Deuteronomy 22 – Various Laws

A. Laws to demonstrate kindness and purity.

1. (1-4) Kindness to your brother regarding his animals and lost property.

“You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself.

“You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again.

a. You shall not see…and hide yourself: God here condemned the sin of doing nothing. To see your brother in need, and to do nothing, is to do evil. When people can do good, then they must not hide.

i. “In these words we discover an element of responsibility which outruns all ordinary standards of righteousness. According to it, we are not only responsible that we do no harm to our fellow-men; we are also responsible to prevent harm from being done to them when it is in our power to do so.” (Morgan)

ii. “The priest and the Levite, when they saw the wounded man, passed by on the other side of the way, Luke 10:31-32. This was a notorious breach of the merciful law mentioned.” (Clarke)

b. Until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him: When something is lost (here the examples are of a donkey and a garment), a finder cannot claim it as their possession without taking proper effort to restore it to the owner. If the owner seeks the missing object, it must be restored to him.

i. Exodus 23:4-5 also commands Israel to help recover stray animals but extends the obligation to the stray animals of an enemy, not only a brother.

ii. “The implication is that animals left to roam would eventually become prey to harm or death by the elements or at the hand of unscrupulous thieves.” (Merrill)

c. You shall surely help him lift them up again: Moses gave another command with an example of how God wanted His people to treat each other. If someone’s donkey fell, and another had the ability to help them, then they must. To pass by a brother in need and to hide yourself from them was to sin against the brother and against God.

i. “While the succinct statement of Leviticus 19:18b, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’, does not occur in Deuteronomy, it is implied here and in many parts of the book. The covenant law was comprehensive in its demand for love, love for God and love for one’s fellows.” (Thompson)

2. (5) A command to keep distinction between the sexes in clothing.

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.

a. Anything that pertains to a man: In Old Testament times, men and women wore clothing that was superficially similar – long robes and wrapping garments were worn by both sexes. Yet, the specific types of garments and the way in which they were worn made a clear distinction between the sexes, and this command instructs God’s people to respect those distinctions.

i. This command reflects a principle that is of great issue in the early 21^st century: the importance of maintaining gender distinctions, and the outward signs of gender distinctions. A man should not dress like a woman, and a woman should not dress like a man. What clothing or other adornment says “man” or “woman” may differ slightly across cultures and generations, but these slight differences do not make this principle invalid. There are ways for men to deliberately dress like women, and for women to dress like men. When this is done, it goes against God’s principles as revealed in His commandments and is disruptive to natural order.

ii. This is not a command against women wearing a garment that in some ways might be common between men and women. A woman can wear trousers without looking like a man. It is a command against dressing in a manner which deliberately crosses or blurs the distinction between the sexes.

iii. “As elsewhere, Scripture considers the natural differences between male and female to be the Lord’s creation and so should not be disregarded or camouflaged.” (Kalland)

b. Nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment: This does not prohibit a man from wearing a kilt; yet it clearly prohibits a man from dressing like a woman. The phenomenon of men dressing like women is a clear breaking of the principle behind this command.

i. The dramatic rise in cross-dressing, transvestitism, androgynous behavior, and transgender behavior in our culture is a shocking trampling of this command and will continue to reap a bitter harvest in more perversion and more gender confusion in our culture.

ii. “The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male’s attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion.” (Clarke)

c. All who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God: The principle behind this command to observe the distinction between the sexes is so important, those who fail to observe it are called an abomination to the LORD. This was not only because cross-dressing was a feature of pagan, idolatrous worship in the ancient world, but also because of the terrible cultural price that is paid when it is pretended that there is no difference between men and women.

i. “Because it is against both natural and civil honesty.” (Trapp)

3. (6-7) A command to show kindness to animals.

