Skeptics sometimes object to the display of the tokens of virginity in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, assuming that, like modern Western cultures, this was an individualistic society where the young woman would be subjected to personal embarrassment by such things. Beyond that, one may object that the man gets off lightly if he is wrong, and indeed, bears false witness as forbidden in Deuteronomy 19:16-21. Given the "eye for eye" equation, one might argue that the husband ought to be stoned, since that is the fate his slandered bride would have endured; hence women are being treated unfairly.

Drawing upon the context of ancient Near Eastern (ANE) law shows how there is a remarkable degree of congruence between the passage about the slandered bride and the law of false accusation.

1. The authors of the text do not portray the husband as seeking his wife's death when he makes his accusation. Rather, he seeks the monetary damages and punishment on the wife that ends up being put on him.
2. The legal systems of the ANE allowed the same infraction to be punished with different penalties. The wronged party often had the right to choose which penalty or penalties to impose on the offending party. A husband who had been wronged by pre-consummation sex plus deception thus had a range of penalties from which to choose, including death, but also lesser penalties.
3. The provisions in biblical and cuneiform law collections dealing with the commission of a wrong typically list only the most severe penalty allowed by law and leave other possible penalties unmentioned. Deuteronomy is not a literal handbook, but is really intended to be didactic—a book of case law.

The penalties inflicted on the husband essentially match the penalties he was seeking to impose on the other party—the father of his bride—thereby satisfying the law of false accusation. He sought to humiliate the family; hence he is humiliated (with the flogging). He sought to keep the dowry; hence he pays it back. He sought to divorce the woman; hence he is not permitted to do so—and this would require him to sustain her for his lifetime, enforced by the elders of the village and the family.

Divorcing a wife in the ancient Near East was a legal act that involved a man's declaring the dissolution of the marriage and sending the woman away from the household, either to fend for herself or to return to her father's household. If the husband in the passage wants to send his new bride away, he would in essence be returning her to her father and forcing the latter to support her. Typical divorce may not be the husband's intention here; he is taking action against the father-in-law. When a father failed to make good on an inchoate marriage agreement, he was often required to return to the original groom twice the amount that was paid as the bride-price.

The husband claims his bride's father has broken the marriage agreement by allowing the young woman to have sex with another man and then deceiving him. He seeks to dissolve the marriage and request compensation, namely, twice the amount of the bride-price. If the bride-price was fifty shekels, he is requesting a payment of one hundred shekels from his wife's father.

The flogging is correspondent to the public shame of the accusation, and perhaps other shaming devices that the man may have performed on the wife. This would humiliate not only the woman but her family as well, particularly her father.

Thus, the punishments are a remarkable mirror image of the man's original intentions:
First, instead of seeing his wife and her father publicly humiliated, he undergoes a form of public humiliation himself.
Second, the financial penalty enforced against the man is one hundred shekels of silver, the exact amount the man would have received if his charges had been believed.
Finally, instead of being rid of this woman forever and forcing her father to care for her, he must bring her back into his household and be permanently responsible for her support.

Regarding the stoning of the woman who actually was guilty, victims could ask that the harshest penalty allowed by law be imposed, or they could accept something less severe. In the case of murder, the right to demand death could be commuted into a money payment. The text specifies lesser penalties for the man, and the harshest penalty for the bride, because the picture is of a man trying to make money. Since his actions were deceitful, asking for the woman's death (the harshest possible penalty) would not serve his goal of financial gain. The law assumes that partial measures were permitted.

Thus any charge of inconsistency or unfairness is dissolved.

>
>
>

I’ve been reading a few verses on marriage and divorce and it seems God treats men and women differently when it comes to marriage. I noticed how in Deuteronomy there is a lot of emphasis on the virginity of the woman, but there isn’t any mention of the virginity of men. In Deuteronomy 22:20–21 the woman who is discovered not to be a virgin is put to death, but there’s no mention of a man needing to be a virgin or the man she slept with before she married being put to death as well. Were men not expected to be virgins before marriage? I know these are two separate understandings. In Matthew 5:31–32 it talks about how if anyone marries a divorced woman he has committed adultery. Is the same expected to be applied to a divorced man? Is a divorced man allowed to remarry? Are only women expected to uphold virginity in society?
>
>

— M. R., Texas
>
>

Please be aware that due to the nature of the question, we will have to include mature concepts in our response. We will try to keep things as clinical as possible.

Such questions are often used by those who presume to judge God and his Word as a means to really question whether God is fair or misogynistic (We're not accusing M.R. of this but saying what some people presume). As a ministry that seeks to uphold biblical authority and the glory of God, we must be able to help answer such questions as they are ultimately attacks on both God and his Word. So, are women expected to remain virgins until marriage, but men are not? To answer this question, we need to consider all the relevant Scriptures and also understand a bit more of the culture of the time.

First, consider that God had also established laws (Deuteronomy 22:13–19) to deal with a man who lied about his wife’s virginity (because he “hates her”) after the wedding night. In such a case, the man was shamed publicly, punished (and later rabbinical writings suggest this punishment was in the form of lashes), fined 100 shekels of silver (a hefty fine at that time, considering that the price of a slave was set at 20 shekels at that time—see Genesis 37:28), and he was then not allowed to divorce his wife for any reason.

