13<\/strong>. If any man<\/em>, etc.] For this opening cp. Deu 21:15<\/span>; Deu 21:18<\/span>; Deu 21:22<\/span>. Take a wife<\/em>, Deu 21:11<\/span>, etc.<\/p>\n and hate her<\/em> ] Note this feature in the case; the man had entered on marriage merely for the satisfaction of his passions, and when this was achieved turned against his wife by a revulsion of feeling known in such characters.<\/p>\n 13 21<\/strong>. Charges against a Bride. He who, from a base motive, falsely accuses his wife of unchastity before marriage shall after solemn rebuke from the elders be fined 100 silver-pieces and have his right of divorce withdrawn (Deu 22:13-19<\/span>); but if such a charge be true she shall be stoned to death (Deu 22:20<\/span> f.). No direct address to Israel except in the closing formula which is Sg.<\/p>\n The physical evidence, on which the woman is acquitted, was regarded as essential by many ancient races and is still called for and displayed (not only in judicial cases but after all marriages) by certain tribes in Syria, Egypt and Morocco (see further Driver’s note; Westermarck, Hist. of Human Marriage<\/em>, 123 f.); but its absence is by no means conclusive proof of a woman’s previous unchastity, nor is it certain that the original form of this law so regarded it (see on Deu 22:20<\/em><\/span>). Musil ( Ethn. Ber.<\/em> 208 ff.) gives differing instances of the treatment of this case among the fellahin and Arabs. With the former the man at once puts his bride away; if her relatives repay him the bride-price he must be silent; if he speaks and the bride has really been guilty, they kill her; if she is innocent he is killed. A jury of matrons decides but the production required above Deu 22:17<\/em><\/span> is not demanded. With the Sharari the man returns the bride to her family. With the Terbn, if the man accuses his bride he has to flee before her relatives, and put himself under the protection of a strong man, who opens up communication with them. The bride’s representative applies for a ‘Minshd’ decision ‘that thereby he may make white my honour which he has blackened,’ which is given only by the representatives of certain clans, to whom each party pays 1000 piasters. If the judge finds the charge false the man pays the father of the bride 100 lira, but if he accepts not the decision he is dishonoured and no one may protect him. If the bride is guilty, her punishment depends on her relatives, and compensation is made to the man, who can however still keep her. The innocent party receive back their 1000 piasters.<\/p>\n 13 30. Six Laws on Cases of Unchastity<\/p>\n Of these the first five prescribe the procedure in criminal cases: 1st. Of a Husband’s Charges against His Bride (Deu 22:13-21<\/span>); 2nd. Of Adultery (Deu 22:22<\/span>); 3rd. Of Dishonouring a Betrothed Virgin with her consent (Deu 22:23<\/span> f.); 4th. Of the Same without her consent (Deu 22:25-27<\/span>); 5th. Of Dishonouring an Unbetrothed Virgin (Deu 22:28<\/span> f.); while the 6th forbids Marriage with a Father’s Wife (30 [Deu 23:1<\/span> ]). Of the first five each opens similarly to each of the group Deu 21:15-23<\/span>, i.e. with an if<\/em>, and differently from those of the group Deu 22:1-12<\/span>, and they share with the former group and with Deu 19:1-13<\/span>, and other laws, these marks: the elders<\/em> are the public authority, Deu 22:15<\/em><\/span> ff., cp. Deu 19:12<\/span>, Deu 21:3<\/span>; Deu 21:19<\/span> f.; neighbour<\/em> (not brother<\/em>, characteristic of the Sg. passages) is used, Deu 22:24<\/em><\/span> ; Deu 22:26<\/em><\/span><\/em>, cp. Deu 19:4<\/span> f., Deu 19:11<\/span>; Deu 19:14<\/span>; field<\/em> ( sadeh<\/em>) in its wider<\/em> sense, Deu 22:25<\/em><\/span> ; Deu 22:27<\/em><\/span><\/em>, cp. Deu 21:1<\/span>; and sin worthy of death<\/em> ( e’-maweth<\/em>), Deu 22:26<\/em><\/span>, cp. Deu 19:6<\/span>, Deu 21:22<\/span>. The direct address to Israel is seldom used, and the form varies. In the closing formulas, Deu 22:21-22<\/em><\/span> ; Deu 22:24<\/em><\/span><\/em>, it is Sg. and Sg. also in the body of the 4th law, Deu 22:24<\/em><\/span> (unless this be editorial), but Sam. LXX have Pl. In the body of the 3rd law, Deu 22:24<\/em><\/span>, it is Pl.<\/p>\n In considering these plain-spoken laws it is just to remember that with all their imperfections they represent an advance in social ethics; an upward stage in the struggle against debasing practices and the animal passions of men. That we do not need some of them to-day is due to the fact that their enforcement under religious sanction was needed at the time of their origin. It is only ignorance or ingratitude which can cavil at their spirit or their form.<\/p>\n Go in unto her, <\/B>i.e. hath had carnal knowledge of her. <\/P> <\/p>\n 13-30. If a man take a wife,<\/B>c.The regulations that follow might be imperatively needful in thethen<\/I> situation of the Israelites and yet, it is not necessarythat we<\/I> should curiously and impertinently inquire into them.So far was it from being unworthy of God to leave such things uponrecord, that the enactments must heighten our admiration of Hiswisdom and goodness in the management of a people so perverse and sogiven to irregular passions. Nor is it a better argument that theScriptures were not written by inspiration of God to object that thispassage, and others of a like nature, tend to corrupt the imaginationand will be abused by evil-disposed readers, than it is to say thatthe sun was not created by God, because its light may<\/I> beabused by wicked men as an assistant in committing crimes which theyhave meditated [HORNE].