Our text today and tomorrow may seem archaic and even shocking to us in these modern times, although there are some cultures of the world today in which some of these penalties for sexual immorality are still carried out. Sexual immorality is wrong in any era, to be sure, and the Lord has not changed His opinion on adultery or sex outside of marriage. But in ancient times there were no such things as DNA tests. A man could not be certain a child was his if he had a promiscuous wife. Because establishing bloodlines and inheritance was so important, and because there was no scientific method for determining paternity, it was a very serious matter when a woman was unfaithful to her husband or to the man to whom she was legally betrothed. Likewise, because a woman's purity was so highly valued, she had the right not to have her reputation besmirched. If a man falsely accused his new bride of not being a virgin, he paid a high penalty for slandering her. If a man took sexual advantage of a woman who was not his wife, he paid a high penalty.
While establishing paternity (and inheritance rights) is important, I believe what the Lord is most concerned with in the remainder of Deuteronomy 22 is that the entire nation abstain from sexual immorality. He does not want His people Israel to behave like the people of the heathen nations around them. Most of the pagan cultures of Moses' day had an "anything goes" attitude toward sex. Even their religious festivals often included sexual activity. In fact, you'll recall earlier in the Bible that a number of Israelite men attended an idolatrous feast and bowed on their knees to false gods because they lusted for the Moabite women. If the Israelites lower their standards where sex is concerned, they'll soon be lowering their standards in many other areas as well. It's bad enough to live in promiscuity, but in the ancient world it frequently led to idolatry because idolatry and sexual promiscuity were so often connected.
It will take us two days to look at this passage. Today's portion involves marriage violations. Tomorrow's portion involves engagement violations.
"If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the young woman's father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof she was a virgin." (Deuteronomy 22:13-15) Moses makes it clear that the man is lying. This man has taken a bride and he probably chose this particular bride because he lusted very much for her physically. He could not sleep with her unless he married her so, carried away by the physical attraction he felt for her, he entered into the marriage covenant with her. But once his desire for her was slaked he didn't want anything more to do with her. He was like Amnon in 2 Samuel 13 who, after having had sexual relations with the woman with whom he was obsessed, no longer wanted anything to do with her. The Bible says that Amnon "hated her more than he had loved her". That's what has happened to the bridegroom of verses 13-15. He got what he wanted and now he doesn't want to live with this woman or provide for her. The only way out of the marriage is if he can prove he's been deceived.
But it appears as if there was a custom in which the bedsheet from the wedding night was given into the custody of the young woman's parents. This is still true in a few cultures today. So when the bridegroom accuses his bride of not having been a virgin, her parents take the bedsheet to the elders at the gate as evidence (due to the blood stain) that she was a virgin. Not only is their daughter's virtue being attacked, but their own character is being attacked as well. Women married quite young in Moses' day, often in their early to mid-teens, and it was a shocking thing indeed if a young lady of that age had already been having sexual relations. It meant her parents had not properly supervised her and protected her virtue. It meant they had left her unchaperoned in male company. The girl's parents would defend their honor and their daughter's honor by displaying the bedsheet to the elders at the gate who were gathered there to judge legal cases. "Her father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him." (Deuteronomy 22:16-18)
The word translated as "punish" can mean the man is chastised with words or with physical blows. Some scholars believe he is given a beating. Others believe he is shamed with a verbal beat-down. Either way, that's not the end of the matter. He must pay a hefty fine to the woman's father for slandering the godliness of her parents' house. He also cannot be released from his marriage covenant. He may have married in haste but, as the saying goes, he will repent at leisure. "They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:19) No matter what happens in their marriage, this man will never have legal grounds for divorce. He forfeited any rights he may have had under the law when he falsely accused her of impurity.
Marriage is never to be entered into lightly. The case outlined above is a case involving a man who didn't think things through. He didn't take time to court the young woman and fall in love with her. He didn't make sure they would be compatible marriage partners. He was so carried away by her beauty and by the lust in his heart that he made a marriage offer without thinking past the wedding night. Once his passion for her was satisfied, he thought, "What have I done? How can I get out of this? I know! I'll accuse her of being an immoral woman. Then I can divorce her and be free of her." But the Lord never intended women to be used and discarded. The Lord wants men to treat women with respect. The Lord intends sex to be enjoyed only within the bonds of matrimony and that means a person must think very carefully about whether or not they're as attracted to someone's character as they are to their face and body. A marriage founded only upon sexual attraction, with nothing else in common, is not likely to be successful. But a marriage in which the partners are attracted to each other's character is a marriage likely to be happy.
