Moses on Female Captives & Seduction
- samshmn
- 12 minutes ago
- 20 min read
In this post I will be citing from specific commentators in respect to Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and 22:8-9. These verses deal with the issue of female captives and women who were seduced into having sex. All emphasis will be mine.
DEUT. 21:10-14
10–14 Envisioning a similar circumstance to that depicted in 20:1 (when Israel engages a people in battle and God gives his people victory), this legislation provides guidance for the man who notices among the captives an attractive woman whom he desires to marry. The fact that Israel takes captives in this scenario demonstrates that the battle has been against non-Canaanite peoples (see 20:13–15 and comments there). Hence these instructions do not contradict those given in 7:3 (contra Mayes, 303).
In the scenario depicted, the Israelite man is permitted to take this woman as his wife, but with certain requirements.
1. He must house her in his home and have the woman shave her hair, trim her nails, and wear new clothing (rather than the garb of prisoners). Although in part perhaps relating to her mourning her parents (see below), the primary significance of these requirements consists in her need to make a clearcut transition to life as an Israelite.
2. She must be given the chance to mourn her parents for one month (whether they have died in the conflict or simply because she will likely never see them again).
3. The marriage is not to be consummated until the month of mourning is over.
During that period the Israelite man might reconsider his decision.
4. Finally, if he finds her displeasing for any reason, he has to release her from the relationship with no consequences (e.g., he cannot make her his slave [ʿmr] or sell her as a slave to someone else [mkr]; see Note on v.14). After all, he has “dishonored” or “humiliated” (ʿnh) this woman by rejecting one with whom he has (likely) had sexual relations. The verb ʿnh occurs in several OT passages to refer to rape (Ge 34:2; 2Sa 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Jdg 19:24; see Note on 8:2). Whether or not the Israelite man decides to send the foreign woman away before or after their marriage is consummated, he must not treat her as a slave but as a free citizen.
Although this passage raises legitimate concerns about the potential religious or spiritual influences this foreign wife might have on her husband (cf. 7:3–4), it focuses on a different issue, namely, the humane treatment of a captive woman. Regardless of whether or not the passage envisions an “official” divorce (šlḥ, “to send away,” can have that connotation; Dt 22:19, 29; 24:1–3; Jer 3:1; Mal 2:16), it does not give divine approval for divorce. Numerous OT and NT passages present divorce in a negative light or prohibit it altogether (Lev 21:7, 14; Dt 22:19, 29; Mal 2:16; Mt 5:31–32; 19:39; 1Co 7:10–16). In this legislation, as with Deuteronomy 24:1–4 (see comments there), God addresses a real-life situation without mandating or even recommending divorce.
14 The verb (ʿmr, in the phrase, lō ʾ-tit ʿammēr, “do not treat her as a slave”; GK 6683) occurs only twice in the OT (here and 24:7). In both passages it is juxtaposed with the verb (mkr), “to sell.” The Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the OT) render this verb “treat as merchandise” or “engage in trade with” (Tigay, Deuteronomy, 382, n. 35). Alt compared to a cognate noun in Ugaritic texts that designated a group of people liable for military service (A. Alt, “Zu Hit ʿammēr,” VT 2 [1952]: 153–57). If Alt is correct, the verb signifies the actions of a person who claims unlimited power over the disposal of others (Mayes, 304). Along this line, Nelson, 254 (cf. HALOT, 849) suggests a translation of “exercise one’s power of commercial disposal.”
Given the agricultural backdrop for another form of this verb (“to gather grain”; Ps 129:7b), M. David suggested the translation “treat as merchandise” (“Hit ʿāmēr [Dt XXI 14; XXIV 7],” VT 1 [1951]: 219–21). Swart and Cornelius (NIDOTTE, 3:441) posit that the verb “intends to express an oppressive deed that has devastating physical and psychological impact on the afflicted person. The latter is mistreated, forced to submit to the will of a stronger party, reduced to servile existence, and his or her whole person degraded.” Brin (Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls [JSOTSup 176; ed. D. J. A. Clines and P. R. Davies; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994], 28, n. 17) points out that the two verbs (mkr, “to sell,” and, ʿmr, “to treat as a commodity”) are not redundant—the second verb describes the “nonhumanitarian relationship expressed in the sale of the captive woman.” (Michael Alan Grisanti, Deuteronomy (The Expositor's Bible Commentary), Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland (general editors), published by Zondervan Academic, Grand Rapids, MI 2017)
Righteousness in the Treatment of War Brides (21:10–14)
THE OPENING TEMPORAL CLAUSE and the military theme link this paragraph to the other war texts.1 It contains an appeal to Israelites to be charitable in their treatment of foreigners who are forced to become a part of the community. It divides into two unequal parts, presenting a primary (vv. 1013) and a secondary circumstance (v. 14). The primary case calls for charitable treatment of foreign brides when they are first taken; the secondary case, for their charitable treatment in divorce. The principal thrust of the passage is reflected in the concluding motive clause: “since you have dishonored her.”2
The nature of the degradation (vv. 10–12a).
