Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 22:1
Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.
1. go astray ] Heb. niddaim, usually rendered as a passive part., has here, probably, as in Mic 4:6, Zep 3:19, Eze 34:4; Eze 34:16, a reflexive sense like the Scot. pass. part. wandered: LXX . Exo 23:4: if thou come upon thine enemy’s ox or his ass straying.
and hide thyself from them ] Deu 22:4, Isa 58:7 ( from thine own flesh), Psa 55:1 (2); LXX, . Cp. Luk 10:31 f., passed by on the other side.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
1 3. Of Restoring Lost Property. No Israelite shall see a brother’s ox or sheep go astray without returning it, or caring for it till it is claimed, and so with an ass or garment or anything lost; D’s expansion of a law by E, Exo 23:4 f., which is (remarkably) of an enemy’s property. As is evident from the parallel phrase, him that hateth thee, in E’s next law, this is not a foreign, but a private, enemy. Therefore D’s substitution of the term brother renders his law not narrower (so Marti and others), but wider, than E’s. P, Lev 6:1-7, gives details for the treatment of a man who has not restored lost property found by him.
ammurabi has four laws, 9 12, on cases in which the finder has sold the lost property of another. For the Arabs see Doughty Ar. Des. i. 345 and Musil, Ethn. Ber. 282 ff.: If a man find an animal, this must be confirmed by two witnesses, that the owner may not charge him with theft and exact fourfold compensation. Among the ekhr the animal remains with the finder till the owner appears, when it is returned; but after 3 years it belongs to the finder. Some forms of denouncing finders, who do not restore, are given.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
On the general character of the contents of this chapter see Deu 21:10 note.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Deu 22:1-4
Thy brothers ox or his sheep.
Restoration of stray cattle and lost goods
Moses urges right action in manifold relations of national life, and teaches Israel to regard all arrangements of God as sacred. They were never to cherish any bitterness or hostility towards a neighbour, but restore stray animals and lost goods.
I. An indication of Gods providence. Doth God care for oxen? Yes; and observes them go astray, or fall beneath their heavy burden. He legislates for them, and our treatment of them is reverence or disobedience to His command. Thou shalt not see, etc.
II. An opportunity of neighbourly kindness. Thy brother comprehends relatives, neighbours, strangers, and enemies even (Exo 23:4). The property of any person which is in danger shall be protected and restored. Love should rule in all actions, and daily incidents afford the chance of displaying it.
1. Kindness regardless of trouble. If thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and if thou know him not, seek him out and find him if possible.
2. Kindness regardless of expense. If really unable to find the owner, feed and keep it for a time at thine own expense. Then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it. If such care must be taken for the ex, what great anxiety should we display for the temporal and spiritual welfare of our neighbour himself!
III. An expression of humanity. Thou shalt not hide thyself. Indifference or joy in the misfortune would be cruelty to dumb creatures and a violation of the common rights of humanity.
1. In restoring the lost. Cattle easily go astray and wander over the fence and from the fold. If seen they must be brought back and not hidden away.
2. In helping up the fallen. The ass ill-treated and over-laden may fall down through rough or slippery roads. Pity must prompt a helping hand. Thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again. Thus common justice and charity are taught by the law of nature and enforced by the law of Moses. Principles which anticipate the Gospel and embody themselves in one of its grandest precepts, Love your enemies. (J. Wolfendale.)
Fraternal responsibilities
The word brother is not to be read in a limited sense, as if referring to a relation by blood. That is evident from expression in the second verse, If thou know him not. The reference is general–to a brother-man. In Exodus the term used is not brother, but enemy–If thine enemys ox, or ass, or sheep . . . It is needful to understand this clearly, lest we suppose that the directions given in the Bible are merely of a domestic and limited kind. Thou shalt not see thy brothers ox or his sheep go astray. That is not the literal rendering of the term; the literal rendering would be, Thou shalt not see thy brothers ox or his sheep driven away–another man behind them, and driving them on as if he were taking them to his own field. We are not to see actions of this kind and be quiet: there is a time to speak; and of all times calling for indignant eloquence and protest there are none like those which are marked by oppression and wrong-doing. Adopting this principle, how does the passage open itself to our inquiry? Thus–
1. If we must not see our brothers ox being driven away, can we stand back and behold his mind being forced into wrong or evil directions? It were an immoral morality to contend that we must be anxious about the mans ox but care nothing about the mans understanding. We do not live in Deuteronomy: we live within the circle of the Cross; we are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; our morality or our philanthropy, therefore, does not end in solicitude regarding ox, or sheep, or ass: we are called to the broader concern, the tenderer interest, which relates to the human mind and the human soul. Take it from another point of view.
2. If careful about the sheep, is there to be no care concerning the mans good name? We are told that to steal the purse is to steal trash–it is something–nothing; twas mine, twas his–a mere rearrangement of property; but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed. We are the keepers of our brother: his good name is ours. When the reputation of a Christian man goes down or is being driven away, the sum total of Christian influence is diminished; in this sense we are not to live unto ourselves or for ourselves; every soul is part of the common stock of humanity, and when one member is exalted the whole body is raised in a worthy ascension, and when one member is debased or wronged or robbed a felony has been committed upon the consolidated property of the Church. Thus we are led into philanthropic relations, social trusteeships, and are bound one to another; and if we see a mans reputation driven away by some cruel hand–even though the reputation be that of an enemy–we are to say, Be just and fear not,–let us know both sides of the case; there must be no immoral partiality; surely in the worst of cases there must be some redeeming points. Take it from another point.
3. In like manner shalt thou do with . . . his raiment. And are we to be careful about the mans raiment, and care nothing about his aspirations? Is it nothing to us that the man never lifts his head towards the wider spaces, and wonders what the lights are that glitter in the distant arch? Is it nothing to us that the man never sighs after some larger sphere, or ponders concerning some nobler possibility of life? Finding a man driving himself away, we are bound to arouse him in the Creators name and to accuse him of the worst species of suicide.
4. Can we see our brothers ass being driven away and ears nothing what becomes of his child? Save the children, and begin your work as soon as possible. It is sad to see the little children left to themselves; and therefore ineffably beautiful to mark the concern which interests itself in the education and redemption of the young. A poet says he was nearer heaven in his childhood than he ever was in after days, and he sweetly prayed that he might return through his yesterdays and through his childhood back to God. That is chronologically impossible–locally and physically not to be done; and yet that is the very miracle which is to be performed in the soul–in the spirit; we must be born again. It is a cowards trick to close the eyes whilst wrong is being done in order that we may not see it. It is easy to escape distress, perplexity, and to flee away from the burdens of other men; but the whole word is, Thou shalt not hide thyself, but thou shalt surely help him. Who can undervalue a Bible which speaks in such a tone? The proverb Every man must take care of himself has no place in the Book of God. We must take care of one another. Christianity means nothing if it does not mean the unity of the human race, the common rights of humanity: and he who fails to interpose in all cases of injustice and wrong-doing, or suffering which he can relieve, may be a great theologian, but he is not a Christian. (J. Parker, D. D.)
A kind heart
One day President Lincoln was walking out with his secretary, when suddenly he stopped by a shrub and gazed into it. Stooping down he ran his hands through the twigs and leaves as if to take something. His secretary inquired what he was after. Said Mr. Lincoln, Here is a little bird fallen from its nest, and I am trying to put it back again. True kindness ever springs instinctively from lives permeated with goodness. Kind hearts are more than coronets.
Helping up
We have lately been doing a blessed work amongst the cabmen of Manchester, many of whom have signed the pledge. I heard the other night that one of them had broken his pledge and I went to the cab rooms to look after him. I saw him there, but he tried to avoid me. He was ashamed to face me. I followed him up, and at last he presented himself before me, wearing a most dejected look. I said to him, When you are driving your cab, and your horse falls down, what do you do? I jumps off the box and tries to help him up again. That is it, my friend, I replied. I heard you had fallen, and so I got off my box to help you up. Will you get up? There is my hand. He caught hold of it with a grasp like a vice, and said, I will, sir; before God, and under His own blue heavens, I promise you that I will not touch a drop of strong drink again; and you will never have to regret the trouble you have taken with me. Oh, Christian friends, there are many poor drunkards who have fallen down. Will you not get off the box, and help them up? (C. Garrett.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXII
Ordinances relative to strayed cattle and lost goods, 1-3.
Humanity to oppressed cattle, 4.
Men and women shall not wear each 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, 23, 24.
Cases of rape and the punishment, 25-27;
of fornication, 28, 29.
No man shall take his father’s wife, 30.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXII
Verse 1. Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray] The same humane, merciful, and wise regulations which we met with before, Ex 23:4-5, well calculated to keep in remembrance the second grand branch of the law of God, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. A humane man cannot bear to see even an ass fall under his burden, and not endeavour to relieve him; and a man who loves his neighbour as himself cannot see his property in danger without endeavouring to preserve it. These comparatively small matters were tests and proofs of matters great in themselves, and in their consequences. See Clarke on Ex 23:4.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Thy brother; so called by communion not of religion, but of nature, as having one Father, even God, Mal 2:10; as appears,
1. Because the same law is given about their enemys ox, &c., Exo 23:4.
2. Because else the obligation of this law had been uncertain, seeing men could not ordinarily tell whether the straying ox or sheep belonged to a Jew or to a stranger.
3. Because this was a duty of common justice and charity, which the law of nature taught even heathens, and it is absurd to think that the law of God delivered to the Jews should have less charity in it than the law of nature given to the Gentiles.
Hide thyself from them, i.e. dissemble or pretend that thou dost not seen them; or neglect or pass them by as if thou hadst not seen them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Thou shalt not see thy brother’sox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them,c.”Brother” is a term of extensive application,comprehending persons of every description not a relative, neighbor,or fellow countryman only, but any human being, known or unknown, aforeigner, and even an enemy (Ex23:4). The duty inculcated is an act of common justice andcharity, which, while it was taught by the law of nature, was moreclearly and forcibly enjoined in the law delivered by God to Hispeople. Indifference or dissimulation in the circumstances supposedwould not only be cruelty to the dumb animals, but a violation of thecommon rights of humanity; and therefore the dictates of naturalfeeling, and still more the authority of the divine law, enjoinedthat the lost or missing property of another should be taken care ofby the finder, till a proper opportunity occurred of restoring it tothe owner.
De22:5-12. THE SEXTO BE DISTINGUISHEDBY APPAREL.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Thou shall not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray,…. Or “driven away” r; frightened and starved away from the herd or from the flock by a wolf or dog; and the ox and sheep are put for every other creature a man has, as camels, asses, c. which last sort is after mentioned and a brother means not one in the natural relation of kindred only, for it is supposed, in the next verse, that he might not only be at a distance, but unknown; nor by religion only, or one of the commonwealth or church of the Jews, for what is enjoined is a piece of humanity the law of nature requires and directs unto, and is even to be done to enemies, Ex 23:4 and hide thyself from them; make as if he did not see them, and so be entirely negligent of them, and takes no care and show no concern about them, but let them go on wandering from the herd and flock from whence they were driven, and to which they cannot find the way of themselves:
thou shalt in any case bring them again to thy brother: to his herd or flock, or to his house, and deliver them into his own hands, or to the care of his servants.
r “expulsos”, Montanus; “impulsos”, Munster; “depulsos”, Piscator.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Going deeper and deeper into the manifold relations of the national life, Moses first of all explains in Deu 22:1-12 the attitude of an Israelite, on the one hand, towards a neighbour; and, on the other hand, towards the natural classification and arrangement of things, and shows how love should rule in the midst of all these relations. The different relations brought under consideration are selected rather by way of examples, and therefore follow one another without any link of connection, for the purpose of exhibiting the truth in certain concrete cases, and showing how the covenant people were to hold all the arrangement of God sacred, whether in nature or in social life.
Deu 22:1-3 In Deu 22:1-4 Moses shows, by a still further expansion of Exo 23:4-5, how the property of a neighbour was to be regarded and preserved. If any man saw an ox or a sheep of his brother’s (fellow-countryman) going astray, he was not to draw back from it, but to bring it back to his brother; and if the owner lived at a distance, or was unknown, he was to take it into his own house or farm, till he came to seek it. He was also to do the same with an ass or any other property that another had lost.
Deu 22:4 A fallen animal belonging to another he was also to help up (as in Exo 23:5: except that in this case, instead of a brother generally, an enemy or hater is mentioned).
Deu 22:5 As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “ There shall not be man’s things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman’s clothes.” does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo 22:6; Lev 11:32; Lev 13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction – such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman – was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God.
Deu 22:6-7 The affectionate relation of parents to their young, which God had established even in the animal world, was also to be kept just as sacred. If any one found a bird’s nest by the road upon a tree, or upon the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother sitting upon them, he was not to take the mother with the young ones, but to let the mother fly, and only take the young. for , as in Exo 5:3. The command is related to the one in Lev 22:28 and Exo 23:19, and is placed upon a par with the commandment relating to parents, by the fact that obedience is urged upon the people by the same promise in both instances (vid., Deu 5:16; Exo 20:12).
Deu 22:8-12 Still less were they to expose human life to danger through carelessness. “ If thou build a new house, make a rim ( maakeh ) – i.e., a balustrade – to thy roof, that thou bring not blood-guiltiness upon thy house, if any one fall from it.” The roofs of the Israelitish houses were flat, as they mostly are in the East, so that the inhabitants often lived upon them (Jos 2:6; 2Sa 11:2; Mat 10:27). – In Deu 22:9-11, there follow several prohibitions against mixing together the things which are separated in God’s creation, consisting partly of a verbal repetition of Lev 19:19 (see the explanation of this passage). – To this there is appended in Deu 22:12 the law concerning the tassels upon the hem of the upper garment (Num 15:37.), which were to remind the Israelites of their calling, to walk before the Lord in faithful fulfilment of the commandments of God (see the commentary upon this passage).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Kindness and Humanity. | B. C. 1451. |
1 Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case 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 unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again. 3 In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself. 4 Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.
The kindness that was commanded to be shown in reference to an enemy (Exo 23:4; Exo 23:5, c.) is here required to be much more done for a neighbour, though he were not an Israelite, for the law is consonant to natural equity. 1. That strayed cattle should be brought back, either to the owner or to the pasture out of which they had gone astray, Deu 22:1Deu 22:2. This must be done in pity to the very cattle, which, while they wandered, were exposed; and in civility and respect to the owner, nay, and in justice to him, for it was doing as we would be done by, which is one of the fundamental laws of equity. Note, Religion teaches us to be neighbourly, and to be ready to do all good offices, as we have opportunity, to all men. In doing this, (1.) They must not mind trouble, but, if they knew who the owner was, must take it back themselves; for, if they should only send notice to the owner to come and look after it himself, some mischief might befal it ere he could reach it. (2.) They must not mind expense, but, if they knew not who the owner was, must take it home and feed it till the owner was found. If such care must be taken of a neighbour’s ox or ass going astray, much more of himself going astray from God and his duty; we should do our utmost to convert him (Jam. v. 19), and restore him, considering ourselves, Gal. vi. 1. 2. That lost goods should be brought to the owner, v. 3. The Jews say, “He that found the lost goods was to give public notice of them by the common crier three or four times,” according to the usage with us; if the owner could not be found, he that found the goods might convert them to his own use; but (say some learned writers in this case) he would do very well to give the value of the goods to the poor. 3. That cattle in distress should be helped, v. 4. This must be done both in compassion to the brute-creatures (for a merciful man regardeth the life of a beast, though it be not his own) and in love and friendship to our neighbour, not knowing how soon we may have occasion for his help. If one member may say to another, “I have at present no need of thee,” it cannot say, “I never shall.”
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
DEUTERONOMY – CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
Verses 1-3:
Compare this text with Exo 23:4. Both passages set forth the same principle: that of genuine concern for the property of another, and strict honesty in all inter-personal relations.
“Go astray,” nadach, “to be driven or forced away.” The term means more than merely wandering away, as an animal is wont to do. It implies that the animal was led or enticed away.
In such an instance, many do not want to “become involved.” They look the other way, and allow the questionable activity to go unchallenged. The text expressly forbids this.
“Brother” in this text is not limited to blood-brothers. It denotes a fellow-Israelite. But Exo 23:4 also applies this principle to one’s enemies, who may hate him, see Pro 25:22; Rom 12:20; Mat 5:43-47.
The principle applies in every age. In a real sense, the child of God is his “brother’s keeper.” He is to concern himself actively for his brother’s welfare.
The principle embodied in this text applies to all lost articles. When found, they were to be put up for safe keeping until the rightful owner should call for them.
“Finders keepers – losers weepers” is not the spirit of this text.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE RECAPITULATION OF THE LAW
Deu 5:1 to Deu 26:19 record for us a recapitulation of the Law. The study of this section sets out clearly certain fundamental truths.
The Decalog is repeated with significant variations. Chapter 5, fundamental to all the laws of God is the Decalog. In Exodus, Moses delivered the same as he brought it from the tip of the fingers Divine. In Deuteronomy, the Law is given again. From the first to the tenth commandment, the very language of Exodus is employed, save in the instance of the fourth. Here, the reason assigned to the Jew for keeping the Sabbath, is strangely and significantly changed, namely, from because the Lord in six days made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh day, to Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day (Deu 5:15).
This change is so strange and so unexpected that it arrests immediate attention and demands adequate explanation. Why did God shift the reason for keeping the Sabbath from the finished creation to a completed redemption? The answer is not difficult. In the Divine plan, redemption is a far greater event than creation; the soul of man exceeds the weight of the world; for that matter, of all worlds. The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. The Law was given for Jews; the Gentiles were never in bondage to it, and above all, believing Gentiles are not bound by it. To them, the Law is not a great external or outside force created for practices of restraint. Its spirit is transcribed to their souls rather; they walk at liberty while seeking Divine precepts. This is not to inveigh against the Law. The Law is just, and true and good, but by Law no man has ever been redeemed. It is to exalt Grace, which God hath revealed through Jesus Christ, in whom men have redemption from sin. If I only love my father and mother because the Law commands it, I do not love them at all; if I refrain from making images and bowing down before them because this is the demand of the Law, my heart may yet be as full of idolatry as a heathen temple. Redemption is not by the Law; it is by Grace in Jesus Christ!
The early Church was shortly called upon to settle this question of salvation by Law or Grace, and in the Jerusalem Conference Peter rose up and said unto them,
Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Act 15:7-10).
Later he said, We believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (not by Law) we shall be saved, even as they (Act 15:7-11). Mark you, in that very sentence, Peter, the Apostle, proves his realization of the fact that the Law had failed as a savior and the very Jew himself had hope alone in grace. How strange, then, for men of the Twentieth Century to turn back to Law and proclaim the Law as though it were a redeemer, and protest that men who ignore the Jewish Saturday as the Sabbath will plunge themselves into the pit thereby, when the Law never saved! The keeping of the Sabbath was the one Law that contained in itself no ethical demand. The Law to worship, the Law to honor father and mother, the Law against killing, stealing and covetousnessthese are all questions of right and wrong; but to tithe time by the keeping of the Sabbath was a command solely in the interest of mans physical life. When, therefore, by the pen of inspiration the reason for it was shifted from a finished creation to a finished redemption, the act was lifted at once to a high spiritual level and became a symbol of the day when Christ, risen from the grave, should have completed redemptions plan. That great fortune to mankind fell out on the first day of the week, creating not so much a Christian Sabbath as making forever a memorial day for redemption itself, for the eighth day, or the first day of the week, clearly indicated the new order of things, or the new creation through Christ.