“If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

a. If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way: God simply and plainly commanded His people to show kindness to animals. Even a bird’s nest was to be given special consideration and care.

i. You shall surely let the mother go: Puritan commentator Matthew Poole wrote on this, “Partly for the bird’s sake, which suffered enough by the loss of its young; for God would not have cruelty exercised towards the brute creatures; and partly for men’s sake, to restrain their greediness and covetousness, that they should not monopolize all to themselves, but might leave the hopes of a future seed for others.”

ii. “Perhaps reverence for motherhood in general gave rise to the law.” (Thompson)

iii. Some Jewish commentators claim this was the smallest, or the least of all the commandments. Yet even with this command, there is a promise of blessing for the obedient: That it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

b. That it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days: If Israel obeyed this commandment, they would find blessing and long life, both as individuals and as a nation. There is a definite connection between showing kindness to God’s creatures and national survival.

i. First, because obedience to the smallest of God’s commands brings blessing. It puts us into a properly submitted relationship to Him, and this always brings blessing.

ii. Second, because kindness and gentleness in the small things often (but not always) speaks to the ability to be kind and gentle in weightier matters. If someone is cruel to animals, not only is that sin, but those who show such cruelty are also much more likely to be cruel to people. If Israel allowed such cruelty to flourish, it would harm the nation.

4. (8) Liability and building codes.

“When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.

a. You shall make a parapet for your roof: God commanded that a railing be made for the rooftop, so someone was protected against falling.

i. “The roofs of houses were often used for various purposes. Consequently, without some kind of restraining wall, one could easily fall off and be hurt. In 1 Samuel 9:25–26, Samuel conversed with Saul on the roof and spent the night there. David was walking on the roof of the palace when he saw Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:2).” (Kalland)

ii. One may imagine a homeowner thinking, “I don’t need a rail around my roof. I won’t fall.” But the homeowner had to think of more than himself. As Philippians 2:4 says, Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

iii. “This careful command clearly shows us that God holds life to be very valuable, and that, as he would not permit us to kill by malice, so he would not allow us to kill by negligence.” (Spurgeon)

b. That you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your house: Failure to build with consideration of the safety of others would bring guilt (liability) on the owner or builder of the home. The owner of the home was responsible for the safety of those who would use the home.

i. In his sermon on Deuteronomy 22:8 titled Battlements, Charles Spurgeon applied the principle of the command for a railing for the protection of people on the roofs of Israel’s homes to the idea of spiritual railings for protection. Many people, regarding sin, get too close to the edge and fall off. Then it’s too late. There are some wise “railings” that provide protection from falling over the edge, spiritually speaking. Such railings protect the individual and those they may influence.

ii. “The fact is that, if professors do not stop till they are certainly in the wrong, they will stop nowhere. It is of little use to go on till you are over the edge of the roof, and then cry, ‘Halt.’” (Spurgeon)

5. (9-12) Four laws of separation.

“You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.

“You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

“You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

“You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

a. You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed: Each of these laws was meant to separate Israel from her pagan neighbors. Canaanites would commonly combine different things to achieve what was thought to be a magical combination.

i. “It is generally supposed that mixtures of different sorts in seed, breed, etc., were employed for superstitious purposes, and therefore prohibited in this law.” (Clarke)

ii. “While this might be possible in the world of actual agriculture, it was not to be undertaken in Israel because it symbolized an admixture of spiritual elements that is abhorrent to the Lord.” (Merrill)

b. You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together: According to the principle that there was spiritual or “magical” power in combining different things, Canaanites commonly combined contrasting things.

· They might combine different kinds of seed in a vineyard.

· They might plow a field with an ox and a donkey together.

· They might wear a garment of wool and linen mixed together.

When God commanded Israel to not do these things, it wasn’t so much for the sake of the combinations themselves, but so Israel would not imitate the pagan, occult customs of their neighbors.

i. There is a spiritual application of this principle. The commands forbidding unholy combinations, “though in themselves small and trivial, are given…to forbid all mixture of their inventions with God’s institutions, in doctrine or worship.” (Poole)

ii. The apostle Paul later expressed the principle of this command like this: Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)

iii. In a curious explanation, one commentator believed that these laws were also given (in part) to protect other animals from the poisonous breath of donkeys: “Besides, the ass, from feeding on coarse and poisonous weed, has a fetid breath, which its yoke-fellow seeks to avoid, not only as poisonous and offensive, but producing leanness, or, if long continued, death.” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown)

c. You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing: This command was also given to distinguish Israel from their pagan neighbors. When this command was obeyed, an Israelite man was immediately known by the clothes he wore.

i. “A symbolic meaning is given to these tassels in Numbers 15:37-41, namely that they are a reminder to Israel to keep God’s law.” (Thompson)

ii. Like most good commands of God, men have the capability to twist and corrupt these commands. In Jesus’ day, He had to condemn the Pharisees, saying they enlarge the borders of their garments (Matthew 23:5) In other words, they made the tasseled portion of their garments larger and more prominent to show how spiritual they were.

