In this series, we are examining some of the many commandments which are contained in the Law of Moses.  It is our aim to understand them better, build faith, and answer critics.  We are considering them topically.

1.   Value of Life.  A woman was protected by law (Genesis 1:26-27 cf. Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:20; 21:26-27; 21:28-32).

Both male and female were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27 cf. 9:6).  Lex Talionis was for both he male and the female (e.g. Exodus 21:20, 26-27, 28-32). 

Another text worth consideration is Exodus 21:22-25. There is a question whether the harm which follows refers to: (1) harm to the mother; (2) harm to the child; or (3) harm to the mother and/or the child (we will consider children in this series).  I hold to the third position.  If either position one or position three is correct, then this is another passage which applies lex talionis to women. 

2.  Test of Virginity (Deuteronomy 21:13-21).    The situation set forth is as follows.  A man marries a woman.  He soon regrets doing so.  In order to get out without a lot of embarrassment and possibly expense, he claims that she misrepresented her virginity when she married him.  Dennis Prager comments, “In the time of the Torah, a man would pay a sum of money to a woman’s father in exchange for her hand in marriage.  If she was a virgin, the bride-price was substantially higher than if she was not… This husband, for whatever reason, has what today might be called ‘buyer’s remorse,’ and has publicly sullied his wife’s reputation with the made-up charge that she lied about her virginity… Why would a man resort to defamation rather than divorce?  Because as Wright points out, charging his wife with deceiving him about her virginity would enable him to ‘presumably reclaim the bridal gift he had paid to the father.’” (The Rational Bible: Deuteronomy, p. 345).

The wife’s parents were allowed to produce evidence of their daughter’s virginity.  Dennis Prager explains, “In ancient cultures (and in some to this day), it was customary for a newly married couple to consummate their union on a white cloth.  Given the bleeding that often accompanies a woman’s first intercourse, blood would appear on the white cloth.  This was then turned over to the parents as proof of their daughter’s virginity… such bleeding is not universal, however.  There are many reasons a hymen might be torn long before a young woman has ever had a sexual encounter (riding horseback, for example)… the primary reason for these laws was to protect the wife” (Deuteronomy, p. 346-347). 

There were consequences to lying.  (1) If the man’s accusation were found to be false, then he was to be flogged, fined, and never given the option of divorcing this woman.  (2) If the young woman could be found to have lied, then she could be stoned.  While blood is not a perfect medical test of virginity, it was the best available.  If she could not produce cloth evidence then it seems that further investigation would have occurred.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  No one was to be convicted without adequate evidence (cf. Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:15 Numbers 35:30).  There is no record of this ever being carried out in Israelite history. 

3.  Test of Unfaithful Wife (Numbers 5:11-31).  The situation set forth is as follows.  A jealous husband suspects that his wife has been unfaithful.  However, he has no evidence.  He could bring his wife to the priest.  The priest could administer a bitter water test.  It appears that the wife must agree to submit to such (cf. Numbers 5:16-22).  James Burton Coffman points out, “The vast difference between this ordeal and the countless ordeals of paganism is that this one is not in itself injurious but depends for its efficacy upon the direct interposition of God” (Studylight).     The result of the ordeal?  (1) If she were innocent, then she would not be harmed by the bitter water (Numbers 5:19, 28).  She may conceive children (Numbers 5:28).  (2) If she were guilty, then harm would come to her (Numbers 5:20-22, 27).  Her belly would swell and her thigh would rot.  Dub McClish comments, “God supernaturally made His knowledge of the respective innocence or guilt of those tried by acting on the ‘bitter water’ to produce the cursed effect in the case of the guilty… It is possible that ‘thigh’ is here to produce the cursed effect in the case of the guilty… It is possible that ‘thigh’ is here used as a euphemism for the reproductive organs, particularly the womb, due to their close proximity to the thigh” (The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, editor David Brown, The Eleventh Annual Southwest Lectures, p. 272). 

This law seems to be given to protect women against false accusations.  There is no record of this test (ordeal) ever being administered in the Bible. 

