the violation of the marriage bed. The law of Moses punished
with death both the man and the woman who were guilty of this crime,
Lev. xx, 10. If a woman was betrothed to a man, and was guilty of this
infamous crime before the marriage was completed, she was, in this case,
along with her paramour, to be stoned, Deut. xxii, 22–24.
When any man among the Jews, prompted by jealousy, suspected his wife of
the crime of adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and
informed them that, in consequence of his suspicions, he had privately
admonished her, but that she was regardless of his admonitions. If
before the judges she asserted her innocency, he required that she
should drink the _waters of jealousy_, that God might by these means
discover what she attempted to conceal, Num. v, 12, &c. The man then
produced his witnesses, and they were heard. After this, both the man
and the woman were conveyed to Jerusalem, and placed before the
sanhedrim; the judges of which, by threats and other means, endeavoured
to confound the woman, and make her confess. If she persisted in denying
the fact, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel,
stripped of her own clothes, and dressed in black, before great numbers
of her own sex. The priest then told her, that if she was really
innocent, she had nothing to fear; but if guilty, she might expect to
suffer all that the law had denounced against her, to which she
answered, “Amen, amen.” The priest then wrote the terms of the law in
this form:--“If a strange man hath not come near you, and you are not
polluted by forsaking the bed of your husband, these bitter waters,
which I have cursed, will not hurt you: but if you have polluted
yourself by coming near to another man, and gone astray from your
husband,--may you be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all
his people; may your thigh rot, and your belly swell till it burst; may
these cursed waters enter into your belly, and being swelled therewith,
may your thighs putrefy.“
After this, the priest filled a pitcher out of the brazen vessel, near
the altar of burnt offerings, cast some dust of the pavement into it,
mingled something with it as bitter as wormwood, and then read the
curses, and received her answer of Amen. Another priest, in the
meantime, tore off her clothes as low as her bosom--made her head
bare--untied the tresses of her hair--fastened her clothes, which were
thus torn, with a girdle under her breasts, and then presented her with
the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints, of barley meal. The
other priest then gave her the _waters of jealousy_, or bitterness, to
drink; and as soon as the woman had swallowed them, he gave her the meal
in a vessel like a frying-pan into her hand. This was stirred before the
Lord, and part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the wife was
innocent, she returned with her husband, and the waters, so far from
injuring her, increased her health, and made her more fruitful; but if
she was guilty, she grew pale immediately, her eyes swelled; and, lest
she should pollute the temple, she was instantly carried out, with these
symptoms upon her, and died instantly, with all the ignominious
circumstances related in the curses.
On this law of Moses, Michaëlis has the following remarks:--
“This oath was, perhaps, a relic of some more severe and barbarous
consuetudinary laws, whose rigours Moses mitigated; as he did in many
other cases, where an established usage could not be conveniently
abolished altogether. Among ourselves, in barbarous times, the _ordeal_,
or trial by fire, was, notwithstanding the parity of our married people,
in common use; and this, in point of equity, was much the same in
effect, as if the husband had had the right to insist on his wife
submitting to the hazardous trial of her purity, by drinking a poisoned
potion; which, according to an ancient superstition, could never hurt
her if she was innocent. And, in fact, such a right is not altogether
unexampled; for, according to Oldendorp’s _History of the Mission of the
Evangelical Brethren, in the Caribbee Islands_, it is actually in use
among some of the savage nations in the interior parts of Western
Africa.
“Now, when in place of a poisoned potion like this, which very few
husbands can be very willing to have administered to their wives, we
see, as among the Hebrews, an imprecation-drink, whose avenger God
himself promises to become, we cannot but be struck with the contrast of
wisdom and clemency which such a contrivance manifests. In the one case,
(and herein consists their great distinction,) innocence can only be
preserved by a miracle; while, on the other, guilt only is revealed and
punished by the hand of God himself.
“By one of the clauses of the oath of purgation, (and had not the
legislator been perfectly assured of his divine mission, the insertion
of any such clause would have been a very bold step indeed,) a visible
and corporeal punishment was specified, which the person swearing
imprecated on herself, and which God himself was understood as engaging
to execute. To have given so accurate a definition of the punishment
that God meant to inflict, and still more one that consisted of such a
rare disease, would have been a step of incomprehensible boldness in a
legislator who pretended to have a divine mission, if he was not, with
the most assured conviction, conscious of its reality.