We have no sympathy whatever with secularizing each one of the seven days; but we would have the first day of the week kept in the spirit of rejoicing as redemptions memorial. On that day our Lord rose from the dead; on that day He met his disciples again and again; on that day the brethren at Troas assembled with the Apostles and broke bread; on that day the Christians laid aside their offerings; on that day they met for prayer and breaking of breadthe fellowship of the saints; on that day John was caught up in the spirit and witnessed the marvels recorded in his apocalyptic vision. Oh, what a day! No legal bondage, for what have we to do with holy days, sabbaths and new moons; but salvations memorial, a day of special service to the Son of God, our Saviour, a day for the souls rejoicing in Jesus. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
But as we pass on in the study of this section of Scripture, we find Moses defends the Decalog in character and consequence. He reminds them of the glory out of which the voice spake (Deu 5:24). He reminds them of the obligation in the words themselves (Deu 5:32). He reminds them of the relationship of the possession of the land to obedience of the precepts. He pleads with them as a father, Hear, therefore, O Israel (Deu 6:4). He anticipates the day of prophecy and begs that these words have place in their hearts (Deu 6:6), to be diligently taught to their children (Deu 6:7); bound for a sign upon their hands and frontlets between their eyes, lest they be forgotten (Deu 6:8); written upon the posts of the house and on the gates, where they could not be unobserved (Deu 6:9). Moses knew the relationship of law-keeping to national living. It is doubtful if modernists now have or will ever again entertain the same sacred reverence for Law that characterized the ancients, even the heathen of far-off days.
We cannot forget how Socrates, when he was sentenced to death and, after an imprisonment of thirty days, was to drink the juice of the hemlock, spent his time preparing for the end; friends conceived and executed plans for his escape and earnestly endeavored to prevail upon him to avail himself of the opportunity, but he answered, That would be a crime to violate the law even when the sentence is unjust. I would rather die than do evil. If a heathen philosopher could treat unjust laws with such reverence, Moses was justified in pleading with his people to regard the laws that were true and just and good, and such were the mandates of Deuteronomy.
It is easy enough for one to pick out some one of these precepts and, by detaching it from its context, create the impression that it was foolish or superficial or even utterly unjust; but when one reads the whole Book, he sees the effectual relationship of laws, general and particular, to the life Israel was leading, and for that matter, catches the supreme spiritual significance of the same as they interpret themselves in the light of New Testament teaching. There is not a warning that was not needed, nor an exhortation which, if heeded, would have failed to profit the people. It all came to one conclusion for Israel.
What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul (Deu 10:12)?
And as there was not a law in the Old Testament but was fitted for the profit of Israel, so there is not a command in the New Testament but looks to the conquest of the Christian soul.
Among these enactments were personal and significant suggestions. They gave dietary and sanitary suggestions (Deuteronomy 14); they established the Sabbatic year (Deuteronomy 13); they fixed the time of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16); they set forth the character of the offerings (Deuteronomy 17); they determined the duties of the Levites (Deuteronomy 18); they gave direction concerning the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19); they determined the way of righteous warfare (chap. 20); they established a court of inquest (Deuteronomy 21); they announced the law of brotherhood (Deuteronomy 22); they descended to the minute instances of social life and regulations of the same (Deuteronomy 23); they dealt with the great and difficult question of divorce (Deuteronomy 24); they ended (Deuteronomy 23) in an almost unlimited series of regulations concerning the social life of the people knowing a wilderness experience, including the law of the first fruits (Deuteronomy 26).
It is interesting to study not alone the laws enacted here, but the penalties declared, including the blessings and curses from Ebal to Gerizim. There is about them all an innate righteousness that has been unknown to those purely human codes for which God never assumed responsibility. From the curse against bribery to the curse against brutal murder to this day the sentences are justified in the judgment of the worlds most thoughtful men.
In all they contrast the injustice and inordinately severe punishments often afflicted by godless governments. Plutarch, in writing about Solon, tells us that he repealed the laws of Draco except those concerning murder. Such was the severity of their punishments in proportion to the offense that we are amazed as we read them. If one was convicted of idleness, death was the penalty. If one stole a few apples or potherbs, he must surely die, and by as ignominious a method as did the murderer. And out of that grew the saying of Demades that Draco wrote his laws, not with ink but with blood. And when Draco was asked why such severe penalties, he answered, Small ones deserve it, and I can find no greater for the most heinous. Such were human laws in contrast to these laws Divine.
But a further study of these laws involves a third lesson.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.The cases stated and provided for in Deu. 22:1-12 seem selected by way of example, and belong, according to our notions, rather to ethics than to law. It in noteworthy that no penalty is annexed to the breech of these regulations. No doubt it would be the duty of the officers (Deu. 22:16-18) and the elders in the several cities to enforce their observance.Speak. Com.
Deu. 22:1-4. Humanity to neighbours. This is an expansion of Exo. 23:4-5. A stray sheep, ox or ass to be taken to the owner. If owner unknown or lived at a distance, finder must take it to his own farm until sought for. A fallen ox (Deu. 22:4), unable to carry its burden, to be helped up. Hide thyself, excusing or refusing help.
Deu. 22:5. Apparel of sex. Pertaineth not only dress, but arms, domestic and other utensils (cf. Exo. 22:6; Lev. 11:32; Lev. 13:49). This designed to oppose idolatrous practices and to prevent licentious conduct.
Deu. 22:6-7. Birds nests. Chance often met with by travellers. Affectionate relation between parent and young to be sacred. Wisdom and humanity in this precept Prolong (Exo. 20:12).
Deu. 22:8. House building. Roofs were flat and used for various purposes (Jos. 2:6; 2Sa. 12:2; Act. 10:9.) Human life was not to be endangered through any neglect of protection.
Deu. 22:9-12. Mixtures avoided. Prohibitions against mixing together things which are separated in Gods creation, consisting partly of a verbal repetition of Lev. 19:19. To this is appended in Deu. 22:12 the law concerning the tassels upon the hem of the upper garment (Num. 15:37), which were to remind the Israelites of their calling to walk before the Lord in faithful fulfilment of his commandments.Keil.
Deu. 22:13-22. Laws of chastity. Designed to foster purity and fidelity in relation to the sexes, and to protect females from malice and violence. Chastise (Deu. 22:18) with stripes not exceeding forty in number. Amerce (F. a at; merci, mercy; Lat., merces, wages, penalty) punish by pecuniary penalty. Shekels paid to the father against whom the slander was made as head of the wifes family. The amount twice as much as that paid by a seducer (Deu. 22:29).
Deu. 22:22-30. Laws of marriage. Adulterers were both to be put to death (Deu. 22:22). Betrothed in the city and with her consent (cried not, Deu. 22:24), both stoned. If found in a field (Deu. 22:25-27), and she was forced, the man only died, as the only criminal. Not betrothed (Deu. 22:28), a fine for undue liberty and completion of marriage without divorce. Incest (Deu. 22:30) prohibited in repetition of earlier law (cf. Lev. 18:8; Lev. 20:11; 1Co. 5:1) to form a close.
RESTORATION OF STRAY CATTLE AND LOST GOODS.Deu. 22:1-4
Moses urges right action in manifold relations of national life, and teaches Israel to regard all arrangements of God as sacred. They were never to cherish any bitterness or hostility towards a neighbour, but restore stray animals and lost goods.
I. An indication of Gods Providence. Doth God care for oxen? Yes; and observes them go astray, or fall beneath their heavy burden. He made and preserves them. He legislates for them, and our treatment of them is reverence or disobedience to His command. Thou shalt not see, etc.
II. An opportunity of neighbourly kindness. Thy brother comprehends relatives, neighbours, strangers, and enemies even (Exo. 23:4). The property of any person which is in danger should be protected and restored. Love should rule in all actions, and daily incidents afford the chance of displaying it. In trivial circumstances we may learn to forgive injury, love enemies, and do good for evil.
1. Kindness regardless of trouble. If thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and if thou know him not, seek him out and find him if possible.
2. Kindness regardless of expense. If really unable to find the owner, feed and keep it for a time at thine own expense. Then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it. If such care must be taken for the ox, what great anxiety should we display for the temporal and spiritual welfare of our neighbour himself.
III. An expression of humanity. Thou shalt not hide thyself. Indifference or joy in the misfortune would be cruelty to dumb creatures and a violation of the common rights of humanity.
1. In restoring the lost. Cattle easily go astray and wander over the fence and from the fold. If seen they must be brought back and not hidden away.
2. In helping up the fallen. The ass illtreated and overladen may fall down through rough or slippery roads. Pity must prompt a helping hand. Thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again. Thus common justice and charity are taught by the law of nature and enforced by the law of Moses. Principles which anticipate the gospel and embody themselves in one of its grandest precepts, Love your enemies.
INTERCHANGE OF APPAREL.Deu. 22:5
Not only was property to be held sacred, but the distinction of sexes also, by clothing suitable to each sex. A woman was not to put on a mans clothing, nor a man a womans. This would be
I. A display of indecent conduct. The putting on of the apparel of the one sex by the other is an outrage of ordinary decency.
1. In common life. Unbecoming levity is often seen. Modesty is the guard of female virtue and the charm of social life.
2. In divine worship. The custom of changing attire was prevalent in idolatrous worship. The sexes of heathen deities were often confounded and the worshippers endeavoured to please them by attiring like a particular god. This is forbidden to Israel.
II. A destruction of natural distinction. God created them male and female. This natural distinction should be preserved in manners and dress; but is destroyed when women forget their sex and men their decorum (1Co. 2:3-9).
III. An abomination to God. All that do so are abomination unto the Lord. The habit defaces the natural image of God in man; opens up the way to impudence, licentiousness and deception. These evils are detestable to God. For man and woman God has given a standard of dress and life.
TAKE CARE OF BIRDS.Deu. 22:6-7
A birds nest seems a trifling thing to notice, but the majestic and the minute are equally under Divine care. Notice
I. The wisdom of the precept. Birds have important uses in the economy of nature. Extirpation of any species, edible or ravenous, especially in a land like Palestine would be a serious evil. The vulture which destroys putrid bodies and the ibis which devours snakes have been of service to society. The owl keeps down the mice, and sparrows, the caterpillar. God has made nothing in vain. His wisdom and goodness rule over all.
II. The humanity of the Precept. To disturb the dam while sitting would rob her of her young and her liberty. It would be wanton destruction and cruelty. The tiniest birds are protected by God. Cowper would make no man his friend who would tread even upon a worm, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
III. The benefit of the Precept. Spare the birds and thou shalt prolong thine own days. Kindness to man and beast will elevate personal character, check destructive tendencies, and please God. Those who show mercy shall reap mercy. In all circumstances benevolence to the creature and obedience to the Creator will increase the happiness of life, and meet with the seal of Heaven.
THE TREATMENT OF BIRDS NESTS
I. The minuteness of divine law is here very beautifully illustrated. God does not finish great breadths of work and leave the details to be filled by other hands. He who guards planets, guards birds nests, though in the latter case His defence may be broken down by wanton hands. Our own life to be exact in detail. Not enough to keep the law in great aspects which appeal to the public eye, and by keeping which a reputation is sometimes unjustly gained, but by attention to minute and hardly discernable features of character which indicate the real quality of the man. II. The beneficence of divine law is illustrated by protection of birds nests. God kind in little as well as great things. Love is one whether shown in redemption of the race, in numbering hairs of our head, ordering our steps or giving His beloved sleep. All law benificent; the law of restriction as well as liberty. Man to have dominion over fowls of the air, but dominion to be exercised in mercy. Power uncontrolled by kindness becomes despotism. Power belongs to Godunto God also belongs mercy; this is completeness of dominion, not only a hand to rule, but a heart to love. III. A prohibition of this kind shows that there is a right and wrong in everything. A right way of appropriating birds nests and a way equally wrong. Morality goes down to every root and fibre of life. In offering a salutation, opening a door, uttering a wish, writing a letter, in every possible exercise of thought and power. IV. The principle of the prohibition admits of wide application in life. He who wantonly destroys a birds nest, may one day cruelly break up a childs home. We cannot stop wantonness when we please. Little tyrannies of childhood explain the great despotisms of mature life. Kindness an influence that penetrates the whole life, having manifold expression, upward, downward, and laterally, touching all human beings, all inferiors and dependants, and every harmless and defenceless life. V. Beware of the possibility of being merely pedantic in feeling. A man may be careful of his horse and cruel to his servant. Some would not on any account break up a birds nest, yet would allow a poor relation to die of hunger. What with all carefulness for dumb animals, if we think little of breaking a human heart by sternness or neglect! VI. Kindness to the lower should become still tenderer to the higher. This, Christs argument in bidding us behold the fowls of the air, that in their life we may see our Fathers kindness. Are ye not much better than they? If careful for cattle, How much is a man better than a sheep? How does the case stand with us, who have completer inheritance of liberty, who have passed from the latte the spirit? We are no longer true, noble and kind, because of literal direction guarded by solemn sanctions, but because the Holy Ghost has sanctified us, and made our hearts his dwelling place.Dr. Parker.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 22:1-3. Lost property restored. An ass, an ox, and raiment samples of the property of an Israelite. If lost these must be restored.
1. To preserve them.
2. To show kindly feeling towards a neighbour. HenceI. Restoration a duty demanded by a brother and urged by God. II. Neglect to restore a sin. A species of theft, Thou shalt not steal. The general duty of stopping stray animals and restoring them to friendly owners is expressly taught here.
Deu. 22:5. Sex distinguished.
1. By nature.
2. By dress.
3. By manners.
4. By conduct. This is a precept against boldness and effrontery in woman; and against effeminacy in man. It is a precept against all infraction of those laws which God has established at the creation of man and of woman out of man; and renewed and reinforced in the incarnation of Christ. It is a precept against all confusion of attire of men and women, especially in the Church of God.Wordsworth
ON MAKING BATTLEMENTS.Deu. 22:8
This is an extraordinary statement. May not a man please himself in building a house which he is able to pay for? God says not, and society in many particulars confirmed the word. There is nothing which a man may do merely to please himself. We are surrounded by other people, and it is one of the most gracious appointments of Providence that we are obliged to consider the effect of our movements upon our fellow-creatures. Thus self will is limited, our character strengthened, and all that is highest in friendship purified and strengthened. It is easy to see how objections to the appointment of the text might arise. For example:
1. My neighbour will call upon me only now and then; why should I make a permanent arrangement to meet an exceptional circumstance? We are to build for exceptional circumstances. The average temperature of the year may be mild, wind low and rains gentle; yet we build houses not for such averages, but for the possibility of severe trials. Vessels are not made by the shipbuilder for smooth waters and quiet days, but for the roughest billows and fiercest winds. Our neighbours visits may be uncertain, yet their very uncertainty constitutes demand for permanent arrangement. Be prepared for crises, expect the unexpected, and be sure of the uncertain. He who is so defended for his neighbours sake will be equal to the severest emergencies of life.
2. But will it not be time enough to build the battlement when anything like danger is in prospect? No. Life is regulated by the doctrine that prevention is better than cure. We are not at liberty to try first whether people will fall off the roof. Life too short and valuable to justify such experiments. He who prevents the loss of life saves it. Preventive ministries of life are not so heroic and impressive as those of a more affirmative kind, yet they are most acceptable to God. Prevent your boy from becoming a drunkard, it is better than saving him from extremest dissipation, though not so imposing before society.
3. But ought not men to be able to take care of themselves when walking on the roof of a house without our guarding them as if they were little children? No. We are to study the interests of the weakest men. This is the principle of Christianity. If eating flesh or drinking wine, etc. Him that is weak in the faith receive, etc. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. The house may be strong, but if wanting the battlement of grace above it, it is wanting in beauty which is pleasant to Gods eye. You may be able to walk upon the roof without danger, another may not have the same steadiness of head and firmness of foot. It is for that other man you are to regulate your domestic arrangements. Love thy neighbour as thyself.
See the Christian application of this. If we are to build a house as not to endanger the men who visit us, are we to build a life which may be to others snares of destruction? Is not a battlement around our conduct? Are habits to be formed without reference to social influence? Children are looking at us, strangers take account of our ways, and though we may be proud of our strength, they may be lured from righteousness by that licentiousness which we call liberty.
Has God given directions for building a house and forgotten to give instructions for the building of a life? Is it like Him to do the little and forget the great? Is He not more careful about the tenant than about the house? Instructions for life-building abound. Wisdom is the principal thing, etc. Go to the Book with earnest desire to discover the way of salvation, the secret of vital growth, and God will teach.The City Temple. Vol. III.
RELIGIOUS STHETICS.Deu. 22:9-11
As a peculiar people God designed that they should walk worthy of their high vocation. No intermingling allowed with heathen character and practices. They and even their cattle were stamped with the mark of separation. By forbidding the intermingling of seeds, animals and garments, God taught the great lesson of spiritual separation. That lesson has been written for our learning.
THE MIXED SEED
The seed is the word. The Christian, faithful in his testimony to divine truth, is the sower. Whatever is opposed to this seed, foreign to it in character, arrests its fall into good ground, or obstructs its growth when rootedis the mischievous seed of the wicked onethe seed of tares and choking thorns. A teacher of truth in pulpit, Sabbath school, or in house to house visitation who seeks on the Sabbath to scatter the seed of the kingdom, but during the week is busy dealing out words to no profit, has no more warrant to expect the prepared heart among secular hearers than the husbandman in expecting the culture and preparedness of his ground by the cultivation of chickweed.
THE UNEQUAL YOKING
Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together. This illustrates the intermingling of persons of diverse characters and tastes This intercourse is indispensible in certain relations. Men of all characters and orders have fellowship in different ways. It would not be desirable, if practicable, for the children of light to be separated outwardly from the children of this world. Christ moved with crowds but had fellowship only with few, contact and intercourse with evil, but no communion with it. He met with men to teach, heal, comfort, and save, but the means He used were words of truth and acts of love. In Christ there were no unseemly and unequal yoking. The illustration refers also to servicethe inviting of opposite characters and interests in a common cause. The ox being stronger than the ass, two evils ensue. The stronger drags aside the weaker, and the weaker impedes the progress of the stronger. Unequal yokes make bad ploughing and a crooked furrow. The loss is seen in waste of time, labour, an ground. How can two walk together except they be agreed? In secular life two men united in partnership cannot prosper without agreement. Each seeks his own selfish ends or unrighteous progress at the sacrifice of principle. In spiritual life, when a Christian unites with any whose thoughts, tastes and habits differ from his own, how can they walk harmoniously. Any good to be done is done defectively or left undone. Otherwise it must be done separately; the ox unyoked and freed from encumbrance. The liberation happens in obedience to the Divine injunction, Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.
THE MIXED GARMENT
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. Many put on religion for particular days and special occasions. On Sabbath they are suitably and religiously attired; but other days of the week find them wearing a garment of coarser material and divers colours. A linsey-woolsey Christianity is very popular. The practical, outward life of a Christian should harmonise with his spiritual hidden life, compared in Scripture to fine linen, clean and white, the righteousness of the saints. Hence exhortations to keep his garments, to hate the garment spotted by the flesh, to put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man, etc. Christians are a peculiar people in Gods estimation, and should be in that of the world by reason of moral character, their spiritual clothing. As a holy priesthood they should never put off their long priestly linen garments, but let them be for glory and beauty. A royal priesthood should evince its rank by royal apparel, for they that wear soft raiment are in kings houses. What a motive does this furnish for practical godliness. The priestly robe should be worn always, in all companies and in all times; should suit the home, the sanctuary, and the place of business. Whatever forbids my robe forbids my presence. Ye are the temple of the Holy Ghost, and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols. A testing principle is here. The question is not what is lawful for a Christian, but what is seemly, beautiful, and accordant with Divine taste. The God of glory is jealous for the glory of his children. He would have the outward correspond with the inward. Wherefore be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.The Study, 1875.
THE MORAL AND THE POSITIVE IN THE DUTIES OF LIFE.Deu. 22:11
On this verse we remarkI. That it exhibits a positive duty. Moral laws are of everlasting obligation; positive may be temporary and local in their existence. II. That as the inculcation of a positive duty, the precept of the text was not so binding upon the Jews as those duties which were wholly moral. III. That we who live under the gospel dispensation are not bound to observe this precept at all. We are not under law, but under grace. IV. That while we are under no manner of obligation to observe this precept in its literal meaning, still the moral principle which underlies that meaning, and which it was intended to illustrate, is as binding now as ever. It teaches us that we cannot serve two masters; thou shalt have no other gods before me.R. Harley, F. R. S.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 22:8. Battlements.
