I. Confidence in conjugal relations is of great importance. “Suspicion,” says Bp.Babington, “is the cut-throat and poison of all love and friendship.” And in proportion to the intensity of the love will be the anguish of suspicion in respect to the object of the love.
II. Adultery is a sin of the greatest enormity. This dreadful ordeal, which was intended to prevent it, shows how great was its heinousness in the Divine estimation. This is expressed--
1. In the abasement of the suspected woman. The “barley meal,” of which the offering was composed, the “earthern vessel” which contained the water, and “the dust” that was put into the water, indicate a state of deep humiliation and disgrace. The absence from the offering of oil, the symbol of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and of frankincense, the symbol of prayer, also proclaimed her questionable repute and the suspicion with which she was regarded. In like manner the “uncovering of the woman’s head” was indicative of the loss of woman’s best ornament, chastity and fidelity in the marriage relation.
2. In the terrible punishment which came upon the guilty. This ordeal was made so terrible that the dread of it might effectually prevent the wives in Israel from the least violation of their fidelity to their husbands. It remains as an impressive proclamation of the utter abhorrence with which God regards the sin of adultery. It is a sin against God; it inflicts the most intolerable injury upon the husband; it is an unmitigated blight upon the family; and it is a wrong to society generally. The most terrible condemnations are pronounced upon it in the Sacred Word (Lev_20:10; Mal_3:5; 1Co_6:9-10; Heb_13:4).
III. The punishment of sin is closely related to the sin itself. The punishment came in those portions of her body which she had abused.
IV. God will bring to light the secret sins of men. If the suspected woman were guilty, after this ordeal her guilt would be made manifest. All sins are known unto Him.
V. God will assuredly vindicate the innocent who have suffered from suspicion and slander. In this case the vindication was most complete. “If the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.” “If not guilty after such a trial,” says Adam Clarke, “she had greathonour; and, according to therabbins, became strong, healthy, and fruitful; for if she was before barren, she now began to bear children; if before she had only daughters, she now began to have sons; if before she had hard travail, she now had easy; in a word, she was blessed in her body, her soul, and her substance.” Thus to the innocent there was no terror in this stern ordeal. It was rather a blessing to them, if by any means they had come to be regarded with suspicion by their husbands; for by means of it such suspicions would be removed, and their fidelity and honour vindicated and exalted. And God will, sooner or later, splendidly vindicate all who suffer from misrepresentation, slander, or false accusation. (W. Jones.)
Innocence mysteriously declared
Aunt C. Fox told us of an American friend who once felt a concern to go somewhere, he knew not where. He ordered his gig, his servant asking where he was to drive. “Up and down the road,” said his master. At last they met a funeral. “Follow this funeral.” said the master. They followed in the procession till they came to the churchyard. Whilst the service was being performed the friend sat in his gig; at its conclusion he walked to the grave, and said solemnly, “The person now buried is innocent of the crime laid to her charge.” An elderly gentleman in deep mourning came up to him in great agitation, and said, “Sir, what you have said has surprised me very much.” “I can’t help it, I can’t help it,” replied the other; “I only said what I was obliged to say.” “Well,” said the mourner, “the person just buried is my wife, who for some years has lain under the suspicion of infidelity to me. No one else knew of it, and on her death-bed she again protested her innocence, and said that if I would not believe her then, a witness to it would be raised up even at her grave-side.” (Caroline’s Fox’s Journal.)
Innocence strangely declared:
It is recorded in history that a beautiful maiden, named Blanche, the serf of an ancient nobleman, was wooed by her master’s son. Not admiring his character, she scorned his suit. Upon this, his course of love turned to bitter hatred. Just then a precious string of pearls confided to the maiden’s care was lost. Her pseudolover charged her with the theft, and, in accordance with the customs of that rude age, she was doomed to die. On the day of the execution, as the innocent girl knelt to offer her dying prayer, a flash of lightning struck a statue of Justice, which adorned the market-place, to the dust. From a scattered bird’s nest, built in a crevice of the image, dropped the lost pearls--thus declaring her innocence. In a moment the exultant crowd rushed to the scaffold, demanding her release. There she knelt beside the block, pale and beautiful, and with a smile of peace upon her lips. They spoke--she answered not. They touched her--she was dead! To preserve her memory, they raised a statue there; and to this day, when men gaze upon her image, they condemn her oppressor; they praise her for the purity of her character; they recognise the justice of Him whose lightnings testified to her innocence. (W. Smith.)
A fallacious test of innocence:
Man frequently satisfies himself that he has come to an accurate conclusion merely because, on the application of what he considers an infallible test, he discovers a particular anticipated result. Often enough the test is utterly fallacious. Take an example. The tanghin, or tanguen, is the only plant of its genus, and is confined to Madagascar. Its poisonous seed is esteemed by the natives an infallible criterion of guilt or innocence. After being pounded, a small piece is swallowed by the supposed criminal. If he be cursed with a strong stomach, which retains the poison, he speedily dies, and is held guilty; if his feeble digestion rejects it, he necessarily escapes, and his innocence is considered proven. Now it is obvious to any educated mind that innocence and guilt are in no way disclosed by this process. Yet inasmuch as it has been accepted as a test, its results are unquestioned. And there are numberless instances in which English society consents to be governed by the results of tests, simply because those tests are generally accepted. Again and again it becomes important to inquire whether, supposing your test does disclose a given result, that test is really as infallible as you deem it to be? Many will be found to be only “tanghin” tests, and as such utterly fallacious. (Scientific Illustrations.)