<\/P><\/p>\n If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her.<\/strong> That is, marries a wife, and cohabits with her as man and wife, and after some time dislikes her, and is desirous of parting with her, and therefore takes the following wicked method to obtain it: this is to be understood of a virgin taken to wife, as the Targum of Jonathan explains it; and what follows confirms it.<\/p>\n Laws of Chastity and Marriage. – Higher and still holier than the order of nature stands the moral order of marriage, upon which the well-being not only of domestic life, but also of the civil commonwealth of nations, depends. Marriage must be founded upon fidelity and chastity on the part of those who are married. To foster this, and secure it against outbreaks of malice and evil lust, was the design and object of the laws which follow. The first (Deu 22:13-21<\/span>) relates to the chastity of a woman on entering into the married state, which might be called in question by her husband, either from malice or with justice. The former case is that which Moses treats of first of all. If a man took a wife, and came to her, and hated her, i.e., turned against her after gratifying his carnal desires (like Amnon, for example, 2Sa 13:15<\/span>), and in order to get rid of her again, attributed “deeds or things of words” to her, i.e., things which give occasion for words or talk, and so brought an evil name upon her, saying, that on coming to her he did not find virginity in her. , virginity, here the signs of it, viz., according to Deu 22:17<\/span>, the marks of a first intercourse upon the bed-clothes or dress.<\/p>\n The Punishment of Fornication.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1451.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of<\/I> the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her,<\/I> saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of<\/I> my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in a hundred shekels<\/I> of silver, and give them<\/I> unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of<\/I> virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. 22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both<\/I> the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. 23 If a damsel that is<\/I> a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being<\/I> in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is<\/I> in the damsel no sin worthy<\/I> of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is<\/I> this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and<\/I> the betrothed damsel cried, and there was<\/I> none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is<\/I> a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels<\/I> of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. 30 A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.<\/P> These laws relate to the seventh commandment, laying a restraint by laying a penalty upon those fleshly lusts which war against the soul.<\/P> I. If a man, lusting after another woman, to get rid of his wife slander her and falsely accuse her, as not having the virginity she pretended to when he married her, upon the disproof of his slander he must be punished, v.<\/I><\/span> 13-19<\/span>. What the meaning of that evidence is by which the husband’s accusation was to be proved false the learned are not agreed, nor is it at all necessary to enquire–those for whom this law was intended, no doubt, understood it: it is sufficient for us to know that this wicked husband, who had thus endeavoured to ruin the reputation of his own wife, was to be scourged, and fined, and bound out from ever divorcing the wife he had thus abused, Deu 22:18<\/span>; Deu 22:19<\/span>. Upon his dislike of her he might have divorced her if he had pleased, by the permission of the law (ch.<\/I><\/span> xxiv. 1<\/span>), but then he must have given her her dowry: if therefore to save that, and to do her the greater mischief, he would thus destroy her good name, it was fit that he should be severely punished for it, and for ever after forfeit the permission to divorce her. Observe, 1. The nearer any are in relation to us the greater sin it is to belie them and blemish their reputation. It is spoken of as a crime of the highest nature to slander thy own mother’s son<\/I> (Ps. l. 20<\/span>), who is next to thyself, much more to slander thy own wife, or thy own husband, that is thyself: it is an ill bird indeed that defiles its own nest. 2. Chastity is honour as well as virtue, and that which gives occasion for the suspicion of it is as great a reproach and disgrace as any whatsoever: in this matter therefore, above any thing, we should be highly tender both of our own good name and that of others. 3. Parents must look upon themselves as concerned to vindicate the reputation of their children, for it is a branch of their own.