1. Danger in places of common resort. Roofs of houses much resorted to in cool of the evening.
2. Danger in places of devotion. They were used as an oratory or places of prayer.
3. Danger in places of rest. They were also slept on during the heat of summer. It is needful to have some parapet or fence to guard ourselves and others from falling down.
Deu. 22:9. Divers seeds.
1. To secure the best crop. By enjoining the best, unmixed seed, and by preventing one seed from destroying the other.
2. To forbid heathen customs. Heathens sowed barley with dried grapes, by which they signified that their vineyards were consecrated to Ceres and Bacchus.
3. To induce simple trust in God. By not sowing mixed seeds they would indicate faith in Gods providence in seasons wet or dry. The Church is Gods vineyard (Isa. 5:7; Jer. 12:10; Mat. 21:33; Luk. 20:15). It must not be sown with the tares of false doctrine, mingled with the good seed of the word.Wordsworth.
Deu. 22:10. Plow. Unequally yoked.
1. In the choice of companions.
2. In married life (2Co. 6:14).
3. In Christian work. The ass is lower than the ox, and when in a yoke together must bear the principal weight, and that in a very painful
position in the neck; his steps are unequal and his strength is inferior, which must occasion an irregular draught, and great oppression to both. The ass is a stubborn, rebellious, and in these countries a spirited creature; the ox, on the contrary, is gentle, tractable, and patient. Accepting this interpretation, it gives us another instance of that humanity which pervades the whole Mosaic code.Cassell.
Deu. 22:11. Garment.
1. Dress according to your station in life. Linen and wool may have been the apparel of priests and therefore forbidden to the people.
2. Dress not in imitation of the world. The garment may have been peculiar to the heathen priesthood and therefore a virtual condemnation of all idolatrous usages. These laws were made to set forth how God abhoreth all mixtures in religion, and how carefully men should keep their minds from being corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.Trapp.
Deu. 22:12. Fringes. Tassels on the corners of the outer coat, or, according to some, tassels on the coverlet of the bed, which was tied to bed-posts for the sake of decency. Learn
1. Not to be ashamed of your religion however peculiar you may seem to be. Israel distinguished from other people by these things.
2. Not to forget the precepts of the word. Fringes reminded of particular occasions and precepts. Speak unto Israel, bid them make fringes throughout their generations and it shall be unto them for a fringe, that ye may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye used to go a whoring: that ye may remember and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God. (Num. 15:38-40).
PURITY AND FIDELITY IN LIFE.Deu. 22:13-29
The regulations which follow might be imperatively needful in the then situation of the Israelites; and yet it is not necessary that we should curiously and impertinently enquire into usages unknown to the language of civilization. So far was it from being unworthy of God to leave such things upon record, that the enactments must heighten our admiration of His wisdom and goodness in the management of a people so perverse and so given to regular passions.Jamieson. We may thus arrange our matter
I. The slandered wife (Deu. 22:13-19). Chastity and fidelity should characterise married life. Chastity is the baud that holds together the sheaf of all holy affections and duties, says Vinet. This band may be broken and married life be a curse. A husband may question the virtue of his wife from malice or with justice.
1. Accused maliciously. He might take her to gratify lusts, then hate her, try to get rid of her, and bring her in bad repute. A declaration of innocence was made by parents before the elders, who were to send for her accuser. He was chastised bodily and forfeited the privilege of divorce. Slander is a crime of the highest nature, a species of murder which destroys reputation and character (Pro. 25:18).
2. Accused justly (Deu. 22:20-21). If the words were true and the girl had deceived, was not found to be a virgin, she was to be brought before the door of her fathers house and stoned by the men of the city. She had committed fornication in her fathers house and folly in Israel (Deu. 22:21). (See Dinah, Gen. 34:7). Israel was a holy people by profession, and all uncleanness was folly.
II. The unchaste wife. Glancing at the preceding verses, we notice
1. Unchaste in marriage (Deu. 22:20-22). Whoredom was a capital crime, treason to the great king, and punished with severity.
2. Unchaste after marriage (Deu. 22:22). Adultery was a sin which could not be tolerated. Adulterers are as hateful as adulteresses (Lev. 20:10). The man who acts treacherously against the wife of his covenant is as great a sinner as the woman who breaks the marriage bond (Mal. 2:14-16). There is no respect of sexes with God.
III. The seduced virgin. Three cases are given.
1. Betrothed virgin. (a) In the town (Deu. 22:23-24). Both of them, the man and the girl, were led out to the gate of the town and stoned. The girl because she had not cried for help, therefore consented to the deed; the man because he had humbled his neighbours wife. (b) In the field (Deu. 22:25-27). She called for help and could get none, hence not worthy of death. The man alone died. In solitude the enemy assaults, and our cry should be, Help, Lord!
2. Unbetrothed virgin (Deu. 22:28-29). The man paid the father 50 shekels of silver, married the girl, and could not be divorced from her because he had humbled her. This was to prevent such vicious practices (cf. Exo. 20:16-17.).
DARK SPOTS IN SOCIAL LIFE.Deu. 22:13-30
These are most delicate matters, but concern the welfare of society and not beneath Divine legislation. Nor is it a better argument that the Scriptures were not written by inspiration of God to object that this passage, and others of a like nature, tend to corrupt the imagination, and will be abused by evil-disposed readers, than it is to say that the sun was not created by God, because its light may be abused by wicked men as an assistant in committing crimes which they have meditated.Horne.
1. Slander (Deu. 22:13-19). The slanderer is most despicable and most dangerous to society. A false accusation is worse than death (Eccles. 26:5). Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the edge of the tongue (Eccles. 28:18).
Slander lives upon succession;
For ever housed where it once gets possession.Shakespeare.
2. Adultery (Deu. 22:20-22). Solomon paints the deadly snare of a strange woman with a master hand and exquisite fidelity (cf. Pro. 7:6-23). The warning is not needless. Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
3. Rape (Deu. 22:25-27). Laws may be too lenient for such violence of women. Surely, if taking away life deserves punishment, this must be the murder of virtue, a sin worthy of death.
4. Fornication (Deu. 22:28-29). To gratify lusts, some unrestrained by law human or divine, wound with keenest anguish, commit irreparable injury to body and soul. But fornication and all uncleanness let it not be once mentioned among you.
5. Incest (Deu. 22:30). Abominations like these abounded in Canaan, but must be destroyed in Israel (Deu. 27:20). This is doubly guilty, for she is near of kin, and she is another persons wife (cf. Reuben with Bilhah, Gen. 35:22; Absalom with his fathers wives, 2Sa. 16:20-23; 1Ki. 2:17). This is a repetition of the law (Lev. 18:8; Lev. 20:11). Line upon line, to preserve from sin and purify life. Our own laws might be more severe to check licentiousness and secure social purity.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 22
Deu. 22:1-4. Ox and ass. I am shocked at the thoughtless cruelty of many people, yet I did a thing once that has given me considerable uneasiness, and for which I reproached myself bitterly. As I was riding homeward I saw a waggon standing at a door, with three horses; the two foremost were eating corn from bags at their noses; but the third had dropped his on the ground and could not stoop to get any food. However, I rode on in absence of mind without assisting him. But when I had got nearly home I remembered what I had observed in my absence of mind, and felt extremely hurt at my neglect, and would have ridden back had I not thought the waggoner might have come out of the house and relieved the horse. A man could not have had a better demand for getting off his horse than for such an act of humanity. It is by absence of mind that we omit many duties.R. Cecil.
Deu. 22:5. Garment. A man ought in his clothes to conform something to those that he converses with, to the custom of the nation and the fashion that is decent and general to the occasion and his own condition; for that is best that best suits ones calling, and the rank we live in.Feltham.
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.
Shakespeare.
Deu. 22:6-7. Birds. Of love need If say anything? Who is there that has not watched the birds from St. Valentines day onwards, through their courtships, weddings, lovers quarrels, house buildings, welcoming of the small strangers, nursing the heirs and heiresses, and sending the young people forth into the world?Prof. G. Wilson.
Deu. 22:8. House. Houses are built to live in and not to look on; therefore let use be preferred before uniformity, except where both may be had.Bacon.
Deu. 22:9-10. Seeds. Humanity
Is not a field where tares and thorns alone
Are left to spring; good seed hath there been sown
With no inspiring hand. Sometimes the shoot
Is choked with weeds, or withers on a stone;
But in a kindly soil it strikes its root
And flourisheth and bringeth forth abundant fruit.
Dr. Southey.
Deu. 22:13-19. Occasions of speech. Slander is a vice impure in its source, dangerous in its effects, and sometimes irreparable in its consequences. It generally strikes three mortal blowsit wounds him who commits it, him against whom it is committed, and him who knows that it is committed. It is tolerated in society only because almost every one has an unhappy inclination to commit it.Saurin.
To speak no slander; no, nor listen to it.
Tennyson.
Deu. 22:20-30. Virgin. Agesilaus, king of Sparta, was a great lover of chastity. In his journeys he would never lodge in private houses where he might have the company of women; but ever lodged either in the temples or in the open fields, making all men witnesses of his modesty and chastity.
Deu. 22:25-27. Rape. The Lacedemonian commonwealth was utterly ruined by a rape committed on the two daughters of Scedasus and Leuctra (Trapp). Publius Scipio Africanus, warring in Spain, took New Carthage by storm, at which time a beautiful and noble virgin fled to him for succour to preserve her chastity. He being but 24 years old, and in the heat of youth, hearing of it, would not suffer her to come into sight, for fear of falling into temptation himself, and, therefore, restored her safely to her father. Admirable example!
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
j. LIFE IN THE NEW LAND: VARIOUS LAWS (Deu. 22:1-12)
(1) LOST POSSESSIONS (Deu. 22:1-4)
Thou shalt not see thy brothers 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 brothers, which he hath lost, and thou hast found: thou mayest not hide thyself, 4 Thou shalt not see thy brothers 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 22:14
359.
Responsibility is again demanded. What is involved in the expression, hide thyself?
360.
There is a reciprocal action involved here. How so?
361.
Thoughtfulness and helpfulness are such grant virtues. Why do we need laws for them? Cf. Luk. 10:27-37; Luk. 13:10-17.
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:14
You shall not see your brothers 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. Pro. 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 brothers 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 22:14
See also Exo. 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 Israelites animal was found in need of help, he was not to avoid responsibility where he could be of assistance, much less exploit his brothers 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.
Deu. 22:4 expresses a principle of helpfulness toward those in need. In this case it is with the mans animalbut Jesus would have us to be even more helpful when dealing with our fellow manLuk. 10:27-37; Luk. 13:10-17.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXII.
Deu. 22:1-4. LOST PROPERTY.
(1) Go astray.Literally, being driven away, as by wild beasts (Jer. 1:17), or by robbers. It is not simply straying. I will seek that which was lost and bring again that which was driven away (Eze. 34:16), and so in many other passages.
Thou shalt not . . . hide thyself from them.Comp. Pro. 24:12. If thou sayest, Behold we knew it not . . . doth not He know it? And Isa. 58:7, that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh.
(3) In like manner . . . with all lost thing of thy brothers.This is only a particular case of the second great commandment. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(4) Thou shalt not see thy brothers ass or his ox fall down . . . and hide thyself.In Exo. 23:4-5, this is put even more strongly. If thou meet thine enemys ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden . . . thou shalt surely help with him.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox go astray The term brother here means any Israelite. The spirit of the injunction is, that no one should allow a loss to his brother which he could prevent.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Looking After Other People’s Lost Belongings ( Deu 22:1-3 ).
The principle behind this regulation was concern for one’s neighbour, as revealed in looking after his lost belongings with a view to restoring them, and concern for covenant property. The latter concern came out more in the original giving of these laws where the reference was to the fact that they should do this even for their ‘enemies’ (Exo 23:4-5). There the principle of mutual guardianship of covenant property and ‘brotherhood’ was being enforced. But here Moses was seeking to establish unity ready for the days ahead. The idea was of brotherliness and helpfulness, and getting involved on behalf of others.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
a You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them. You shall surely bring them again to your brother (Deu 22:1).
b And if your brother be not near to you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother comes looking for it, and you shall restore it to him (Deu 22:2).
b And so shall you do with his ass; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost, and you have found. You may not hide yourself (Deu 22:3).
a You shall not see your brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and hide yourself from them. You shall surely help him to lift them up again (Deu 22:4).
Note that in ‘a’ the ox or sheep has gone astray, and in the parallel they have fallen down by the way. In ‘b’ a ‘brother’s’ stray beast must be properly looked after, and in the parallel this is true also of clothing and anything the ‘brother’ has lost.
Deu 22:1
‘ You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them. You shall surely bring them again to your brother.’
The straying of livestock would be a regular occurrence. Here stress was laid on a man’s responsibility towards his covenant brothers. Where straying livestock were discovered they must be taken in charge and every effort made to restore them in good health to their owner.
In Exodus 23 the ox and the ass are mentioned, being the most valuable. But the idea behind it was simply, of course, any domestic animal. This spirit of helpfulness was absent from the law of Hammurabi which dealt more with legal positions. Indeed to retain someone else’s animal without their permission could there incur the death penalty. There all was suspicion. Here it is covenant love.
Deu 22:2
‘ And if your brother be not near to you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother comes looking for it, and you shall restore it to him.’
If the owner was known to live at a distance, or was for the time being unknown, the straying livestock must be housed and fed, probably separately and not mixed with his own herds and flocks, with the aim of restoring it in good condition to its owner. Where known no doubt a message would be sent to the owner, and in any case, as soon as the owner came seeking it, it was to be restored. But there was no responsibility to travel long distances in order to restore it. That was the owner’s responsibility. After a time, if no one claimed it, it would presumably simply merge in among his own animals. Its continual upkeep and the lack of an obvious owner would justify this action.
Deu 22:3
‘ And so shall you do with his ass; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost, and you have found. You may not hide yourself.’
The sheep and cattle were mentioned first as being examples, but the same treatment in principle was to be followed with respect to any lost animal or article. They were not to deliberately let it pass unnoticed but do all that was reasonable to ensure its restoration in good condition to its owner. They were not to prevent the recovery of the articles in any way.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Deu 22:30 A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.
Deu 22:30
1Co 5:1, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Various Minor Regulations
v. 1. Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them, v. 2. And if thy brother, v. 3. In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment, v. 4. Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fall down by the way, v. 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, v. 6. If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee, v. 7. but thou shalt in any wise, v. 8. When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, v. 9. v. 10. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together, v. 11. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together, v. 12. Thou shalt make thee fringes,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
REGULATIONS REGARDING CATTLE STRAYED OR THINGS LOST, THE APPAREL OF THE SEXES, THE TAKING OF BIRDS, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES. CONFUSIONS TO BE AVOIDED. FRINGES TO BE MADE ON VESTMENTS. PUNISHMENT OF WIFE–SLANDER, ADULTERY, RAPE, FORNICATION, INCEST.
Deu 22:1-4
Moses repeats here the law formerly given (Exo 23:4, Exo 23:5), with additional details. Not only the ox or the ass that had strayed was to be taken and restored to its owner, but articles of raiment, and, in short, anything that had been lost was, when found by another, to be carefully kept until it could be restored to the person to whom it belonged.
Deu 22:1
Go astray; wandering at large. The Hebrew verb means primarily to seduce, draw aside, or entice (cf. Deu 13:6); and in the passive conveys the idea of wandering through being drawn away by some enticement. Hide thyself from them; i.e. withdraw thyself from them, avoid noticing them or having to do with them. In any case; certainly, without fail.
Deu 22:4
An animal that had fallen was also to be lifted up, and the owner was to be assisted to do this. In Exodus, it is specially declared that both these services are to be rendered, even though the parties are at enmity with each ether, and the one is the object of hatred to the other.
Deu 22:5
The divinely instituted distinction between the sexes was to be sacredly observed, and, in order to this, the dress and ether things appropriate to the one were not to be used by the other. That which pertaineth unto a man; literally, the apparatus () of a man, including, not dress merely, but implements, tools, weapons, and utensils. This is an ethical regulation in the interests of morality. There is no reference, as some have supposed, to the wearing of masks for the purpose of disguise, or to the practice of the priests at heathen festivals of wearing masks of their gods. Whatever tends to obliterate the distinction between the sexes tends to licentiousness; and that the one sex should assume the dress of the other has always been regarded as unnatural and indecent
Such a change of vesture is here declared to be an abomination to the Lord, because of its tendency to immorality.
Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7
(Cf. Le Deu 22:28; Exo 23:19.) These precepts are designed to foster humane feeling towards the lower animals, and not less to preserve regard to that affectionate relation between parents and their young which God has established as a law in the animal world. That thou mayest prolong thy days (cf. Deu 5:16; Exo 20:12).
Deu 22:8
Still less was human life to be exposed to danger through neglect of proper precautions. The houses in Palestine, as in other parts of the East, had fiat roofs, and, as these were much frequented by the inhabitants for various purposes (cf. Jos 2:6; 2Sa 11:2; 2Sa 18:24; Neh 8:16; Mat 10:27; Act 10:9), it was necessary that a battlement or balustrade should surround the roof, in order to prevent persons falling over. Hence the direction here given.
Deu 22:9-11
(Cf. Le Deu 19:19.) God has made distinctions in nature, and these are not to be confounded by the mixing of things distinct. The ox and the ass were chiefly used in husbandry; but, as they were of different size and strength, it was not only fitting that they should not be yoked to the same plough, but it might be cruel so to yoke them.
Deu 22:11
A garment of diverse sorts; shaatnez, a kind of cloth in which threads of linen and threads of woollen were interwoven. The meaning of the word is uncertain. The LXX. render by , “spurious, bad;” Aquila, by , “variously disposed, diverse.” No Semitic etymology can be found for the word, and as the Hebrews derived the textile art from Egypt, the home of that art, the word is probably of Egyptian origin.
Deu 22:12
(Cf. Num 15:38.) Fringes; properly, tassels. The tunic of the Hebrews appears to have been divided at the bottom in front, and back, so that four corners or wings () were made, to each of which a tassel was appended (Greek, , Mat 9:20; Mat 23:5, etc.).
Deu 22:13-29
The laws in this section have the design of fostering purity and fidelity in the relation of the sexes, and also of protecting the female against the malice of sated lust and the violence of brutal lust.
Deu 22:22-29
Four cases are here distinguished.
1. That of a married woman who has been unfaithful; in this case both the woman and her paramour are, when detected, to be put to death (Deu 22:22).
2. That of a virgin betrothed who is assailed in a town, where she might have cried for protection, but did not; in this case also both were to be punished with death as adulterers (Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24).
3. That of a virgin betrothed who has been forcibly violated in the field, where, if she cried for help, her cry was in vain; in this case only the man should be liable to be put to death, whilst the woman was to be held innocent (Deu 22:25-27).
4. That of a virgin not betrothed with whom a man has had carnal intercourse; in this case the man should be required to pay a fine of fifty shekels of silver to the damsel’s father, and to take her to be his wife, from whom he could not be separated during life (Deu 22:28, Deu 22:29).
Deu 22:30
To these is appended a general prohibition of incestuous connections, the first provision in the earlier law being cited as a sort of index to the whole (Le Deu 18:7, etc.).
HOMILETICS
Deu 22:1-4
The duty of cultivating neighborly kindness.
It will be a valuable study in Divine ethics if we first of all show what it is which is here required of the Hebrews, and then, with the Mosaic teaching for a starting-point, advance further and see how far in Christian ethics there is incorporated all that was valuable in the Mosaic, while there is added thereto that which belongs peculiarly to the law of the gospel.
Moses, in this paragraph, enjoins acts of neighborly kindness. To whom is this kindness to be shown? To “thy brother.” He may be
(1) a brother by kinship,
(2) an unknown individual (Deu 22:2), or
(3) an enemy (cf. Exo 23:4).
