Is a married rape victim to be put to death according to Deuteronomy 22:22?

Question

Deuteronomy 22:22 states:

If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. (Deuteronomy 22:22, ESV)

The word used here for "lying with" is שֹׁכֵ֣ב (sokeb), a form of שָׁכַב (shakab), which is also used in Deuteronomy 22:25 (as וְשָׁכַ֣ב (washakab)), which is about rape.

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. (Deuteronomy 22:25, ESV)

Seemingly, then, this word can also refer to rape. Does that mean, then, that Deuteronomy 22:22 implies that a married rape victim should be killed? I think that this question is relevant because there isn't anywhere else in the Torah that I know of that deals with the rape of a married woman.

I have heard people try to use Deuteronomy 22:25 as proof that the rapist of both a married and unmarried victim alike should be killed (and the woman not), but is this valid? Deuteronomy 22:25 refers to a betrothed woman. But, if it isn't valid, where can we find out what the punishment is for a man who rapes a married woman, and for a man who rapes an unmarried, unbetrothed, woman? And what should be done to her? I know some people will use Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in the case of the unbetrothed woman, but there is debate on whether this passage actually refers to rape or not.

Answer 1

I suggest that the logic of these laws involves the assumption that married women don't go out into the open country and therefore cannot get raped there. As implied by the comments of Boaz, in Ruth ch2 vv8-9, it was the maidens of the community who would go out to the fields to glean during the harvest and thereby find themselves in danger. And only work would be taking people out into the open country.

The married women would remain in town and be covered by the provisions of v24; that is, the sexual act would be deemed as voluntary "because she did not cry out, though she was in the city". Again, this relates to the social conditions of the time. It is taken for granted that women in town will always be in close proximity to family and friends, so that they cannot be found alone unless they want to be found alone, and help will always be close at hand. I suggest that these assumptions would have been true enough at the time to make them just and reasonable as a rule of thumb. It would be obviously unjust to apply this rule in modern conditions, now that the implied assumptions have ceased to be valid.

Answer 2

The book of Deuteronomy is essentially an expansion and commentary on the 10 commandments. The section Deut 22:9 – 23:19 concerns matters of Adultery.

The Hebrew OT has a number of words that imply rape such as:

• עָנָה - see Lam 5:11, etc
• שָׁגַל - see Deut 28:30, Isa 13;16, etc
• עָלַל - see judges 19:25, etc
• etc

However, the operative word in Deut 22:22 is שָׁכַב (shakab) = to lie down which may or may not involve sexual activity. The meaning in Deut 22:22 certainly does involve sexual activity but not abuse. To see this let me set out the content of this section of Deut 22 -

• V13-19 - false accusation of non-virginity
• V20-21 - true accusation of virginity
• V22 - consensual adultery between married partners
• V23-24 - consensual adultery between a man and a virgin
• V25-27 - rape of betrothed woman in an isolated place
• V28-29 - consensual sex before marriage

Note that while the same verb שָׁכַב (shakab) is used in V25, in neither V22 or V25 does it necessarily involve rape nor consent, just sexual activity. However, in V2 it is associated with another verb חָזַק (chazaq) = to seize, force, strengthen, etc. This is the word that, in this context, means rape.

Further, V25 makes it also clear that in the case of rape, only the rapist is guilty.