Does the proverb about the jealous husband show that prostitution is legal? (Prov. 6:32-35)

⮜ Answered Questions

Introduction

In Biblical law, it is clear that victims of a property crime, or of certain types of negligent or intentional bodily harm (talion offenses), are given the option to forgive or accept monetary compensation. On the other hand, with regard to certain "high-handed" crimes (such as murder, adultery, rape, kidnapping, etc.) there is only one civil penalty given as an option: death. The laws for these crimes use either a Hebrew pleonasm (mot yumot) which is normally translated as "he shall surely die," or they use other scriptural motive clauses (e.g. "purge out [בָּעַר (ba`ar)] the evil from among you") to show that the penalty is mandatory.

Nevertheless, certain interpreters have proposed reasons why we should not understand these scriptural phrases as referring to mandatory death. One of these proposals ("Victim's Rights") asserts that the (human) victims of these serious crimes (e.g. adultery, rape, kidnapping, false witness in a death penalty case) had the authority both to pardon the criminal and to accept monetary ransom in lieu of the death penalty.

Monetary "ransom" for adultery?

Let's look at an example of this argument "in the wild". Dr. Joseph Boot, in his book The Mission of God, wrote:

[I]t seems to also be clear that the victims of crime had a say in how the offender was to be punished. The law of retaliation did not always obligate the victim to press for maximum charges or the ultimate penalty .... Interestingly, Proverbs, a practical application of the law, warns the would be adulterer than an angry husband is unlikely to be in the mood to come to terms and accept financial compensation for this violation of his family’s sanctity; he may well prosecute for the death penalty (Prov. 6:32-35).

Dr. Boot is claiming that Proverbs 6:32-35 is "a practical application of [Biblical] law", which implies that a husband victimized by adultery has the right to accept "ransom." Is this interpretation of this proverb justified?

The way Dr. Boot paraphrases this proverb (he did not quote it in his book), it sounds as though it is saying the following (presented in simple terms):

If a man commits adultery, the victimized husband is not likely to accept money as compensation; instead, he will choose to take the adulterer to a judge and prosecute, with the expectation of getting a death penalty.

The structured argument

So the argument, the way Dr. Boot seems to be framing it, might be something like:

1. Proverbs describes two options available to a husband who is a victim of adultery:
   1. prosecuting a case of adultery with the expectation of a death penalty.
   2. choosing not to prosecute, in return for accepting a monetary payment from the adulterous man.
2. Because this proverb describes both of these options, it must mean that both of these options are lawful for the husband.
3. Therefore, it is Biblically lawful for a husband to accept money in return for someone adulterously sleeping with his wife.

Evaluating this argument, I think I would start by criticizing the second premise. We could state this as a generic premise like:

Because Proverbs describes a course of action, it entails the normative legality of that course of action.

Does Proverbs always give us normative law?

I do not believe that the above statement is true. And I think this is clear, even from the immediate context. Look at the previous proverb:

30 Men don’t despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry, 31 but if he is found, he shall restore seven times. He shall give all the wealth of his house. Proverbs 6:30-31WEB

The above statement does not correspond to God's law on theft, in which restitution is never more than fivefold (Ex. 22:1). "Sevenfold" is sometimes interpreted symbolically as "the full amount of restitution," but this interpretation seems unlikely when set in parallel with the phrase "all the goods of his house." Someone merely stealing food to satisfy their hunger would, according to Biblical law, be required to repay only two-fold. If they stole a loaf of bread, they would have to repay two loaves (or an equivalent, agreed upon amount of indentured work for the victim). But two-fold restitution for stealing food does not seem to correspond to the value of "all the goods" of someone who owns a house.

However, this proverb could be understood as giving an accurate prediction about what judges who have ignored God's law might demand. In fact, this failure to accurately follow Biblical law was probably the case, descriptively, during much of Israel's history. There were only (relatively) short periods in which Israel conformed to Biblical law. We should understand this proverb as being descriptive, not normative.

What is this proverb actually saying?

I also want to examine how Dr. Boot paraphrases this proverb, by actually quoting the proverb:

32 He who commits adultery with a woman is void of understanding. He who does it destroys his own soul. 33 He will get wounds and dishonor. His reproach will not be wiped away. 34 For jealousy arouses the fury of the husband. He won’t spare in the day of vengeance. 35 He won’t regard any ransom, neither will he rest content, though you give many gifts. Proverbs 6:32-35WEB

The first question I want to ask is about that scriptural phrase "day of vengeance" (which is a literal English rendering from the Hebrew). The immediate context talks about "wounds and disgrace" being the result of this act of adultery. Waltke writes:

Strokes (nega‛) refers to a violent assault that inflicts pain on the recipient; it may be inflicted by other humans (Deut. 17:8; 21:5; 2 Sam. 7:14), by God (cf. Exod. 11:2), or by disease (many times in Leviticus 13-14). In the latter two cases, it is sometimes glossed by “plague.” Shame (or opprobrium, qālôn; see 3:35) rules out any possibility of a martyr’s honor. The “strokes” and “shame” are felt as a hendiadys (i.e., “strokes that bring shame”).

It seems likely that the verse is warning about the victimized husband either:

1. taking his own vengeance upon the adulterous man, by inflicting personal injury and public reproach. In fact the ESV seems to take this understanding when it translates the verse: "he will not spare when he takes revenge."
2. taking the adulterer before a foreign (non-Israelite) court.

Waltke writes:

Perhaps a pagan court and a public flogging are in view. Had he committed adultery with a true daughter of Israel, not a foreign woman, the death sentence would have been exacted (see 5:14; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ezek. 23:45-47).

In this proverb, it is not clear that the phrase "day of vengeance" equates with Dr. Boot's characterization: "prosecution for the death penalty." It seems more likely that the proverb is referring to the victimized husband -- extra-judicially -- inflicting "wounds and disgrace" upon the adulterer, and refusing to minimize the crime by accepting "many gifts." Waltke discusses the "gifts" reference:

Bribe (šōḥad) refers to a gift, usually monetary to pervert justice, and was forbidden by the Mosaic law (Exod. 23:8; Deut. 10:17; 16:19; 27:25; Prov. 17:8, 23; 21:14).

In conclusion, there is no reason to treat this Proverbs 6:32-35 as overturning the mandatory death penalty for the crime of adultery or legalizing prostitution.

See Also:

Does Joseph's intent to divorce Mary show that the death penalty for adultery was not mandatory?