Did God Command Rape in the Old Testament?

There is a common misconception that the Old Testament condones or even commands rape. In a recent discussion with several atheists, this was a common accusation made against the Bible. Does a careful examination of the biblical text show the claims of the atheist to be true?

First, we will look at what the Bible says about rape.

Several verses in the Bible clearly show that rape is condemned in the Law of Moses and in biblical narratives.

“But if a man finds a betrothed woman in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the woman; there is no sin in the woman worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.” Deuteronomy 22:25-27

Here, rape is clearly identified by the use of the word "forces" and is punished by death for the perpetrator, while the woman is deemed blameless.

Genesis 34:1-7 (Dinah’s Case):

Shechem rapes Dinah and is subsequently punished by her brothers. The narrative shows their outrage and direct action against Shechem and his family.

2 Samuel 13 (Tamar’s Case):

Tamar is raped by Amnon, who is then killed by Absalom in retribution. The passage depicts the act as shameful and deserving of punishment.

Judges 19:25-30 (The Levite’s Concubine):

The rape and murder of the Levite’s concubine leads to war between Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, demonstrating Israel’s abhorrence of the crime.

Second, let’s look at the main accusation.

The key verses that atheists often cite are found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. What is this verse talking about? The claim is made that these verses command a rape victim to marry her assailant. This interpretation is based on faulty readings and translation confusion.

25 “But if the man finds the girl who is betrothed in the field, and the man seizes her and rapes her, then only the man who raped her shall die. 28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, 29 then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days. Deuteronomy 22:25, 28-29 NASB

25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. Deuteronomy 22:25, 28-29 ESV

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:25, 28-29 NIV

The Hebrew word used for "seizes" in verses 28-29 is not the same as the term for "force" found in verse 25, which unambiguously describes rape. Scholars note that the context and linguistic difference mean verses 28-29 are describing an act of seduction—sex outside marriage discovered after the fact—rather than sexual assault.

In Deuteronomy 22:25, the Hebrew words used are:

• chazaq (חָזַק): meaning "to force" or "to overpower"

• shakab (שָׁכַב): meaning "to lie with" (often used in the context of sexual intercourse)

In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the Hebrew words used are:

• taphas (תָּפַשׂ): meaning "to seize" or "to lay hold of"

• shakab (שָׁכַב): again, meaning "to lie with"

The key distinction is that 22:25 uses chazaq, a word specifically indicating force or violence (commonly translated as "rape"), while 22:28-29 uses taphas, which does not inherently imply violent force in the context. Both verses use shakab for "lie with her", but the preceding verb changes the implication of consent or coercion.

Consequences

Additionally, there is a difference in the consequences in the two verse sections, showing that they are different scenarios and not rape in both settings.

The penalty (payment and mandatory marriage) is focused on the man's responsibility for the social and economic consequences of his act, rather than as punishment for a crime. In cases of rape, the punishment is far stricter: execution for the rapist, and no blame for the victim (as shown in verses 25-27).

Protection

When this passage is viewed in the context of the ancient Near East and ancient patriarchal Israel, one can understand the reason behind this particular punishment. In that context, loss of virginity outside of marriage could leave a woman vulnerable. The law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 aims to prevent men from abandoning women after consensual sex by obligating the man to compensate the woman's family and marry her, if the father permits.

The parallel law in Exodus 22:16-17 also deals with consensual sex, supporting that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not about rape but about protecting economic and social rights after premarital relations.

The claim that God commands or condones rape in the Old Testament is inconsistent with the text and with scholarly interpretations. The Bible contains explicit condemnations of rape, always describing it as a crime deserving punishment. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes the consequences of consensual premarital sex, not rape, and the surrounding context and language make this clear. Ancient Israelite law aimed to protect vulnerable women and uphold justice, not perpetuate abuse.

In contrast, thirdly, what do atheism and evolutionary theories say about rape?

Evolutionary psychology has sometimes hypothesized that sexual aggression, including rape, may have biological roots as a conditional reproductive strategy observed in certain animal species when normal mating is unavailable. Several researchers have argued that males may have evolved psychological or anatomical mechanisms that facilitate rape under certain conditions. For example:

Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).

Randy Thornhill and Nancy Thornhill, Human Rape: An Evolutionary Analysis, Ethology and Sociobiology 4, no. 3 (1983): 137–173.

Vernon L. Quinsey, Martin L. Lalumière, and Gordon T. Harris, Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Coercion in Human and Nonhuman Animals, in Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females, eds. Martin N. Muller and Richard W. Wrangham (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).

Robin Baker and Mark A. Bellis, Human Sperm Competition: Copulation, Masturbation and Infidelity (London: Chapman & Hall, 1995).

Of course, no (reasonable) atheist would agree ethically that rape is acceptable. However, rape seems to fit better into an atheistic, evolutionary world that evolved from matter and progresses via the survival of the fittest, than in a theistic Christian world where humans were created in the image of God and therefore have worth and value.