Marriage Myths, Part 5 - Helpless Victim?

So far, through this series you’ve seen that many ancient stipulations for marriage, despite appearing offensive to modern Americans, were quite honorable and understandable in full context. But as we continue this series, will this continue to hold true? Prepare to ‘take every thought captive’ as we investigate the next form of marriage our graphic depicts.

In the text of Deuteronomy Chapter 22, verses 28-29, we read the following:

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered. The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives. (NET)

According to these verses, it seems the Bible is asking a rapist “caught in the act” to pay her father a bride price and take the victim as his wife – permanently. Such an act is hard to comprehend for anyone who thinks of the abuse suffered by rape victims. To think they might live with and serve the man who committed such an act is outrageous. Traumatic and terrible acts like rape are frequently punishable by most standards of law! Why does the man seem to get off easy and the woman get it tough? Doesn't God care about victims of rape? This just seems to confirm the negative stereotypes for patriarchal societies and oppression of women.

As you should know by now, however, there is more here than meets the eye. First, one thing is clear about this passage. The woman is a victim. Note that the woman here is not engaged (“betrothed”). This means she can safely be assumed to be a virgin (sex outside of marriage was rare). Anyone who would have sex with her, then, would drastically reduce her ability to be married (cared for and supported). This brings tremendous shame on her family (something to be avoided at all costs)  The woman herself, unmarried and now with little hope of being married or having children, would join her family as being outcasts.

For the man to have to marry this woman is punishment also, however. Why? Am I completely crazy? First, consider this - he is not allowed to divorce her for any reason. This means he will have to do what it takes to make the woman happy (the woman gains an edge here). He is also now responsible to provide for her – food, clothing, money, etc. - indefinitely. And he also carries the embarrassment of marrying a woman he wronged. He will have to live with this and must work to improve his reputation with her. This may not seem like a big deal at first, but consider how important reputation was to ancient people – it was to be prized and maintained at all costs. It was the highest good, the most valuable thing possible.

And speaking of costs, the 50 shekel penalty, elsewhere in the Bible, is tribute paid by the rich (2 Kings 15:20). Dr. Thompson notes that it was likely the equivalent of 5 years pay for the average man [1] - no small sum to cough up. Clearly, a man in this position would not feel he was getting off easy! Both people will love with and endure hardship as a result of the action. But when you look closer at what the man is asked to do by marrying the victim, he is being made to take responsibility for his action. He is being forced to man up – to provide for the woman and family he harmed. Is that something we really want to discourage these days?

Of course, the marriage itself would not necessarily be forced. As discussed in previous posts, ancient law (torah) was not handled as literally as we think of in our justice system. A penalty stated was the maximum allowed, and families always had the option of accepting or enforcing lower penalties. Glen Miller goes into more detail on this here, especially at applies to our passage. While not stated directly in this passage, it is a more viable solution than it appears as first. Consider that in Exodus 22:16-17 - the original law, as given (Deuteronomy is sometimes considered Mose's summary), an identical situation is being described. But what is different? The father has the option of refusing the marriage. The only certainty is that the dowry will be paid!

Even with all this considered, many would say it still seems awkward to consider God would ask someone to marry a rapist. What about the emotional trauma and other psychological considerations? Because of this, I want to look at another aspect of understanding this text. Is the act being performed really rape?

It may sound like a dodge tactic to some, but consider this. The act the man performs is translated as “rape” in some popular Bible translations, but this is not consistent practice with most translations. First, look at the following renderings of verse 28 in 2 popular translations (aside from the NET, quoted above):

• NIV: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered
• HCSB: If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered

Now, look at how the verse is rendered in some of these other major translations (which do not specify the word rape).

• ESV: If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found
• CEV: Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught
• NASB: If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered
• KJV: If 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

Although rape is not specified by the translators, it has generally been assumed by commentators over the years that rape is implied. This tradition dates back to the Middle Ages[2][3], and apparently is adhered to by many in the Middle East.[4] This tradition is no doubt responsible for why some translations do read rape here. In addition, it seems that, in surrounding context, verse 28 follows stipulations for a situation sounding much like forcecd rape (Deut 22:23-27).

But is this a fair assessment? Are both passages talking about the same thing? We need to take a closer look to find out. We'd expect more translations to read rape, if that is what is implied. So to answer our question, let's compare the verses in question.

First, look at the punishments involved. In verses 23-25, stoning is ordered for any guilty individuals involved. But in our passage, marriage is forced on the individuals. If both passages are dealing with rape, why handle the situation differently? Perhaps this is because the preceding verses (Deut 22:23-27) deal with a woman who is already engaged (betrothed) to a man – already committed to marriage. But verse 28 deals with a woman who is not engaged. A woman not engaged is waiting to be married but now would be unlikely to do so; an engaged woman has already been “purchased” and has no business being touched.

The fact that these 2 situations are contrasted may imply, then, that both are dealing with different circumstances for the same issue. But the question remains – is rape really in view in both cases, as has been assumed by many commentators? After all, translators have hesitated to put the words rape in the mouth of the author here. Is God still asking a woman to marry a man who's raped her, regardless of her "marriageability"?

