Deuteronomy 22:13-30 - Sundry Laws About Marital Infidelity

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25), and obedience would result in the Lord’s blessings (Deut 11:26-28). In this pericope, Moses provides laws pertaining to sexual morality in marriage and society.

     Moses opens this section by addressing sexual purity before marriage, saying, “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, ¹⁴ and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin…’” (Deut 22:13-14). In this scenario, a man takes a wife and has sexual intercourse with her, but afterwards becomes hostile toward her, charging her with marriage disloyalty. The phrase turns against her translates the Hebrew verb שָׂנֵא sane, which means, to hate. The word “expresses an emotional attitude toward persons and things which are opposed, detested, despised and with which one wishes to have no contact or relationship. It is therefore the opposite of love. Whereas love draws and unites, hate separates and keeps distant.”^[1] A wife’s virginity prior to marriage was critical, as it guaranteed their child was actually the result of the marital union and not belonging to another man. An illegitimate child would impact the inheritance rights, especially if the child was the firstborn son and given a double portion of property. The charge in this section—if true—was a serious matter that would damage the wife’s reputation within the community, perhaps making her ineligible for future marriage. Earl Radmacher adds,

• "The indisputable legitimacy of children was vital to ancient society and inheritance rights. Joseph’s actions when he learned of Mary’s pregnancy can be explained by these laws (Matt 1:18-25). Because of Joseph’s love for Mary, he did not want to make a public accusation. At the same time, he was not prepared to marry a woman who he thought had been immoral."^[2]

     Because such a charge might come against a newlywed wife, the recourse for defense was, “then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate” (Deut 22:15). It should be remembered that engagement was equal to marriage in ancient Israel. God’s ideal for the family was to have a strong sense of corporate identity, responsibility, and protection. Because marriages were commonly arranged by the parents, it fell to the parents to defend their daughter’s reputation by producing evidence of her virginity. The charge by the husband was not only an attack on the integrity of his new wife, but also on the parents who presented her as a virgin. The parents would present evidence of her virginity to the elders at the city gate, which was where court was held and legal matters handled.

     Moses continued, saying, “The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; ¹⁷ and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, ‘I did not find your daughter a virgin.’ But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city” (Deut 22:16-17). After the wedding night, it was common that the parents would collect the bed sheets, as they would provide evidence of the daughter’s virginity, in case a legal charge of infidelity was ever brought against her. And the girl’s father, who was to the protector of the home, was to take the lead in defending her. Victor Matthews writes, “The integrity of the woman’s household was based on her being able to show proof of her virginity. The physical evidence demanded in this case could be either the sheets from the initial consummation (bloodied by the breaking of the hymen) or possibly rags used during the woman’s last menstrual period, showing that she was not pregnant prior to the marriage.”^[3] Here was a case where evidence other than eyewitnesses was sufficient to prove innocence.

     If the material evidence was accepted by the city elders, then “the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, ¹⁹ and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days” (Deut 22:18-19). The elders would chastise the man, which included a public flogging, and fining him a hundred shekels of silver. In ancient Israel, ten shekels of silver was equal to an annual wage; therefore, his fine would have been 10 years wages. Furthermore, the man was forced to stay married to the girl for the rest of his life. Concerning no divorce, Charles Clough states, “If you look at the marital rules, that doesn’t mean necessarily that she has to live with him; what it means is that he is economically responsible for her for the rest of his life. Not only that, but if she’s pregnant and has a boy, that boy, if it’s a first born, takes the inheritance of the entire family.”[4]

     However, Moses switches the guilt, saying, “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, ²¹ then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus, you shall purge the evil from among you” (Deut 22:20-21). Here, the guilt falls upon the girl because of her marital disloyalty. And because the consequence was capital punishment, one assumes Moses’ previous law applied, in which he said, “no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness” (Num 35:30b). Capital punishment required two or preferably three witnesses (Deut 17:6; 19:15). If the girl was guilty and condemned to death, the assumption was that a thorough investigation was done and at least two or three witnesses were found to testify against her. Furthermore, the girl was to be executed at “the doorway of her father’s house”, which shows that the parents bore some of the blame for their daughter’s sinful behavior, most likely because they knew about her licentiousness and did not seek to dissuade her, or covered it up from the husband. By dealing with this sort of crime, Israel would “purge the evil from among you” (Deut 22:21b).