First, Moses attempts to secure the well-being of an enemy woman captured in battle. The description of the warrior’s treatment of the war bride sounds calloused,3 but Moses’ disposition is hinted at by the final clause (v. 14). Her degradation occurs in six stages: 4 (1) Yahweh delivers her people into the Israelites’ hands (cf. 20:14); (2) the woman is among the captives taken by the Israelites; (3) a warrior notices that she is beautiful; (4) she becomes the 5 6 object of his affection; (5) he marries her; (6) she is brought back to the home of the warrior. The text does not indicate his marital status. If he is the head of the “house” to which he brings her, he probably has at least one additional wife.
Protecting the dignity of the captive woman in marriage (vv. 12b–13).
On the surface, for a warrior to marry a captive bride seems innocent. However, Moses realistically recognizes that the system is subject to abuse, as triumphant males exploit and take advantage of female captives. Having none of this, Moses instructs the Israelites how to respect the rights and dignity of wives whom they have captured. (1) The captive bride must be allowed to express her pain at being torn from her people and forced to join an alien community. While having her shave her hair, trim her nails, and remove her native clothing appear to be insulting demands,7 these actions symbolize her change of status.8 When her hair and nails grow and she puts on new clothes, she emerges as a new person, with a new identity and new9 status; she hereby declares nonverbally what Ruth declared verbally to Naomi (Ruth 1:16). The actions also remind her new husband that he is not to treat her as an alien or a slave.
(2) The woman must be permitted to mourn for her father and mother for a month.10 Whether or not her parents died in the conquest of the town, for this woman they have in effect died, for she has no hope of seeing them again. Moses hereby calls on Israelites to allow others the opportunity to show the same respect for their parents as they are commanded to do (5:16). He also links the consummation of the marriage to the end of the period of mourning; only after she has completed her month of mourning may he have sexual intercourse with her,11 marry her, and have her formally recognized as his wife. This monthlong quarantine expresses respect for the woman’s ties to her family of origin and her own psychological and emotional health, providing a cushion from the shock of being torn from her own family.
Protecting the rights of the captive woman in divorce (v. 14).
Recognizing that people’s dreams of marriage are not always fulfilled, in verse 14 Moses considers the fate of a captive woman for whom her husband’s passion has died.12 Whatever the cause of this loss of passion, Moses rigorously protects the rights of the foreign wife. If the man decides to divorce his war bride, he may not humiliate her further.13 On the contrary, by adding “wherever she wishes,” he heightens the emphasis on her interests and dignity, freeing her to return home and live with her parents if they are still alive—or to remarry.14
Moses issues two prohibitions for the Israelite husband who would divorce his war bride: By no means may he sell her for silver, nor may he treat her as chattel property. 15 He concludes with a rationale for the compassionate treatment of war brides even in divorce. She has already been degraded by being captured and forced to marry the enemy. In other words, the Israelite man may not humiliate (NIV “dishonor”) her again by heartlessly treating her as property to be disposed of or exchanged for silver. Through divorce she again loses her status as a member of the Israelite’s household.16
1. Deut. 20:1–9, 10–15, 16–18, 19–20; 21:10–14; 23:9–14[10–15]; 24:5.
2. On ʿinnâ, meaning to “debase” rather than “rape” or “commit sexual abuse,” see E. van Wolde, “Does ʿinnâ Denote Rape? A Semantic Analysis of a Controversial Word,” VT 52 (2002): 528–44.
3. The warrior’s treatment of the woman is summarized with six verbs: (lit.) “you go out,” “and you take captives,” “and you see,” “and you love,” “and you take,” “and you bring.”
