A ceremony (Numbers 5:11-24) was required that called upon God to settle the issue directly.  If we extract the covenantal principle from this ceremonial action in the Book of Numbers, the common use of covenant malediction in the Bible comes to the forefront.  This is one avenue that is missing in the modern jurisprudence.  When all options have been exhausted by the elders in determining the truth, the last resort is to require the accused to take an oath (with their hand on the Bible) calling on God to curse them if they are not telling the truth.

Katie McCoy (God Is Not Silent, What the Bible Teaches About Sexual Assault, The Aquila Report) says much that is good and correct about Old Testament Law. Indeed, the weak and vulnerable are protected under the Law. Women (especially young women) as the apparently weaker sex are easily exploited by men, and the female sex deserves the protection afforded to them by our society and our legal system.

However, in my opinion, she makes a misleading statement that can result in a grave miscarriage of justice for men.  She concludes “When the survivor of sexual assault revealed what happened to her, she would be believed.”  This follows her analysis of a case-law where an engaged woman is sexually assaulted in a place (a field rather than a city) where there is no one to help her fight off her rapist. She can scream (non-consensual sex), but it will do no good.  There is no one to hear her.  The Bible assumes in this case that the assault was a fact, but this particular case-law does not deal with the possibility of a false accusation by the woman. Allegation cannot be equated with conviction.

It is an undeniable fact that many men have been falsely accused of sexual abuse.  Note recent legal cases against both Tucker Carlson of Fox News and Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz.  There is always the possibility that a woman may not be telling the truth.  Ulterior motives may move some women into sexual entrapment for the purpose of personal gain, or women may just create lies.  The ultimate question here is who is telling the truth, not what happens when there is no doubt about the truth.  “You shall not bear a false report…” (Ex. 23:1).

In this scenario, other parts of God’s law must be consulted.  Let me mention some further analysis that may be helpful when there is doubt as to the validity of sexual (and other) accusations.

First, everyone deserves their day in court.  In the Bible, all the accused have the right to appear before the elders, and the right to have their accusers cross-examined (Prov. 18:17). As a side note, in criminal cases, the 6^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every person the right to face their accusers.

Secondly, normally in all legal procedures, the Bible requires witnesses (at least two, and sometimes three).  These witnesses must be of good character (see John 8 and notice the hypocritical character of the witnesses who caught the woman in the “act of adultery”).  Because there were no credible witnesses, Jesus let her go free, instructing her not to commit adultery any more.

If good witnesses are not possible, then the Bible requires evidence.  In the case of the engaged woman (considered married in the Bible, yet still a virgin), proof of losing her virginity is a second possibility (see Deut. 22:13-21).  In regard to rape, modern medical technology is able to give us more definite proof.

Thirdly, when the elders cannot come to a conclusion because of the lack of either witnesses or evidence, then a maledictory oath is an option. Under the ceremonial law, when a woman was falsely accused by her husband of adultery, the husband’s word was not taken on face value.  A ceremony (Numbers 5:11-24) was required that called upon God to settle the issue directly.

If we extract the covenantal principle from this ceremonial action in the Book of Numbers, the common use of covenant malediction in the Bible comes to the forefront.  This is one avenue that is missing in the modern jurisprudence.  When all options have been exhausted by the elders in determining the truth, the last resort is to require the accused to take an oath (with their hand on the Bible) calling on God to curse them if they are not telling the truth. This might have been a good test for Roy Moore.

Interestingly, I am privy of one recent case where a teaching elder was accused of adultery.  He and a hearsay witness were called before the ruling elders of the Church and the pastor denied any guilt.  The elders asked the accused minister to swear on the Bible that he was innocent, and he refused to do so. As a Christian, although he was guilty of sin, he still feared the wrath of God.  Shortly thereafter, there was a confession of guilt. The church was devastated.  My point is that this still can be an effective option when all other alternatives fail.

We do live in an anti-Christian society where women are degraded and used as sexual objects.  The godless media in movies, television, and books has debased Christian marriage which provides the best safeguard for women. The Church has failed to teach their daughters of the dangers inherent in the nature of men (and specifically the danger of testosterone in men).  I am afraid that Christendom is dead!

The Psalmist proclaimed that he loved God’s law (given to Moses).  However, Christian practitioners who appeal to God’s law need to be careful as they seek answers to our modern dilemmas.

Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tennessee.