In either case a like kindness is to be shown. There is contained in Le Deu 19:18 the general precept out of which these details of kindness would come. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This was to be the human aspect, the social side of a godly life. The basis of love to man would be found in loving God with all the heart, and soul, and mind, and strength. And as God had redeemed the people from Egypt, that they might be to himself a peculiar people to show forth his praise, they were to regard this redemption as uniting them in one bond of brotherhood, with interests and aims in common; hence each was to regard another’s good as being as dear to him as his own. From this point let us now proceed to develop in outline the Christian law of kindness to others.
I. THE LORD JESUS CHRIST ENFORCES THE LAW OF KINDNESS ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY. (Cf. Mat 5:43.) He not only reproduces the old law, but clears it from the ambiguities and disfigurements with which rabbinical teaching had obscured it. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.” Moses had said the first, the rabbis had added the second. Christ tears off this addition. Again, when the lawyer said, “And who is my neighbor?” Christ gave him the parable of the good Samaritan, in which he virtually said, “That depends upon yourself; whoever cherishes a kindly spirit to all, he is the neighbor, however far off in place or nation.” The Christian law is, “As we have opportunity, let us do good unto all men.” We are to know no barriers in race, color, or clime; no, nor is even hatred or ill will on the part of others to prevent our seeking their good.
II. THIS KINDNESS TO OTHERS IS NOT THE WHOLE OF RELIGION, BUT ONLY THAT PART OF IT WHICH HAS TO DO WITH MAN. Love to God is the first command. This is the second. Benevolence without religion is incomplete; religion without benevolence is vain. Both must abound in the truly Christian life.
III. THE REASON OF BOTH IS TO BE FOUND IN THE DIVINE LOVING–KINDNESS TO US. See Mat 7:12 : note the force of the word, “therefore,” in the latter verse. Because God is so ready to bless you, be you ready to bless others. This great redeeming love of God for our race should lead us to see in all men members of one vast brotherhood, which God would encircle in his girdle of love, and draw together by the thought that, as he cares for all, each should care for the other! “Let no man seek his own, but every one another’s wealth” (1Co 10:24).
IV. THE INSPIRATION TO BOTH IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CROSS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. Here, here are we to find the love that must kindle ours. “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” If we owe so much to redeeming love, ought we not to show a corresponding love for others? What said Paul? “If we be beside ourselves, it is to God; if we be sober, it is for your cause, for the love of Christ constraineth us.” “If God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.”
Deu 22:5, Deu 22:13-21, Deu 22:22-24, Deu 22:25-27, Deu 22:27-29, Deu 22:30
Divine care for sexual honor.
In these, as in so many of the precepts of this book, we find civil precepts invested with religious sanctions. Nothing is more important for the honorable maintenance of social life, than that both men and women should honor each other’s sex as well as their own. Those that do otherwise are an abomination to the Lord their God. There are five or six different cases supposed in the verses referred to at the heading of this Homily:
(1) clothing (Deu 22:5);
(2) impeached or impaired reputation (Deu 22:13-21);
(3) adultery (Deu 22:22-24);
(4) rape or seduction (Deu 22:25-29)two cases;
(5) unlawful marriages (Deu 22:30).
Such sins would have been thought nothing of among the Canaanites. God would have his people lifted up above them. Hence it is needful that they should be specifically named, and that the people should be solemnly told of the odiousness of these sins in God’s sight, that thus they might become odious also in their eyes. While all will feel that such subjects need great wisdom in handling them, yet undue reticence thereon may work direful harm. Many need to be told with great plainness of speech, “He that breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him.” Our theme is”Sexual dishonor odious in the sight of God.” The following lines of thought suggest themselves.
I. God has made our nature, in every part thereof, for himself.
II. In making man, male and female, God has opened up to each wondrous possibilities of love, of holiness, of usefulness, by each rendering to the other due honor in accordance with Divine Law.
III. By as much as the joy and culture are great when God’s sexual laws are obeyed, by so much are the misery and debasement great when they are disobeyed.
IV. He who trifles with himself or with others in regard to the holiest of all human relations, will find that sins of impurity nip his nature in the bud, embitter life beyond all power of expression, and render true greatness altogether impossible. One sin will drag the whole man after it. Hence our Lord’s solemn warnings in Mat 5:29, Mat 5:30; Mar 9:43, Mar 9:45, Mar 9:47. Hence
V. We should look upon God’s order in nature with devout and reverent regard.
Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7
Kindness to animals a religious duty.
There is a most valuable note in Dr. Jameson’s ‘Commentary’ on this passage. “The Hebrews,” says Trapp, “reckoned this commandment the least of all in the Mosaic Law, yet is there such a promise attached thereto.” “This law,” says another annotator, “teaches a spirit of mercy; it would also tend to prevent the extirpation of any species of birds which in a country producing many snakes and insects might cause serious injury.” And, on the other hand, the permission here given might also tend to prevent too rapid increase. And manifestly, here is a check put on the destructive and plundering tendencies of man, and a quiet lesson taught them that they are to regard as sacred the affectionate relation between parents and their young, which God has established in the animal world. It is not a little remarkable that we find a like promise attached to this precept as to the fifth commandment. How is this? May not the reason be thus stated? It is a duty to cultivate kindness of disposition in all respects and towards all beings. The cultivation of uniform kindliness, whether to man or beast, will have a marked effect in the elevation of personal character, and in sweetening the surroundings of life. And he who out of pure love and obedience to God shows mercy everywhere, will be himself a partaker of mercy. The following may serve as starting-points of thought.
1. The lower creatures are put at the service of man. He is permitted to have service from them and enjoyment in them.
2. This enjoyment and service which man desires in and from them are to be had only in harmony with due regard to them as the creatures of God.
3. The cultivation of kindness to all creatures is, therefore, a religious duty. And the duty of so cultivating it is not only a part of the morality of the Law, but a part of the morality of that gospel which is for every creature.
4. Where such benevolence is universally cultivated, the seal and sign of God’s approval thereof will be enjoyed.
[Note the command in Deu 22:10, “Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.” This prohibition prevented great inhumanity (see Jameson, in loc.). See also marginal reference for another possible intent thereof.]
Deu 22:8
Risks to human life to be minimized.
It is well known that “the roofs of the Israelitish houses were fiat, as they mostly are in the East;” the inhabitants often walked upon them. Hence it is easy to see that a danger might exist of one falling off a house, if there were no battlement, parapet, or guard of some kind around it. And against this Moses is taught of God to warn the people. In the structure of their habitations the safety of the indwellers is to be rigidly consulted; and any trifling with human life, by the erection of insecure buildings, would expose the builder to blood-guiltiness in the eye of God.
I. There is in the social world a mutual interdependence of man upon man. “We are members one of another.”
II. This fact renders it possible for each man in his own department greatly to help or seriously to injure others. In no sphere is this more manifest than in house-building; in attention to the details, the health and comfort of multitudes are concerned.
III. God charges upon each one a due regard to the well-being of others, in distinction from a selfish absorption in his own imaginary interests.
IV. Wherever, through neglect in his own department, of another’s good, the health, comfort, or life of men are threatened or injured, God holds the man accountable for any mischief which may accrue. Other men may or may not be able to bring the sin home to the defaulter. But “God shall bring every work into judgment; with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”
Deu 22:9, Deu 22:11
Evil associations to be avoided.
“The essence of the crime (Zep 1:8) consisted, not in wearing a woolen and linen robe, but in having it in a particular form according to a favorite superstition of ancient idolatries” (Le Deu 19:19). So also as to sowing with divers seeds; it was a superstitious custom of the idolaters, and hence it is to be avoided. Note: Evil associations may make it wrong to follow or observe that which is in itself harmless. With the principle which underlies this passage thus stated, compare 1Co 10:23 to end.
I. God, having called his people out of the world, would have them distinct from the world.
II. In carrying out this distinction in practice, Christians are bound to regard the influence which their practice will have upon others, as well as the practice itself.
III. It is quite possible that (as in the case of eating meats offered to idols) there may be rites, customs, habits, in which this or that Christian could indulge without injury to himself, and yet which, owing to the force of public sentiment and opinion, would tell prejudicially upon him, and lower his influence for good.
IV. When such is the case, he is to take the higher ground, not shrinking from being deemed puritanicaland to abstain not only from that which is wrong in itself, but from much which, owing to evil associations, has about it a suspicious look of worldliness and self-indulgence.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Deu 22:1-4
Love unfeigned.
The precepts in these verses fairly anticipate the gospel love of one’s neighbor, and even its inculcation of love to enemies (cf. Exo 23:4, Exo 23:5). Whatever authority the scribes in Christ’s time imagined themselves to have for their saying, Thou shalt hate thine enemy (Mat 5:43), they did not find it in the Law. Even towards the heathensave in the sense in which each nation desires the destruction of its enemies in warthey were not taught to cherish feelings of bitterness and hostility. Deu 23:6 forbids seeking the welfare of Moab and Ammon, but this does not amount to hatred of these peoples (cf. Deu 2:9, Deu 2:19), while the command to “blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Deu 25:19) is, like the command to exterminate the Canaanites, grounded in special circumstances, and is to be regarded as exceptional. Those who express horror of the sanguinary spirit of the Mosaic code should study the precepts before us, and reflect how far the race is from having yet risen to the height of them. They forbid
I. SECRET REJOICING IN ANOTHER‘S MISFORTUNE. Such rejoicing may have its source in:
1. Enmity. The statute in Exodus particularly specifies the ox and ass of an “enemy” (Exo 23:4). The enemy is further defined, not as one whom we hate, but as one who hates us (verse 5). Yet if his ox, or sheep, or ass is seen going astray, we are not to hide ourselves or forbear help, but are to bring it back to him. So with all his lost propertywe are to take it home and keep it for him. Or, if his ass fall under a burden, we are to help him to lift it up. How natural the disposition to act otherwise! No one knows that we have seen the stray beast. We may reason that we are not bound to interfere. A secret joy, even, may steal into our minds at the thought of an enemy’s misfortune. The Law taught the Israelite to think and act very differently. It gave him the lesson of forgiving injuries, of loving enemies, of returning good for evil.
2. Envy. The precept in this passage speaks merely of a “brother.” Through envy or some other wicked feeling, even where there is no enmity, we may be tempted to rejoice in the lessening of another’s prosperity. But neither is this hateful principle to be allowed to sway us.
3. Malice. This is the disposition which delights in what injures another for its own sake. So diabolical a state of feeling might be deemed impossible did not experience of the world afford too many proofs of its existence. There are unquestionably malicious and spiteful natures who, irrespective of any personal interest in the matter, derive an absolute gratification from seeing misfortune overtake those around them. The faintest beginning of such a spirit ought surely to be most jealously guarded against.
II. SECRET RETENTION OF ANOTHER‘S PROPERTY. What is found is not to be appropriated or concealed. If the owner is unknown, the beast or lost article is to be taken home, and kept till he can be discovered. Though he is an enemy, his goods are to be faithfully restored to him. This, again, is a form of virtue which only strength of moral principle will enable one always to practice.J.O.
Deu 22:5
Man and woman.
Woman has her rightful place and function in society. So has man his. Their places, while complementary, are distinct. In modern society, a variety of influencescompetition in business, difficulty of finding suitable employment, the leveling tendency of the age, which is impatient even of distinctions that have their ground in nature-combine to thrust women into spheres and work not in keeping with womanly character. The distinction of the sexes is to be preserved:
1. In dress.
2. In manners. Unwomanly boldness and assertiveness in company or before the public is as unpleasant as foppish effeminacy is in men.
3. In occupations. Few would like to see women jostling men in the Exchange, pleading at the bar, or sitting in parliament. The feeling is not one of mere sentiment, but rests on inherent differences in the calling of the sexes. It deserves to be considered whether the line is not unduly crossed as it is in many forms of female occupation. It is certainly so crossed in some: barmaids; occupations involving an excessive tax on the female strength; manufactory work, where the system allows of the mingling of the sexes under conditions certain to demoralize, etc. (see Lecture on ‘Sex in Industry,’ by Joseph Cook’Monday Lectures’).J.O.
Deu 22:6-12
The minutiae of conduct.
The Law descends to very slight points of conduct. It keeps in view that character is made up of the result of our actions in the million trivial details of life. “Trifles,” said Michael Angelo, when a friend thus characterized the slight finishing touches he was giving to a statue”trifles make perfection.” Matters which in themselves are of little moment acquire importance from the associations they awaken, the ideas they suggest, the consequences they lead up to. Little traits of humane behavior (Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7), the habit of considering the bearings of what we do on others (Deu 22:8), respect for the ordinary and obvious distinctions of creation (Deu 22:9), etc; have all their influence on character, their effect in making us what we ultimately become. We may suggest, as lessons from these verses, that our conduct is to be marked:
1. By humanity.
(1) To animals.
(2) To our fellow-men.
In Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7, the act forbidden is one akin to killing a cow and calf on the same day, or to seething a kid in its mother’s milk (cf. on Deu 14:21)an unfeeling violation of the sacredness of the relation between parent and offspring. Or the parent bird may be presumed to be taken only in wantonness, the young ones being really of service. This would be an act of cruelty. Humanity may be a motive in the precept of Deu 22:10“ox” and “ass” being obviously “unequally yoked together”.
2. By caution. This is strikingly inculcated in Deu 22:8. How many accidents might be avoided if greater conscientiousness and caution prevailed in the different departments of labor! A shipbuilder puts in the side of a ship one wormy plank, and years after this costs the whole ship’s crew their lives.
3. By simplicity. This is a lesson which may be learned from the precepts against mixing kinds (Deu 22:9, Deu 22:11).
4. By mindfulness. The law of fringes in Num 15:38if this refers to the same thingwas intended to aid memory In another view of the precept, it inculcates decency and propriety.J.O.
Deu 22:13-30
Chastity.
The Mosaic Law is strict and stern in its requirement of purity in all that pertains to the marriage relation. Its strictness, however, is united with a fine sense of justice, and its shield is, as usual, extended for the protection of the innocent.
I. THE DEFAMED WIFE. (Deu 22:13-19.) 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. The “forty stripes save one” was a punishment not too heavy for this sort of false accusation.
II. THE UNCHASTE WIFE. (Deu 22:20-24.) Three cases are distinguished, each punishable with death.
1. A woman found to be unchaste at time of marriage (Deu 22:20, Deu 22:21).
2. Adultery after marriage (Deu 22:22).
3. A betrothed woman ravished with her implied consent (Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24).
In the last two cases, the partner in guilt dies also. In the first, he only escapes, because he is unknown. Yet that unknown seducer, the cause of the woman’s falla fall which shame subsequently tempted her to concealwas not lost to the eye of him who sees secret crime, and will repay it. Little do such seducers think of the life-long shame and sin and misery to which they may be dooming the unfortunate victims of their wiles. God knows it, and will bring them to account. The severe penalties attached to conjugal unfaithfulness place in a startling light the gravity of the offence in the Divine esteem, and form a striking contrast to the light tone adopted about such matters in society.
III. THE WOMAN RAVISHED. (Deu 22:25-29.) The cases specified are those of rape.
1. If the woman was betrothed, and could not save herself, she was to be held innocent, but her violator was to be punished with death.
2. If she was not betrothed, the man who had injured her was heavily fined, and was compelled to take her to wife, with no right of subsequent divorce. Possibly our own law might fitly imitate that of Deu 22:29.J.O.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Deu 22:1-4
Consideration for man and beast.
We have here such express directions given as should have made of the Israelites a most neighborly people. The finding of lost oxen, or sheep, or asses, or raiment, is here made to carry with it the obligation of brotherly kindness; the animals or lost property must be restored to the owner, if he be known, or kept until he makes himself known. It is the law of love in practice.
I. THERE IS A NATURAL INCLINATION TO SHIRK ALL POSSIBLE TROUBLE. There is a drop of laziness in all of us, and, if indulged, it will lead to many an unbrotherly act. In the case supposed there is no witness present; the lost property is unexpectedly found; how much trouble it will save to pass on and leave it to its chances in the hands of others! And so we are tempted to array ourselves in the cloak of selfishness, and to spare ourselves all possible trouble.
II. THE CASUAL DISCOVERIES OF DAILY LIFE CONSTITUTE DUTIES LAID BY THE OMNISCIENT ONE TO OUR HANDS. There is no such thing as chance so far as God is concerned. Much has the appearance of chance to us, but, when reconsidered, it is the all-wise arrangement of God. “For what is this chance?” says a very able writer.
“It either has a real existence or not. If it has no existence, then when you say that a lot is determined by chance, you say that it is determined by nothing; that is, you say, Here is a sensible effect produced by no cause at all. This is pure nonsense. If your chance is a real being, what sort of being? Either it has life, intelligence, and power, or not. If not, then you say that millions of effects (for there are millions of lots in the world) are produced by a cause which has neither power, nor intelligence, nor life; that is, you say that millions of actions are performed by an agency which is essentially incapable of any action whatever. And this is as pure absurdity as the former. If you say that your chance is a living, intelligent, and active being, I ask who it is? and how you get your knowledge of it? You certainly imagine it to possess omnipresence and omnipotence; for you suppose it capable of producing, at the same moment, millions of effects in millions of places; and thus you have found out a being that displays perfections of God, and yet is not God. This conclusion is as blasphemous as the others are insane. There is no retreat. Survey the subject in any possible light, and you are driven to this issue, that the lot is, by the very nature of the case, a direct appeal to the living God, as Governor of the world” (Dr. J. M. Mason’s ‘Considerations on Lots’). Hence discoveries, however casual, which throw us into new relations to persons, animals, or things, should be accepted as Divine duties laid to our hands. God’s call is in them to be faithful and brotherly.
III. THE SHIRKING OF RESPONSIBILITY AND TROUBLE IS REALLY REBELLING AGAINST AN ORDINANCE OF GOD. If we have found the missing property, we have really been sent of God to be its stewards. To hide ourselves in our self-care is to rebel against his ordinance, and do despite to his gracious arrangements. It is to make self-pleasing the rule of life, instead of the pleasing of God. And as a rule it will be found that the person who thus candles himself and passes on trouble to others becomes heir of unexpected vexations himself.
IV. A THOROUGHLY OBLIGING AND HELPFUL SPIRIT HAS A WORLD OF COMPENSATION IN THE APPROVAL OF HIS OWN CONSCIENCE, IF NOT IN THE GRATITUDE OF MANKIND. Benevolence is its own reward. The kindness lavished on man and beast carries its own compensation with it. The sense of being brought to the opportunity of brotherly kindness by a gracious God, and of being his servant in showing his spirit, is surely worth all the trouble our kindness costs. So that, even supposing the recipients of our kindness were ungrateful, the kindness would still be well worth doing for its own sake.
But then gratitude is not so rare a thing as people would suppose. It is entertained often when not very eloquently expressed. It is sometimes too deep for utterance. And to think that we have become creditors of our fellows, so as to deserve their gratitude, is satisfaction indeed.
“For merit lives from man to man,
And not from man, O Lord, to thee.”
If we have any wisdom, therefore, we shall gladly cultivate the brotherly kindness here inculcated, for life becomes by it more blessed and more noble.R.M.E.
Deu 22:5
The philosophy of clothes.
We have here particular directions as to the maintenance of the distinction of dress between the sexes. On the termination of what Carlyle calls “Adamitism,” in his ‘Sartor Resartus,’ when through the fall of man fig leaves were first resorted to, it is evident that the Lord was not content therewith as the device of self-conscious modesty, but gave them “coats of skins.” These “coats,” we can well believe, were differentiated, so that Eve s was in some particulars distinct from Adam’s. This distinction in dress between the sexes, begun, let us suppose, immediately after the Fall, is designed by God to continue; and we have here the law prohibiting any exchanges of apparel, so as to conceal one’s sex. It is, in fact, an earlier “philosophy of clothes” than Carlyle has given us.
I. THE PROMISCUOUS INTERMINGLING OF THE SEXES IS MOST UNDESIRABLE. Of course, this is quite another thing from the entire separation of the sexes as it prevails among Orientals. The latter custom proceeds on the supposition that there can be no social intercourse between them except licentious intercourse; and is the poor precaution of deep depravity. But suppose that men and women were wont to dress alike, there could be no enforcement of decorum such as difference in dress renders possible. The sexes are intended to be distinct, and cannot profitably be intermingled.
