equivalent for “biazó,” the concept of forceful pursuit can be related to Hebrew words like חָזַק (chazaq), meaning “to be strong” or “to seize.” (source, wayback machine)
This obviously doesn’t just translate to chazaq, but can be translated to taphas as well. Which is why in the MT of βιασάμενος gets translated to both Hebrew words in Deut. 22:25, 28, because it can mean one or the other depending on the context. The MT obviously conveys a meaning that conveys to seduce. For Christians, it’s not an either-or scenario but a both-and approach. Both the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT) are valued and can harmonize with the Christian understanding of Scripture, based on how Christians view biblical inspiration and transmission.
This also in the New Testament in a different conjugation has a spiritual meaning to not refer to a physcial force but rather spiritual (Matthew 11:12, Luke 16:16). That doesn’t mean it has this same meaning in Deut. 22:25, 28. The purpose of mentioning this is for those that try to restrict the meaning.
Does παῖδα Refer to a Little Girl?
Genesis 22:3-4, 19 – Refers to two young (παῖδα – G3816) servants who are clearly adults helping Abrham [LXX]
Genesis 24:61 – The claim is that παῖδα (G3816) refers exclusively to little girls who are immature or prepubescent, but this is simply false. In Genesis 24:61, the term is used to describe Rebekah, and the corresponding Hebrew word is ‘almah’, which is often translated as “young woman.” Ironically, this is the same word that many Jewish interpreters argue against Christians about in Isaiah 7:14, insisting that ‘almah’ means “young woman” rather than “virgin.” If that argument holds, then the text in Genesis is clearly identifying Rebekah as a young woman, not a child. (More on Rebekah here) [LXX]
Joshua 1:7 – Moses is referred to again as “the servant of the Lord”, not as a child. [LXX]
1 Kings 11:17 – It refers to adult male servants or attendants who belonged to Hadad’s father. These were individuals capable of fleeing with Hadad and escorting him to Egypt, indicating they were mature and competent men, not children. [LXX]
Isaiah 52:12 – This is a prophetic reference to Christ as the Suffering Servant—clearly not a child. While some may dispute the theological implications, Christians consistently understand this passage to refer to Jesus, and when it is quoted in the New Testament (John 12:37–38), it refers to Him as an adult. Regardless of interpretation, no one has ever understood this Servant figure to be a literal child. [LXX]
Matthew 12:18 – παῖδα (G3816) This is a prophetic reference to Jesus, clearly not a child, but a chosen servant. (here)
Matthew 14:2 – In this context, παῖς refers to John the Baptist as a servant or chosen agent of God, not as a child. It reflects a respectful or prophetic designation similar to how the term is used of Jesus in messianic prophecies (e.g., Matthew 12:18 quoting Isaiah 42:1). It clearly does not imply youth or immaturity.
In conclusion, while the passage could be misread as referring to rape when isolated from its full context and the points outlined in sections 1-A through 1-F, a closer examination within its broader cultural and legal setting reveals otherwise. When understood in light of how these laws functioned in ancient Israel—especially concerning sexual relations between men and women it becomes clear that the man bore the greatest legal responsibility, a view that sharply contrasts with other Ancient Near Eastern legal systems.
Refuting The Objection Against Deut. 22:25-27
One common argument is that Deuteronomy 22:25-27 does not condemn rape as inherently immoral, but only because the act was committed against a betrothed woman. According to this view, the key issue is her betrothal status, making that particular rape unacceptable, whereas verses 28-29 are seen as referring to a different case of rape involving an unbetrothed woman. The flaw in this argument is that verse 26 explicitly emphasizes the moral nature of the act itself, calling it comparable to murder not merely the circumstances or the woman’s status. As previously clarified in point 1A. That the morality is , the focus is on the inherent wrongdoing of the act, not just the context in which it occurs.
- 25 “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her” – Deuteronomy 22:25-27 (NKJV)
Is every act of murder only considered wrong because the victim was betrothed? Of course not. The moral weight of murder doesn’t depend on the victim’s status it’s condemned because it is inherently evil. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 22:25-27, the key issue isn’t the woman’s betrothal but the nature of the act itself. Verse 26 is the only verse in the entire chapter that draws a direct moral comparison likening rape to murder. This highlights the intrinsic severity of the crime, not merely the circumstances surrounding it. (See point 1A.)
More on Deut. 22:25-29; Ex. 22:16-17
Pentateuchal Legislation Concerning Rape
Exodus 22:15–16 (ET 22:16–17) and Deuteronomy 22:28–29 are best regarded as dealing with statutory, not forcible, rape—where the woman voluntarily submits to the man’s pressure to have sexual intercourse. Even though the woman appears to consent in these situations, the man is still said to have “afflicted/oppressed/humbled her” (‘innah). This violates the divine intent that a woman’s purity be protected. The penalty was either that the man had to marry the woman and support her for life without possibility of divorce, or the girl’s father could refuse the marriage and demand a dowry payment equivalent to that of a virgin.
Even though the woman may have acquiesced to her seducer, she is still treated financially as a virgin—“equal to the bride-price for virgins” (Exod 22:16 [ET 22:17]). This upheld the value of the woman and discouraged exploitation. As Jacob Milgrom points out, this also suggests that in Israel there was no social stigma attached to a raped virgin.
Deuteronomy 22:25–27 clearly refers to forcible rape: “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her (weheḥĕzīq-bāh) and lies with her (wĕšākab ‘immāh), then only the man who lay with her shall die” (22:25 NKJV). Here, a stronger verb than pāṯâ (“seduce”) or tāpaś (“seize”) is used—ḥāzaq (hiphil + bĕ)—which often indicates physical overpowering. The following verses (26–27) confirm this: the woman is considered innocent, presumed to have cried out, though no one was there to rescue her.