B. Laws of sexual morality.

1. (13-21) Resolving an accusation of marital deception.

“If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

“But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

a. Charges her with shameful conduct: The idea is that the man accused his wife of not being a virgin when they were married. Apparently, this was discovered on their wedding night, when they first had intimate relations (when I came to her I found she was not a virgin).

i. In ancient Israel virginity was valued. It was seen as a great loss to give up one’s virginity before marriage, and if a woman was known to have lost her virginity, it reduced her chances of getting married.

ii. According to this same principle, if a husband believed that his wife had lied about her virginity, he felt cheated. What follows is an attempt to resolve the issue.

b. Then the father and mother…bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity…. they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city: According to custom, a Jewish woman would first be intimate with her husband upon a special cloth, which would be marked by the drops of blood which were accepted as evidence of the young woman’s virginity. This bloodstained cloth would then become the property of the married woman’s parents, who kept it as the evidence of the young woman’s virginity.

i. Many people argue that this custom of proving a woman’s virginity is absurd because it doesn’t always work. Some people have answered by saying it does “work” when ladies are given in marriage at twelve or thirteen years of age, as was the custom in Old Testament times.

ii. Nonetheless, for whatever reasons, the custom was practiced long after biblical times, and is still practiced in some parts of the world. “The proofs of virginity, the blood-spotted bedclothes or garments, which, though not infallible, were widely accepted in the ancient Near East as indications of prior virginity, are still accepted among some peoples today” (Kalland). Clarke also adds: “A custom similar to that above is observed among the Mohamedans to the present day.”

c. The elders of the city shall take that man and punish him: If the parents could produce the evidence, then the man was found to have made a false accusation against his wife and it was commanded that a fine be paid to the father of his wife.

i. The sin was great; he had brought a bad name upon his wife. “Which is a kind of murder (Ezekiel 22:9). God shall clear the innocency of his slandered servants (Psalm 37:6; Isaiah 54:17).” (Trapp)

ii. Additionally, the man had forfeited his future right to divorce his wife: he cannot divorce her all his days. “The law protected the innocent bride from the caprice of her husband and discouraged premarital infidelity among young women.” (Kalland)

iii. The strong penalty against a man who made a false accusation (one hundred shekels of silver), and the loss of any future right to divorce his wife was an effective deterrent against wild, false accusations by a husband against his wife.

iv. “The amount of the fine was considerable relative to that economy. David, for example, later bought Araunah’s threshing floor and oxen for only fifty silver shekels (2 Samuel 24:24). Such an enormous penalty would clearly deter young husbands from such frivolous and fallacious allegations.” (Merrill)

d. But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman: If this were the case, the woman was to be executed by stoning. This was not only for her sexual promiscuity (to play the harlot) but also for the deception of her husband.

i. This law must be seen in connection with the command in Exodus 22:16-17, which commands that a man who entices a virgin must surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. This law in Deuteronomy is directed against the truly wanton woman, who had given up her virginity, yet not claimed her rights under Exodus 22:16-17. She did not value her virginity at the time she gave it up, yet she wanted to later claim the benefit of it by deceiving her husband.

ii. All this simply reinforces the principle that virginity was valued, highly valued, in Israel. Modern culture would benefit enormously by a re-capturing of this value.

2. (22) The penalty for adultery.