II. IT IS A DEEP INJURY TO BOTH SEXES TO OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTIONS PROVIDENCE HAS MADE. Whatever tends to render the male sex effeminate and the female sex masculine, is an injury to both. The tendency of the times is in this direction; women are being introduced to fierce competitions with men: we have had women, forgetful of their sex, even entering the prize-ring, to afford amusement to brutal onlookers; we have women persistently knocking at the door of professions fit for men only; while, on the other hand, we have a number of occupations, which will readily occur to every one, where men are made effeminate, and which could be most fitly discharged by women; and those reformers are not friends of either sex who try to break down the barriers between them. If Providence has made the one sex different from the other, then it is idle by any manipulation of ours to obliterate the distinction.
III. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS A DEEP WRONG TO EXAGGERATE THE DEFECTS WHICH PROVIDENCE HAS ALLOTTED TO EACH BY ENLIGHTEHED SYSTEMS OF EDUCATION. We thoroughly sympathize with the effort to do away with the exaggerated “subjection of women,” upon which Mr. Mill in his book has so ably insisted. The education of each sex should be as broad and liberal as possible. But no education can ever remove the inequality which naturally obtains between the sexes. Let education consider the providential purpose of sexual distinctions, and work on these lines, and. then, and. then only, need we expect permanent amelioration for oppressed sisters.
IV. MODESTY IS ONE OF THOSE SOCIAL GRACES WHICH SHOULD BE FOSTERED AND NOT RESTRAINED. We have heard of men whose command of their emotions was so perfect as never to allow their modesty to appear by any chance. It may be harmless or ludicrous in men; but it is ruin to women, and whatever tends to make them “Amazons” or “Trojans” is to be reprobated most earnestly.
V. IT TAKES THE TWO SEXES COMBINED TO GIVE A COMPLETE IMAGE OF THE DIVINE NATURE. When God said, “Let us make man () in our image, after our likeness,” he used the generic term, and hence immediately resorts to the plural verb, “and let them have dominion (),” etc. (Gen 1:26). The idea is that it takes the female with the male to complete the Divine image. There is a maternal element as well as a paternal and a filial in the Divine nature (cf. Isa 49:15 with Psa 103:13 and Joh 8:29). And it is interesting to notice among the theological vagaries and conceits of such a man as Theodore Parker, that he was forced to call his God,” Infinite Father and Infinite Mother,” a set-off to his dreary unitarianism. If then we find the sexual distinctions to be but the reflection of elements in the Divine nature, then a halo of true glory is thrown around each. In their respective spheres the sexes are exhibiting traits of divinity, and all effort at obliterating the distinctions through artificial means, will be found only to obliterate the Divine. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have their counterparts in the development of humanity, and it is well clearly to see this. May the sexes carry on their respective missions so faithfully that earth may soon reflect in undimmed luster the various qualities of God!R.M.E.
Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7
Birds’ nests.
The command to spare the mother bird while the young might be taken, comes in significantly after the law distinguishing the sexes. The female sex is intended for motherhood; it “binds the generations each to each,” as our Laureate says. On the exercise of this function the continuance of the species depends. Hence the command here is at once humane and intended to ensure the continuance of the species. Birds are very needful to keep down grubs and insects, and give the land a chance of due fertility. Hence the sportsman’s enthusiasm was thus kept in proper check.
I. WHILE GOD GIVES THE ANIMALS TO MAN FOR FOOD, HE WOULD HAVE THE SACRIFICE OF LIFE THOUGHTFULLY MADE. There must be thought and deliberation about the selection of the young birds, about the pouring out of the blood, etc. All this introduced a humane element into the act.
II. THE FREEDOM OF THE DAM WAS ENSURED BY THE SACRIFICE OF THE YOUNGA PERPETUAL LESSON ABOUT SUBSTITUTION AND SACRIFICE. As the mother received liberty, the Jewish sportsman would be led to think of the law of substitution and of sacrifice upon which all his religious hopes were built.
III. MOTHERHOOD WAS THUS RENDERED SACRED IN THE EYES OF THE JEWS. The idea, sacred in the woods among the wild birds, would become sacred elsewhere. “The mothers in Israel,” instead of being sacrificed to their children, would be honored by them, which is the Divine order. The young generation should bear the burden rather than the old. To such a line of thought the law about birds’ nests would naturally give rise.R.M.E.
Deu 22:8-12
Linsey-woolseys.
The different directions here given may be reduced to one idea, that of genuineness. The houses were to be substantial edifices, not endangering the lives of others by defective buildings or deficient battlements. The vineyards were to be sown with pure seed, that the plants might have a fair chance of growing luxuriantly. The ploughing was not to be done by an ox and ass together, for though the oxen are so small in Palestine as to be yokeable with an ass, the contrariety in temper and inequality in power would prevent good work. Linsey-woolsey was to be avoided as poor stuff compared with either woolen or linen alone. And finally, the fringes were to be made upon their garments, to be at once a finishing and a distinction in the clothes of the chosen people. God gave them thus a uniform. The great idea here, consequently, is that God’s people should be distinguished by the genuineness and honesty of their life-work.
Carlyle’s preaching against shams is here forestalled, and we may surely learn from the directions here such lessons as these
I. TO BE THOROUGH IN ALL OUR WORK. This is God’s great lesson for us in his own government of the world. The beauty of the flower of the grass, which is to perish and be cast into the oven so soon, tells us to be microscopically minute and thorough in the most transient work. There are no short cuts through “shoddy” to real worth and real usefulness; but all should be genuine if we would serve our generation by the will of God.
II. LET US NOT BE ASHAMED TO BE CALLED GOD‘S PEOPLE AMID LIFE‘S HARD WORK. The Israelites were to wear their fringes, to go in uniform, and be pious peasants. The linking of genuine work with professed piety is altogether admirable. “Sublimer,” says Carlyle, “in this world know I nothing than a peasant saint, could such now anywhere be met with. Such a one will take thee back to Nazareth itself: thou wilt see the splendor of heaven spring forth from the humblest depths of earth, like a light shining in great darkness.” What we need is genuine piety to secure conscientious work. We shall not have better work till we have better men. Saintly workmen would discover for us the way back to Eden.
III. LET US FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF THE PEASANT OF NAZARETH. For our Lord became poor, and wrought as an artisan, and lived with the common people, to make a life of labor forever glorious. Nowhere do pride and vanity receive such reproof as in the life of him who wrought so nobly in Nazareth. And when he exchanged the carpenter’s bench for the work of the ministry, it was only to work harder than before. “He went about doing good.” “He had no leisure so much as to eat.” So busy was he that he had frequently to steal from sleep the time for prayer. In his example we have the ideal of genuine, hearty labor, and so far as we follow him shall we be safe and happy.R.M.E.
Deu 22:13-30
Expedients to secure purity.
We have here various wise expedients to control the licentiousness of the people, and secure, so far as possible, social purity.
I. DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER WAS SEVERELY PUNISHED. A husband could not, with impunity, defame a newly married wife; for should there be proof forthcoming that his charge was false, he was to be publicly chastised, to pay a fine of one hundred shekels of silver to his father-in-law, whoso good name and peace he had threatened, and to be bound to his wife all his days.
II. WHOREDOM WAS MADE A CAPITAL CRIME. If the charge made against his wife prove true, then she is to be stoned to death for her sin. Immorality was really treason towards the Divine King, it was incompatible with his kingdom, and so was put into the category of capital crimes. The morale of the theocracy was really higher in idea than that of any other kingdom then or now existing.
III. ADULTERY WAS ALSO A CRIME FOR WHICH BOTH OFFENDERS MUST SUFFER DEATH. Here the two parties are criminals against the theocracy, and such a flagrant crime cannot be tolerated within it. The morality is severe and wholesome.
IV. ADULTERY COMMITTED WITH A BETROTHED DAMSEL IS TREATED JUST AS ADULTERY WITH A MARRIED WOMAN, FOR SHE IS AS GOOD AS MARRIED. Both parties in this case also must pay the penalty of death. Such severe measures were the wisest expedients in the end.
V. IN CASE OF ADVANTAGE BEING TAKEN OF A BETROTHED DAMSEL, THE RUFFIAN IS TO PAY THE PENALTY OF DEATH. If the taking away of life is justly punished with death, so should the murder of virtue. As a rule, our laws are too lenient towards ruffians that ruin women. Were a few of them sent to the gallows it would be no more than they deserve.
VI. IN CASE OF A VIRGIN THAT IS NOT BETROTHED, THE MAN WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE OF HER IS COMPELLED TO MARRY HER, AND TO PAY TO HER FATHER A SUBSTANTIAL FINE. The case thus dealt with is different from the preceding. It proceeds upon inquiry. The man is not carried by his passion into an act of great wrong towards one whom he can never hope to have as his wife, which was the last case; but he takes the case into his own hand, where no previous betrothal bars the way. He can make reparation, and he is compelled to do so. Again we say that our laws would be greatly improved if a spice of the severity of the Jewish law went to make the cowardly ruffians who disgrace society suffer more severely for their deeds.
VII. INCEST WAS FORBIDDEN. There is no mincing of matters, since all these abominations abounded among the Canaanites, and must be checked in Israel.
VIII. PURITY IS THUS SEEN TO BE GOD‘S AIM. “Be ye holy; for I am holy,” is God’s direction. We must be as “chaste virgins” presented unto Christ. The social purity of Israel was only to reflect their spiritual purity as towards God. Our own lesson in these regulations is clear. We must not even in the slightest thought prove unfaithful to our Savior and Lord. He is the Husband of the Church, and requires a faithful wife.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES
Deu 22:1-4
Brotherly service in daily life.
In a healthy state, our souls should so overflow with love, that every neighbor should be regarded as a brother. If the esteem should not at first be reciprocated, our kindness would soften his asperity and make him a better man. In the long run, kindness will produce kindness.
I. PROPERTY HAS ITS CARES AS WELL AS ITS ADVANTAGES. Our earthly possessions have many drawbacks, and are always subject to injury and loss. Hence it is wisdom to hold them lightly, and to grieve little over their diminution. This insecurity is an indication of their inferiority. But the possessions of the soul, viz. wisdom, righteousness, faith, love, patience, are inalienable. The “things unseen are eternal.”
II. EARTHLY LIFE IS A FINE FIELD FOR KINDLY SERVICE. The ills and trials which are incident to the present life provide full scope for active sympathy and help. We can scarcely imagine a condition of life in which could be afforded such room for the culture and discipline of the best affections. Every station in life gives opportunity for doing service to others. Every day we hear some new call to duty. We thus train ourselves for higher service. We become more qualified to do good on a large scale, are qualified to rule.
III. NEGLECT TO SHOW KINDNESS IS A SIN.
1. It is sin, inasmuch as it is a plain violation of God’s command. As Creator and King, he has a right to make law and to enforce it.
2. It is sin, inasmuch as it is disloyalty to our best feelings. The instinct to show kindness is a part of our constitutional nature.
3. It is sin, inasmuch as it consciously allows injury to be done. The ox or ass that has wandered today, will have wandered further (if not recovered) tomorrow; may be irrecoverable then. The gold that is not occupied rusts. To hide our light under a bushel is sin.
IV. GENEROUS KINDNESS IS MORE REMUNERATIVE THAN SELFISHNESS. Generous and self-forgetful kindness brings returns of blessing to the soul. The treasury of the heart is enriched. We gain wealth that is imperishable. We obtain a good name among men, and live in their affectionate memory. We secure, in some measure, the favor of our God. We are in truth, by kindly service, laying up large store of good for coming days. “Blessed is he that considereth the poor; the Lord will deliver him in the time of trouble. The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive.”D.
Deu 22:5
Against deceptions in dress.
Truthfulness in act is as needful as truthfulness in speech. Our very dress is a manifesto of truth or of falsehood. God has stamped a visible distinction in the appearance of the human sexes, and it is fraudulent to obliterate them.
I. SIN OFTEN ROBES ITSELF IN A FOREIGN GARB. If sin always appeared in her true habits, but few would court her society. It is her plan to put on a false appearance. Vice usually succeeds because she wears the semblance of virtue. It is the policy of the devil to hide the real nature of sin. Her native blackness would alarm many, if it were seen. The felon flatters himself that it is all fair game. Murder is palliated as just revenge. Profligacy is defended as the impulse of nature. Unchastity paints her face, and robes in others’ dress.
II. THE SLIGHTEST APPROACH TO SIN SHOULD BE SHUNNED. The Bible nowhere frowns on innocent merriment. But frolics, that lead to sin, are to be branded as detestable. A wise captain will give a wide berth to perilous quicksands. We cannot keep the sparks too far away from a cask of gunpowder. It is wise to close both ears to the bland voice of the guilty enchantress. Avoid the first step of temptation.
III. DECEIT IN ANY FORM IS DETESTABLE BEFORE GOD. We cannot too highly value a true standard in moral conduct. ‘Tis more precious far than a standard for purity of gold or for correctness in speech. Such a standard God has furnished us in his own feelings and judgments. Pretence of any kind is as smoke in his eyes. He is light, faithfulness, and truth. To be transparent, candid, straightforward, is to be Godlike.D.
Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7
God’s care for birds.
God’s tender care extends to microscopic insects. Nothing is too minute to escape the notice of his eye. “Not a sparrow falls to the ground” without attracting his regard. In proportion as we become conformed to God’s image, we shall cherish tender feeling for every living thing.
I. FOR MAN‘S GOOD BIRDS LIVE AND BREED. They please the eye with their gay plumage. They regale our ears with pleasant song. They furnish our tables with food. They teach us lessons of cheerful trust. Devoid of anxious care, they daily feast upon the Divine bounty; and a ray of sunshine is repaid with melodious song. They fulfill a mission as the teachers of mankind. To birds we are indebted for considerable pleasure. For us they live: be ours no wanton cruelty.
II. IN THEIR MATERNAL CARES THEY APPEAL FOR GENTLE CONSIDERATION. We may wisely learn a lesson from their maternal affection, from the exposure of their own lives to defend their young. It will foster tender feeling in us to observe this self-forgetful-ness in mother birds. But to take advantage of this self-exposurethis noble defense of their offspringfor the purpose of capturing the parent, will deaden and demoralize our own sensibilities. We may furnish a meal for our bodily appetite; but we shall at the same time injure our nobler parts, strangle our nobler feelings.
III. FUTURE PROSPECTS ARE TO BE PREFERRED TO PRESENT PLEASURE. It is a short-sighted policy to use for present need everything within our reach. It is wholesome discipline to deny one’s self now, in the hope of greater future good. The farmer foregoes the sale or the use of his grain, that he may have wherewith to sow his fields in the coming season. So to spare the life of the parent bird is to secure in return many other lives, a source of future profit should not thoughtlessly be destroyed. Self-restraint is an exemplary virtue.D.
Deu 22:8
The perils of inadvertence.
Thoughtlessness is the parent of much mischief. To reach a state of security and bliss, there must be life in our every partin intellect, foresight, prudence.
I. MAN IS EXPOSED TO MANY NATURAL EVILS. Although lord and interpreter of nature, nature afflicts him in many ways. She scorches him with heat, freezes him with cold, pierces him with pain. Man has skill and power to bring nature under his dominion, if he will duly exert himself for this purpose. Nature is willing to be ruled, and to become the servant of man; but consents to be ruled only in accordance with Divine law. Our duty is to examine these laws, and to bring her into subservience to our true interests. Herein lies scope for the training of mind, heart, conscience, willtraining for a higher sphere.
II. NATURAL LAW IS NEVER SUSPENDED TO SUIT MAN‘S IMPRUDENCE. Be a man ever so pious, or be he engaged in work ever so benevolent, a moment’s imprudence may cut short his life. He may mistake poison for medicine; he may leave open a gas-tap; he may imprudently trifle with some natural force; and pain or death will result. If he build a house, in order to protect himself and family from the rigors of the climate, any imprudence in the erection may bring on him heavier evils than those he thought to avert. The want of a parapet on the roof may expose his children to a sudden and painful death. We cannot too much admire God’s thoughtful care in prescribing such regulations as these.
III. INADVERTENCE MAY PRODUCE GIGANTIC MISERY. It is not enough to have good intentions or gracious dispositions; mind, as well as heart, must be in active exercise. A foolish man is a curse to society Wisdom is greatly needed to produce a prosperous life, and to make a man useful to others. Eli was a good man, but exhibited great folly in the management of his sons, and disaster came thereby upon Israel. Reason is entrusted to every man to be used, and if the powers of intelligence are allowed to rust, the result is loss to ourselves and calamity to others.D.
Deu 22:9-12
Directions in minor matters.
What was, in primitive days, matter for direct revelation from God, is now ascertained by scientific observation. Herein we learn that revelation and science spring from one origin and subserve one endthe good of men. And herein we may learn God’s fatherly care for his children in the days of their infancy.
I. GREATEST FERTILITY IN NATURE IS TO BE SOUGHT. It is man’s province to bring out the greatest productiveness in fields and fruit trees. Pruning, manuring, and grafting are essential. The vine needs especial care, and is susceptible of great increase of fruitfulness. So delicate is the blossom of the vine that the pollen of other plants in the vicinity, coming into contact, injures the formation of the fruit. It is a joy to God to see the trees of the field fruitful; how much more to see abundant fruitfulness in us! “Herein is our Father glorified.” The least of God’s commandments is profitable to observe.
II. NEEDLESS BURDENS ON ANIMALS FORBIDDEN. Every beast is appointed to be the servant of man; but man is required to act towards the inferior creation in God’s stead. The burden of service laid upon oxen and asses is heavy enough; let it not be wantonly increased. Both the ox and the ass suffered from an unequal yoking in the plough. God saw the painful effect, and felt grieved. Animal feeling is a gift from God, and is intended to be for enjoyment. We may act in harmony with God, and increase that enjoyment; or we may, in part, frustrate his plan. In every act of man God takes lively interest. All day long he is approving or censuring.
III. OUR PIETY IS TO BE SEEN IN OUR RAIMENT. It is very probable that this prohibition about dress was to counteract a custom among idolatersa custom which led to superstitious feeling. Some solid reason was at the root of the counsel, whether we can discover that reason or not. Our raiment is in some measure the exponent of our religion. If “Holiness to the Lord” is predicted as the motto to be found on the bells of the horses, so, and much more, should consecration to God be conspicuous on our dress and demeanor. Our raiment often serves as an ensign, and denotes to what party we belongthe Church or the world. If simplicity, modesty, beauty, sterling quality, be in our dress, these are ornaments of our holy faith. Whatever we do, or however we dress, be this our aim, to please God. A child will never be ashamed to acknowledge its father.D.
Deu 22:13-21
Slander, unchastity, and fraud.
No blame can lie against the Scriptures because they legislate on such detestable matters. The blame must lie at the door of depraved humanity, which perpetrates such deeds and makes Divine legislation necessary. The obscenity appertains to the vices, only praise belongs to the remedy.
I. A WOMAN‘S CHASTITY IS HER MAIN DOWRY FOR LIFE. If she possess not this virtue, she is worse than worthless; she is a plague and a pesta moral dunghill. Apart from chastity, she can fill no proper place in society. Her true function is ended. She is only a discredit to the human name. Her light is dense darkness. The streams of life are polluted. The fountain of bliss is corrupted at its source. Rottenness is at the core of society. No language can exaggerate the evil.
II. SLANDER AGAINST A WIFE‘S CHASTITY IS THE BLACKEST OF SINS. In proportion to the vileness of the sin and the severity of the penalty, is the baseness and guilt of the man who makes the accusation falsely. This is a climax of sins of speech, which nothing can surpass. Slander of any sort is heinous sin, and slander against an intimate friend is more heinous yet; but slander against one’s wifeand against her chastityis most heinous of all. Fines and scourging are lenient punishment for such a monster.