<\/P> II. If the woman that was married as a virgin was not found to be one she was to be stoned to death at her father’s door, Deu 22:20<\/span>; Deu 22:21<\/span>. If the uncleanness had been committed before she was betrothed it would not have been punished as a capital crime; but she must die for the abuse she put upon him whom she married, being conscious to herself of being defiled, while she made him believe her to be a chaste and modest woman. But some think that her uncleanness was punished with death only in case it was committed after she was betrothed, supposing there were few come to maturity but what were betrothed, though not yet married. Now, 1. This gave a powerful caution to young women to flee fornication, since, however concealed before, so as not to mar their marriage, it would very likely be discovered afterwards, to their perpetual infamy and utter ruin. 2. It is intimated to parents that they must by all means possible preserve their children’s chastity, by giving them good advice and admonition, setting them good examples, keeping them from bad company, praying for them, and laying them under needful restraints, because, if the children committed lewdness, the parents must have the grief and shame of the execution at their own door. That phrase of folly wrought in Israel<\/I> was used concerning this very crime in the case of Dinah, Gen. xxxiv. 7<\/span>. All sin is folly, uncleanness especially; but, above all, uncleanness in Israel, by profession a holy people.<\/P> III. If any man, single or married, lay with a married woman, they were both to be put to death, v.<\/I><\/span> 22<\/span>. This law we had before, Lev. xx. 10<\/span>. For a married man to lie with a single woman was not a crime of so high a nature, nor was it punished with death, because not introducing a spurious brood into families under the character of legitimate children.<\/P> IV. If a damsel were betrothed and not married, she was from under the eye of her intended husband, and therefore she and her chastity were taken under the special protection of the law. 1. If her chastity were violated by her own consent, she was to be put to death, and her adulterer with her, Deu 22:23<\/span>; Deu 22:24<\/span>. And it shall be presumed that she consented if it were done in the city, or in any place where, had she cried out, help might speedily have come in to prevent the injury offered her. Qui tacet, consentire videtur–Silence implies consent.<\/I> Note, It may be presumed that those willingly yield to a temptation (whatever they pretend) who will not use the means and helps they might be furnished with to avoid and overcome it. Nay, her being found in the city, a place of company and diversion, when she should have kept under the protection of her father’s house, was an evidence against her that she had not that dread of the sin and the danger of it which became a modest woman. Note, Those that needlessly expose themselves to temptation justly suffer for the same, if, ere they are aware, they be surprised and caught by it. Dinah lost her honour to gratify her curiosity with a sight of the daughters of the land.<\/I> By this law the Virgin Mary was in danger of being made a public example, that is, of being stoned to death, but that God, by an angel, cleared the matter to Joseph. 2. If she were forced, and never consented, he that committed the rape was to be put to death, but the damsel was to be acquitted, v.<\/I><\/span> 24-27<\/span>. Now if it were done in the field, out of the hearing of neighbours, it shall be presumed that she cried out, but there was none to save her; and, besides, her going into the field, a place of solitude, did not so much expose her. Now by this law it is intimated to us, (1.) That we shall suffer only for the wickedness we do, not for that which is done to us. That is no sin which has not more or less of the will in it. (2.) That we must presume the best concerning all persons, unless the contrary do appear; not only charity, but equity teaches us to do so. Though none heard her cry, yet, because none could hear it if she did, it shall be taken for granted that she did. This rule we should go by in judging of persons and actions: believe all things, and hope all things.<\/I> (3.) That our chastity should be as dear to us as our life when that is assaulted, it is not at all improper to cry murder, murder,<\/I> for, as when a man riseth against his neighbour and slayeth him, even so is this matter.<\/I> (4.) By way of allusion to this, see what we are to do when Satan sets upon us with his temptations: wherever we are, let us cry aloud to heaven for help (Succurre, Domine, vim patior–Help me, O Lord, for I suffer violence<\/I>), and there we may be sure to be heard, and answered, as Paul was, My grace is sufficient for thee.<\/I><\/P> V. If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, Deu 22:28<\/span>; Deu 22:29<\/span>. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of.<\/P> VI. The law against a man’s marrying his father’s widow, or having any undue familiarity with his father’s wife, is here repeated (v.<\/I><\/span> 30<\/span>) from Lev. xviii. 8<\/span>. And, probably, it is intended (as bishop Patrick notes) for a short memorandum to them carefully to observe all the laws there made against incestuous marriages, that being specified which is the most detestable of all; it is that of which the apostle says, It is not so much as named among the Gentiles,<\/I> 1 Cor. v. 1<\/I><\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Verses 13-21:<\/strong><\/p>\n This precept was for the protection of a wife against false charges made by a husband who no longer wanted her as a wife.