Facebook is great if but for one thing: providing material about which to blog. There's a photo which has been circulating recently on Facebook which apparently dates to some time in 2009. It shows a man holding a sign which says "WE CAN QUOTE THE BIBLE TOO: A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)"
So of course I pulled up the passage from Deuteronomy to read what is actually says.
From the Douay-Rheims:
"If a man marry a wife, and afterwards hate her, And seek
occasions to put her away, laying to her charge a very ill name, and
say: I took this woman to wife, and going in to her, I found her not a
virgin: Her father
and mother shall take her, and shall bring with them the tokens of her
virginity to the ancients of the city that are in the gate: And the father shall say: I gave my daughter unto this man to wife: and because he hateth her, He layeth
to her charge a very ill name, so as to say: I found not thy daughter a
virgin: and behold these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And
they shall spread the cloth before the ancients of the city: And the ancients of that city shall take that man, and beat him, Condemning
him besides in a hundred sides of silver, which he shall give to the
damsel's father, because he hath defamed by a very ill name a virgin of
Israel: and he shall have her to wife, and may not put her away all the
days of his life. But if what he charged her with be true, and virginity be not found in the damsel: They shall
cast her out of the doors of her father's house, and the men of the
city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a
wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: and
thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee."
The marriage
in the scenario presented in this passage is not considered invalid simply because the woman is not a
virgin, nor is she executed simply for that reason. In fact, the passage doesn't address the validity of the marriage because the validity of the marriage is assumed (as we'll discuss later). So why is she
to be executed? Good question. The answer is "because she hath done a
wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house."
The
situation described here is that of a woman who is already betrothed
but commits adultery before the marriage is consummated with her
husband. How do we know she is betrothed? The Hebrew language has two
words for virgin: almah - an espoused virgin - and bethuwlah - a virgin
who is not espoused. "Almah" is the word used here. Therefore it must be noted that once a couple was betrothed, there was considered to be a valid marriage even before the marriage was consummated.
Fornication alone
was not punishable by death, as we read in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment : He that
lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver,
and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put
her away all the days of his life." So it is obvious that the reason for execution is not simply her lack of virginity. However, adultery was grounds for the death penalty, as it states in Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man lie with another man's wife, they shall both die, that is to
say, the adulterer and the adulteress: and thou shalt take away the evil
out of Israel." Since this statement immediately follows the earlier passage, it seems to logically flow out of and elaborate upon the earlier statement. The primary difference seems to be that in the former passage, the identity of the adulterer is assumed to be unknown.
So to respond to the statements upon the sign in the photograph, the marriage is not considered invalid. Her actions are considered adultery rather than fornication because she already is validly married. Her execution, therefore, is for adultery - not for her lack of virginity.
Good point. Should this law be applied today I don't think many people would be left alive. Which is a shame. That leads me to wonder (since I assume this picture was based on the "gay/lesbians to marry" controversy) If a man is married but has sex with another man isn't that adultery? Then wouldn't the argument against this marriage taking place that it will bog down the court systems with divorce cases?
ReplyDeleteWhat if the person in the marriage is bisexual? Are we going to start having to honor polygamist marriages as well? Where does it end???
Flawed: Text states "to play the whore in her fathers house" -You are correctly defining the difference in words, but are using that definition out of context. It is obvious he found out after marriage that she was not a virgin because she was a "whore" previous to, while "in her fathers house"... SEE? You continue to invalidate your argument by talking about an assumed adulterer, because, um "they" forgot to mention?? You try to claims its all spelled out but have many holes in that theory... The only thing obvious is your sexist ignorance and lack of education. Good day!
ReplyDeleteSo she was murdered for adultery and not for being a non virgin? Well that makes it TOTALLY ethical then to stone a woman to death. Give me a break. The Bible is filled with so much bat shit crazy tripe its amazing anyone still believes in it.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: both genders would have been stoned to death for adultery.
DeleteAlso, you're feigned incredulity over the epistemic merits of the Bible have no relation to the actual validity of it.