III. THE PENALTIES OF SIN ARE IN PROPORTION TO INJURY DONE. On the principle laid down in a previous law, the penalty for false accusation was fixed according to the nature of the deed falsely alleged to be done. In this case, the slanderer well deserved such a result. But then the injured wife would be injured all the more. In the dread penalty imposed on him, she would have to share. Hence, for her sake, the husband’s life is spared. To calculate all the effects produced by one act of sin is impossible to the finite mind of man; yet (unless pardon, full and complete, be enjoyed) in proportion to these perpetuated effects will be the penalty meted out to the sinner. We may well “stand in awe.”D.
Deu 22:22-30
Various penalties for unchastity.
Purity in domestic life is at the root of national prosperity.
I. THE NEGLECT OF VIRTUE‘S SAFEGUARDS IS GUILT. (Deu 22:24.) If a sentinel recklessly leave open a portal in the beleaguered city, it is treason; it is as if he had betrayed his king. To see a house on flame, and to give no warning, is to become accountable for the destruction of a city. To neglect the physician’s counsel in time of disease is to be guilty of death. So to make no resistance to the tempter is to court his approach. To go to the battle without sword, or spear, or shield is to invite defeat. Idle women may be said to tempt the devil.
II. NEGLECT OF DUE PRECAUTIONS OFTEN LEADS TO A TERRIBLE SURPRISE. Oftentimes we underrate what strength the tempter has until we are in his clutches. So long as we knew temptation only by hearsay, we imagined it easy to escape or to overcome; but when brought suddenly under its subtle, wily influence, we are surprised how easily we are overcome.
III. THE CONSENT OF THE WILL IS NEEDED TO CONSTITUTE A SIN. Whatever we are compelled to do by an external power, and against all the opposing force of our own will, this is not sin. Injury and loss may follow, but unless the will consents there is no moral culpability. The essence of sin lies in the inclination. A man may violate all the precepts of the Decalogue by a glance of his eyeay, by a volition of his will. Whether the overt act follow or not may depend on favorable or unfavorable outward circumstance. The same mischievous effects will not follow, but the sin is there. Therefore, “Keep thy heart with all diligence.”
IV. GENEROUS MINDS WILL PUT THE BEST POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION ON HUMAN CONDUCT. (Deu 22:27.) How generously minded a man may be, he is bound to be true. He cannot dissemble facts. He is under obligation to condemn the slightest sin. With the evil thing there must be no connivance. But if it be possible, with due regard to virtue, to give two interpretations on a deed, fairness to the doer requires that we give the interpretation the most favorable and generous. To a prisoner at the bar, the judge gives the full benefit of any doubt; and equal justice should be dealt to men in all our judgments upon them. If there be bright spots in their character and deeds, let us fasten our eyes upon these. It will do us good. To search out the diseased parts of humanity, and to find secret pleasure in contemplating these moral sores,this will do us harm. As we measure our sentiments and judgments out to men, they will measure to us again. We may be blind to our own blemisheswe usually are; but others will readily find them out; and if we are harsh and ungenerous in our estimate of men, they will return the treatment, perhaps with compound interest. It is wise, every day, to foster in our breast the charity “that believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Ver. 1. And hide thyself from them That is, “pass by them, as if thou didst not see them.” The expression is borrowed from people’s hiding themselves from those whom they do not choose to meet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The Eighth Commandment
Deu 22:1-12
1Thou shalt not see thy brothers ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case [rather thou shalt bring them again unto thy brother. 2And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and [then] thou shalt restore it to him again. 3In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost things of thy brothers, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest [canst] not hide thyself. 4Thou shalt not see thy brothers ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely [much more shalt thou] help him to lift1 them up again. 5The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man [a mans utensils, dress], neither shall a man put on a womans garment: for all that do [every one that does] so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. 6If a birds nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting [rests, broods] upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with 7the young: But thou shalt in any wise [Rather shalt thou] let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. 8When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement [inclosure, railing] for thy roof, that thou bring not blood [blood-guilt] upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. 9Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers [two sorts of] seeds: lest the fruit [marg.: fulness] of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit [ingathering, produce, harvest] of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together. 11Thou shalt not wear [draw, put on] a garment of divers sorts [of mixed textures] as of woolen and linen together. 12Thou shalt make thee fringes [tassels, laces] upon the four quarters of thy vesture [cover, mantle] wherewith thou coverest thyself.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Deu 22:1-4. How profound is Moses comprehension of the command as to the possessions of our neighbor! How thoughtfully he goes down into the very nature of things, into their peculiar properties, which should be preserved among the people of God! Deu 22:1-4. In the first place the property of our neighbor, from which, according to the eighth command, they should remain far off, and yet not far off! Deu 22:1. The case of a stray animal, either great or small, from the herd, even only one, when one might think that the brother could afford the loss, especially when his want of care or neglect might lead to the reflection that it was driven (Deu 4:19) from him (Exo 23:4). Comp. 1Pe 2:25. [Wordsworth connects the following note with this reference; that as Christ came to seek and save the one that was lost, and laid down His life first, there seems to be a spiritual connection between this precept and that which has just gone before concerning Him who became a curse for us, and so saves us from the curse.A. G.] To take is expressly forbidden, but also to see, not merely in order to take, steal with the eye, but more profoundly: see, and not at once lead back (, to hide, shun). In the circumstances referred to in Deu 22:2, one should even guard it, as if it was his own. No objective distance nor subjective uncertainty (as to whose it is, or to whom it belongs) can be a ground of excuse. , literally, to separate, thus to separate the separated one from that state, to remove his separation, to remove it in any case as quickly as possiblethus to draw to himself, in love to his neighbor, to join it with thine own in the most secure place in thy house (Deu 21:12). The cost of the case should not be counted, although truly the right of use in the mean time was not forbidden, or the final appropriation, if no owner was found. Every thing (Deu 22:3) which could be lost by our neighbor belongs in the same category whether living or dead (Exo 22:8). As with the preservation and return, so also, Deu 22:4, a helping hand with the owner concerned (Exo 23:5). Riding, draft or farm animal.
2. Deu 22:5-7. Passing from the property of his neighbor to the peculiar in nature, we come, 1) Deu 22:5, to the peculiarity of the sexes, and indeed according to the peculiar manner of appearance to that which each has, wears. (), something prepared, made; raiment, weapons, utensils; not barely clothing, which is emphasized immediately afterward. The concrete expression exemplifies the idea that every invasion of the natural peculiarities of the sexes, every mingling of sexual differences, as it may be rated less in reference to our neighbor than an injury of property, is by so much the more to be regarded in reference to God. It is too narrow a view to regard it as a mere precaution against unchastity, and too wide as an opposition to practices at idolatrous festivals. [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 infraction of the laws of God.A. G.]2) Deu 22:6-7, treat with respect to the irrational creation, the peculiar mother-relation, through which the sexual distinction in nature is realized. The casual meeting excludes of course any designed search. The mother with (over) the young. (It speaks in a human way of the young as children.) To take the mother thus, betrays an inhuman feeling in contrast with the sight presented, is in fact a robbery of nature generally, as it is expressed in the relation specified, but specially because it is precisely the bird. Proverbial expression, Gen 32:11; Hos 10:14; comp. Deu 14:21; Lev 22:27-28. Deu 22:7. The significance of the mother in this direction is still more clear from the like promise as Deu 5:16 (Deu 4:40; Deu 5:26; Deu 5:30).
3. Deu 22:8-12. As what is peculiar in nature, appointed by God, is as it were His property, so now finally He considers property in its remaining third relation, namely as the property of the person himself. As to the newly built house, Deu 22:8, he does wrong who makes no enclosing and protecting railing to the flat roof often serving for a residence; he takes away security from the house. It is spoken of nearly as if it were a person. Comp. Deu 7:15; Deu 19:10. [Tradition fixes the height of the battlement as at least two feet.A. G.] In Deu 22:9 as to the vineyard he robs himself, if he does not respect the nature of things with regard to the seeds sown, since each kind should remain by itself, for in the design of securing a mixed product from the different kinds (Dual from ) of seeds, the whole profit of the vineyard for the year in question falls to the priest at the sanctuary.Lest the fruit (fulness) (i.e. the fully matured, as the application shows) of thy seed be defiled; and thus is to be understood as referring peculiarly to the grain-filled granaries of which the seed was indeed the literal cause. It is not only on account of the two kinds of seed, but also because the vineyard, garden, is treated as a tillable field; a supplement to Lev 19:19 (Mat 13:25). The sowing leads to the field, Deu 22:10; also an emphatic supplement to Lev 19:19. The unequal strength and step of the two kinds of animals unfit them for use at one plough, and thus it would be only unprofitable to the owner; the ignoring of the distinction between the clean and the unclean animals avenged itself upon him practically, and hence there is nothing further than the mere prohibition. Others regard as the reason an abhorrence of violence done to the brutes, or of the mingling used by the Canaanites. The spiritual application, 2Co 6:14. [Wordsworth is peculiarly rich in the spiritual application of all these directions, finding analogies everywhere, which although sometimes fanciful and forced, are striking and instructive: e.g., in the restoration of the stray, to 1Pe 2:25, and Christs seeking and restoring the lost; in the injunction to help, to 1Th 5:14; in the precept as to the clothing of the sexes, a warning against the Churchs usurpation of the place and authority of Christ, Eph 5:2; Eph 5:24; in the law against cruelty to the dam with the young, to Mat 23:37, and the conduct of the Jews toward Christ, and to the fact that the mother bird was taken and the brood left; in the direction as to the battlement, to the obligation as to our Christian walk, in the seeds of the vineyard, to the sowing of truth and error; and here as above, to 2Co 6:14.A. G.]. Lastly, in Deu 22:11, the law as to our own in property is closed with a reference to raiment. Here also the mere prohibition is sufficient, as Lev 19:19; for the coat makes the man, in this case at least, declares that the Israelite in question does not walk in simplicity, has thus robbed himself of his spiritual character. , according to Leviticus, raiment out of two divers sorts, here more exactly; woolen and linen together; from the plant and animal kingdoms. Sept. (unclean, ambiguous, adulterated). Ges.: probably a Hebraized Coptic word. Meier: Semitic word: mingling, double texture. compact, make firm. Coptic: shontness, i.e. (byssus fimbriatus). Talmud: hetcheled and smoothed, spun and twisted, woven or hooked (upon hooks), stitched. Others: It designates a more costly Egyptian texture decorated with idol figures. Josephus: which only the priest could wear. The foreign and heterogeneous materialseven the strange expressionagree well with the prohibition. (Comp. Keil, Arch. I., p. 80 sq.). Deu 22:12. The direction here joins itself positively to the foregoing prohibition, and at the same time throws light upon its meaning. ( Hiph., to make great). The Pharisees may have taken occasion from the meaning of the word to introduce their custom. Mat 23:5.The , Num 15:38, from , the splendid bloom, with which the deuteronomic designation fundamentally agrees, for the blooming is at the same time the increasing. The mantel, or overcloak, formed out of a four-cornered piece of cloth, should have at its wings, i.e., corners, thus as if growing out from it, tassels, symbolizing the one aim of life, reminding the doer of the commands of God, taking himself out of the world, (number four), with heart and eye to have his conversation, his life in heaven, Num 15:39 sq. Comp. the similar ordinances, Deu 6:8 sq. Schultz regards the direction as promoting decency [and holds also that it is a bed coverlet, and not wearing apparel, which is here referred to. His view, however, is hardly consistent either with the passage in Num., or with the actual Jewish usage.A. G.].
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Because the love of our neighbor, the more unavoidably and universally it must be recognized as a duty, on account of our indolence and ease, must be more vividly and persuasively presented, Moses finds it necessary for the true representation to descend to particular circumstances, and the lesser relations of life. Baumgarten.
2. Since the mine and thine in the world, as to the right, lie in continual perplexity, are very questionable, not seldom want their moral legitimation on account of sin, love, which seeks not her own, and has the same measure and energy to thy neighbor as to thyself, is here also the fulfilling of the law.
3. The idea of brother is so prevalent among the people of God, that here in Deuteronomy, the reference to the hater, i.e., enemy, is not so much to a natural adversary, but to one who is such through personal acts of hostility (Exo 23:4-5), and indeed is not further regarded here. It is self-evident among the people of God that evil must be overcome with good.
4. Since love to our neighbor is so inculcated, it is clear that from his nature, man would never come to the thought, not to speak of the deed, of love to his neighbor; for this is the natural condition of men through the fall. The inclination in the natural man is to hatred of his neighbor; hence in society the might of the physically strongest is decisive, and through wisdom and will, prudence and activity, this natural enmity becomes potent in hostility, so that the man finds his pleasure and happiness in evil tricks and acts. Schelling, indeed, asserts that the love of an enemy is an irrational love.
5. As a certain angularity, one-sidedness, exaggeration is peculiar to the proverb,which gives it a striking character, so the directions Deu 22:5 sq. have an externality, nearly symbolical, which will allure beyond the mere letter, to the apprehension of the idea, and one not confined to the immediate case. Thus Baumgarten remarks upon Deu 22:5, that it forbids the manifestation of the primitive unnaturalness and anti-godliness; that man (the husband) as the original man (human being) should obey the voice of his wife, the derived man; thus arose the first sin. He says further: In the measure in which man persists in his estrangement from God, this fundamental error will ever make itself felt. Rom 1:26-27. Such unnatural conduct has found its way in the cultus (Creuzers Symbol. II., 34 sq.). But still the wrath of God reveals itself from heaven against every perversion of the sexes, in the perplexing and disturbing results of that wide-spread and ever-spreading female dominion, and male servitude.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Deu 22:1. Starke: Should we not leave the straying animal of our neighbor unrestored, how much less can we leave our neighbor himself to lie in his sins. Jam 5:19-20; Gal 6:1; Rom 15:1. (1Co 9:9-10). Love of our neighbor must be practiced on the ground of grace, thus with the needed strength and with all sincerity. Berl. Bib.: God appoints us, with respect to His great benefits to us, to show the like to our neighbor in return, since God is neither injured nor profited by us. There is no such impelling cause of love, as love. Did not the Son of man, and therefore even our brother, come to seek and save that which was lost? Luk 19:10. Deu 22:5. Luther: This does not prohibit what may be done to avoid danger, remove pain, or deceive the enemy, but generally requires that a woman should tend to her own concerns, and a man his; in short, that each one should be satisfied with his own. Berl. Bib.: But a teacher who does anything which does not become him, is as one who has exchanged his garments. It is also unfit that a man should imitate the ornaments and dress of the woman. 1Pe 3:3. Tueb. Bib.: Masks and the changing of dress give occasion to many sins. Eph 5:4. (1Co 11:4 sq.).
Deu 22:6 sq. Starke: God cares even for the smallest bird, Mat 6:25. Although man has the use, he enjoys this right only as a loan, and should not abuse it, Pro 12:10. Deu 22:8. Baumgarten: Love has a tender conscience. Berl. Bib.: God commands us to exercise carefulness in bodily transactions, as otherwise we tempt Him. Cramer: To avoid sin, we must avoid the occasion of sin; whoever does injury provokes injury. Deu 22:9-11. Starke: Simplicity in thought, word, and act. Berl. Bib.: The one fitted for the plough, but not for bearing burdens, the other the reverse: two adverse colleagues, whoever puts them together acts unreasonably. The old and new man do not agree. Deu 22:11. Osiander: Not half popish and half evangelical. Starke: No unequal marriages. Berl. Bib.: The robe of righteousness and the spotted garment of the flesh do not agree with each other. (Isa 61:10; Judges 13.). [Wordsworth: We must walk in white, i.e., we must not defile the robe of Christs Righteousness, in which we are clothed, by corrupt doctrine or unholy living.A. G.].
Footnotes:
[1][Deu 22:4. Lifting, thou shalt lift. Perhaps the idiom in this case may include the idea of repeated helpings, as the Rabbins explain it.A. G.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
In this chapter we have certain laws respecting moral conduct, in the tenderness required to be shown to the brute creation: of distinction in apparel: and of the deportment towards the married and unmarried women, together with special laws for particular cases.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The law given by Moses carries with it in every precept the most decisive evidences of its coming from GOD, for the whole speaks in a language not to be mistaken. But while I beg the Reader to notice this, I would beg of him also to remark with me, how JESUS in his commentary on the law of his servant Moses, carries up the precept to the gospel standard, in his unequalled manner. Here Moses is enjoined to point out the mercy to the brethren of Israel and their cattle. There, the LORD JESUS points out the mercy he would have shown to our enemies. See Mat 5:43-48 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Your Responsibility for Your Brother
Deu 22:1-3
A recent writer in one of our religious papers has said, with all the omniscience and infallibility that attach to the press, that no one preaches from the Pentateuch in these days. By this he probably suggests that there is no Gospel in the Pentateuch, and in suggesting this he shows hopeless, unblushing ignorance. One of the best books Charles Kingsley wrote was The Gospel in the Pentateuch; and anyone who takes the trouble to look for it will find that he cannot read a couple of pages of the Pentateuch without finding therein Gospel truth and teaching.
Among many things that are stern and severe there is much that is tender and beautiful, much that breathes the spirit of Jesus. Notably there is tender and thoughtful care for weak things in nature, dumb creatures who serve men, and for children, for the outcast, the stranger, and the poor. There is also a great deal about brotherhood, enough I should think to satisfy the most ardent Socialist. The personal responsibility of man for man is constantly insisted on, and this passage is an example of it, ‘Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray,’ etc.
I. The teaching of this passage seems to me to be that we have a large share of responsibility for the wrongs which go on about us, and we are bound, even at cost and inconvenience to ourselves, to try to prevent and rectify them. Look at this picture again, and suppose that these cattle are being driven away. The man who sees it is bound to interfere. His interference may mean an altercation with the thief, it may mean that for some days he must find pasturage for his neighbour’s sheep, it may mean a great deal of inconvenience and loss; but this is the law of God, and from it there is no appeal. He is bound to do his best to right the wrong.
II. The law obtains for us Christian people in the moral and spiritual realm. As a Christian man everything that concerns my brother should be a concern to me, even to his ox and ass and raiment, and I must, wherever possible, guard him against loss and damage. If I am to care for his ox and his ass, I am surely to care for his character. He will get over the loss of a sheep, but he will with difficulty recover a lost virtue.
There are three classes of people which come up to one’s view, as one thinks of words like these and gives them their largest interpretation. They may be represented here as
(i) The people who lead others astray and cause them loss, people who have wronged their brother.
(ii) People who have seen their brother wronged or suffering loss, and have hidden themselves; who have deliberately refused to take any trouble or pains.
(iii) The people who have suffered loss and who themselves are being led astray.
C. Brown, Light of Life, p. 151.
The House and Its Battlement
Deu 22:8
The natural exposition of the text is a very simple one. Eastern houses were built with flat roofs for obvious reasons. As it was a hot clime people were glad to get to the top of the house for fresh air, and there would be little children, thoughtless comparatively so and if they were allowed at any time on the roof, where they would most likely wish to go, there would be a feeling of insecurity unless there was something to prevent a disaster. And so God in His infinite kindness, care, and thought for the welfare of the nation of Israel gives this special direction to those who had the building of houses, that they should not overlook this most necessary arrangement for safety, and build a parapet round the house that would prevent any one being placed in immediate peril, so that unless they presumptuously scaled that wall they would be as safe on the top as underneath. The gracious and eternal God, who in His condescension, care, and pity for fallen sinners, sees fit to make a law for their temporal safety, in building His spiritual house is none the less careful. I. The need of the battlement.
( a ) The house top in the East would be frequently used as a watch-tower. The children of Israel were ofttimes surrounded by invading hosts. Now there would be a special danger without the battlement. In their undue anxiety for their own safety, in watching the on-coming foe they would most likely forget where they were, and in their excitement step right off and not know what they were doing. Here we have a spiritual lesson. What a difficulty it is to find that narrow pathway between a gracious and salutary solicitude for our safety and that undue anxiety which comes through seeing the strength of our enemies surrounding us.