In order to get a better handle on this, let's see what we get if we compare the text of the verses. In verse 25, the action being performed by the man (often translated as forces her and lies with her, seizes and rapes her) is translated from 2 Hebrew words: chazaq shakab. In verse 28, however, the action being performed is translated from the words taphas shakab. Notice how the phrases are clearly different, but the translation tactics are similar. Is this warranted?

The word shakab, found in both phrases, is what is translated as “lie with her” or “sleep with her”. This is consistent in both passages and in numerous examples throughout the Bible. There is little debate over this word – it is a known euphemism for a sexual act. So both passages are clearly discussing something sexual. This is little surprise, too, as many other situations discussed in Chapter 22 also reference sexual acts.

But what about the word taphas (Strong's 8610), as opposed to chazaq (Strong's 2388)? If both situations might refer to rape (a forced or unwilling sexual act), why are these 2 different words used? What do they mean? Let's look at how each word is used in the Bible.

Strong's relates the basic, literal definition of chazaq as meaning “to be strong, to grow strong” [5] In practice, it conveys a few other meanings aside from this. It is the word translated as courageous, and is the word used throughout Exodus 7-14 to indicate God's hardening of Pharoah's heart. It is also used a few times of people when they grab their clothes to rip them (a sign of grief), and is used when people grab the horns of the altar in the temple. Perhaps more relevant to the issue at hand, it is a word used in Judges 19:25, when a concubine is forcefully taken by strangers and abused overnight. A few verses later in Judges 19:29, the Levite grabs the concubine to cut her up.

Clearly, when chazaq is used, some kind of force or strength is being exerted over the object in question. This would easily lead one to believe the sexual act in verses 23-27 is forceful, and may be why the passage is considered to be discussing rape. But what of the word taphas, in verse 28? How is it used, and can it carry the same meaning?

The basic definition of taphas is reported as “to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield” [6] In Genesis 4:1, Jubal is the father of all who handle the harp, and Ezekiel 27:29 mentions people who handle oars. Likewise, Amos 2:15 talks of those who handle bows and Jeremiah 50:16 talks about handling a sickle. In Genesis 39:12 Potiphar's wife is said to grab Joseph to get his attention, and in 1 Kings 11:30 Abijah grabs his robe and rips it. In 1 Kings 18:40 Elijah takes the prophets of Baal captive, and in numerous places (2 Kings 16:19, Isaiah 36:1, Jeremiah 40:10, and more) a city is taken captive . In Proverbs 30:9, the writer is concerned about taking God's name in vein and repeated references in Ezekiel have God saying he will catch someone in his snare or people being taken in a pit.

A quick glance then reveals taphas does have some overlapping use with chazaq: both can be used of someone taking hold of an object. But with the word taphas, we see fewer examples of force being used and more examples of skill or talent (oars, farming, swords and bows). We also have more instances where surprise or deception is in view. For instance, Potiphar's wife tries to seduce Joseph, prophets are taken captive, and others are caught by a trap or a pit.

In the end, you can see each word appears to carry with it different implications. It seems shakab definitely deals with a forced act, where taphas implies some kind of deception or skill. This would seem to justify comparison to Exodus 22:16-17, which speaks of a dowry being required for someone who entices (not rapes) a betrothed virgin. But this is perhaps why many have been careful to translate either act as rape. 

With this in view, the action ins verse 28 could more likely be a seduction or “one-night-stand” scenario. And if that is so, the man is being forced to pay for his mistake and take responsibility for his deceit. I hope you would agree that this is nothing but honorable. In addition, God is not asking a rape victim to live with her rapist. He is instead giving the woman the upper hand in a situation where she was taken advantage of!

Rev. Ralph Smith takes a closer look at the issue from a “woman's rights” perspective.




Below is the TektonTV video on this subject.








[1] "WOMEN AND THE LAW IN ANCIENT ISRAEL." WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. James C. Thompson, B.A., M.Ed., July 2010. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/index.htm>.
[2] "Sunday Study: Does the Bible Teach That a Rape Victim Has to Marry Her Rapist? | MandM." MandM. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. <http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/sunday-study-does-the-bible-teach-that-a-rape-victim-has-to-marry-her-rapist.html>.
[3] Matt and Madeleine also make a strong case that the word rape, in the Middle Ages, carried with it a much broader connotation than our modern word. In essence, they argue that the word rape, in previous centuries, referred to any kind of unwanted sexual act – not necessarily a forced one.
[4] In fact, the issue recently came up in world news. This may beg the question - if Middle Eastern tradition understands this as rape, wouldn't that lend authenticity to this interpretation, as their tradition predates the Middle Ages? Perhaps, if that specific statement can be proven. The author of Answering Christianity, who defends orthodox Islam (the religion of 99% of Moroccans), defends the verse as rape - how? Not by appealing to traditions, but by saying "lay hold on her" must mean a forced act. To not see this as rape, he believes, means the Bible condones sex before marriage. (though it's clearly not condoning it)
Note there is no word study or interaction with context or language. If this is the thinking that formed their tradition, it is just as likely that similar thinking influenced the Middle Ages. This would be a universal problem for anyone in recent history - reading something into a text. This has no bearing on what the words actually mean, especially in their original languages. Only rabbinic tradition might help lend weight to accurate historical understanding BCE, but I cannot locate Jewish commentaries on the passages.

[5] http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H2388 
[6] http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8610