<\/p>\n One grounds for divorce was that the woman was not a virgin at the time of the marriage consummation. If a dissatisfied husband sought a divorce by charging that his wife was not a virgin when he married her, the woman’s father could come before the magistrates and furnish proof of her virginity.<\/p>\n “Tokens of virginity,” bethulim, <\/strong>denotes a certain means of proving that a woman was a virgin. This was a “cloth,” simlah, <\/strong>or a garment of some kind. Scripture does not define this further, although tradition offers various explanations of this “cloth” and why it was considered proof of the woman’s virginity.<\/p>\n If the parents produced this “cloth” in response to the man’s charge, the court considered it as evidence that their daughter was a virgin when she came to the marriage bed. In this event, the man was fined one hundred shekels of silver, to be paid to the father as compensation for the damage done to his reputation. It was the father’s responsibility to guard the moral purity of his daughters. In addition, the man must retain the woman as his wife, and he was never allowed to divorce her.<\/p>\n If the charges of pre-marital immorality were proven true, and the parents were unable to produce proof of the woman’s virginity, then the woman was to be brought to the door of her father’s house, and there be put to death by stoning.<\/p>\n 13. If any man take a wife. This passage also tends to the exaltation of chastity. God provides against both cases, lest a husband should unjustly bring reproach upon a chaste and innocent young woman, and lest a young woman, having been defiled, should escape punishment, if she pretended to be a virgin. A third object is also to be remarked, viz., that parents were thus admonished to be more careful in watching over their children. This is, indeed, an act of gross brutality, that a husband, wittingly and willingly, should seek a false pretext for divorcing his wife by bringing reproach and infamy upon her; but, since it does not infrequently happen that the libidinous become disgusted with their vices, and then endeavor to rid themselves of them in every way, it was needful to correct this evil, and to prescribe a method whereby the integrity of the woman should be safe from the calumnies of an ungodly and cruel husband; whilst it was also just to give relief to an honest man, lest he should be compelled to cherish in his bosom a harlot, by whom he had been deceived; for it is a very bitter thing to ingenuous minds silently to endure so great an ignominy. An admirable precaution is here laid down, i e. , that if a woman were accused by her husband, it was in the power of her parents to produce the tokens of chastity which should acquit her; but if they did not, that the husband should not be obliged against his will to keep her in his house, after she had been defiled by another. It is plain from this passage, that the tokens of virginity were taken on a cloth, on the first night of marriage, as future proofs of chastity. It is also probable that the cloth was laid up before witnesses as a pledge, to be a sure defense for pure and modest young women; for it would have been giving too much scope to the parents if it had been believed simply on their evidence; but Moses speaks briefly as of a well-known custom. <\/p>\n k. SEX OFFENSES (Deu. 22:13-30<\/span>)<\/p>\n (1) VIRGINITY OF A BRIDE (Deu. 22:13-21<\/span>)<\/p>\n 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity; 15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsels virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate; 16 and the damsels father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge, saying, I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughters virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city, 18 And 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 them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her fathers house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her fathers house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.<\/p>\n THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:1321<\/p>\n 373.<\/p>\n Is this section a protection for the wife or for the husband?<\/p>\n 374.<\/p>\n How would a garment produced by the parents of the wife answer the problem?<\/p>\n 375.<\/p>\n Either supernatural knowledge or basic honesty plays an important role here, discuss.<\/p>\n 376.<\/p>\n Adultery was a serious sin; a life and death matter. Is it today? Discuss.<\/p>\n AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:1321<\/p>\n 13 If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then scorns her, COMMENT 22:1321<\/p>\n Questioning the virginity of a mans bride was a serious matter in Israeland these words were doubtless intended both as an incentive for the bride to present herself undefiled to her husband, and as a deterrent to husbands who might be prone to unjustly accuse their wives of unchastity before marriage. Certainly nothing is more utterly humiliating to a woman with a good name than to be so accused. No act can be conceived more cruel or dastardly than that of a man who groundlessly assails his wifes character, accusing her of ante-nuptial unchastity. As the matter was one proof of which was not directly possible, and the mans word was all that could be adduced on his side, the Law threw the onus of clearing herself upon the woman through her parents, and indicated the mode of doing so. (Pulpit)<\/p>\n THE TOKENS OF VIRGINITY (Deu. 22:14<\/span>) i.e., proofs of chasity.In Deu. 22:17<\/span> this phrase seems to be used synonymously with the womans garment that was spread before the elders of the city. A womans dress depicted much about her marital status in the east, and still does in many areas. In Genesis, ch. 38, for example, Tamar is identified by her dress at one time as a widow, and another as a harlot (Gen. 38:14-15<\/span>; Gen. 38:19<\/span>).