Deuteronomy 22
OGCSUMMARY OF CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
Ordinances relative to strayed cattle and lost goods, 1-3. Humanity to oppressed cattle, 4. Men and women shall not wear other’s apparel, 5. No bird shall be taken with her nest of eggs or young ones, 6, 7. Battlements must be made on the roofs of houses, 8. Improper mixtures to be avoided, 9-11. Fringes on the garments, 12. Case of the hated wife, and the tokens of virginity, and the proceedings thereon, 13-21. The adulterer and adulteress to be put to death, 22. Case of the betrothed damsel corrupted in the city, 25, 24. Cases of rape and the punishment, 25-27; of fornication, 28, 29. No man shall take his father’s wife, 30.
QUESTIONS, LESSON SEVENTEEN (Deuteronomy 21:15 to Deuteronomy 23:14)
How much of the inheritance was the first-born son to receive?
If such a son was born of a wife that was hated, could this law be changed?
What was the proper treatment of stubborn sons under the Mosaic law?
Was Moses describing a single infraction on the part of this son?
What purpose did this have besides punishing the offender?
What purpose would be served by hanging a dead man on a tree?
Why not let him hang all night?
How did this Jewish law differ from the crucifixion of the Romans?
What was an Israelite to do when he found a lost article or animal?
Why not wear the clothing of the opposite sex?
What could not be taken from the bird’s nest?
What safety feature was required on their new homes?
Give a possible reason for not mixing kinds of seed, cloth, etc.
Why have fringed (tasseled) garments?
How did the Pharisees exploit and pervert this purpose?
Who was to prove the virginity of his married daughter when it was challenged? How? Before whom?
How was adultery punished?
What distinction was made between the defilement of a betrothed maiden who lived in the country and one who lived in the city?
Why were the Ammonites and Moabites excluded from the assembly?
The Edomites and Egyptians were both excluded for only three generations, but for different reasons. What reasons?
Deuteronomy 22:1-4
j. LIFE IN THE NEW LAND: VARIOUS LAWS (Deuteronomy 22:1-12)
(1) LOST POSSESSIONS (Deuteronomy 22:1-4)
Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely bring them again unto thy brother. 2 And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him, 3 And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother’S, which he hath lost, and thou hast found: thou mayest not hide thyself, 4 Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:1-4
Responsibility is again demanded. What is involved in the expression, hide thyself?
There is a reciprocal action involved here. How so?
Thoughtfulness and helpfulness are such grant virtues. Why do we need laws for them? Cf. Luke 10:27-37; Luke 13:10-17.
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:1-4
You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep being driven away or stolen, and hide yourself from [your duty to help] them; you shall surely take them back to your brother. [Cp. Proverbs 24:12.]
2 And if your brother [the owner] is not near you, or if you do not know who he is, you shall bring the animal to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother comes looking for it; then you shall restore it to him. 3 And so shall you do with his donkey, or his garment, or with anything which your brother has lost and you have found; you shall not hide yourself from [your duty concerning] them. 4 You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down by the way, and hide from [your duty concerning] them; you shall surely help him to lift them up again.
COMMENT 22:1-4
See also Exodus 23:4-5. The finder of the lost article was not to avoid his responsibility of making a sincere effort to find the owner. And again, if his fellow Israelite’s animal was found in need of help, he was not to avoid responsibility where he could be of assistance, much less exploit his brother’s loss to his own advantage and betterment. Getting an animal or item back to its proper owner might involve putting himself out some, but the next day he might need the same services from his brother. By avoiding this duty, and hiding himself, he could claim the animal or item as his own. But this childish finders keepers, losers weepers philosophy was not endorsed.
Deuteronomy 22:4 expresses a principle of helpfulness toward those in need. In this case it is with the man’s animalbut Jesus would have us to be even more helpful when dealing with our fellow manLuke 10:27-37; Luke 13:10-17.
Deuteronomy 22:5
(2) APPROPRIATE CLOTHING FOR THE SEX (Deuteronomy 22:5)
5 A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:5
Why such a strong prohibition against wearing clothes of the opposite sex?
Is God saying here we should be able to visibly tell whether a person is male or female? i.e. Should me appear to be the sex we are by the way we dress? Any modern day application for this?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:5
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.
COMMENT 22:5
We are not told why God made this distinction in clothingor even that the distinction was between the two types of clothing. But (especially when Deuteronomy 22:9-12 are compared) it appears quite obvious that God wanted Israel to recognize a distinction, a difference, and a separation. He wanted his people to know whether they were seeing a male or female.