( b ) The house-roof in the East would also be used as a place of relaxation, exercise, and recreation; they would often repair there to view things proceeding around them in the ordinary way. Here we see the need of the parapet or battlement for safety. How this brings before us the dangers that surround the footsteps of the young. What a danger there is lest in spiritual glee and satisfaction they may tumble if there is not the battlement.
( c ) The house-roof in the East was frequently used as a place of repose and sleep. A battlement would be necessary to enable one to take pleasant repose. When God says ‘I will cause my flock to lie down’ He means ‘I will give them to realize such a feeling of safety in My keeping, by strength and protection, that they shall be able to lie down comfortably’.
II. This battlement was to be a component or essential part of the building of the house. And so it is in reference to the securing love and mercy and faithfulness of God, it is a part of His own structure and never can be removed.
III. This battlement is to be used and not presumptuously abused. We shall either be looking upon the security of God’s people as an impetus to encourage us to remember His keeping power, to cause us to hope in His mercy notwithstanding the sense of our failure, and to put the hand of our trembling faith into the hand of His great love, or we shall be found among those who have presumptuously climbed over God’s restrictions.
References. XXII. 8. C. Perren, Revival Sermons, p. 234. XXV. 4. R. F. Horton, The Hidden God, p. 65.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Fraternal Responsibilities
Deu 22:1-4
The word “brother” is not to be read in a limited sense, as if referring to a relation by blood. That is evident from the expression in the second verse: “if thou know him not.” The reference is general to a brother-man. In Exodus, as we have seen, the term used is not brother, but “enemy”: “If thine enemy’s ox, or ass, or sheep .” It is needful to understand this clearly, lest we suppose that the directions given in the Bible are merely of a domestic and limited kind. “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray.” That is not the literal rendering of the term; the literal rendering would be, “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep driven away ” another man behind them, and driving them on as if he were taking them to his own field. The term, therefore, is much stronger than the term which is thus rendered in English. Not only is the animal going astray, as if by misadventure, but it is being driven away carried off, feloniously claimed by some other man. We are not to see actions of this kind and be quiet: there is a time to speak; and of all times calling for indignant eloquence and protest there are none like those which are marked by acts of oppression and wrong-doing: “Thou shalt not hide thyself” thou shalt stand up, go to the front, play the man, accost the wrong-doer in a tone he cannot misunderstand, and insist upon right being done to brother, friend, or enemy. This is the tone of the Bible; this is the moral inspiration of the Holy Book: it speaks up for right, it never countenances wrong-doing, it never crowns a felon: it hangs its Iscariot, it drowns its blasphemers.
We are now upon familiar ground, these sentiments having come under our observation in earlier readings. As the sentiments are the same, their applications must not be substantially varied. What are those applications? The argument must proceed from the lower to the higher. We must reason thus: If a certain line of action is to be adopted under such and such temporary circumstances and within such and such limited scope what action will be appropriate to higher occasions and within larger boundaries? This is the divine method of revelation; this is the only method which God himself could adopt in coming near to us. He tabernacled in the idea of fatherhood; he said in effect, The people understand the word FATHER: amid all their wrong they still cling to the fatherly idea with some measure of fondness and loyalty: I, therefore, will be as a father to them, and will instruct my servants to say, “like as a father;” and I will instruct my Son to say, “how much more shall your Father!” and when the disciples gather around him that they may ask concerning the mystery of prayer and request him to hand them the key of heaven, I will teach them to say, “Our Father.” This is a principle of Biblical interpretation namely, movement from the lower to the higher, from the contracted to the boundless, from human tears to the infinite compassion of God.
Adopting this principle, how does the passage open itself to our inquiry? Thus: If we must not see our brother’s ox being driven away, can we stand back and behold his mind being forced into wrong or evil directions? It were an immoral morality to contend that we must be anxious about the man’s ox but care nothing about the man’s understanding. We do not live in Deuteronomy: we revert to it as men revert to ancient history, inquiring into the roots and origins of things: we live within the circle of the Cross: we are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; our morality or our philanthropy, therefore, does not end in solicitude regarding ox, or sheep, or ass: we are called to the broader concern, the tenderer interest, which relates to the human mind and the human soul. Are not minds driven away? Some minds are stronger than others: and is not dominance sometimes used to compel inferior judgments to accept sophistical or even immoral conclusions? Is there no man to whom the truth has been given as a sacred trust and in whom it burns so that he cannot run away when he sees other minds being driven into darkness, or attempts made to debase and prostitute the intelligence of the soul? There need not be any dogmatism in the man’s manner or tone; but, in proportion as he has a sense of right, will he speak emphatically, clearly, in round and penetrating tones, so that his exercises of a philanthropic description may not be taken as efforts that cost nothing interpositions which express officiousness rather than the earnestness of the Cross of Christ. It would be singular indeed, amounting to an irony intolerable, were we taught to be solicitous about oxen and sheep and cattle of every name, but to care nothing about the man himself. How contradictory! How painfully ironical could we read such words as these: If thou seest thy brother’s ox driven away, stand up, insist upon the ox being taken back, speak a word for honesty; but if thou shalt see thy brother himself being driven into slavery, pass by on the other side, take no heed of an action of that sort, confine solicitude to the ox, remit concerns in relation to the individual man! Evidently the argument must run in the other direction: If careful about the ox, how much more about the mind! If careful about the sheep, how much more careful about the owner! Reasoning in this direction, we soon find ourselves approaching the mystery of the Cross: all this neighbourliness, philanthropy, tender, anxious solicitude about cattle and property leads by a straight and open road to the mystery of the divine concern for the soul of man, as revealed in the Cross of him who died the just for the unjust.
Take it from another point of view. If careful about the sheep, is there to be no care concerning the man’s good name? Are we permitted to stand by and see the man’s fame and reputation driven away without protest upon our part? We could not see one sheep taken from his flock without instantly being excited and hastening to the owner to tell him that some petty felony had been committed; we might even be more courageous, and, assured that others were looking on and were near at hand to help us, we might venture to protest to the felon himself and insist upon the property being returned. We are courageous when we are in considerable numbers. The individual and solitary observer might not have courage to protest, but the most timid of hearts acquires boldness in the assured presence and society of others. Can we, then, see the good name driven away without jealousy for our brother’s fame, without concern for that quality of reputation without which life is not worth living? We are told that to steal the purse is to steal trash it is something nothing; ’twas mine, ’tis his a mere rearrangement of property; “but he that filches from me my good name, robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.” Do we leave the poets to express this high sentiment in golden terms, whilst we engage ourselves with the small solicitude which is satisfied with the fate of oxen and sheep? We are the keepers of our brother: his good name is ours. When the reputation of a Christian man goes down or is being driven away, the sum-total of Christian influence is diminished; in this sense we are not to live unto ourselves or for ourselves: every soul is part of the common stock of humanity, and when one member is exalted the whole body is raised in a worthy ascension, and when one member is debased or wronged or robbed a felony has been committed upon the consolidated property of the Church. Thus we are led into philanthropic relations, social trusteeships, and are bound for one another; and if we see a man’s reputation driven away by some cruel hand even though the reputation be that of an enemy we are to say, “Be just and fear not” let us know both sides of the case; there must be no immoral partiality; surely in the worst of cases there must be some redeeming points. When the Church cares for itself in this way the hireling will be afraid to approach the fold: even the wolf will know that the flock is well sheltered.
Take it from another point. “In like manner shalt thou do with… his raiment.” And are we to be careful about the man’s raiment, and care nothing about his aspirations? Is it nothing to us that the man never lifts his head towards the wider spaces and wonders what the lights are that glitter in the distant arch? Is it nothing to us that the man never sighs after some larger sphere, or ponders concerning some nobler possibility of life? Finding a man driving himself away, we arc bound to arouse him in the Creator’s name and to accuse him of the worst species of suicide. Aspirations are the beginning of great character: they express discontentment: being turned into our mother tongue they might be thus read: This world is not enough: I beat my hands against its narrow boundaries: my soul longs for something broader, brighter, grander: I know these glittering points are not nails driven into a door to prevent its being opened these glittering points are invitations, calls, allurements; I would respond, Is there no God in all the void? Hear a man talking so, and instantly leap upon his chariot, join him, and ask him if he understands what he says, and when he tells you that he has no understanding but is sighing after solutions of mysteries, read to him the great words of Christ the solemn Gospel of the Son of God and as you speak, in Christ’s name and in Christ’s tone, his heart will burn within him, and at eventide he will say, Abide with me. Man knows the truth when he hears it: there is an answering voice in the constitution of man. There are some words which cannot be palmed off upon man as true; when he himself is really in the agony of earnestness there are other words which come into his darkness like great lights. The light proves itself. Light instantly chases away the creatures of darkness; one little flame sends a vibration of light into every corner of the building. How light troubles darkness! how the darkness writhes under the gleam of light! it is in sore distress. So the soul knows the light as the flowers know the sun.
Can we see our brother’s ass being driven away and care nothing what becomes of his child? Save the children, and begin your work as soon as possible. The traveller who wants to get home does not wait until the sun is high up in the sky: the moment he sees a little whitening line in the east he grasps his staff and stands up ready to go onward to his home and the sanctuary of his love. Were we more anxious about the children we should do a greater work of a Christian kind. The old man seems to be beyond our reach, but the little child seems to be made for Christ. It would seem do not let us shrink from the term natural for every little child to put out his arms to cling to the Child of Bethlehem. Save the children, and you will purify society; expend your solicitude upon young, opening, tender life, and you shall see the result of your concern after many days. Services should be constituted for children; the old people have had the sanctuary too long: their ears are sated with eloquence: their minds are stored with names which never turn into inspirations; churches might be built for children, and preachers trained to speak to them alone. We have reversed all things, and thus have gone astray. Baptism is for the little speechless child a great mystery of life: a throb that has in it immortality; and that other sacrament of blood, that mystery of pain, that apocalypse of love might be given to little children; when we touch it with our reason, we profane it: when we claim it because we understand it, we become idolaters: “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” See a little child without knowledge, and do not “hide” yourself, but say, That little child is mine. We hold our knowledge for the benefit of the ignorant; we are trustees of our strength that we may save the weak from oppression. It is sad to see the little children left to themselves; and therefore ineffably beautiful to mark the concern which interests itself in the education and redemption of the young. A poet says he was nearer heaven in his childhood than he ever was in after-days, and he sweetly prayed that he might return through his yesterdays and through his childhood back to God. That is chronologically impossible locally and physically not to be done; and yet that is the very miracle which is to be performed in the soul in the spirit; we must be “born again.”
It is a coward’s trick to close the eyes whilst wrong is being done in order that we may not see it. It is easy to escape distress, perplexity, and to flee away from the burdens of other men; but the whole word is, “Thou shalt not hide thyself” but “Thou shalt surely help him.” Who can undervalue a Bible which speaks in such a tone? The proverb, “Every man must take care of himself,” has no place in the Book of God. We must take care of one another: “Whoso hath this world’s goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” If thou sayest, Behold, I knew it not, will not he who makes inquisition for blood bring the matter to a positive and inevitable test? Christians are not called upon to close their eyes, to run away from danger, and to lay down some narrow doctrine of mine and thine. Christianity means nothing if it does not mean the unity of the human race, the common rights of humanity: and he who fails to interpose in all cases of injustice and wrong-doing, or suffering which he can relieve, may be a great theologian, but he is not a Christian.
Prayer
Almighty God, we cry unto thee, each for himself, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” The leprosy is in the heart; the flesh is good and sound and right, but our hearts are full of sin and evil and bitterness. “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” But thou dost ask us to be willing in this case: Lord, we are willing; we would be clean; we would know the mystery of holiness, the rest of purity, the music of unity with God. We do not know what cleanness is; we cannot wash our own hearts. Thou alone canst cleanse the spirit and sanctify the whole will, making every passion a pure flame, and the outgoing of the soul a sacred yearning after larger knowledge. We cannot do the miracles of God. Work in us mightily, and show thy great power in the cleansing of hearts that are deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. This is the purpose of thy Cross, O Christ, this is the meaning of the blood that was shed, to take away all sin, to cleanse the sinner, to make the evil-doer a right-doer, so that not only shall the works be changed, but the worker shall be transformed. We bless thee for this revelation of thy purpose; it enables us to seize the Book in which it is written, and to lay hold upon it with our judgment and affection, and to expect from it further light, more ardent warmth, and larger hospitality. Thou wouldst have all hearts clean; from the great heaven thou hast written this word, addressed to all the sons of men: “Be ye holy, as your Father in heaven is holy.” Thou dost call us to no minor character; thou hast not set before us that which is uncertain, incomplete, fickle, and changeable; thou art thyself the standard of holiness, the character to whose grandeur we must aspire. To God all things are possible. In that consolation we rest, and from that point we begin our poor endeavour, knowing that our weakness shall be perfected by the divine power, and what we cannot do, God will abundantly accomplish. We have been a long time at school; we are poor scholars; we misspell the simplest words, and misapply the deepest, and in the midst of our reading we burn with unholy passion. When we are at church, we bring with us forbidden guests. When we read thy Book, we think of other music and fascination. Life is difficult, the discipline is hard; every day smites with its own fist, and we spend our time in vainly trying to get up again. But it is thy life, not ours; thy way of doing things, and therefore it is right: we accept it; even when the burden is heaviest, we do not pray that it may be destroyed, but that our strength may be equal to it. Thou hast carried thy servants through many a mile of the life-journey; some of them are willing to turn right back again, and begin all the road once more, thinking they would avoid the mistakes, and never repeat the errors which have filled the life-way with difficulty and judgment. Some are in a strait betwixt two: wanting to stay, willing to go; wanting to go, willing to stay; having no will in the matter, but waiting thy revelation. Others are impatient to go, for they have seen the end of things; they have heard all the roaring wind, and have tasted its emptiness, and now they long to be in the better land, where every day is harvest, and where there is no black night. We pray for one another: for the little child and the old man, for the sick heart, for the wounded spirit, for those whose hopes are dead, and whose best trusts are blighted. We remember those whose sin cannot be spoken, whose suffering lies beyond the reach of words, who die in secret, and waste away whilst they are deceiving their friends with smiles. Thou knowest us altogether: in our robustness and force and great strength, in our weakness and delicateness, in our pining and fear, in our richness, in our wealth and poverty, in all our relations thou knowest us wholly; there is not a word upon our tongue, there is not a thought in our heart, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thy knowledge is mercy: to know is to pity, to know is to look with inward kindness on the objects of suffering and despair. The Lord send messages to us, every one; make the reading of his Word like the dawning of a birthday; and may there be festival in the house, eating and drinking abundantly at God’s great table, and may all the guests rise from the feast, saying, Blessed be the Master, and to the King be the loyalty of every heart. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
(See the Deuteronomy Book Comments for Introductory content and Homiletic suggestions).
XIII
SECOND GREAT ORATION, PART 2
Deuteronomy 12-26
This section is on the second part of the second great oration of Moses, as embodied in Deuteronomy 12-26 inclusive, of the book of Deuteronomy. If you have carefully read all this section, it will be easier for me to emphasize in the brief limits of this chapter the most salient points and easier for you to grasp and retain them. By the grouping of correlated matters under specific heads, the important distinction between many statutes and the constitutional principle from which they are logically derived will become manifest. A constitution is a relatively brief document of great principles, but legislative enactments developing and enlarging them become a library, which continually enlarges, as new conditions require new statement and application.
Yet again you must note that while one discussion arranges in order many statutes, it necessarily leaves out much of the homiletical value of each special statute. Each one of them may be made a text for a profitable sermon. Indeed these fifteen chapters constitute a gold mine of texts for the attentive preacher.
First of all, it should be noted that Moses is speaking here to the whole people as a national unit and concerning the future national life in the Promised Land which they are about to occupy. He carefully puts before them the national ideal of a people belonging to Jehovah separated from other nations and devoted to a special mission. Because addressing the whole people he recalls the history and law in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers much more particularly than the special legislation of Leviticus relating mainly to the official duties of a single tribe.
Secondly, when he touches the tribe of Levi in Deuteronomy, it is as a part of the nation rather than about their specific duties as priests and Levites. On this account Deuteronomy is called the people’s code and Leviticus the priest’s code. This fact will help us much to understand tithing in Deuteronomy when compared with tithing in the preceding books. Note carefully this point.
While it is difficult to classify satisfactorily such a multitude of topics and laws, we may profitably group the whole section under the following heads:
I. Unity in the Place of National Worship, Deu 12:5
In their pilgrimage history the cloud and the ark, shifting from place to place according to the exigency of travel, designated day by day the central place of worship. But the people are here admonished that when they conquer the land and become a settled people, God himself will designate one fixed locality as the center of national unity and one permanent place of national worship. In Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel, when we get to those books, we shall find only a temporary central place, and occasionally, more than one at the same time, the land not yet all conquered, the people not yet all settled, but in David’s time everything prescribed about the central place of worship is fulfilled, Jerusalem is the place thenceforward throughout their history until Jesus, that prophet like unto Moses, comes and says to the woman of Samaria, “Believe me, the hour cometh when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth.”
To this place, that is, the central place of worship, three times a year must the tribes come in national assembly to keep the great festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and as a nation they must observe the great day of atonement. In this connection observe particularly that the tithing in Deuteronomy, to which we have before referred, is not the first tithe of the other books, which was the Lord’s inheritance and devoted to the general support of the great festivals, in which indeed the Levites share as a part of the people. Hence the Levites’ share of this tithe does not correspond to their title to the whole of the first tithe, and hence the third year’s provision in Deuteronomy for the poor is unlike any provision of the first tithe. If you have that point fixed in your minds, you are able to answer one of the gravest objections ever brought against Deuteronomy, that is, that it contradicts, on the question of tithes, what had been previously said in other books.
The marvelous effect of this one fixed place of national worship, and of these great festivals, on national unity, on the preservation of a pure worship, appears in all their subsequent history and becomes the theme of psalm, song, and elegy. When we get over into the Psalms and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we will see backward references to this central place of worship. It is in the light of this law that we discover the sin in the later migration of the Danites and their setting up a new place of worship (Jdg 18 , particularly verses Jdg 18:27-31 ); the sin of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:26-33 ); the sin of the Samaritans later, and the sin of a temple in Egypt. That is the first thought, the unity in national worship. For an account of the Samaritan Temple see Josephus, “Antiquities,” Book XI, chapter 8, and for the Egyptian Temple see “Antiquities,” Book XIII, chapter 3.
2. Unity in the Object of Worship
The second thought in this oration is unity in the object of worship, the exclusive worship of Jehovah. Under this head the section prescribes the death penalty on the following:
(1) The false prophet, who however attested by signs and wonders, shall seek to divert the people to the worship of some other god.
(2) Any member of a family, however near and dear the tie of kindred, who sought to induce the rest of the family to turn away from the worship of Jehovah to worship another god, that member of the family had to die.
(3) Any city that turned aside as a municipality to other worship, that city must be placed under the ban and blotted out. If you have been much of a student of classic literature, you must have noticed how each city stresses the worship of some particular patron divinity, as Minerva at Athens, Diana in the City of Ephesus and Venus at Corinth. Now, this law teaches that any city, in its municipal life, turning aside from the worship of Jehovah to worship a false god for local advantage shall be blotted off the face of the map. The underlying principle here is of immense importance in our times. Cities are tempted continually to sacrifice the paramount spiritual and moral interests of the community in order to promote material interests. So in their annual fairs which bring local advantage in commercial affairs, they lose sight of God and handicap what is commendable in these enterprises by overloading them with poisonous and corrupting attachments, and count any man an enemy to his home place, however much he may approve the good, if he protest against the bad. See the striking examples and illustrations in the cases at Philippi and Ephesus (Act 16:19 ).
(4) To show more emphatically that Jehovah alone is God and must be worshiped, the death penalty was assessed on any necromancer, soothsayer or wizard who sought by illicit ways to understand and interpret the future. To Jehovah alone must the people come to know secret things. What he chose to reveal was for them and their children. What he withheld must remain hidden. All prurient curiosity into Jehovah’s domain of revelation must be rebuked; all seeking unto the dead, all fortunetelling and divinations were mortal sins and punishable by death in every case.