4. For discussion and bibliography of the abuse of women in ancient warfare, see Rebekah L. Josberger, “Between Rule and Responsibility: The Role of the ʾAB as Agent of Righteousness in Deuteronomy’s Domestic Ideology” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, 2007), 41–42.
5. The word ḥāšaq was used earlier to describe Yahweh’s attachment to Israel (7:7; 10:15).
6. On “to take as a wife” (lāqaḥ le ʾiššâ), see DCH, 4:573; Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” 46–47.
7. To the rabbis these acts were intended to make her unattractive to the man, so he would rethink his desire to marry this pagan woman. For references see Tigay, Deuteronomy, 194, 381–82.
8. Carolyn Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuternomic Family Laws (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1993), 12.
9. Compare the healed lepers who signify their new status with new clothes (Lev. 14, esp. v. 8), or Gen. 35:2, where the change seems to signify a shift in spiritual allegiance. On the symbolic significance of clothing, see M. E. Vogelzang and W. J. van Bekkum, “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” in Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East Presented to J. H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and Friends (ed. H. L. J. Vanstiphout; Groningen: Forsten, 1986), 265–84.
10. On thirty days as the normal period of mourning, see Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8. For discussion of her mourning, see Calum Carmichael, The Spirit of Biblical Law (Athens, GA: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1996), 135.
11. On “to go in to her,” as an idiom for sexual intercourse, see Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” 46.
12. Perhaps jealousy of the primary wife or resentment at having mothered the man’s “firstborn” (cf. Abraham and Sarah’s response to Hagar in Gen. 16 and 21).
13. “Let her go” (Heb. šillaḥ) is used elsewhere of releasing slaves (15:12) and divorce (22:19, 29). So also Mal. 2:16, on which see G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 72–73.
14. Babylonian marriage documents from the seventh to third centuries speak repeatedly of a released woman being free to “go back to her parental home,” or “to her home,” or “wherever she wishes.” See M. T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements: 7th–3rd Centuries B.C. (AOAT 222; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), ŠŠ2, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 26, 30. For discussion of these texts see D. Instone-Brewer, “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate,” JJS 49 (1998): 230–43.
15. HALOT, 2:849.
16. So also Josberger, “Between Rule and Responsibility,” 68–70. (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy (The NIV Application Commentary), published by Zondervan Academic, 2012)
21:10–11 The enemies referred to in v. 10 are obviously those of “distant” cities since only they (and specifically the women and children) could be spared the ḥērem (cf. 20:10–15). Women taken prisoner as a result of conquest could be taken as wives by Israelites, another indication that they were not from among the Canaanite nations (v. 11; cf. Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3). The issue here was not polygamy, so nothing was said about the propriety or impropriety of a married man taking a captive girl as his wife. One should assume that this was not sanctioned by the Lord and the community (cf. the observations of Jesus in Mark 10:1–12) even though polygamous relationships abounded throughout the Old Testament. The allowance here then would have been the undertaking of a first marriage by an Israelite soldier. The fact that multiple wives are referred to in vv. 15–17 does not demonstrate divine tolerance of polygamy but only guidelines about its proper regulation given its existence.
21:12–13 A woman taken in such a case was to shave her head, trim her nails, discard her native clothing, and fulfill a month of mourning for her parents before becoming a wife of an Israelite. The idea behind all these procedures seems to be that of cutting off all ties to the former life in order to enter fully and unreservedly into the new one. This presupposes a degree of willingness on the part of the maiden to forsake the past and to embrace a new and different way of life, for one can hardly conceive of all this taking place coercively.
21:14 It is apparent that not all such relationships would be successful, for the differences in culture and ideology would have been difficult to overcome. The husband could therefore terminate the marriage by simply releasing his bride to go wherever she wished. In no case could he sell her as property or regard her as a slave (lit., “deal tyrannically” with her). She had already been shamefully humiliated by having been taken prisoner and made a sexual partner to begin with (v. 14). There is, as usual, no reference here to any initiation of divorce by the wife.