A “Virginity Test”

To your main question though, the wife’s virginity, as opposed to that of the new husband, was much more easily established. The practice at that time was that a white linen bedsheet was placed over the honeymoon bed, and the act of intercourse would usually cause bleeding when the hymen was broken. This sheet was then given to the father of the bride for safekeeping, just in case a charge was made. Keep in mind that the text (Deuteronomy 22:13–21) requires the man to make a legal charge that the woman was not a virgin. With this in mind, notice that there are two requirements that must be met before the woman was punished: “If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found” (Deuteronomy 22:20, emphasis added). First, the charge must be true; second, there must be no proof of the woman’s virginity. The first part indicates that an investigation is to be carried out and the allegation proved; this investigation is then supplemented by positive evidence (i.e., at least two reliable witnesses testify against the woman). Only then is the woman held guilty. We can therefore surmise that the final judgment was not entirely predicated upon the presence or absence of the evidence. The physical evidence no doubt had important bearing on the case, but the “virginity test” of the cloth was unlikely to be the sole means of establishing the woman’s guilt.1

> We can therefore surmise that the final judgment was not entirely predicated upon the presence or absence of the evidence.

It should also be noted that nothing prohibited a man, if he found out his wife was not a virgin but still loved her and did not want any suspicion cast on her, from taking matters into his own hands. He could (for example) smear his own blood on the linen. In a sense, this action would be in accordance with the thought of Proverbs 10:12 “Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins” and Proverbs 17:9 “He who covers a transgression seeks love. . . .”

Likely About Prostitution

But to keep this in context, the reason why the woman bore the responsibility of virginity is twofold. There was no way to physically detect if a man was a virgin or not. And in that time period, women stayed in their father’s house (or uncle’s or brother’s, if the father was dead) until they married. They had almost no unsupervised contact with men before the wedding night. The only ways for a woman to lose her virginity would be the following cases:

• She was raped, which she was not responsible for, and the rapist was put to death (Deuteronomy 22:25–27).

• She sneaked out of her father’s house and met with an unmarried man as a lover (and this is dealt with in Exodus 22:16–17 and probably also Deuteronomy 22:28–29) in which case (if caught in the act) both were forced to be married with no permission of divorce.

• As in the scenario above, she has a lover, but the man “skips town” and does not marry her. She then is faced with telling her father (which would be shameful and cost the family any dowry money) or keeping the illicit liaison a secret. She then runs the risk of being “found out” on her wedding night if she does marry someone else.

• She was a prostitute and operated out of her father’s house when he was away on business, and this seems to be what is addressed in Deuteronomy 22:20–21. Notice the phrase at the end of vs. 21, “play the harlot in her father’s house” (NKJV) or “whoring in her father’s house” (ESV).

> The thought is that not only was she promiscuous or a prostitute (a very serious sin in the Old Testament) but also that she had defiled and shamed her father’s house and name by her actions.

The thought is that not only was she promiscuous or a prostitute (a very serious sin in the Old Testament) but also that she had defiled and shamed her father’s house and name by her actions. Even so, if the man still loved the woman, he could protect her by saying nothing or, as mentioned above, by perhaps placing his own blood on the honeymoon sheet. Remember that Hosea married a known prostitute (Gomer) and had three children with her (Hosea 1:2–9).2 Also recall that if caught in the act of adultery, both the man and the woman were to be killed (Deuteronomy 22:23–24). If a woman had previously been raped and the rapist was not caught (or was too powerful to be accused, like David’s son Amnon in 2 Samuel 13:10–14), she would have reported this to her father right away. The dowry would be lowered, but she was still eligible to be married (Dinah and Tamar are examples).

So, yes, the men were expected to be virgins too, but unless they were caught in the act (in which case they were consigned to be married to their lover) or caught after raping a woman (in which case they were killed), there was no physical test to confirm their virginity. But because the culture was geared towards preserving the honor of the household, clan, and tribe, men had cultural pressure on them to abstain from relations before marriage as well.

What About Divorce?

Regarding Matthew 5:31–32, in context and according to the civil law at the time, a Jewish woman could not initiate a divorce. What Jesus is doing here is demolishing the practice of “easy divorce” by Jewish men. This practice had disastrous consequences as a divorced woman had no choice but to go back to her father’s house (or brother’s or uncle’s, if her father was dead), creating additional financial burdens on that household, while the divorced man could remarry at will. Jesus is restricting such practices so that if a man did divorce his wife, he was the one responsible for causing her to commit adultery if she remarried and was himself responsible for adultery if he remarried (Matthew 19:9). In a culture of family honor being held so high, adultery was extremely shameful conduct, and none but the most absolutely disreputable man would do such a thing. Of course, those who rejected Jesus would also reject his teaching on this subject (and all others too), but they would bear the responsibility for their sin, whether they acknowledged it or not.

There’s No Separate Standard

> All sexual immorality is condemned throughout Scripture, whether committed by a male or a female (or both).

All sexual immorality is condemned throughout Scripture, whether committed by a male or a female (or both). There’s no separate standard for men vs. women. Both are called to lives of holiness and sexual purity (one man and one woman within the covenant relationship of marriage). And why marriage? Well, Scripture teaches that sexual union (which is only for within marriage) is for mutual pleasure (consider the Song of Solomon) but also, by God’s design, to produce godly offspring (Malachi 2:15). Not only does a faithful marriage provide the couple with blessed oneness, but it also protects the family, is the context for instructing the children in godliness, enables the self-sacrificing love that marriage requires, and models Christ’s faithful love for the Church (Ephesians 5:21–33).

When we follow God’s design for families, mental, physical and emotional health increases and civic stability follows.