Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 22:18
And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
18. chastise him ] According to Josephus, IV. Antt. viii. 23, he received 39 stripes; see on Deu 25:3. But the vb probably means merely to rebuke, cp. Deu 21:18.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Either,
1. By the following mulct. Or,
2. By severe reproofs, which that word oft signifies. Or,
3. By stripes, as is expressed, Deu 25:2,3. Which is not strange, considering how precious a thing ones good name is, of which he endeavoured to deprive his wife.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And the elders of that city shall take the man, and chastise him. Not with words, but blows. Jarchi interprets it of beating, and so does the Talmud x; and both the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan render it,
“shall beat him;”
that is, with the beating or scourging of forty stripes, save one.
x T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 46. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The elders, as the magistrates of the place, were then to send for the man who had so calumniated his young wife, and to chastise him ( , as in Deu 21:18, used to denote bodily chastisement, thought the limitation of the number of strokes to forty save one, may have been a later institution of the schools); and in addition to this they were to impose a fine upon him of 100 shekels of silver, which he was to pay to the father of the young wife for his malicious calumniation of an Israelitish maiden, – twice as much as the seducer of a virgin was to pay to her father for the reproach brought upon him by the humiliation of his daughter (Deu 22:29); and lastly, they were to deprive the man of the right of divorce from his wife.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
18. And the elders of that city shall take that man. Calumny in this case received a threefold punishment; first, that he, who had invented the false accusation, should be beaten with stripes; secondly, that he should pay an hundred pieces of silver to the father of the girl; thirdly, that he should never be allowed to put her away; and tie reason is given, “because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel.” God here shows Himself to be the protector of virgins, that young women may be the more encouraged to cultivate chastity. If any should object that it was a bad provision for the unhappy woman that she should be subjected for ever to tyrannical rule, I reply, that this was done because there was no means for her release; for although, as we shall presently see, men were permitted to obtain a divorce from their wives, still it was neither just nor right to overthrow God’s earliest institution. Besides, it was necessary to obviate the trick of the husband who would have gloried in her divorce, as having gained what he desired.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Ver. 18, 19. The eldersshallchastisehim, &c. That is, say the Talmudists, condemn him to receive forty stripes, save one; and they add, that the woman was sent back with a solemn benediction; and that the false witnesses who deposed against her were stoned. See ch. Deu 19:18-19. It is thought that this chastisement was only inflicted in case of the non-payment of the fine of one hundred shekels of silver; which sum the father was to receive, as some compensation for the reproach thrown on his family; and because the husband designed to put his wife away without allowing her maintenance, he was to pay a hundred shekels, which is a double dowry. See Exo 22:17. Besides the two former punishments, in his person and his purse, he was deprived of the common benefit which every Israelite had, who did not like his wife; which was, to sue out a divorce: He may not put her away all his days. “A good name,” says Lord Clarendon, “is too precious a thing to be left to the rude tongue of every licentious person, without a severe penalty for the abusing it. God had so signal a tenderness for the reputation of his people, that, in the first body of laws which he puts himself to the task of compiling, he provided, that if a man traduced his own wife, he was to be most severely punished. We never see any notable act of in injustice and oppression done, but the person is much defamed, first, to make him the fitter to be injured when he seems unworthy to be pitied; and therefore St. Paul put backbiters and haters of God together, Rom 1:30 as if they could not love the majesty of God, who have no remorse in calumniating their neighbour.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Reciprocal: Exo 21:22 – as the judges