It must be stressed that the allowance of divorce (the meaning of šillaḥtâ, “let her go,” in v. 14) is not a blanket endorsement of it.159 This and other references to such termination of marriages in the Old Testament (cf. Lev 22:13; Num 30:9; Deut 24:1–4) must be balanced against others that either show it in a negative light or bar it altogether (Lev 21:7, 14; Deut 22:19, 29; Mal 2:16; cf. Matt 5:31–32; 19:3–9; 1 Cor 7:10–16). In the pristine days of Israel’s election to be a covenant people, the Lord tolerated many of their “subbiblical” ways, slowly but surely educating them to the moral perfections that he gradually revealed to them. Forbearance toward improper behavior and affirmation of it are altogether different responses.
Were one to keep his second wife, on the other hand, she was to be treated as favorably as his first wife, no better and no worse. The fact that this principle follows the guidelines concerning the acquisition of a wife from among prisoners of war need not imply that the principle obtains only under such rather restricted conditions. It is likely that the particular set of circumstances that gave rise to multiple marriages provides a framework in which to legislate such arrangements generally.
The Old Testament record presents a dismal history of the problems inherent in polygamous marriages or such other variations as surrogate motherhood and the like. One can recall the well-known examples of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar (Gen 16:1–6); Jacob, Leah, Rachel, and the concubines (Gen 29:21–30:24); and Elkanah, Hannah, and Peninnah (1 Sam 1:1–8). Invariably there would arise favoritism, envy, discrimination, and other manifestations of family and social breakdown; in the intimacy of married life there can be no successful division of affection and favor. Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994], vol. 4, pp. 291–292)
ii. Female prisoners of war (21:10–14). The first verse in this section takes up the formulation of laws for the Holy War which commenced in 20:1. The opening words are exactly the same: When you go forth to war against your enemies. But the present concern is for women taken in war.
10, 11. Women are listed among the items of war booty in 20:10–15. If the introductory words of verse 10 place this law in the same general context as 20:1, then the reference here is to captive women taken from a nation outside Israel, i.e. to one who was not a Canaanite (7:3). It was permissible for an Israelite man to take such a woman as his wife.
12, 13. In fine humanitarian fashion the law required that the woman be given a month to mourn the loss of her parents (cf. 34:8; Num. 20:29). At the worst, her father was slain in the war (20:13) and her mother, if she survived, would belong to another master. The woman in question was to shave her head, cut her nails, and put aside her foreign garments. It is not clear whether these activities were part of the mourning rites (cf. 14:1) or symbols of her purification and transfer to another life (Lev. 14:8; Num. 8:7; cf. 2 Sam. 19:24). Certainly the change of garments suggests a change of status. At the conclusion of a month of mourning the man might claim the captive woman as his wife. The prescription of verse 13 can be paralleled in part in some of the texts from the royal archives of Mari dating to the eighteenth century bc. Such kindly consideration is in marked contrast with the cruel treatment meted out to women captured in war among the neighbouring nations, or according to the rules of the Holy War (which may have been an idealized picture. See 7:1–4).
It is strange that this legislation does not envisage the dangers attendant on the presence in the family of foreign women with a pagan background. But it must have been felt that the faith of Israel was strong enough to outweigh any such influence. In some cases the foreigner would embrace the faith of Israel, for she would probably enter by marriage into a similar position to that of a daughter of Israel sold by her father (Exod. 21:7ff.).