But it is likely that the reason for prohibition goes beyond this. Transvestism (the practice of dressing in clothing of the opposite sex) has historically almost always been practiced by those who exemplified the characteristics of the opposite sex, and often these were homosexuals.[39] To wear the clothing of the opposite sex would immediately label you in the community, and God would have the Israelites avoid such a stigma, A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches. (Proverbs 22:1). A good name is better than precious oil. (Ecclesiastes 7:1).
[39] Transvestism, with its accompanying evils (such as sodomy) is still a relatively common practice among several aboriginal tribes. Several American Indian groups formerly gave these men places of honor among their tribes!
By donning improper apparel, a woman might be known as an amazon or virago; a man might be thought effeminate. The distinction between the sexes is natural and established by God in their creation, and any neglect or violation of that distinction, even in externals, not only leads to impurity, but involves the infractions of the laws of God. (Lange).
Deuteronomy 22:6-7
(3) NESTING BIRDS (Deuteronomy 22:6-7)
6 If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: 7 thou shalt surely let the dam go, but the young thou mayest take unto thyself; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:6, 7
What lesson, or lessons, is in this concern of our heavenly Father for the mother bird?
What possible connection does the length of life have to do with saving a bird from death?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:6, 7
6 If a bird’s nest chance to be before you in the way in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother bird is sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother bird with the young. 7 You shall surely let the mother bird go, and take only the young, that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.
COMMENT 22:6, 7
The young birds, and apparently the eggs, could be taken. But not the mother (dam). In Leviticus 22:28, similarly, a cow or ewe could not be killed on the same day as its young.
Jesus said of the sparrows, … not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God. And if God takes such graceful note of the insignificant matters of life, Fear not: ye are of more value than many sparrows (Luke 12:6-7).
Deuteronomy 22:8
(4) BATTLEMENTS FOR NEW BUILDINGS (Deuteronomy 22:8)
8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thy house, if any man fall from thence.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:8
God was even interested in the design of the house, or was it another interest?
Read Numbers 35:33 and Genesis 9:6 and indicate how they relate to our text.
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:8
8 When you build a new house, then you shall put a railing around your [flat] roof, so that no one may fall from there, and bring guilt of blood upon your house.
COMMENT 22:8
The Hebrew word for battlement (maaqeh), a restraining, holding back, is simply rendered parapet by most modern translators and lexicons. This barrier for a flat roof was more than likely a low wall in most cases, perhaps a railing (Amplified O. T.) in others.
Its purpose, of course, was protection, lest the owner be guilty, in a roundabout way, of injuring or taking the life of another. It was a mandatory safety feature for each home.
THAT THOU BRING NOT BLOOD UPON THY HOUSE (Deuteronomy 22:8)Apparently the law of Num 35:33, Cf. Genesis 9:6, would apply here, i.e., if the owner failed to take this precaution he would be liable for the death of any who accidentally fell from it.
Deuteronomy 22:9-11
(5) FORBIDDEN MIXTURE (Deuteronomy 22:9-11)
9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole fruit be forfeited, the seed which thou hast sown, and the increase of the vineyard. 10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. 11 Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:9-11
Is it a horticultural fact that the mixture of seeds as here described would result in loss? Discuss.
The separation of the ox and the ass had some reason; what was it?
Why not wear wool and linen together?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:9-11
9 You shall not plant your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole crop be forfeited [under this ban], the seed which you have sown and the yield of the vineyard forfeited to the sanctuary.
10 You shall not plow with an ox [a clean animal] and a donkey [unclean] together. [2 Corinthians 6:14-16.]
11 You shall not wear a garment of mingled stuff, wool and linen together. [Ezek. 4:18; Revelation 19:8.]
COMMENT 22:9-11
Note the basic concept of separation which runs throughout these verses. The fact that two kinds of seed might grow quite well together, or that one could plow together quite well with an ox and an ass, or that linen (originating from flax) and wool might make a durable, warm, and nice-looking garment when combined, was nothing to the point! God had said they were not to be mixed! His word was to be respected and honored.
As a separated people, they were to live separated lives (Cf. 1 Kings 8:53, etc.) Such laws as this would also distinguish and identify them as God’s own people, different from all others.
Separation is as much a New Testament doctrine as Oldnot the separation here spoken of, but the separation from the world and its ways that has always characterized God’s true children It is still very necessary that the child of God distinguish and differentiate in this worldan ability he develops more and more as he matures and grows into the likeness of his Master. Mature Christians should see the difference between light and darkness, sham and sincerity, truth and falsehood.