     Concerning adultery, Moses said, “If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus, you shall purge the evil from Israel” (Deut 22:22). In this case, both the man and woman were “found” in the act of adultery, which act was punishable by death in ancient Israel (Lev 20:10). The assumption is that the sexual affair was consensual, since both are sentenced to death. And, since capital punishment was prescribed, the two or three witness policy applied (Deut 17:6; 19:15). As in the previous scenarios, having sex with another man’s wife was not only an attack on the institution of marriage, but also on the wife’s household, as it might introduce a child that would add to the family and impact the transmission of property, especially if it brought forth a firstborn son. Daniel Block states, “Since sexual crimes are considered crimes against the fabric of the community and crimes against God, covenantal righteousness demands the purgation of the evil from the midst of Israel, which is achieved by removing the corrupting elements.”^[5]

     Addressing adultery again, Moses said, “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds 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; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus, you shall purge the evil from among you” (Deut 22:23-24). Here, the engaged girl is regarded as legally married, even though the marriage had not been consummated. Peter Craigie comments:

• "Although rape could take place in the city, the case in question is not an example of rape, for if the woman had cried out for help, help would have come. Because there was no evidence that the woman had called for help, it could be assumed that she had consented to the advances of the man. Thus, as in the case of adultery, both parties were to be executed by stoning."^[6]

     The consequence for both persons was death by stoning. Again, because the consequence was death, the assumption of the two or three witness policy would apply (Deut 17:6; 19:15). And the severity of punishment shows that adultery injured the community as much as the innocent spouse. Individual choices impact the community as a whole, either for righteousness or sin, for blessing or cursing (cf. Jonah 1:12).

     In contrast to the previous law, Moses said, “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die” (Deut 22:25). Here, the man alone is to be put to death for raping an engaged girl. Moses further states, “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. ²⁷ When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her” (Deut 22:26-27). In this scenario, the girl is presumed innocent because of the remote location, because if she cried out, there would be no one to hear her. Though we are not given any details, we assume either the man and girl were discovered shortly after the crime was committed, or the girl accused the man, and then some process of investigation was instigated whereby the man’s guilt was determined. The man who sexually assaulted the engaged girl was to be put to death, as his crime of rape was classified as similar to murder (Deut 22:26).

     Moving to another scenario, Moses said, “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, ²⁹ then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days” (Deut 22:28-29). In this situation the girl who is sexually assaulted is a virgin and not married. The fifty shekels of silver may have been the common price which a man paid to the parents of his bride-to-be (Ex 22:16-17). This would have been five years wages. Furthermore, the man who committed the crime could not divorce her all his days. As stated previously, this did not mean the girl had to live with the man, but that he was financially responsible for her all his life, which would have included caring for a child if the girl became pregnant as a result. And if the child was his first-born son, the son would, by law, receive the double portion inheritance due him.

     Lastly, Moses said, “A man shall not take his father’s wife so that he will not uncover his father’s skirt” (Deut 22:30). Here was a case prohibiting incest, in which a son slept with his father’s wife, presumably the son’s stepmother. We know Reuben committed this sin when he had sexual relations with “Bilhah his father’s concubine” (Gen 35:22). We know that Absalom also committed this sin when he slept with David’s concubines (2 Sam 16:22). And, there was a Christian at the church at Corinth who did the same (1 Cor 5:1).

An Exception to the Rule Based on Humility and Grace

     In Second Samuel, we read about a situation in which King David had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba and participated in the murder of her husband, Uriah, in order to cover it up (2 Sam 11:1-17). In the sexual affair, both David and Bathsheba consented, as David sent, and Bathsheba went (2 Sam 11:4). Afterwards, we’re told Bathsheba became pregnant (2 Sam 11:5), and when David could not hide his sin (2 Sam 11:6-26), he had her husband, Uriah, killed. The divine estimation of the situation was, “the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Sam 11:27). According to Mosaic Law, both David and Bathsheba should have been executed for their crime (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). However, when confronted by Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 12:1-12), David admitted his sin and said, “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Sam 12:13a; read Psalm 51 for the longer version of David’s confession). And upon his confession, the prophet Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die” (2 Sam 12:13b). Biblically, we know “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1 Pet 5:5). The assumption is that because David humbled himself before the Lord, God gave him a reduced sentence. In one of his psalms, David wrote:

• "The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness. ⁹ He will not always strive with us, nor will He keep His anger forever. ¹⁰ He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. ¹¹ For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. ¹² As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us. ¹³ Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him." (Psa 103:8-13)

     Here we see God’s grace and government simultaneously at work; for though David was forgiven and restored to fellowship with God and permitted to serve as Israel’s king, there were still consequences for his actions and the Lord dispensed judgment upon David, which also hurt other family members and lasted for years (2 Sam 12:14-18). Actions have consequences. When God’s children live righteously, there is blessing that touches other persons. However, when God’s children live sinfully, the Lord’s discipline effects the errant child and can spill into the lives of those nearby (see Jonah 1:12). May we all understand the importance of our choices and the impact it has on the lives of others, and may we choose a life of righteousness that God’s blessings might abound.

 

^[1] “2272 שָׂנֵא,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 880.

^[2] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 257.

^[3] Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Dt 22:13–21.

[4] Charles Clough, Lecture on Deuteronomy 22; 48th lesson, 43rd minute. https://www.bibleframeworkapplied.org/other-lessons/deuteronomy/message/lesson-48-purity-of-created-distinctions-sexual-identity

^[5] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 525.

^[6] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 294–295.