Deuteronomy 22:13–30
13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip1 him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels2 of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin3 of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days. 20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
22 “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.
23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
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. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
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.
30 4 “A man shall not take his father’s wife, so that he does not uncover his father’s nakedness.”5
1 Or discipline 2 A shekel was about 2/5 ounce or 11 grams 3 Or girl of marriageable age 4 Ch 23:1 in Hebrew 5 Hebrew uncover his father’s skirt
Section Overview: Holiness in Marital Affairs
Instructions on how order is to be practiced in select situations is followed by regulations for maintaining family integrity. Violation of family integrity must be addressed in order to preserve created order. Holiness is seen in personal relationships just as in setting apart certain things or actions to give testimony to the presence and rule of God. Israel must be holy as God is holy (Lev. 19:2). This requirement includes matters such as exercising justice, loving one’s neighbor as oneself, not wearing a garment made of two kinds of cloth, and exercising responsibility in sexual relations (Deut. 22:13–22). What we distinguish as moral issues are also a part of expressing divine holiness. Association between these items follows other patterns of the Torah.
There are many threats to marriage and therefore to the stability of the home. Conflict is characteristic of human interaction, especially when the relationship involves almost every aspect of a person’s life. In addition to the usual tensions of any relationship, sexual desire is a significant component of a marriage relationship. This section deals with various types of sexual accusations or encounters that must be resolved within the community. The first deals with the malicious accusation of a discontented husband, and it involves a garment. The question of appropriate use of garments in the previous section is the segue to another question in the matter of a garment that involves a sexual question. The question of a potentially violated marriage leads to other situations of infidelity that must be addressed.
The procedure of entering marriage is never explicitly given, but certain aspects are apparent. Marriage begins when compensation is given to the family of the bride because its family member is transferring to another family. Once the financial arrangement is made, the woman is betrothed and regarded as married even though the woman continues to live in the house of her father. If her husband suspects adultery during this time, the accusation involves the woman’s parents (22:13–21). When the marriage is independent of the father’s house, a confirmed violation of sexual fidelity results in death (v. 22). Cases of known infidelity involving a betrothed woman are regarded as adultery (vv. 23–27). The situation of a man’s having sexual relations with a single woman is a separate question (vv. 28–29). The whole section concludes with a single statement on exclusive rights of marriage within a family, particularly the claims a child might make against the estate of his father through sexual engagement with a wife of his father.
Section Outline
II.C. Exposition of This Torah (12:1–25:19) . . .
4. Domestic and Civil Regulations (21:10–25:19) . . .
c. Sexual Regulations Protecting Marriage (22:13–30)
(1) Examination for Marital Fidelity and Integrity (22:13–21)
(2) Purging of Adulterers in Israel (22:22)
(3) Punishment for Consensual Sexual Relations with Betrothed Woman (22:23–24)
(4) Punishment for Nonconsensual Sexual Relations with Betrothed Woman (22:25–27)
(5) Responsibility for Sexual Relationships with an Unmarried Woman (22:28–29)
(6) Prohibition of Marrying a Stepmother (22:30)
Response
Family stability is critical to order and peaceful function in every society. This is recognized by civil authorities, who make provision for well-being of the family a high priority. Education and moral character begin at the earliest stages of human growth, which begins in the home responsible for the birth of a child. The earliest stages are also the most influential in the life of a child.
The question of marriage has become highly contested in contemporary times. The controlling value in current family function is the power of choice for the individual. Gender choice has become the highest priority in some circles and some government legislations. This has led to redefinitions of marriage and family that are not to the benefit of family stability nor the welfare of children. Mainline churches especially have adopted these modern societal mores legitimated only by the demand of individual’s supposed right to choose. The high ethical demand on the preservation of marriage between a man and a woman in this chapter does not allow for this kind of redefinition of family as a simple matter of personal preference. Creation order is a primary requirement. Willful violation of this order has grave consequences for the well-being of the home and the development of children. Churches should not simply conform to cultural shifts.
The greatest challenge for the church is not in the legislative shifts in definition of marriage and family. The most grave and sad cultural conformity is in the rate of divorce and remarriage among professing believers, which tends to be the same as it is in society outside the church. It is not that divorce is to be avoided at all costs. The provisions of Moses recognize as sometimes inevitable the failure of human covenants that ends marriage. Commitments genuinely made do break down and may create destructive environments. The counsel of Paul to the formerly married, which he refers to in Greek as agamos (“unmarried”), was to remain single as himself, but he recognized that this was not best for everyone (1 Cor. 7:8–17). His emphasis in the passage is that it is even better for a believer to remain married to an unbeliever for the sake of the family, if possible. Divorce is not a solution; it is a recognition of a last resort in dealing with a conflicted situation.
