We must remind ourselves, yet again, that every word that proceeds from the mouth of God is our life. We know that all Scripture is profitable for training in righteousness. The law of the nests considered in our previous installment week was called the least of the commandments by the rabbis, and yet Jesus still referred to it (Matt. 5:19). It is the same here. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds . . . (Deuteronomy 22:9-30)
The Lord prohibits blurry confusions (vv. 9-12). And if a man comes to hate his new bride, and he slanders her, the law here establishes a very strong set of protections for the wife (vv. 13-19). But perhaps the charge is true. The daughter is held responsible for her guilt but the execution occurs before her father’s house (vv. 20-21). The question of adultery in various forms is raised. (vv. 22-24). Then various issues involving rape are considered (vv. 25-29). And the law prohibits a man from having his father’s wife (v. 30).
First, we must learn that discrimination is good. God wanted his people to learn the difference between this and that, between the holy and unholy. The law prohibited the mixing of seed (v. 9). And remember which law is being exposited. The law also banned an unequal yoking (v. 10). Paul applies this to more than just oxen (2 Cor. 6:14). Mixed fabrics were also out (v. 11). And the garments used to cover oneself had tassels attached to them as a reminder to keep the law (Num. 15:39), in this case, laws concerning sexual purity. All these laws (along with the dietary laws) were part of what is called the holiness code. A central point of them was to teach the distinction between Jew and Gentile, and hence this category of the law was crucified with Christ (Eph. 2:14-16); that is to say, the holiness ordinances were put to death. The lesson they taught remains, but the audio-visual aid is removed in the death of Jesus.
Then there is the question of slander in the home. A man who married a woman, and who then came to hate her, had to think twice about accusing her falsely (vv. 13-19). And before proceeding further it is important to note that what is at stake here (and in the following laws) is broader cultural legitimacy (including the legitimacy of heirs), and not simply one woman’s reputation. The woman’s defense was the responsibility of her father, who was God’s appointed “chaperone.” The most immediate proof was probably the bridal sheet. If the father produced proofs of his daughter’s virginity at the time of the marriage, then the husband was to be beaten (v. 18), fined (v. 19), and prohibited from ever divorcing her (v. 19).
But at the same time, it is possible that the charge was true (vv. 20-21). In such a case, the woman was stoned to death in front of her father’s house by the men of the city. Her father was clearly held covenantally responsible for her sexual impurity, and at the same time she bore her own guilt. It is important to note that this was not captial punishment for the sexual sin of fornication, but rather capital punishment for sexual fraud.
We cannot read this law, of course, without thinking about the woman caught in the act of adultery in John’s Gospel (John 8:3-11). But before we assume that Jesus rejected Old Testamant law in a cavalier fashion, consider two things. The first had to do with misapplication of the law. How could they have caught this woman in the very act of adultery without catching the man also? What were they doing just bringing her? The second had to do with the qualifications of the judges. When Jesus says that the one without sin should cast the first stone, I believe he is referring to the sin in question, not sin in general. And of course, we have to also remember that Paul endorses, through his usage, the phrase that comes up here repeatedly—you shall put away evil from among you.
Adultery was considered a treasonous act against the covenant nation (vv. 22-24). It struck a blow against the idea of legitimacy, Without legitimate children, there can be no legitimate authorities. The law applied with married women and betrothed woman both. In the law of Israel, with sexual crimes, a presumption of innocence lay with the woman (v. 27). Rape of a married or betrothed woman was a capital crime—it was a symbolic rape of Israel. If the rape victim was unattached, then a marriage could be forced on the rapist as a form of restitution (v. 29). This was of course not required of her; it was rather a protection for her. The kind of scenario where marriage could be envisaged would be in what we would call a “date rape” situation. The man was known to the family, not a violent criminal, and so forth. In some circumstances it would be (comparatively) good for him to be forced to marry his victim. But of course, that decision was not his to make, but rather was up to the victim and her family. A man could not have his father’s wife (v. 30), i.e. his stepmother. Paul attacks this evil as well (1 Cor. 5:1).
Keeping all this in mind, we must embrace biblical discrimination—we live in a blurry age, an age that hates clarity. And we must come to unlearn all the propaganda about public sexuality that we have taken in. The fact that sexual relations should be private does not mean that sexual bonds and commitments are private. Not at all.