“Seldom, however, very seldom, was it likely that Providence would have
an opportunity of inflicting the punishment in question. For the oath
was so regulated, that a woman of the utmost effrontery could scarcely
have taken it without changing colour to such a degree as to betray
herself.
“In the _first_ place, it was not administered to the woman in her own
house, but she was under the necessity of going to that place of the
land where God in a special manner had his abode, and took it there.
Now, the solemnity of the place, unfamiliarized to her by daily business
or resort, would have a great effect upon her mind. In the _next_ place,
there was offered unto God what was termed an _execration offering_, not
in order to propitiate his mercy, but to invoke his vengeance on the
guilty. Here the process was extremely slow, which gave her more time
for reflection than to a guilty person could be acceptable, and that,
too, amidst a multitude of unusual ceremonies. For the priest conducted
her to the front of the sanctuary, and took holy water, that is, water
out of the priests’ laver, which stood before it, together with some
earth off its floor, which was likewise deemed holy; and having put the
earth in the water, he then proceeded to uncover the woman’s head, that
her face might be seen, and every change on her countenance during the
administration of the oath accurately observed: and this was a
circumstance which, in the east, where the women are always veiled, must
have had a great effect; because a woman, accustomed to wear a veil,
could, on so extraordinary an occasion, have had far less command of her
eyes and her countenance than a European adulteress, who is generally a
perfect mistress in all the arts of dissimulation, would display. To
render the scene still more awful, the tresses of her hair were
loosened, and then the execration offering was put into _her_ hand,
while the priest held in _his_ the imprecation water. This is commonly
termed the _bitter water_; but we must not understand this as if the
water had really been bitter; for how could it have been so? The earth
of the floor of the tabernacle could not make it bitter. Among the
Hebrews, and other oriental nations, the word _bitter_ was rather used
for _curse_: and, strictly speaking, the phrase does not mean _bitter
water_, but the _water of bitternesses_, that is, of curses. The priest
now pronounced the oath, which was in all points so framed that it could
excite no terrors in the breast of an innocent woman; for it expressly
consisted in this, that the imprecation water should not harm her if she
was innocent. It would seem as if the priest here made a stop, and again
left the woman some time to consider whether she would proceed with the
oath. This I infer from the circumstance of his speech not being
directly continued in verse 21st, which is rather the _apodosis_ of what
goes before; and from the detail proceeding anew in the words of the
historian, _Then shall the priest pronounce the rest of the oath and the
curses to the woman; and proceed thus_.--After this stop he pronounced
the curses, and the woman was obliged to declare her acquiescence in
them by a repeated _Amen_. Nor was the solemn scene yet altogether at an
end; but rather, as it were commenced anew. For the priest had yet to
write the curses in a book, which I suppose he did at great
deliberation; having done so, he washed them out again in the very
imprecation water, which the woman had now to drink; and this water
being now presented to her, she was obliged to drink it, with this
warning and assurance, in the name of God, that if she was guilty, it
would prove within her an absolute curse. Now, what must have been her
feelings, while drinking, if not conscious of purity? In my opinion she
must have conceived that she already felt an alteration in the state of
her body, and the germ, as it were, of the disease springing within her.
Conscience and imagination would conspire together, and render it almost
impossible for her to drink it out. Finally, the execration offering was
taken out of her hand, and burnt upon the altar. I cannot but think
that, under the sanction of such a _purgatorium_, perjury must have been
a very rare occurrence indeed. If it happened but once in an age, God
had bound himself to punish it; and if this took place but once, (if but
one woman who had taken the oath was attacked with that rare disease
which it threatened,) it was quite enough to serve as a determent to all
others for at least one generation.”
This procedure had also the effect of keeping in mind, among the Jews,
God’s high displeasure against this violation of his law; and though
some lax moralists have been found, in modern times, to palliate it, yet
the Christian will always remember the solemn denunciations of the New
Testament against a crime so aggravated, whether considered in its
effects upon the domestic relations, upon the moral character of the
guilty parties, or upon society at large,--“Whoremongers and adulterers
God will judge.”
with death both the man and the woman who were guilty of this crime,
Lev. xx, 10. If a woman was betrothed to a man, and was guilty of this
infamous crime before the marriage was completed, she was, in this case,
along with her paramour, to be stoned, Deut. xxii, 22–24.