The attitude Jesus encountered was that divorce is an entitlement, especially on the part of the husband. The discussion on conditions for divorce had more to do with providing for self-interest of the person seeking the divorce than with ethical or family concerns. Jesus called this attitude simple adultery; it amounted to nothing more than remarriage out of lust for another woman (e.g., Matt. 19:3–12). In practice it amounted to the very violations condemned by Moses in his teaching on marriage. The disciples found this hard to understand because, apparently in their time, conformity was rampant to a culture of divorce as entitlement without acknowledging that divorce is a concession to a harsh circumstance, as taught by Moses. Christians must ponder the seriousness of the marriage vow and its violation. Adultery is a serious threat to marriage and family. The economic and other consequences may not be of the same gravity as those in an agricultural setting, but the results for children may be worse. Vows are usually taken in the church before the congregation. This involves a pledge on the part of the congregation as a group to support every new marriage in every way it can. Western culture breeds a tendency to make a wedding a great time of celebration with insufficient attention to the endurance of the marriage once the celebrations are past. Furthermore, divorce is often presented as a positive solution, which it can never be. It is a last resort in dealing with irreconcilable conflict.
Or discipline
A shekel was about 2/5 ounce or 11 grams
Or girl of marriageable age
Ch 23:1 in Hebrew
Hebrew uncover his father’s skirt
22:13–21 The first situation envisaged by Moses is one in which a marriage has been consummated but a husband comes to dislike his wife and then begins to spread malicious rumors about her. Rumor is one of the most insidious threats to a relationship because it is an unsubstantiated accusation against a person’s reputation. In this case the charge is laid against the woman’s sexual integrity. The translation “evidence of virginity” is not as clear as implied by the English meaning of “virgin.” The linguistic question involves the sense of the Hebrew word betulah. This is a common word in Semitic languages but is not the exact equivalent of the English virgin, though it is frequently translated that way in the Akkadian languages as well as in Hebrew. The English word virgin always carries the technical meaning of virgo intacta, a woman who has never had sexual intercourse. In Akkadian as well as Hebrew this meaning must be separately expressed by saying something like “young girls who have not known man by lying with him” (Num. 31:18).
A woman can be called a betulah even though she has had intercourse, such as with the members of a harem who spend a night with the king before officially becoming part of his harem (Est. 2:17–19). The “evidence of virginity” in this case is not likely the technical question of whether the bride has previously engaged in intercourse. Several arguments mitigate against such an understanding. Among these is the practical consideration that a bloodstained garment is not always the result of such instances. Further, the husband would have a good idea as to whether such a garment could be produced, either legitimately or faked by the parents. He is unlikely to risk a fine and the humiliation of what is probably a public flogging if he knows his case can be disproved. This must be a case in which the husband is in doubt, but time will eventually be the final indication, quite apart from any evidence the parents could manufacture.
Linguistic evidence indicates that a young woman is a betulah while she is still in the care of her parents, has passed the age of puberty, and is ostensibly of good reputation. Whether the woman has had sexual intercourse before being betrothed to the husband is not nearly so important as her conduct after the time she is promised in marriage and still in the care of her parents. This would be the reason the parents are incensed that their reputation is being ruined by insidious rumor. The evidence of her being a betulah, the tokens of virginity, refers to the blood stains of menstruation during the time the woman is engaged, which shows that she is past the age of puberty and is not pregnant. If she has become pregnant during the time of betrothal, evidence of menstruation could not be produced and charges equivalent to adultery might stand. This would explain her punishment, which is equivalent to that for adultery. The spiteful husband is apparently spreading rumors that the woman’s first child is not his own, a case that would be particularly difficult if the birth of the first child were near to the time of a full gestation from the time the marriage was consummated. If the woman is innocent, the man is punished for the ruination of the reputation of a family. If the charges can be sustained, the woman is deemed guilty of adultery.
The text does not specifically say the guilty man is to be flogged. It uses the generic term for discipline to describe his punishment (yasar), which, when used of the discipline of a child, could include the use of a rod (Prov. 13:24; 23:13–14; 29:15). The situation bears some analogies to that of the recalcitrant son (Deut. 21:18), in which even the most compelling means of correction were ineffective. The punishment given to the dishonest man is not equal to that which would be afflicted on his victim, as required in the case of a false witness (19:18–19). Apparently the evidence is more circumstantial and the motives for the investigation quite genuine. It might seem that the evidence against the woman is also circumstantial, but the punishment assumes that guilt has been established beyond doubt.
