Deut. 22:13-21

"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 "And 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." (Deut. 22:13-21).

Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present-day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality. The above verses were written 3,000 years ago in a very different culture and location. Sexual purity was very highly valued, unlike today; and when a man would marry a woman, her virginity was critical. In ancient times a dowry was paid to the father of the bride, and the rightful expectation was that the bride would be a virgin.

In the culture of the time it was the father who was charged with the covering, care, and well-being of his daughter. Her sexual purity was representative of the father's ability to raise her according to the laws of God. Therefore, in that culture, a man's reputation, as well as the family's reputation in the community, could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter. If his daughter had been promised to a man to be married and a dowry had been paid, there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered after the marriage, then the implication is that there had been a deception in which the father could be implicated, or it would mean that he was unaware of her sin; and this would bring great shame to the family and the community--not to mention it being a display of outright rebellion against God's law. In this case, to insure the integrity of the family and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated.

Finally, she was not stoned for not being a virgin but for carrying out a deception in trying to appear as one.

Of course, we do not advocate any type of honor killing. We are simply stating what the cultural context was.