"Give me a break"... the last thing you need is a break. You've grown lazy in your insults and unwillingness to consider something that runs contrary to your feelings as to how things should be.
Someone is a little butt hurt, hows that for an insult.
DeleteWhoever keeps using synonyms.com to post as Anonymous and "fight" anyone slandering the old testament...........whoever you are, you are HILARIOUS.
DeleteKeep up the humorous content!
Is adultery wrong? Yes. For this reason it was a crime. As it is a pretty serious thing, it was punishable by death. How this is "crazy shit"? Harsh punishments were normal in those times.
DeleteAlso, I don't see how the answer of the anonymous person is in any way hilarious.
Michael, I'll quote from Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible because I think it explains the passage properly: "to play the whore in her father's house; where she continued after her espousals, until she was taken to the house of her husband, to consummate the: marriage; and between the one and the other was this sin committed, and which is another reason for her execution at the door of her father's house".
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the scenario depicted is one in which a man and woman are betrothed or engaged but have not yet consummated their marriage. This is why the woman is still "in her father's house". But because of their betrothal, they have a valid marriage contract, as it were. It is for this reason that if the woman has sexual relations with another person between the time of betrothal and consummation of the marriage with her husband, the act is adultery and not merely fornication.
Bain, I'm not sure exactly what your objection is. Perhaps you can explain exactly what your objection is. Under the law laid out in Mosaic covenant, adultery was considered a capital crime for both men and women.
It bears remembering that betrothal was something that the bride-to-be often played no role in. She could have been betrothed before she was even born.
Delete... so, YOUR bible condones MURDER?? No way around it ... IT DOES. Why not quote the NEW TESTAMENT? Oh, right, because JESUS only taught LOVE for EVERYONE, even the Bible Bangers commenting here.
ReplyDeleteSteve, it condoned certain punishments for certain sins. But fear not (or.... fear), unrepentant sins will still be punished.
ReplyDeleteFunny how you mention "Bible Bangers" with all of your capslocking. I guess you're a secular "Keyboard Banger". Because make no mistake, you are just as prone to punish those who commit what you consider to be sins. So you're really no different. You just don't like the direction of the punishment
It is funny how your responses contain very little actual content. I also noticed that you said it condoned punishments, are you saying that the bible no longer condones these punishments? I am no expert but i do not think god amends the bible often, but maybe you could point me to an example or reference.
DeleteThe Old Testament condoned certain punishment for specific sins. The New Testament made some changes, but the Judgement of God remains.
DeleteAnonymous says a lot in his statements. No murder.
Just like ISIS.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, the Bible condones capital punishment, and ISIS also condones capital punishments. Just as most of secular states of Europe up until the XX century.
DeleteNow I am not a teacher of the Bible, and I know this is an old thread, but I still to this day find it extremely amusing how people's interpretations of scripture seem to fit their own beliefs so conveniently. That is not what I get from the passage at all. My interpretation is that if a man marry a wife and then later decides he is looking for s reason to divorce her, he can claim (to her father) that she was not a virgin (a whore) and that is an abomination. He (the father) can say that he gave his blessing and that since the husband is making up these vicious lies, the people of the city would beat an condemn him. If what he says happens to be found true, then she would be the one kicked out on the streets and stoned to death. Nothing less, nothing more. I could be wrong but so many people reading between the lines here. In other words, yes, it is saying (in my opinion) is that the abomination here is whether or not she was a virgin or whether or not he is telling the truth. Nothing about marriage, engagement, etc.
ReplyDeleteHello Patrick McMunn. I agree that the issue in Deut 22:13-21 is likely betrothed adultery. Fraud in obtaining a bride price may also be a factor.
ReplyDeleteLess likely, in my opinion, is this is a case of fraud in obtaining a bride price and involving 'dowried fornication', as in, the woman has had sex before her betrothal and her father has wrongly received a virgin bride price for her. The Talmud and Rashi allude to this being a case of betrothed adultery.