“If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel.

a. If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband: This was a clear case of adultery. It isn’t stated if the offending man was married or not, but the woman in this case was.

b. Both of them shall die: God commanded the death penalty for adultery. The breaking of the marriage bond by adultery does significant harm not only to the individuals involved, but also to the wider community as marriages are endangered and families broken apart. Therefore, God commanded the ultimate penalty against adultery.

i. God also specifically instructed that both the man that lay with the woman and the woman were under this penalty. Adultery was not to be condemned with a double standard; if it was wrong for the woman, it was wrong for the man, and vice-versa.

c. Then both of them shall die: As a practical matter, this death penalty was rarely carried out for adultery. This was the case for most crimes in Israel where the death penalty was commanded. This was because any capital crime required two or three witnesses, and the witnesses had to be so certain of what they saw that they were willing to “cast the first stone” – that is, initiate the execution (Deuteronomy 17:6-7).

i. Particularly in a case of adultery (or other sexual sins) there would rarely be two eyewitnesses willing to initiate the execution. Without such witnesses, the death penalty would not be carried out.

ii. This also helps us to understand the actions of Jesus when He confronted the leaders who brought the woman taken in adultery. By their presence and words, they claimed to have caught the woman in the act. Yet, they did not also bring the guilty man. This explains, in part, why no one was willing to cast the first stone – that is, to initiate the execution (John 8:1-12).

d. So you shall put away the evil from Israel: Though the death penalty for adultery was rarely carried out, it still had value. It clearly communicated an ideal that Israel was to live up to, and it made people regard their sin much more seriously. Today, society often ignores this ideal, and people don’t care much about adultery. As a result, modern society suffers greatly.

i. “While in the modern world we would not follow all the penalties for breach of the laws, we need to recognize that purity and fidelity are essential to the well-being of society…. Great nations in centuries past lost their nationhood in considerable measure because of their unrestrained license in sexual matters.” (Thompson)

3. (23-29) Laws concerning rape.

“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

a. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband: This law used the example of a man who had sexual relations with a virgin who was engaged to be married (betrothed to a husband). If the crime happened in the city, and no one immediately hears the woman cry out to stop the man, then both the man and the woman were to be executed.

i. The woman was to be executed because her lack of resistance – offering not even a cry of resistance – gave no proof that she was not a willing participant. It’s important to understand that these laws were given to Israel and her judges as case law, and the principles revealed in the law could be adapted to various situations. Based on the principle of this law, if there was a non-verbal way the woman expressed her resistance, she could be found innocent, and the man found guilty of rape.

ii. The man was to be executed because he humbled his neighbor’s wife. Interestingly, the woman was considered the wife of another man, even though she was only betrothed, and was still a virgin, having not yet consummated the marriage.

b. But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside: This law next considered the case of a man who had sexual relations with a virgin who was betrothed, yet it happened in the countryside. In a remote place, no one could hear the woman’s resistance, and she would also have less incentive to offer even verbal resistance.

i. In such a case, only the man was to be executed, because the woman was presumed to be the victim of rape. Significantly, the woman was not blamed for the rape, and it was presumed that she was innocent in this circumstance. This is clear in the phrasing used in Deuteronomy 22:25: the man forces her, phrasing not used in Deuteronomy 22:23.

ii. “A rape also, by these ancient institutions, was punished with death, because a woman’s honour was considered equally as precious as her life; therefore the same punishment was inflicted on the ravisher as upon the murderer.” (Clarke)

c. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed: If a man had intimate relations with a virgin who was not betrothed, then he had to pay a fine and was obligated to marry the woman (presumably, if she would have him). He also forfeited his right to divorce her in the future.

i. It is likely that the fifty shekels of silver were to be paid to the father in addition to the dowry.

4. (30) A law concerning incest.

“A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor uncover his father’s bed.

a. A man shall not take his father’s wife: This probably described the case of a son marrying his stepmother after his father had died. This was considered incest, even though they were not blood relations, because the son was considered to have uncovered his father’s bed.

i. “A man in his old age may have married a young wife, and on his dying, his son by a former wife may desire to espouse her: this the law prohibits.” (Clarke)

ii. This emphasized the community’s interest in guarding the institution of marriage, and in de-sexualizing family relationships.

b. Nor uncover his father’s bed: Significantly, this was the same kind of immoral relationship that the Corinthian Christians – to their shame – accepted. The apostle Paul had to rebuke them regarding this, that a man has his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1-2).

i. “This was regarded as an incestuous union and a particularly dangerous one, since it struck deeply at the maintenance of family life (cf. Deuteronomy 27:20; Leviticus 18:8; 20:10). The expression uncover her who is his father’s is a euphemism…. ‘To uncover’ means to encroach on his father’s marital rights.” (Thompson)

Pin2

2 Shares