The remainder of our text discusses two types of sexual immorality for which the ultimate penalty is paid. The first has to do with a situation in which, after marrying a woman, the husband is not lying about the immoral character of his new bride. "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
We would not dream of handling such a matter in this way today, not in most cultures, although there are some places even in today's world where "honor killings" still take place. The passage does not specifically state that the woman was promiscuous after having entered into a betrothal contract with the man but many scholars believe that's why the penalty is as harsh as the penalty for adultery. We've discussed before that a betrothal contract was almost as binding as the marriage covenant. That's why in the New Testament we find Joseph wanting to break his engagement with Mary quietly when he finds out she is with child. He believes at first that she has been unfaithful to him during their engagement period. He has the right to accuse her publicly and bring shame upon her and upon her father's house. It could be that in his day the Israelites could still carry out the penalty of verses 20-21 if they chose, although under Roman rule they were forbidden to inflict capital punishment in civil cases. This is why the religious and political leaders said they could not execute Jesus on their own. However, I think they probably could have gotten away with executing Him if He had not been so famous that an uprising might have ensued. The Roman government had nothing to say when the Israelites stoned Stephen to death in the book of Acts. Stephen was not a famous religious figure or political figure and I think Rome generally turned a blind eye to executions carried out by Israelites upon their fellow Israelites when the cases were of a religious nature.
In verses 20-21 the woman who was unfaithful to her betrothed is stoned to death in the doorway of her father's house. This shows her father shares some of the blame. Remember, we pointed out earlier that women married quite young in ancient Israel. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that American women married quite young; my maternal grandmother and all her sisters married around the ages of 15-16. Even in my grandmother's day, it would have been shocking for a bridegroom to find out his bride of 15 was not a virgin. Nowadays it sadly is not uncommon for teens that young to be having sexual relations, but in my grandmother's day and certainly in ancient Israel it was considered a father's duty to protect the virtue of his daughters. He had to make sure his daughters were not alone with teen boys or men. This served to protect her from any male's dishonorable intentions and to protect her from herself, for teen girls don't always make the best choices. If a young lady managed to be promiscuous while living in the household of a godly and protective father, it is assumed she went out of her way to be promiscuous. Perhaps she snuck out a window at night to meet a boy, for example. That's why Moses could say, "She has done an outrageous thing." However, the father still bears some of the blame because it happened under his watch. He has failed somehow and that's why some of the blame is laid literally at his door.
Adultery was an offense punishable by death in ancient Israel. Being unfaithful during an engagement was treated as seriously as being unfaithful after marriage, which is what Moses speaks of next. "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 22:22) We found this law stated previously in Leviticus 20:10. The man who sleeps with a married woman, whether he is single or married himself, is to be put to death along with the unfaithful woman. Both of them have committed adultery even if only one of them is married. Aside from the immorality involved, there is a practical reason for why it is such a sin to sleep with a married woman: the husband of the married woman could not know whether an expected child was his or not. If his wife were found to be with child at or around the time the infidelity was taking place, he could not ask for a DNA test. He could never be certain, unless the child looked exactly like him, that it was a legitimate heir. Even if he felt confident the child was his, other family members might not and might contest the disposition of his property.
It's important to note that the adulterous man and woman had to be caught in the very act. They could not be brought before the judges upon suspicion alone. If that were the case, many a jealous man could have had his wife put to death. Or a man who no longer loved his wife could be rid of her by bringing false charges against her. I assume two or more people had to catch the guilty people in the act since it was the law that two or more witnesses were required when accusing someone of a capital crime. Under these rules it's doubtful that adulterers were put to death very often. The very nature of adultery requires secrecy and stealth; the utmost care is taken not to be caught.
Why then is the woman who was unfaithful during her betrothal allowed to be put to death? I can't say for certain but I assume that the bridegroom's testimony that she was not a virgin counts as one witness and the unbloodied sheet from the wedding night counts as the other witness. As we've seen, she could not be put to death on the husband's word alone. If her parents could provide visible proof of her virginity in the form of the bloody sheet, the sheet itself (though it was not human and did not have a voice) was giving testimony against the husband's claims. If the sheet could not prove her virginity, it was a testimony against her.
The thing to keep in mind is that the times and the culture were very different when these laws were put in place. Sexual immorality is still wrong but we have different ways of dealing with the outcome. Paternity can be established scientifically now. Inheritance rights can be established by proving whether or not someone is a blood relative. The inheritance rights of the firstborn are not part of the modern culture; a person can leave his or her estate to anyone they want, regardless of any family connection. If a person needs to prove they are the next of kin in order to claim an inheritance, a simple DNA test can be done. No man has to fear his wife's unfaithfulness has led to him raising a child that is not his; paternity tests can be performed even while the child is still in the womb. Men in modern countries don't have to fear a wife's infidelity will lead to him raising a child that is not his. They don't have to stone a cheating wife to death out of fear she'll bear a child that is not theirs.
The wages of sin is death. Technically speaking, we are all worthy of death if we have ever committed a sin. We were all under the penalty of death but Christ came to set us free.