The unequal yoke of the ox and ass (Deuteronomy 22:10) perhaps were in the very mind’s eye of the apostle when he exhorted the Corinthian Christians, Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity. etc. (see 2 Corinthians 6:14 to 2 Corinthians 7:1).
Deuteronomy 22:12
(6) FRINGED GARMENTS (Deuteronomy 22:12)
12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four borders of thy vestures, wherewith thou coverest thyself.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:12
Is Numbers 15:37-41 a commentary on this verse?
How was the purpose of this practice perverted? Cf. Matthew 23:5.
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:12
12 You shall make yourselves tassels on the four corners of your cloak with which you cover yourself. [Numbers 15:37-40.].
COMMENT 22:12
The Hebrew word for fringe (gadil) occurs only in the plural in scripture. Gesenius has intertwined threads, twisted work. Baumgartner remarks that the basic meaning is twist firmly, and defines it tassel here. This definition is followed by most modern translators, as well as the I.S.B.E.
In Numbers 15:37-41 this law is also given,[40] and note the purpose: as reminders of God’s commandments.
[40] A different Heb. word is used in Numbers, but it seems obvious that the same law is being discussed.
As in the case of the exhortation to keep God’s word ever before them (Deuteronomy 6:6-9), the purpose and spirit of this exhortation was lost in the effort to be seen of men (see Matthew 23:5). The borders of their garments, rather than being reminders of God’s law, became reminders of their ostentation and pride. [Compare notes on Deuteronomy 6:8.] Albert Barnes remarks, This fringe was commanded in order to distinguish them from other nations, and that they might remember to keep the commandments of God. The Pharisees made them broader than other people [i.e., even other Hebrews] wore them, to show that they had peculiar respect for the law.
These tassels are apparently what the woman with the issue of blood touched when she touched the border of Christ’s garment (Matthew 9:20), a gesture which also healed those who were sick in the area of Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34-36).
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
k. SEX OFFENSES (Deuteronomy 22:13-30)
(1) VIRGINITY OF A BRIDE (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity; 15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate; 16 and the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge, saying, I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city, 18 And 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 them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:13-21
Is this section a protection for the wife or for the husband?
How would a garment produced by the parents of the wife answer the problem?
Either supernatural knowledge or basic honesty plays an important role here, discuss.
Adultery was a serious sin; a life and death matter. Is it today? Discuss.
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:13-21
13 If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then scorns her, 14 And charges her with shameful things and gives her and evil reputation, and says, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I did not find in her the tokens of a virgin, 15 Then the father of the young woman, and her mother, shall get and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; 16 And her father shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he hates and spurns her, 17 And, lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, I found not in your daughter the evidences of her virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take the man and rebuke and whip him; 19 And they shall fine him 100 shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not divorce her all his days. 20 But if it is true that the evidences of virginity were not found in the young woman, 21 Then they shall bring her to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death; because she has wrought [criminal] folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
COMMENT 22:13-21
Questioning the virginity of a man’s bride was a serious matter in Israeland these words were doubtless intended both as an incentive for the bride to present herself undefiled to her husband, and as a deterrent to husbands who might be prone to unjustly accuse their wives of unchastity before marriage. Certainly nothing is more utterly humiliating to a woman with a good name than to be so accused. No act can be conceived more cruel or dastardly than that of a man who groundlessly assails his wife’s character, accusing her of ante-nuptial unchastity. As the matter was one proof of which was not directly possible, and the man’s word was all that could be adduced on his side, the Law threw the onus of clearing herself upon the woman through her parents, and indicated the mode of doing so. (Pulpit)
THE TOKENS OF VIRGINITY (Deuteronomy 22:14) i.e., proofs of chasity.In Deuteronomy 22:17 this phrase seems to be used synonymously with the woman’s garment that was spread before the elders of the city. A woman’s dress depicted much about her marital status in the east, and still does in many areas. In Genesis, ch. 38, for example, Tamar is identified by her dress at one time as a widow, and another as a harlot (Genesis 38:14-15; Genesis 38:19).
The word rendered garment, Heb. simlah, (A.V. cloth) refers to her wrapper, mantle (Baumgartner). It is especially used of that garment which was wrapped around oneself at night for comfort and warmth, though it was worn at other times also, Apparently this proof garment was kept by her parents for such an occasion, as would need its displayprobably put away at the time of her marriage.
Note the severe punishment that was to be given a husband who dared to bring a false accusation against his wifeand hence ruin her name and reputation. He was to be scourged and fined, and legally bound out from ever divorcing the wife he had so abused.