In Deut 22:21, a verb is used (which is translated 'play the whore' in the KJV), not a noun, and the verbal forms of the Hebrew noun Zonah can mean
different things. The crime is likely betrothed adultery in her father's house (she hath wrought folly in Israel), at least according to a Jewish
interpretation. If you notice, the punishment is the same as the woman and man who are discovered committing adultery with each other later on in Deut
22:23-24, except the stoning is at the city gate there, not the door of her father's house, where it is in Deut 22:21. Why both parties in the act of
adultery are not mentioned as being stoned in Deut 22:23-24 is likely that the male wasn't discovered committing adultery with her, so his identity is
unknown or there is not proof of his part in that act of adultery.
Deut 22:13-21 Discovery of young (young, damsel, naarah, without h for some reason in entire Deut 22) woman's (a young woman who is supposed to be a virgin
and whose father was given the virgin bride price, 50 shekels, cf: Deut 22:29;Ex 22:16-17) betrothed adultery (a Jewish interpretation; Rashi wrote concerning Deut 22:20 — But if this matter was true: [as corroborated] by witnesses, and there was warning, [proving] that she had committed adultery after her betrothal. — [Keth. 44b]
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9986#showrashi=true ),
hid until after marriage, discovered during (1st?) intercourse after marriage. If true, punishment is to stone her to death in front of her father's house.
If false, punishment is to chastise the false accuser (Deut 22:18), and fine him 100 shekels (Deut 22:19, twice the virgin bride price; Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:18-19).
Deut 22:23-24 Discovery of both a (young?) woman's betrothed adultery and her lover (in the act?), possibly in a potential rape situation, when she didn't cry out. Result is to stone both of them to death at the city gate.
Another interpretation is that refers to concealed non-virginity ('dowried fornication/adultery'), that she and her father obtained the bride-price for a
virgin, 50 shekels, and so this amounted to a deceptive theft at the very least. It is quite possible there is a bit of truth to this interpretation as the punishment to the man who falsely accuses his bride of not being a virgin is 100 shekels (Deut 22:19), twice a virgin bride-price (Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:18-19).
The truth could be a combination of these, but is likely more along the lines of betrothed adultery in my opinion.
We are no longer under Levitical law or the Old Covenant & those laws no longer apply. None of them. Quoting them is moot. We are in the New Covenant. The New replaced the Old. Jesus himself instructed us not to mix the Old with the New. The topic IS addressed in the New Testament a few times, but that's another matter. Stop quoting the OT to guilt/ bully people.
ReplyDeleteSorry but not correct at all "Unknown" Jesus came to fulfill the prophecy but he stated clearly that in no way did he come to "REPLACE" or "DO AWAY WITH" GODS law .... 17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.… WE live under all Gods Law Until the end of times ....
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect: the term used here is bethulah, not almah
ReplyDeleteThis god is no more real than Buddha or Shiva or Allah. And they can't all be real, assuming any of them are. So why take a chance at picking one to worship when odds are high that you'll die and be greeted by a totally different entity than the one you'll then realize you wasted your entire life praying to?
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect that I think gets lost in the analysis is "if a man marry a wife, and afterwards hate her..." So her virginity only matters if the man says it does. Nobody checks 'the tokens of her virginity' unless the husband complains. If he is ok with her playing a whore in her father's house and doesn't end up hating her later, the wife gets to live. So it is not true that "a marriage is only valid if the wife is a virgin." However, it *is* true to say that "if a woman is *not* a virgin when she marries, she can be executed because of it if her husband later decides he doesn't like her." Her virginity is not a requirement for marriage; it is a defense against a punitive annulment.
ReplyDeleteRe: "We are no longer under Levitical law or the Old Covenant & those laws no longer apply ... The New replaced the Old." That may be true for Christians, but Jews do not accept/recognize the New Testament. Jews follow the Torah, which includes the source material for the first 5 books of the Old Testament (including Leviticus and Deutoronomy). So the commenter is right to say stop quoting the OT if you are dealing with someone within your faith, but if you are looking to guilt and bully the broader public, the OT is still fair game.