When any man among the Jews, prompted by jealousy, suspected his wife of
the crime of adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and
informed them that, in consequence of his suspicions, he had privately
admonished her, but that she was regardless of his admonitions. If
before the judges she asserted her innocency, he required that she
should drink the _waters of jealousy_, that God might by these means
discover what she attempted to conceal, Num. v, 12, &c. The man then
produced his witnesses, and they were heard. After this, both the man
and the woman were conveyed to Jerusalem, and placed before the
sanhedrim; the judges of which, by threats and other means, endeavoured
to confound the woman, and make her confess. If she persisted in denying
the fact, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel,
stripped of her own clothes, and dressed in black, before great numbers
of her own sex. The priest then told her, that if she was really
innocent, she had nothing to fear; but if guilty, she might expect to
suffer all that the law had denounced against her, to which she
answered, “Amen, amen.” The priest then wrote the terms of the law in
this form:--“If a strange man hath not come near you, and you are not
polluted by forsaking the bed of your husband, these bitter waters,
which I have cursed, will not hurt you: but if you have polluted
yourself by coming near to another man, and gone astray from your
husband,--may you be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all
his people; may your thigh rot, and your belly swell till it burst; may
these cursed waters enter into your belly, and being swelled therewith,
may your thighs putrefy.“
After this, the priest filled a pitcher out of the brazen vessel, near
the altar of burnt offerings, cast some dust of the pavement into it,
mingled something with it as bitter as wormwood, and then read the
curses, and received her answer of Amen. Another priest, in the
meantime, tore off her clothes as low as her bosom--made her head
bare--untied the tresses of her hair--fastened her clothes, which were
thus torn, with a girdle under her breasts, and then presented her with
the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints, of barley meal. The
other priest then gave her the _waters of jealousy_, or bitterness, to
drink; and as soon as the woman had swallowed them, he gave her the meal
in a vessel like a frying-pan into her hand. This was stirred before the
Lord, and part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the wife was
innocent, she returned with her husband, and the waters, so far from
injuring her, increased her health, and made her more fruitful; but if
she was guilty, she grew pale immediately, her eyes swelled; and, lest
she should pollute the temple, she was instantly carried out, with these
symptoms upon her, and died instantly, with all the ignominious
circumstances related in the curses.
On this law of Moses, Michaëlis has the following remarks:--
“This oath was, perhaps, a relic of some more severe and barbarous
consuetudinary laws, whose rigours Moses mitigated; as he did in many
other cases, where an established usage could not be conveniently
abolished altogether. Among ourselves, in barbarous times, the _ordeal_,
or trial by fire, was, notwithstanding the parity of our married people,
in common use; and this, in point of equity, was much the same in
effect, as if the husband had had the right to insist on his wife
submitting to the hazardous trial of her purity, by drinking a poisoned
potion; which, according to an ancient superstition, could never hurt
her if she was innocent. And, in fact, such a right is not altogether
unexampled; for, according to Oldendorp’s _History of the Mission of the
Evangelical Brethren, in the Caribbee Islands_, it is actually in use
among some of the savage nations in the interior parts of Western
Africa.
“Now, when in place of a poisoned potion like this, which very few
husbands can be very willing to have administered to their wives, we
see, as among the Hebrews, an imprecation-drink, whose avenger God
himself promises to become, we cannot but be struck with the contrast of
wisdom and clemency which such a contrivance manifests. In the one case,
(and herein consists their great distinction,) innocence can only be
preserved by a miracle; while, on the other, guilt only is revealed and
punished by the hand of God himself.
“By one of the clauses of the oath of purgation, (and had not the
legislator been perfectly assured of his divine mission, the insertion
of any such clause would have been a very bold step indeed,) a visible
and corporeal punishment was specified, which the person swearing
imprecated on herself, and which God himself was understood as engaging
to execute. To have given so accurate a definition of the punishment
that God meant to inflict, and still more one that consisted of such a
rare disease, would have been a step of incomprehensible boldness in a
legislator who pretended to have a divine mission, if he was not, with
the most assured conviction, conscious of its reality.