14. If subsequently the man of Israel lost his delight in the woman, she was protected from misuse. The relationship rested on a legal basis. If it were dissolved, the woman’s social status was not to be impaired. She was not a slave to be sold, but was free to go where she wished. (J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974], vol. 5, pp. 250–251)
21:10–23. Four laws relating to life and death. 10–14. The law of the female prisoner of war links back to 20:1 and 20:10–15, where women are listed among the items of booty taken in war. Four things were required of the woman: she must shave her head and cut her nails (v. 12), as well as put aside her foreign garments and engage in a month of mourning (v. 13). Most likely these represented a clean break with the past, as well as a sign of purification and transfer to a new life (Lev. 14:8; Num. 8:7; cf. 2 Sam. 19:4). However, the main concern of this law is that captive women should be treated with dignity, also at four different levels. (a) She is not to be raped or enslaved as a concubine, but is to receive full status as a wife (vv. 11, 13). (b) She is to be given time to adjust to her new traumatic situation and ritually mourn for her parents (presumed dead) within the security of her new home (v. 13b). (c) A restriction is placed upon the soldier’s ‘bridegroom’s rights’ by postponing any sexual intercourse with the woman until this month of mourning and adjustment is over (v. 13b). (d) If the man finally decides not to take her as his wife, she is to leave as a ‘free’ woman (cf. 24:1–4), and is not to be sold or treated as a slave (v. 14). In this way, the ‘unloved captive woman’ forms an inner frame with the unloved wife in verses 15–17.( Edward J. Woods, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. David G. Firth, vol. 5, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2011], pp. 234–235)
21:10-14. Moses legislated a number of family related laws, the first dealing with regulations regarding captive women. Earlier the law stated (20:14) that women and children from captured cities were to be spared. The possibilities arose, as described here, that one of the soldiers might find one of the captive woman attractive enough for marriage. Caution was in order here because intermarriage was expressly forbidden with women from the Canaanite nations (7:3) and should not have been even possible if all the inhabitants, including the women, were put to death as the Lord had instructed. The background for this situation (although not explicitly stated) is that some of the captive women might wish to associate themselves with the God of Israel (like Rahab), and now the possibility of an Israelite marrying one of these women was an option. Several stipulations, however, were in order. She was to shave her head and trim her nails and get rid of her wardrobe (vv. 12, 13). The purpose of these acts is not clear. Some think that if the only reason the woman was desirable in the first place was that she was physically beautiful, the removal of adornments would mean she would be less attractive. The most likely reason is that these acts demonstrate that she needed to remove anything pertaining to her former life and embrace her husband that he is no longer to treat her as an alien but as a wife. She was also given a full month to mourn her parents. Presumably her father and mother would be dead after the city was captured, so she would need time to grieve those losses. If those stipulations were met, then the soldier would be free to marry her, but if he was ever displeased with her, she was to be released from the marriage and she could go wherever she wishes (v. 14). Even though she was a foreigner, she had certain rights and was not to be sold for money or mistreated in anyway because she had been humbled (as a result of the divorce, and so he may not humiliate her further). While some of these regulations may affront modern sensibilities, these regulations were a far cry from the common way war captives were treated throughout other ancient Near Eastern nations of the time. (The Moody Bible Commentary: A One-volume Commentary on the Whole Bible by the Faculty of Moody Bible Institute, Michael Rydelnik & Michael Vanlaningham (General Editors) [Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL 2014], pp. 899-900)
DEUT. 22:28-29
25–27. The counter-case is introduced by But if (Heb. wĕ-’im) as at verse 20. But here the setting is open country, and force is also involved. The Hebrew text says, ‘if he seizes her and lies with her’, which the NIV rightly translates as rapes her (v. 25). The parallel with murder (v. 26) suggests a degree of force has taken place. Therefore, it was presumed that the betrothed girl called out and there was nobody to hear or rescue her. In this case, only the man was to die, because the girl had committed no offence, and was a passive victim throughout the ordeal.
28–29. This law reflects that found at Exodus 22:16–17 [et]. But here the situation involves the complementary case of the seduction of an unbetrothed virgin. Therefore, there is no question of capital offence because no marriage or betrothal has apparently been compromised. While the NIV and many other versions treat this as a case of rape too, the terminology here is different, which points rather to a case of seduction with the expression and they are discovered (v. 28b). If they are discovered, then the man is obliged to marry the girl, and is prevented from ever divorcing her (v. 29b). As part of this arrangement, he has to pay the sum of fifty shekels of silver to the girl’s father, which may have represented the equivalent of a bride price. (Woods, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, p. 242)