<\/p>\n The word rendered garment, Heb. simlah, (A.V. cloth) refers to her wrapper, mantle (Baumgartner). It is especially used of that garment which was wrapped around oneself at night for comfort and warmth, though it was worn at other times also, Apparently this proof garment was kept by her parents for such an occasion, as would need its displayprobably put away at the time of her marriage.<\/p>\n Note the severe punishment that was to be given a husband who dared to bring a false accusation against his wifeand hence ruin her name and reputation. He was to be scourged and fined, and legally bound out from ever divorcing the wife he had so abused.<\/p>\n Deu. 22:13-30<\/span>. LAWS OF CONJUGAL FIDELITY.<\/strong><\/p>\n (13-21) Virginity.<\/strong>The law in these verses will be best appreciated by considering its effects. <\/em>The maidens in Israel would be compelled to guard their maidenliness and innocence, as they valued their lives. Jealousy and caprice on the part of the husbands, in view of this law, would be avoided as likely to incur discredit and serious penalties. A fine of 100 shekels (as in Deu. 22:19<\/span>), or 50 (as in Deu. 22:29<\/span>), was no light matter for a nation who found a quarter shekel sufficient for a present to a great man (1Sa. 9:8<\/span>), and half a shekel too much for a poll-tax on the men of military age (1Ch. 21:3<\/span>, and Exo. 30:15<\/span>; Neh. 10:32<\/span>). The law of the jealousy offering in Num. 5:12-31<\/span>, must also be taken into consideration, as guarding the fidelity of the wife. It would be most unadvisable for either man or woman so to act as to bring themselves under the penalties here described. The tendency of these laws would be to make all men watchful and careful for the honour of their families.<\/p>\n (21) She hath wrought folly in Israel.<\/strong>This expression should be noticed. It appears for the first time in Gen. 34:7<\/span>, very shortly after the bestowal of the name Israel <\/em>(Genesis 32<\/span>). It would almost appear that the name entailed a higher standard of behaviour upon Jacobs family, after the hand of the Holy One had been laid upon their father. A separate code of rules were binding upon the chosen people from the very beginning of their history. Hardly any point is made of more importance, from the birth of Isaac downwards, than the purity of the chosen seed.<\/p>\n (22) Adultery.<\/strong>See Lev. 20:10<\/span>. Moses <\/em>in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned. It was not disputed by our Saviour (Joh. 8:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n 13-29<\/strong>. <\/strong> If any man take a wife<\/strong>, etc. This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In Deu 22:25-27<\/span> violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in Deu 22:28-29<\/span>, is similar to that mentioned in Exo 22:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n Various Sexual Crimes ( Deu 22:13-30<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n The Protection Of A Woman’s Reputation ( Deu 22:13-21<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n The rather sad message behind this regulation was that all parents should retain proof of their daughter’s virginity, because some men were so evil that they might use her supposed lack of virginity on marriage in order to get rid of her without losing her dowry. It brings out the depths of man’s sinfulness. It probably indicates that divorce was not easy, which should be remembered when considering Deu 24:4<\/span>, for it probably indicates that any divorce required solid reasons. <\/p>\n Analysis using the words of Moses: <\/p>\n a <\/strong> If any man take a wife, and go in to her, and hate her, and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name on her (Deu 22:13-14<\/span> a). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> And say, “I took this woman, and when I came near to her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity” (Deu 22:14<\/span> b). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city in the gate, and the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, and he hates her, and, lo, he has laid shameful charges, saying, I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity, and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.” And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city (Deu 22:15-17<\/span>). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought up an evil name on a virgin of Israel, and she shall be his wife. He may not put her away all his days (Deu 22:18-19<\/span>). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring the young woman out to the door of her father’s house (Deu 22:20-21<\/span> a) <\/p>\n a <\/strong> The men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel, to play the infamous woman in her father’s house. So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you (Deu 22:21<\/span> b). <\/p>\n Note that in ‘a’ an evil name is brought on the woman, and in the parallel she is therefore to be put to death. In ‘b’ his charge is that he did not find in here the tokens of virginity, and in the parallel this is the reason for her sentence. In ‘c’ the parents prove her innocence with the tokens of virginity and charge the man with laying shameful charges, and in the parallel he is punished accordingly. <\/p>\n Deu 22:13-14<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> If any man take a wife, and go in to her, and hate her, and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name on her, and say, “I took this woman, and when I came near to her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,” ’ <\/p>\n We must assume that cases like this had occurred, so that Moses felt it necessary to issue a warning. Indeed it sounds like the citing of such a case. The idea was that the man had married the young woman and had found her unsatisfactory. Thus in order to get rid of her and keep her dowry he had accused her of not having been a virgin when he married her. That was to say, in other words, that she had previously committed fornication. That way she would be put to death and he would be free of her without losing face and without losing her dowry. <\/p>\n Note the wording which is disparaging to the man. He took her as his wife, he went in to her, he hated her, he laid a shameful charge against her, he brought an evil name on her. No reason is given for his change of heart so that the assumption is that it was just his own personal attitude that was at fault. He was unwilling to accept the consequences of his own actions, and sought for an evil way out. Note also how all is built around ‘he hated her’. He began with actions of love (took her as his wife and went in to her), and ended with disgraceful behaviour (he laid a shameful charge against her, and brought an evil name on her), and all because he had taken an aversion to her. <\/p>\n “The tokens of her virginity (bethulim).”<\/strong> This is usually taken to mean the blood stained garments or sheet which resulted from her hymen breaking on her first night of intercourse. It would appear that it was expected of all parents that they would have kept these after the marriage, so that if necessary they could produce them to prove their daughter’s virginity at that time. It is probable that all parents did so. (The same custom was known among some Arab tribes). While in some cases the hymen could in fact have been broken earlier as a result of vigorous activity or an accident, it would not usually be the case with a well brought up young woman. <\/p>\n It has, however, been suggested that what is referred to here are rather tokens which were proof that she was having periods (menstruating) right up to the time of the wedding, and had thus not been pregnant. ‘Bethulah’ at this time meant a young woman of marriageable age whether married or not (see Joe 1:8<\/span>). Thus the ‘bethulim’ could indicate the proofs of young womanhood and faithfulness up to the time of the wedding. (Young women were married much younger in those days). This is supported by the later suggestion that there might be some argument about the position, while both parties would already know whether the ‘honeymoon’ sheet was bloodstained. <\/p>\n Deu 22:15-17<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city in the gate, and the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, and he hates her, and, lo, he has laid shameful charges, saying, I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity, and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.” And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.’ <\/p>\n Then when an accusation was made against their daughter they could produce what they claimed to be the evidence of her virginity to the elders who were acting as judges at the city gates. It appears that these would normally be accepted as proof of the accuracy of their statement, as the parents represented two witnesses to the fact that the evidence truly related to their daughter at the important time. It should be noted that it is their testimony that is accepted. The court expected the parents to have such proof. Producing a bloodstained garment would not be too difficult. It was their testimony, and the fact that they would be known to have preserved it, that gave it added significance. <\/p>\n In a case like this it was essential that the wife’s parents could prove that their daughter had been a virgin, not only to save her life and uphold the family honour, but in order that their daughter’s future should not be wrecked, and so that any child born could not be denied as the rightful heir. No one would be able to say that the child was illegitimate, for the wife had been demonstrated to be a virgin on her wedding night, (and would have been carefully observed afterwards). Such rights of inheritance were seen as of huge importance. <\/p>\n Deu 22:18-19<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought up an evil name on a virgin of Israel, and she shall be his wife. He may not put her away all his days.’ <\/p>\n The accuser would then be taken and ‘chastised’. This probably indicated a severe beating depending on who the man was. He was also fined a hundred shekels of silver, the price of a number of slaves, which indicated the value put on a wife. This would be given to the father of the young woman as compensation for the slur on the family name, and perhaps to be held to safeguard her future. The woman would also then remain his permanent wife, because he would no longer have a right to divorce her. That right would have been lost. She would be secure from any further charges. Presumably her family would also keep an eye on her from then on. Indeed she may no longer have lived with him, but the rights of inheritance for any children she might have would have been secured. <\/p>\n The punishment was because he had ‘brought up an evil name on a virgin of Israel’. Israel were proud of the virginity of their young women. They were a bedrock of society. To bring an evil name on one was to bring an evil name on Israel, unless it were true. <\/p>\n Under the law of witnesses (Deu 19:19<\/span>) we might have expected him to be put to death. But the decision here probably took into account that that would not be helpful to the injured woman. Instead he was to be sentenced to maintain her without any further accusation for life. <\/p>\n Deu 22:20-21<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring the young woman out to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel, to play the infamous woman in her father’s house. So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you.’ <\/p>\n However, if no tokens of virginity could be produced the woman would be presumed guilty. Had they existed they would have been preserved. She was then to be taken to the door of her father’s house and stoned to death. This was because the parents had failed, possibly innocently, to ensure that their daughter was a virgin when they had arranged for her marriage, although professing that she was. This would incidentally support the fact that the tokens of her virginity were proof of menstruation up to marriage, as both parties would already have known whether no blood had been found on the ‘honeymoon’ sheets, and would have come to an arrangement accordingly. She would be stoned because she had ‘wrought folly in Israel’, a technical term for particularly obnoxious behaviour which was grievous to Yahweh (compare Gen 34:7<\/span>), by acting like a prostitute while living with her family. <\/p>\n All this would, of course, only apply if at marriage the claim had been made that she was an intact virgin. If not a certificate may well have been obtained acknowledging that that fact was known. <\/p>\n One lesson for us from this is the importance laid on virginity at marriage. This was God’s purpose for His people. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/strong> Various Sins Against the Sanctity of Holy Wedlock<\/p>\n v. 13. If any man take a wife and go in unto her,<\/strong> in the act which God restricts to the married estate, and hate her,<\/strong> regard her with loathing after the gratification of his fleshly lust, 2Sa 13:15<\/span>, <\/p>\n v. 14. and give occasions of speech against her,<\/strong> literally, “set upon her deeds of words,” that is, reports without foundation, scandal, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid,<\/strong> an unpolluted virgin, <\/p>\n v. 15. then shall the father of the damsel,<\/strong> the designation leaving the matter of a probable guilt open, and her mother,<\/strong> the parents being very decidedly concerned in this accusation, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity,<\/strong> as it was supposed distinguishable by spots of blood, unto the elders of the-city in the gate,<\/strong> for it was the custom to save this evidence for just such an event; <\/p>\n v. 16. and the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;<\/strong> <\/p>\n v. 17. and, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city,<\/strong> as proof positive that the accusation was a lie. <\/p>\n v. 18. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him,<\/strong> pronounce upon him the judgment of punishment by whipping; Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
14 And charges her with shameful things and gives her and evil reputation, and says, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I did not find in her the tokens of a virgin,
15 Then the father of the young woman, and her mother, shall get and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate;
16 And her father shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he hates and spurns her,
17 And, lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, I found not in your daughter the evidences of her virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take the man and rebuke and whip him;
19 And they shall fine him 100 shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not divorce her all his days.
20 But if it is true that the evidences of virginity were not found in the young woman,
21 Then they shall bring her to the door of her fathers house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death; because she has wrought [criminal] folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her fathers house.
So you shall put away the evil from among you.<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n