Biblical law assumes her innocence without requiring witnesses (v. 27); she bears no burden of proof. “If the woman might have been innocent, her innocence must be assumed.”[60] The man, however, receives the death penalty. Mosaic law thus protects the sexual purity of the betrothed woman and the rights of her betrothed, sending a clear moral message: sexual intimacy belongs only within committed covenantal relationships. As one scholar states, “If you are going to have sex with someone, you must be prepared to support her for the rest of your life.”[61]
Footnotes:
[58] For discussion, see Harold C. Washington, “Violence and the Construction of Gender in the Hebrew Bible: A New Historicist Approach,” BibInt 5 (1997): 344.
[59] Cf. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Law and Philosophy: The Case of Deuteronomy 20–22,” in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (Sheffield: JSOTSup 262; Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 202–7.
[60] Washington, 344.
[61] Ibid., emphasis added.
Who Was Liable?
“The pentateuchal legislation contains no reference to a situation in which a virgin seduces a man, unlike other ANE legal systems (as noted above) . It appears that biblical law HOLDS MEN STRICTLY LIABLE IN ALL CASES OF SEDUCTION, in contrast to legal provisions elsewhere in the ancient Near East. The biblical system of law thus serves to protect women, who were more vulnerable to the stigmatizing effect of sexual impropriety than men in a society that tended toward male dominance and where virginity was so highly prized.” – Davidson, Richard M. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Hendrickson Publishers, 2007, p. 361
The biblical text holds men strictly accountable in all cases of seduction, even when the woman is involved, indicating that responsibility is primarily placed on the man. Therefore, the LXX’s emphasis on the man is neither problematic nor theologically inconsistent with the Christian interpretation of the verse. It aligns with the broader biblical pattern of protecting women in contexts of sexual misconduct. This is granting the position of the latter interpretation of the verse, which wouldn’t make a difference on the understanding of the verse.
As stated earlier in point (1F), “Even if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 refers to rape, it must still be understood within its cultural context specifically, what was considered valuable for maintaining social order, while also considering the impact on the individual.” In ancient Israel, it was even possible for people to use this system whether through seduction or feigned rape as a way to secure marriage despite parental disapproval. Although Michael Satlow interprets Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as referring to rape without sufficient justification, he still acknowledges that the law may have functioned as part of a broader social institution. In this case, it could have provided a socially accepted path to marriage regardless of the father’s objection.
“One might thus suspect that if a woman’s father was strongly against a match, the desperate couple might resort to a staged rape in order to evade his wishes…One purpose of this tension might be to acknowledge “rape” as a social institution, but at the same time to emphasize its seriousness.“ – Satlow, Michael L. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princeton University Press, 2001, p. 125
That being said, this isn’t a command from God, but a law inspired by God to operate within a society that often lacked moral clarity. God was working through His people, even in their broken systems, to ultimately point forward to a better reality fulfilled in Jesus Christ (see 1A & 1B).
Addressing Church Theology Quotations
Tertullian
The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! – Against Marcion Book IV Chapter 34
Muslims will quote this as evidence that this what Deut. 22:28-29 means in light of Christianity.
First, Tertullian isn’t a church father and theologian.
Second, even if he was a Church Father, that doesn’t automatically make his interpretation correct. Individual Church Fathers are not infallible the authority lies with the Church as a whole. Quoting a single Church Father does not represent the collective voice of the Christian faith, nor have Christians ever believed that one Father’s view alone defines doctrine.
Conclusion
When approached holistically, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does not endorse rape, as often mischaracterized by critics, but rather addresses a case of consensual premarital sex, in which the man is held fully accountable for his actions under the covenantal law. The Masoretic Text, which uses the Hebrew verbs taphas (to seize or lay hold of), shakab (to lie with), and anah (to humble), lacks the key legal term chazaq (to overpower), which is present in actual rape cases such as Deuteronomy 22:25. This careful lexical distinction in the MT demonstrates that the act in verses 28-29 was not considered rape, but seduction or fornication an interpretation consistent with the passage’s legal structure and the broader biblical context.
The Septuagint (LXX), though using Greek words like biazō (often translated “force”), must be interpreted in accordance with its semantic range and usage elsewhere in Scripture, where it does not always imply sexual violence. Furthermore, scholars like Richard M. Davidson have noted that the Pentateuch holds men strictly liable in all sexual misconduct cases, including consensual ones showing that far from degrading women, these laws protected their honor and long-term wellbeing within ancient patriarchal structures.
As John Walton and Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) argue, the Torah functions more as descriptive judicial wisdom than as a modern moral code. The law reflects God’s accommodation to cultural realities, ensuring justice while preserving the dignity of women, in contrast to harsher ancient Near Eastern norms. As such, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 envisions a case in which the man must marry the woman if the father consents (Ex. 22:16-17), paying a bride price and forfeiting any right to divorce, thus accepting lifelong responsibility.
Finally, the interpretive approach taken by early Christians as articulated by James Papandrea affirms that Scripture is divinely inspired yet humanly expressed, written through the lens of ancient cultural contexts. The Church Fathers rejected both dictation theory and purely human authorship. When we respect both the divine intent and the human setting of these texts, we can respond to moral objections without compromising the authority of Scripture. In this light, both the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) can be legitimately used in interpreting passages like Deuteronomy 22:28-29. It is not a matter of choosing one over the other, but of embracing both as part of the providential transmission of God’s Word.In conclusion, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, rightly understood through both the MT and LXX, supported by careful linguistic, cultural, and theological analysis, reflects a protective and restorative provision rather than a permissive stance toward abuse. It underscores a broader biblical trajectory in which God’s law sought to mitigate injustice and elevate human dignity within a broken world ultimately culminating in the teachings of Christ.
