Should A Woman Be Put To Death For Not Being A Virgin?

Atheists like to bring up the old covenant laws as fuel for their hatred of the God of the Bible. The book of Deuteronomy is a good source for their accusations of an “evil God” without actually taking scripture in context. Read;

Deuteronomy 22: 13-21 (NASB)

13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
20 “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

The scripture from Deuteronomy looks very harsh when you compare it to today’s morality. Judging a scripture using today’s morality is problematic. Trying to tie in the morality of 3000 years ago on the same scale as the morality of today will seem difficult to understand. Sexual purity was paramount unlike the culture of today!

When an Israelite had reason to believe that his wife to be was not a virgin he could make a formal protest to the elders of the city. The parents needed to give proof of the daughter’s virginity. If the evidence was satisfactory, the husband was not allowed to divorce his wife and had to pay a fine or dowry (proof was likely a blood stain on her garment or sheet). On the other hand, if the accusation of the husband were to be correct the woman would be put to death. The death sentence was not because she wasn’t a virgin, it was the woman’s deceptive behavior.
These laws were certainly severe, but the law of that magnitude is not enforced anymore due to the new covenant.

Luke 22: 17-20 (NASB)
17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way, He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

The new covenant does not “approve” of the moral sins, and we are not to be violent to anyone as the old Theonomic, system was done away with, read;
Hebrews 8: 13 (NASB)
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

God Bless
Brian Mason

The Lords Supper and the Error of “Transubstantiation”

By definition the word “Transubstantiation” is: the changing of the elements of the bread and wine, when they are consecrated in the Eucharist, into the body and blood of Christ. This is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Apostle Paul corrects this “abuse” in scripture, read 1 Corinthians 11: 23-29
.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

The Roman Church states:
Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC):

“Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).

The disciples never thought that Jesus literally meant that the bread was has actual body. How could they when at the last supper Jesus said: Matthew 26: 26-29:
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Are we to believe that the disciples who can plainly see that Jesus sitting with them would think that the bread he was breaking was his actual body and his blood? Are we to believe that Jesus was speaking of cannibalism?

The Levitical Laws were still in effect since the new covenant was yet to be established and this was pre-crucifixion, see Lev. 17:14:

“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off,”

This is important to remember as the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine change into actual flesh and blood!

We must remember the incredible sacrifice our Lord Jesus made on the cross. The Roman Catholic Church maintains this sacrament as part of the “works” toward Salvation. Please pray that the Roman Catholic follower finally recognizes that participation in this unbiblical ritual is committed over and over again. Christ died once on the cross and was resurrected and that was sufficient. This ritual is nothing more than Christ’s re-sacrifice declaring that Jesus’ crucifixion was not enough and that equals heresy!

God Bless
Brian Mason