Why is this man free from guilt?

score:6

Accepted answer

The part of the scripture you left out is pretty important to understanding this passage. Basically, she has to drink some dusty water that will cause her to miscarry if she's guilty, but she'll be fine if she's not guilty.

I think it's simply making clear that the husband is not guilty for miscarriage and the harm that results from the actions of the priest applying the law to his wife. That guilt lies with the woman, because it is her who slept around and lied about it. According to scripture, she brought it on herself. She can't come back and say, "This child would have lived had you not taken me to the priest." In that situation, he could simply respond, "No, the child would have lived had you not had an affair and lied about it."

In other words, he is not held responsible when her actions conflict with God's law, and bring pain and suffering onto her own head, even if he was the one who brought her to the priest for the application of the law.

The spiritual point is this:

The application of the law doesn't bring guilt. The transgression of the law does.

Upvote:2

More recent translations use 'husband' instead of 'man' (though not all of them), indicating that it is almost certainly the husband. This is made more likely by the fact that by v31 the 'other party' to adultery hasn't been mentioned in a long while. You can probably ask at Biblical Hermeneutics site for more details.

As for why: he hasn't done anything wrong. His wife committed adultery. It may be that other cultures practices 'guilt by association' in which unwittingly allowing your wife to commit adultery was considered wrong

More post

Search Posts

Related post