Deuteronomy 22:22
(2) ADULTERY (Deuteronomy 22:22)
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:22
So much is left to the imagination in the circumstances here described. If a girl, even one who is betrothed finds a boy she likes better than her betrothed, why not marry him?
Did the man of Deu 22:23 have a personal interest in the damsel?
Compare John 8:5 for a possible example. Who is missing?
Supposing the girl in the field consented to the action, how shall this be handled?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:22
22 If a man is found lying with another man’s wife, they shall both die, the man who lay with the woman and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
COMMENT 22:22
See also Deuteronomy 5:18, Leviticus 20:10. Both were to die, as both were guilty. (Compare the case of the woman taken in adulterynote John 8:5. Where was her partner?)
Deuteronomy 22:23-27
(3) DEFILEMENT OF A MAIDEN BETROTHED (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)
23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and he man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee. 25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter; 27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:23-27
23 If a maiden who is a virgin is engaged to be married, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and shall stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s [promised] wife. So shall you put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man finds the betrothed maiden in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no sin punishable by death, for this is as when a man attacks and slays his neighbor; 27 For he came upon her in the open country, and the betrothed girl cried out, but there was not one to save her.
COMMENT 22:23-27
In the case of the maiden in the city, it is assumed assistance and help is available to the girl if she wants it. Therefore both are held responsible for the crime. But with the maiden in the country no such assistance is likely to be available. It is assumed that the damsel cried, and there was none to save her. In this case only the man shall die. She is compared to the victim of a murderer (Deuteronomy 22:26).
Note the sanctity and sacredness of the engagement period. The betrothed man and maid are referred to already as husband and wife. To be sure, it was a much more firm and binding contract than today. Indeed, it was esteemed a part of the transaction of marriage, and that the most binding part. Its central feature was the dowry (mohar), which was paid to the parents, not to the bride. It may take the form of service (Genesis 29; 1 Samuel 18:25). Among the Jews the betrothal was so far regarded as binding that, if marriage should not take place, owing to the absconding of the bridegroom or the breach of contract on his part, the young woman could not be married to another man until she was liberated by a due process and a paper of divorce. A prolonged interval between betrothal and marriage was deemed undesirable on many accounts, though often an interval was needed that the groom might render the stipulated service or pay the pricesay a year or two, or as in the case of Jacob, it might be seven years. The betrothed parties were legally in the position of a married couple, and unfaithfulness was -adultery,-’ (Deuteronomy 22:23; Matthew 1:19). (I.S.B.E.)
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
(4) DEFILEMENT OF A MAIDEN NOT BETROTHED (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:28, 29
Read Exodus 22:16-17 to complete the record.
Who is considered responsible in this circumstance?
Is the girl to be considered innocent? What of love in this marriage.
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:28, 29
28 If a man find a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 Then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not divorce her all his days.
COMMENT 22:28, 29
By comparing Exodus 22:16-17, it appears that the father might not accept the new son-in-lawbut he was still to accept the money. Her husband was not allowed to divorce her throughout their days.
In the case mentioned above it is not stated that the maiden was at fault in any wayonly what was to be done when the crime had been committed. She may (knowingly or unknowingly) have unduly tempted him. Or she may have been ignorant of his evil intentions. The book Scientific Illustrations states the latter case well:
Flamingoes are very shy and timid birds, and shun all attempts of man to approach them; the vicinity of animals, however, they disregard. Any one who is acquainted with this fact can take advantage of it by dressing himself up in the skin of a horse or an ox. Thus disguised, the sportsman may get close to them and shoot them down at his ease. They are taken in by appearances. Shy, beautiful, and harmless, the unfortunate bird meets destruction simply for want of wariness. Many a lovely human being with the like qualities has met her doom for want of the same trait.
Deuteronomy 22:30
(5) IMPURITY TOWARD A FATHER’S WIFE (Deuteronomy 22:30)
30 A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:30
Consider Leviticus 18:8; Leviticus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 27:20 for a complete perspective.
Is this a sin of incest?
How is the word skirt used here?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:30
30 A man shall not take his father’s former wife, nor shall he uncover her who belongs to his father.
COMMENT 22:30
See also Deuteronomy 27:20, Leviticus 18:8; Leviticus 20:11. The sin here is not necessarily with one’s mother, for frequently a husband had two or more wives. Note the distinction between Leviticus 18:7-8. Inasmuch as a wife was considered the husband’s possession and property, it was his father’s skirt. Reuben’s sin was similar, Genesis 35:22, as was also Absolom’S, 2 Samuel 16:20-22.