3.  Flow.  A woman was considered unclean during her menstruation (Leviticus 15:19-30; 18:19; Also Ezekiel 18:6; 22:10).

Why was a woman considered unclean during her menstrual flow?  God does not explain the reason.  However, consider these things.  (1) It should be kept in mind that “uncleanness” was not the same as sin.  (2) It was not the woman alone.  The man was also regarded as unclean if he had an emission of semen (Leviticus 15:16-18).  (3) Some have suggested that this had to do with the sanctity of blood (cf. Leviticus 17:11).  This is possible.  However, it would not explain the law concerning emission.  Admittedly, the reason for each may be different.

Why was there to be no sexual intercourse during this time?  The reason is not given.  However, some have speculated.  (1) Some believe that there may be health reasons.  Dave Miller writes, “There is some debate in the medical community over whether or not intercourse during menstruation increases the risk for exposure to Pelvic Inflammatory Disease… Blood, of course, can be a significant medium for bacteria and infectious disease.  As one medical authority noted: ‘Intercourse during menses and frequent intercourse may offer more opportunities for the admission of pathogenic organisms to the inside of the uterus’ [Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (2001), Joseph F. Smith Medical Library, chclibrary.org]” (Dave Miller, Sexual Anarchy, p. 72).  (2) Some have suggested that this was out of compassion for the woman.  Dave Miller writes, “the injunction could possibly have been intended to emphasize… the importance of the husband being thoughtful and considerate toward his wife during a difficult time of the month” (Miller, p. 72).  (3) While we may not know the reason, this is not sufficient evidence to deny the Bible’s claim of inspiration. 

4.  Men and women found in unlawful intercourse.  Different situations are considered in the law (Deuteronomy 22:22-29).     (1) Adultery was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:22).  This applied to both the man and the woman.  Adultery was considered a very serious crime.  It attacked the stability of the home.  There is no Biblical record of anyone ever being put to death for adultery.  Remember that there had to be witnesses (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:15). (2) Faithfulness was also expected in the case of the betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-27).  The death penalty applied to both the man and the woman.  However, wisdom was to be used to discern whether this was consensual sex or rape.  For example: could the woman alert others?  If she could not, then she was presumed innocent. (3)  Then there is the case of the unmarried and unbetrothed (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).  If they were discovered, the death penalty was not on the table.  The man was fined.  The woman could become his wife (Deuteronomy 22:29 cf. Exodus 22:16-17).  If she did, then he could never divorce her. 

This last case has troubled more than a few.  (1) Some think that rape, and not consensual sex, is in view. For instance, John MacArthur holds this position (The MacArthur Bible Commentary). Leeor Gottlieb defends this view saying, “This served as an important deterrent against rape (because if caught, the man would be forced to undertake a huge financial and personal obligation), and in the case rape occurred, it was a life insurance police for the woman. The need for this insurance policy is that public knowledge of her no longer being a virgin reduced her chances of finding a good marriage” (Dennis Prager, Deuteronomy, p.354).

HOWEVER, I am not convinced that this refers to rape.  Consider: (a) It does say, “he seizes her and lies with her” (Deuteronomy 22:28).  However, I am not convinced that “seizes” (tapas) implies rape.  The Defending The Faith Study Bible comments, “The Hebrew word in this case translated “seizes” (tapas) can mean many things.”  It means “take” or “lay hold on.”  However, it does not demand that this refers to rape.  Though, some translations have so rendered it (NIV, NLT).  (b) In an earlier situation, rape was in view (Deuteronomy 22:25-26). It says, “the man forces her and lies with her” (Deuteronomy 22:25).  The Hebrew word translated “forces” (chazag) is different.  Why change words (v. 25 cf. v. 28)?  (c) It says, “they were found out” (Deuteronomy 22:28).  The Defending the Faith Study Bible comments, “When verse 25 discusses the obvious case of rape the text mentions only the man when it says, “then only the man who lay with her,” and conspicuously leaves out an indication of ‘they’…”

(2) Some reading the text in Deuteronomy alone conclude that the woman had to marry the man. There was no option.

I do not believe this is the case, when more of the law is included.  It appears that the father had a choice in the matter (cf. Exodus 22:16-17), and probably the woman as well (cf. Genesis 24:58).

Why this law?  (1) Some think that this was designed to discourage rape and help provide the woman with some financial security.  (2) I believe that this refers to consensual pre-marital sex (cf. Exodus 22:16-17).  It was not to be taken lightly. It was designed to discourage premarital sex. The man could be required to marry the woman.