The punishment for the guilty woman also involves her family, since they are participants in dissembling regarding the conduct of their daughter. The penalty is carried out in the same manner as that of the disobedient son (21:21), with the public execution meant to serve as a deterrent to others. In this instance it is because the woman has done an “outrageous thing in Israel” by “whoring in her father’s house.” The former expression is common with despicable sexual misconduct, such as with Absalom in the rape of his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:12). The latter phrase has found two different interpretations in both the various Hebrew texts and the translations. The first interpretation is that she was guilty of infidelity while still in her father’s house; the second is that she has brought shame to her father’s house. The first is the meaning of the Masoretic Text and confirms the interpretation that the charge is that of marital infidelity during the time she was engaged and still living with her parents. As in the case of the rebellious son, it is a case of parents’ not properly controlling the behavior of their children.
22:22 The penalty for adultery is more severe than that for any other sexual sin. This is because of the seriousness of the violation, which threatens an economic union and the well-being of the children concerned. In this case there is a violation of two families. The matter is destructive not only for the woman concerned but also for the man. In wisdom the father gives a stern warning to his son concerning adultery (Prov. 6:20–35); the price of a harlot is only money, but the violation of the wife of another man will cost the guilty one his life (Prov. 6:26, 32–35). The father has in mind not the formal penalty of execution but the revenge of an angry man who will accept no compensation for the offense.
Adultery is not just a sin against another marriage; it is a sin against God. In other ancient Near Eastern laws the penalty for adultery may be death, but there may be leniency depending on the will of the husband since the offense is against him. Biblical law makes no such provision, as seen from Leviticus 20:10. The laws of God are not arbitrary. The will of God is the strength of the family for good reason. Violation of the family is not just an offense against the family, because God created family.
22:23–24 A further example of adultery is a case in which a betrothed woman engages in sexual intercourse with another man during the time of her betrothal. This case assumes witnesses to the offense who can give testimony to the violation of adultery. The offense not only has been observed but has been deemed consensual. One part of the evidence is that the woman had the opportunity to call for protection if she had chosen to do so.
22:25–27 The case of a woman seized by a man outside the city is regarded as rape since she would be as vulnerable and helpless as a murder victim. In such a case the man alone is to be put to death. There is no suggestion that leniency might be shown if the man did not know the status of the woman.
22:28–29 Sexual relation with an unengaged woman is not approved, but it is nevertheless not the violation of a marriage. The action results in the man’s being responsible to accept the woman as his wife in order to provide for her, without the possibility of divorce. There is no indication of involvement of the father of the dependent woman other than that the dowry price must be paid. Exodus 22:16–17 deals with a similar case, but there the situation is that the woman has been seduced. In that case marriage requires the permission of the father, but if he refuses the dowry price still must be paid. Deuteronomy focuses on the security of the woman. The price paid is not likely the normal dowry price but includes a penalty for losses incurred by the father. The will of the woman is not mentioned. Marriage is primarily regarded as a family decision involving parents, property, and children as basic considerations. An illustration of this is the Genesis narrative of Lot’s determining the marriage of his daughters to Jacob. Love was not the primary concern.
22:30 Sexual relations with a wife of one’s father would not include some of the usual concomitant violations of adultery, such as breaking up a family and its property. Such relations are less likely to be a case of sexual desire than a claim of status; however, this is still a sexual offense. A father might well have older sons comparable in age to one of his younger wives. The euphemism of the Hebrew in describing the sexual violation involves a removal of the father’s garment, which is to expose him as naked. This is a standard expression regarding the violation of exclusive sexual relationships (e.g., Lev. 18:7–8). Such action here is an invasion of a sexual relationship exclusive to the father, or it may be regarded as the equivalent of sexual relations with the father.
Sexual relations with the wife of a father involves family status and usually privilege in inheritance. This could occur while the father was still alive, as in the case of Reuben at the death of Rachel (Gen. 35:22). Reuben was attempting to prevent the concubine of Rachel from assuming his mother’s position at the head of the family. He was attempting to prematurely lay claim to his inheritance and become the successor to his father. The Chronicler explains that this was the reason Reuben lost his status as the head of the family (1 Chron. 5:1–3). In laying claim to David’s throne, Absalom engaged in sexual relations with David’s concubines “in the sight of all Israel” (2 Sam. 16:20–23). Apart from the claims of family status or inheritance that might be made in such an engagement, this was a violation of the exclusiveness of marriage.