Intercourse with a girl as yet not pledged to be married is of a different category; it is not adultery (vv. 28f.). The verb in verse 28 is different from that in verse 25 and means simply "handle" or "take hold of," rather than the NIV's stronger translation, rape. Legally, and with carefully defined limits, children in Israel were the "property" of the father (in a way that the wife was not the property of the household), and so to violate a girl (even with her consent) was also an offense against her father. Since the matter had been discovered, the girl would no longer attract another potential bridegroom and the exchange of gifts and dowry that went along with the marriage. It is for this loss that the man must compensate the father (v 29a). When this law is compared with Exodus 22:16f., it can once again be seen how Deuteronomy modifies earlier law in the interests of the weaker party. It gives the offender no option but to marry the girl (and the father no rights to refuse), with no easy way out through a quick subsequent divorce. The girl is thus assured of security and provision, in place of virtual widowhood if she had been abandoned after the loss of her virginity. (Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series) [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 1994], p. 416)
22:28-29. In another scenario if a man ... seizes a virgin who was not yet engaged and lies with her, then the man shall pay the father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife and he will be unable to divorce her all his days (vv. 28-29). Some object to a law forcing a woman to marry the man who raped her. However, for several reasons, it is more likely that the verb "seized" (taphas) does not refer to rape but seduction leading to consensual premarital sex, rather than rape. (1) In the parallel law found in Ex 22:16-17, the verb used is not "seizes" (taphas) but "entice" (pathah) and then results in consensual sex. (2) The verb "seizes" (taphas), used here, is distinguished from the word "forces" (22:25, from the root chazak, meaning "overpower") in the previous paragraph, referring to rape. (3) The verb "seizes" (taphas), while literally referring to physical capture, can also have a metaphorical sense, much like "to capture one's heart" (cf. Ex 14:5), and much more in keeping with seduction. Hence, this law is dealing with a man who seduces a young virgin with words of love so that she lies with him. Afterward, this "seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce" (Meredith Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 111). While marrying a seducer may be an affront to modern sensibilities, there is some rationale behind this legislation. It was a means of protecting a woman's honor. Also if a child were conceived from this illicit relationship, then the child would have a source of financial support. This law may have also provided a strong deterrent against seduction and premarital sex since divorce was not an option. The stability of the family unit and sexual purity were values held in high esteem over feelings in that culture. (The Moody Bible Commentary, p. 907)
The remainder of the chapter (vv. 13-30) is about sexual relations, or more accurately, the violation of those relations. Perhaps the three brief laws about not mixing (two kinds of seeds, the ox and the ass, wool and linen [vv. 9-11) serve as a prelude to these laws on chastity, which also deal with unlawful mixing at the sexual level. Also, the Numbers version of the tassel law (Num. 15:37-41; cf. Deut. 22:12) says that the purpose of these ornaments is to remind the Israelites of God's commands so that they will not "prostitute" themselves by pursuing the "lusts" of their own heart and eyes (Num. 15:39). It seems that a good bit of Deut. 22:13-30 is about going after the lusts of one's heart and eyes. Six situations are discussed: (1) a charge of infidelity brought by a husband against a wife that turns out to be false (vv. 13-19); (2) procedures to be followed if such a charge is substantiated (vv. 20-21); (3) adultery with a married woman (v. 22); (4) intercourse with an engaged virgin in the city (vv. 23-24); (5) intercourse with an engaged virgin in the countryside (vv. 25-27); (6) intercourse with an unengaged virgin (vv. 28-29). The first three of these have as their focus married women; the last three are concerned with unmarried women. (Verse 20 of ch. 22, noted above, is the first verse of ch. 23 in the Hebrew Bible.)
We may note three things about the penalties imposed. First, to whom is culpability attached? On only one instance the woman alone is punished: number 2 (v. 21). Twice both man and woman are condemned: numbers 3 and 4 (vv. 22, 24). Three times the man alone is judged: numbers 1 (vv. 18-19), 5 (v. 25), and 6 (v. 29).
In arranging the violations in this particular order, a deliberate literary sequence is created in which the punishment are arranged chiastically, as observed by Wenham and McConville (1980:250):
A damages of one hundred shekels to woman's father
B woman executed
C woman and man executed
C’ woman and man executed
B’ man executed
A’ damages of fifty shekels to woman's father
There is a significant difference between adultery and fornication. The penalty for adultery for both people is death (vv. 21-22), for fornication there is no death penalty. Instead, the man must pay a fine of fifty shekels to the woman's father (v. 29). For that reason, the man and a betrothed virgin are also stoned to death if they cohabit (v. 24), the exception being rape in the countryside. The explanation in the difference of the penalty is that Scripture treats the marriage relationship most seriously and honorably. The two have indeed become one flesh, and nothing is allowed to become a wedge between them in that unity.
Conspicuous here is one major difference between the laws of vv. 1-2 and those of vv. 13-30, all of which deal with marital and sexual misconduct. There is no penalty stated for violating the laws of vv. 1-12 beyond general phrases such as "the LORD your God detests anyone who does this" (v. 5b, NIV), or "so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house" (v. 8 NIV). By contrast, sins that involve sexual misconduct have consequences that are explicit and severe, ranging from major punitive damages to death. (Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy [Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI Ebook edition 2012], pp. 737-739)
Further Reading
Comments