“Seldom, however, very seldom, was it likely that Providence would have
an opportunity of inflicting the punishment in question. For the oath
was so regulated, that a woman of the utmost effrontery could scarcely
have taken it without changing colour to such a degree as to betray
herself.
“In the _first_ place, it was not administered to the woman in her own
house, but she was under the necessity of going to that place of the
land where God in a special manner had his abode, and took it there.
Now, the solemnity of the place, unfamiliarized to her by daily business
or resort, would have a great effect upon her mind. In the _next_ place,
there was offered unto God what was termed an _execration offering_, not
in order to propitiate his mercy, but to invoke his vengeance on the
guilty. Here the process was extremely slow, which gave her more time
for reflection than to a guilty person could be acceptable, and that,
too, amidst a multitude of unusual ceremonies. For the priest conducted
her to the front of the sanctuary, and took holy water, that is, water
out of the priests’ laver, which stood before it, together with some
earth off its floor, which was likewise deemed holy; and having put the
earth in the water, he then proceeded to uncover the woman’s head, that
her face might be seen, and every change on her countenance during the
administration of the oath accurately observed: and this was a
circumstance which, in the east, where the women are always veiled, must
have had a great effect; because a woman, accustomed to wear a veil,
could, on so extraordinary an occasion, have had far less command of her
eyes and her countenance than a European adulteress, who is generally a
perfect mistress in all the arts of dissimulation, would display. To
render the scene still more awful, the tresses of her hair were
loosened, and then the execration offering was put into _her_ hand,
while the priest held in _his_ the imprecation water. This is commonly
termed the _bitter water_; but we must not understand this as if the
water had really been bitter; for how could it have been so? The earth
of the floor of the tabernacle could not make it bitter. Among the
Hebrews, and other oriental nations, the word _bitter_ was rather used
for _curse_: and, strictly speaking, the phrase does not mean _bitter
water_, but the _water of bitternesses_, that is, of curses. The priest
now pronounced the oath, which was in all points so framed that it could
excite no terrors in the breast of an innocent woman; for it expressly
consisted in this, that the imprecation water should not harm her if she
was innocent. It would seem as if the priest here made a stop, and again
left the woman some time to consider whether she would proceed with the
oath. This I infer from the circumstance of his speech not being
directly continued in verse 21st, which is rather the _apodosis_ of what
goes before; and from the detail proceeding anew in the words of the
historian, _Then shall the priest pronounce the rest of the oath and the
curses to the woman; and proceed thus_.--After this stop he pronounced
the curses, and the woman was obliged to declare her acquiescence in
them by a repeated _Amen_. Nor was the solemn scene yet altogether at an
end; but rather, as it were commenced anew. For the priest had yet to
write the curses in a book, which I suppose he did at great
deliberation; having done so, he washed them out again in the very
imprecation water, which the woman had now to drink; and this water
being now presented to her, she was obliged to drink it, with this
warning and assurance, in the name of God, that if she was guilty, it
would prove within her an absolute curse. Now, what must have been her
feelings, while drinking, if not conscious of purity? In my opinion she
must have conceived that she already felt an alteration in the state of
her body, and the germ, as it were, of the disease springing within her.
Conscience and imagination would conspire together, and render it almost
impossible for her to drink it out. Finally, the execration offering was
taken out of her hand, and burnt upon the altar. I cannot but think
that, under the sanction of such a _purgatorium_, perjury must have been
a very rare occurrence indeed. If it happened but once in an age, God
had bound himself to punish it; and if this took place but once, (if but
one woman who had taken the oath was attacked with that rare disease
which it threatened,) it was quite enough to serve as a determent to all
others for at least one generation.”
This procedure had also the effect of keeping in mind, among the Jews,
God’s high displeasure against this violation of his law; and though
some lax moralists have been found, in modern times, to palliate it, yet
the Christian will always remember the solemn denunciations of the New
Testament against a crime so aggravated, whether considered in its
effects upon the domestic relations, upon the moral character of the
guilty parties, or upon society at large,--“Whoremongers and adulterers
God will judge.”