(5) All persons guilty of crimes against nature; the nature of the subject forbids me to specify. They were such outrageous violations of the dignity of man made in God’s image, and indicated such disregard for Jehovah that capital punishment alone would meet the requirements of the case.
(6) Every breaker of the covenant must be put to death. If any had knowledge that another had violated the covenant, it became his duty to investigate the case and bring the attention of the magistrates to it. There is a reference to that in the letter to the Hebrews, where it is said, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God [offense against the Father], and hath counted the blood of the everlasting covenant an unholy thing [sin against the Son], and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace [sin against the Holy Spirit, and an unpardonable sin]?” (Heb 10:28-29 ).
(7) To impress still more this thought of the exclusive worship of Jehovah: There must be no borrowing from other religions in bewailing the dead; Jehovah’s law alone was the one exclusive standard. The custom of cutting themselves, and disfiguring themselves in the days of their mourning as practiced in other religions, finds here a positive prohibition. I stop to say, Oh, what a pity that so soon after apostolic times, in the great apostasy which Paul predicted and which took place in the Roman Catholic development, there was borrowing old robes of every religion in the world.
3. All Administrations of Law Subject to Jehovah
Whether ceremonial law, moral or civil and criminal law, all administration of law was subject to Jehovah. The government was a theocracy pure and simple, no matter whether it remained a republic or became a kingdom, as it did in the days of Saul, it was a theocracy, God was the only real King and governed all officers himself, whether executive, judicial, or religious.
(1) They were representatives of Jehovah and must first of all consider his honor, justice, and mercy. This fact determined the prescribed character and qualifications of every prince, ruler, elder, judge, sheriff and scribe. These officers must be God-fearing men, hating covetousness, impartial and fearing not the face of any man.
(2) They must in judging hear all evidence fairly.
(3) They must not convict except upon adequate testimony.
(4) It took two good witnesses to prove any point.
(5) They must justify the innocent and condemn the guilty without any regard for age, sex, social position, or financial position. Even and exact justice must be administered to all.
(6) Decision when given must be enforced speedily.
(7) If the case was too hard for them, they must appeal to Jehovah and no other for light. A provision was made by which Jehovah would give the right answer in every such case of appeal. What a pity we have not that kind of a supreme court!
(8) The conduct of all their wars must be under the laws prescribed by Jehovah. War must not be declared against any nation except upon his direction. Their later history furnishes many examples of referring the declaration of war to Jehovah, and it furnishes many examples of disaster befalling them when they went to war in their own wisdom and strength. The regulations touching war covered all material points, such as sanitary measures in camp, treatment of prisoners, conducting sieges, and sparing fruit trees when besieging a city. The boasted progress of modern civilization falls far short of the Mosaic code in ameliorating the sufferings and horrors of war. A great Federal general of the War Between the States well said, in view of his own practice in conducting it, “War is hell!”
(9) On account of this subordination to Jehovah, note the remarkable paragraph Deu 21:1-9 , touching civic responsibility in a case of murder where the offender is unknown. In my prohibition speech in the last prohibition contest in Waco, I used that paragraph as a principle upon which prohibition is based. If you will look at the passage in your Bible and mark it, you will notice that the case is this: A man is found murdered and it is not known who killed him; the nearest city thereto is determined by measurement and must purge itself of responsibility for the crime. The municipal officers in that city must come in the presence of that dead body, hold up their hands before God and swear that they are innocent of the blood.
In my speech I recalled the case of the County Attorney of Tarrant County who was shot down on the streets of Fort Worth, his murderer also being killed; nobody could be held directly responsible for the murder. I said, “Suppose the mayor, the city council, and all the other city officers had been required to place their hands on that dead body and swear that no negligence on their part was resposnible for that murder. They could not have taken the oath. Every one would have been convicted, because they were responsible for the conditions that not only made that particular murder possible, but made murder in some cases certain.”
(10) The numerous statutes concerning charities, mercy, and humanity constrain the people to imitate Jehovah himself in dealing with the poor and with the unfortunate. Indeed some of the most beautiful and pathetic of these laws relating to treatment of the lower creatures embody principles capable of application in a wider range of higher things. They reprobate all cruelty and the infliction of all unnecessary suffering as hateful to Jehovah, for example: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn”; and “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.”
Once in Waco a young man whom I had known when he was a little fellow came to me bringing a letter purporting to be from his father, commending this young man to me and asking me to help him in any way I could. When he next came and asked me to endorse a paper for thirty dollars, I endorsed it. When it matured, I had to pay it. I wrote to the father about it and he replied that his son had forged that letter, and that is was only one case out of many. That son had broken him up. The boy was arrested on a similar case at Corsicana and sent to the penitentiary. When it was suggested that I testify against him, I would not, because of this scripture, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” The only way I could help to convict that boy would be to submit his father’s testimony to prove that he was a forger.
(11) In like manner all laws regulating business, such as weights and measures. Once I called upon a man whose name I will not give, and asked him why, when he bought goods, he weighed on one scale and when he sold goods he sold by another. He said. “They are all right.” I said, “No, sir, you have loaded the one you sell by and whoever buys from you does not get full weight.” All laws touching business, such as weights and measures, the restraints on exacting pledges for debt, the withholding of wages for day laborers which they have fairly earned, the limitations on usury and the like are but expressions of divine mercy and justice and tended to build up an honest and righteous people, not forgetful of mercy.
(12) The social laws concerning marriage, slavery, parental power over children, while far from the highest expression of God’s will, do yet in every particular prohibit many current evils freely practiced in other nations. Our Lord himself explains that on account of their hardness of heart and low order of development imperfect laws were suffered. “The people but recently were a nation of slaves, with much more of the slave spirit remaining. It cannot be denied that even the civil and criminal codes on these points were far superior to the codes of other nations. The sanctity of human life, the sanctity of the home, and the sanctity of the family are marvelously safeguarded in these laws. And wherever this code touched an evil custom, it never approved the evil but limited the power and scope of the evil, as far as the unprepared people were able to bear it.
(13) Restrictions on entering the covenant, Deu 23:1-7 , constitute a paragraph very few people understand. This applied to proselytes from other nations. The body politic must not be corrupted by alien additions that could not be easily assimilated. On that line our own nation is gravely troubled by loose naturalization laws that permit the scum and offscourings of other nations to be absorbed into our national life and so fearfully endanger the perpetuity of free institutions and make our great cities cesspools of iniquity. An orator once prayed, “O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and Europe!” The Pacific Slope seems also praying ,”O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and the Orient!”
(14) The governing Jehovah idea appears in an emphatic way in the paragraph Deu 24:1-11 , where by an offering of a basket of firstfruits the Israelite must confess Jehovah’s absolute ownership over his products and his own unworthy derivation. The oration concludes with his general result: “Thou hast avouched Jehovah this day to be thy God, and that thou wouldest walk in his ways and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and hearken unto his voice: and Jehovah hath avouched thee this day to be a people for his own possession, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments, etc.”
QUESTIONS
1. What the importance of grouping correlated matters under specific needs and what is a constitution?
2. What the homiletic value of these fifteen chapters?
3. What two things especially noted concerning the second part of Oration Two?
4. Under what three heads does the author group all the material of these fifteen chapters?
5. Under the first head, when was the central place of worship to be established; when, where and by whom actually established; how long continued?
6. How often and at what festivals must the nation assemble at this central place of worship?
7. What bearing has this fact on the tithing question of Deuteronomy?
8. What the marvelous effects of this one fixed place of national worship?
9. Give examples of the violation of this law, and what their particular sin?
10. Under the second head, what cases of violation called for capital punishment?
11. What underlying principle governing the cities is of great importance in our times? Illustrate.
12. What reference to the covenant breaker in the New Testament, and what the threefold sin therein described?
13. Which of these prohibitions are Romanists most guilty of violating?
14. Under the third head (1) What must be the qualifications of all officers? (2) What their several duties? (3) If the case was too hard for them what were they to do? What the provision for Jehovah’s answer? (4) What prescriptions concerning war? (5) How determine civic responsibility in the case of murder where the murderer was unknown? Present day application and illustrate. (6) What laws relating to the poor and to lower animals? (7) What laws regulating business? (8) What social laws? (9) What the restrictions on entering the covenant and the present day application? (10) How does the governing Jehovah idea appear emphatically
15. How does the oration conclude?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Deu 22:1 Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.
Ver. 1. Thou shalt not see thy brothers. ] No not thine enemies; Exo 23:4 for, have we not all one father? Mal 2:10 See Trapp on “ Mat 5:44 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 22:1-4
1You shall not see your countryman’s ox or his sheep straying away, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly bring them back to your countryman. 2If your countryman is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall remain with you until your countryman looks for it; then you shall restore it to him. 3Thus you shall do with his donkey, and you shall do the same with his garment, and you shall do likewise with anything lost by your countryman, which he has lost and you have found. You are not allowed to neglect them. 4You shall not see your countryman’s donkey or his ox fallen down on the way, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly help him to raise them up.
Deu 22:1 You shall not see. . .and pay no attention Purposeful or apathetic neglect (hide oneself, BDB 761, KB 834, cf. Deu 22:1; Deu 22:3-4; Lev 20:4; Pro 28:27; Eze 22:26) of a needy covenant brother’s property is prohibited (cf. Deu 22:3; Exo 23:4-5).
bring them back This common VERB (BDB 996, KB 1427, Hithapel) is used three times in Deu 22:1-2. Its basic meaning is return or turn back. Israel was meant to function as a caring family unit. Paragraphs like this spell out what Lev 19:18 means in practical, specific ways. Brothers look out for brothers!
This first usage is intensified by the use of the INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE and the IMPERFECT VERB of the same root, you shall certainly bring them back! This same type of intensification is used in Deu 22:4, you shall certainly help him to raise them up (i.e., INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE and IMPERFECT verb of BDB 877, KB 1086).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
not see. Compare Exo 23:4, Exo 23:5.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Now in chapter twenty-two, now in those days they punished people for none involvement.
If you saw your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and you just try to ignore it: [you don’t go out and get it and so forth, then you’re at fault.] you shall in any case bring them again to your brother. And if your brother is not near to you, and you know him not, then you shalt bring them into your own house, and you shall keep them until your brother seeks after them, and thou shalt restore them again. In like manner shall thou do with his ass; and so with his raiment; and all that is lost of thy brother’s, which he has lost, and now has found, you’re to do likewise: you may not hide it for yourself (Deu 22:1-3).In other words, if you find something that is lost, you’re to seek to restore it to its proper ownership. You’re not to try to hide it for yourself.
Now, if you see your brother’s ass or ox fall down by the way, and you hide yourself from them: and not turn to help and to lift them again, then you’re at fault. Then a woman is not to wear man’s apparel, nor is a man to put on a woman’s garment: for to do that is an abomination unto the Lord (Deu 22:4-5).
Now, actually we are, you know, living in a weird age, where men are dissatisfied with being men, and having operations to become women. And we have other men who aren’t satisfied as being men and are wearing dresses and makeup and that kind of junk, and sometimes I wish I was living under the Old Testament. These things are an abomination unto God. Now, they say, “Oh, but what about a woman wearing a pantsuit, or something. Well, let me tell you something, I never wear one of those pantsuits that the women wear. I don’t consider that men’s apparel at all. But the whole idea behind it is of lesbianism or homosexuality, where you are affecting to be one of the opposite sex or seeking to be one of the opposite sex, and that is what is actually being, you know, what he’s coming down on here. Women who are trying to be men and men who are trying to be women.
Now, it is interesting if you see a bird’s nest and a bird is sitting on its eggs or whatever, you’re not to really disturb it. If there are little young birds, if you want to take the little, young birds, you’re not to take the mother too. But you’re not to disturb a mother bird sitting on its nest unless the birds are big enough to make it on their own, you want the little birds, that’s fine, but you can’t take the mother bird with them. Got to leave her go free.
When you build a new house, and you’re putting on the roof, you’ve got to put supports around so no one falls off the roof and gets hurt while they’re working on your house. If you’re sowing the vineyards, you’re not to sow with divers seeds:… You’re not to plow with an ox and an ass together. You’re not to wear a garment with different sorts of materials, wool and linen together. You are to make these blue fringes on the quarters of your garments (Deu 22:8-12).
And now the law of marriage.
If any man takes a wife, and goes in unto her and hates her, and gives occasion of speech against her, brings an evil name upon her, and says, I took this woman as my wife, but she wasn’t a virgin [and you make these kinds of accusations against her]: then her parents are to bring forth her tokens of virginity (Deu 22:13-16).
Now in those days, when you had your marriage ceremony and you went in for the nuptial rites, actually you would take a cloth and hand it back out to your parents, proving that you were a virgin, and they would save that. Then if the guy you married turned out to be a dirty dog, and he says, she wasn’t a virgin when I married her, and starts spreading evil stories, your parents would bring out the tokens of your virginity. Lay them out before the elders and you’d be found to be a dirty dog liar, and the fellow would have to pay your dad a hundred shekels of silver because he had brought an evil name upon a virgin in Israel, but if you couldn’t prove your virginity then you would be in trouble. If you be put to death, pretty heavy duty.
[And then the adultery of] a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them be put to death. If a damsel that is a virgin is betrothed to a husband [that is engaged], and a man find her in the city and lies with her; then they are both to be put to death; that is, if he rapes her in the city, she’s to be put to death because she should have screamed. But if she is raped out in the field, then only he is put to death, because she perhaps screamed but nobody could hear her. And thus, you are to put the evil away. Now, if you raped a girl, and she is a virgin, and she is not betrothed to someone else, then you’re to take her as your wife to pay her father fifty shekels of silver (Deu 22:23-29).
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Here we have the record of the laws conditioning life in love and neighborliness. Every man was enjoined to take care of his brother’s lost things if he found them; and he was also to help the hurt animals of his brethren in the hour of their distress.
All unseemliness in dress was forbidden. Men were charged to act in kindness even toward the birds. In building their houses they were to think of others who later might have to use them, and protect them against the possibility of accident by erecting a parapet around the roof.
Three commandments were uttered forbidding admixture. The land must not be sown with two seeds. Plowing must not be done with an ass and ox together Garments were not to be made of an admixture of wool and linen.
Continuing, the stringency of the Mosaic economy in the matter of chastity is revealed. It may well be carefully studied even today. It may be summarized by declaring that it demands that at all costs the man must be chaste and the woman pure. Moreover, it is made perfectly clear that in the mind of God the sacredness of betrothal is as great as that of the marriage relationship.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
18. Against Inhumanity and Different Violations,
False Testimony and Sins of Adultery
CHAPTER 22
1. Laws against inhumanity (Deu 22:1-12)
2. Concerning false testimony (Deu 22:13-21)
3. Sins of adultery (Deu 22:22-30)
Laws on the second table are now more fully expounded by Moses. The love to the neighbor is to be expressed by guarding and preserving that which is his property. The strayed and fallen animal belonging to another had to be helped. To leave them in that condition would have been a violation of the law love thy neighbor as thyself as well as an act of inhumanity. Another interesting law is the one which forbids woman to wear mans garments (verse 5). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices; but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes, which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction–such as even the emancipation of women–was unnatural, and therefore, an abomination in the sight of God. Yet to-day we find a universal movement in the world for the complete emancipation of women, which ignores and even defies the place which the Creator and the Redeemer has given to woman.
The law concerning the birds nest manifests the Creators care and His people are to recognize it. The keeping of this law has the same promise as the commandment relating to obedience to parents. Diverse seeds were forbidden. Spiritually we find a lesson here. There are two seeds, the good and the bad. The good seed stands for the truth. It must not be mixed with error. The truth must be kept unmixed. The opposite is done today as never before in the history of Christendom. They were not to plow with an ass and an ox together. They were not to wear a mixed garment. And we are exhorted not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, but be separated in our habits, in life and walk, unto the Lord. The concluding part of the chapter reveals the heart of man in its deceitfulness and corruption.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Thou shalt: Exo 23:4, Eze 34:4, Eze 34:16, Mat 10:6, Mat 15:24, Mat 18:12, Mat 18:13, Luk 15:4-6, Jam 5:19, Jam 5:20, 1Pe 2:25
hide thyself: Deu 22:3, Deu 22:4, Lev 20:4, Pro 24:11, Pro 28:27, Isa 8:17, Isa 58:7, Luk 10:31, Luk 10:32
Reciprocal: Lev 6:3 – have found
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Deu 22:1-2. Thy brothers Any mans, this being a duty of common justice and charity, which the law of nature taught even heathen. Hide thyself from them Dissemble, or pretend that thou dost not see them, or pass them by as if thou hadst not seen them. If thy brother be not nigh unto thee Which may make the duty more troublesome or chargeable. Or if thou know him not Which implies that, if they did know the owner, they should restore it. Bring it unto thy own house To be used like thy other cattle. Thou shalt restore it again The owner, as it may be presumed, paying the charges.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Deu 22:5. All that do so are abomination to the Lord. The note of Maimonides here is, that men presenting themselves before Venus, appeared partially in female attire; and women presenting themselves before Mars, appeared in armour. Sardanapalus, the last king of Nineveh, was despised by Arbactus for being found in the dress of his queens, and assisting them in spinning.
Deu 22:8. When thou buildest a new house thou shalt make a battlement, lest waking out of sleep one should fall down and be killed. In the east they often slept on the flat roof of their houses, which was cool and airy; and indeed they lived much there for better air than below.
Deu 22:10. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass; as the land might then be polluted by unnatural intercourse.
Deu 22:17. The cloth. Uteri virginalis was given by nature to be the glory of a virgin, and to place her above the tongue of calumny, and the power of malice.
Deu 22:21. The door of her fathers house. This would add very much shame and anguish to the father, for not having taken better care of his daughter. Wickedness cannot be suppressed without severity of justice; nor can sinners be converted without fervent cooperation with the aids of grace. Hence we learn, that the head of every house was responsible for the preservation of female virtue. Surely this law of the Hebrews was founded in wisdom, and it is worthy of adoption by every other nation.
Deu 22:22. They shall both of them die. We do not inflict more than a fine, and often with indecent laughter in our courts. But where is the use of letting such characters live. If it be lawful to hang a man for stealing a sheep, it cannot be wrong to hang him for stealing another mans wife. If our laws be not relax, why is Europe so full of lewdness? The Roman laws, under foul circumstances, punished adultery with death.
REFLECTIONS.
This chapter opens with the law of brotherly kindness; and though the duties are small in themselves, attention to them very much endears the heart of one man to another; whereas the want of these social virtues alienates the affections of neighbours. The man who restores lost property to his brother confers a favour without expense, and proves his heart to be actuated by the love of God.
The tenderness also enjoined towards the little birds, and in fact, towards every irrational creature which God has made, shows that religion should be characterized by humanity and compassion. By the fall we have brought misery enough on the creatures, and we should never augment it by any wanton treatment. One who can feast his ferocious dispositions by cruelty to either bird, beast, or insect, does himself a greater injury than that he inflicts on the helpless creature.
The injunction to build a battlement around the roof of every house, is equally humane; and assuredly it is highly applicable to our collieries, not being ventilated; to our machinery, not properly guarded, which occasion the loss of many lives. Men pursuing their business, and forgetful of danger, are often killed when a small expense would have prevented the calamity. We have before been reminded that sins of ignorance, and sins of negligence require atonement. What guilt then must the proprietors of public works bring upon themselves, by avarice and neglect.
The prohibition of yoking an ox with an ass, the one being much stronger than the other, has the same object of humanity in view. Cruelty is at all times displeasing to God. From this law, it would seem, St. Paul has taken occasion to enforce another on the christian church, and with the most pressing appeals to reason. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath light with darkness.
The judicial attestation of a virgins purity against the jealous or wicked slander of her husband, and the awful manner in which she was punished, in case she had been profligate in her fathers house, gives us a sanctifying character of the purity of God, and of the holiness he requires of his people. It is assuredly the duty of every woman when tempted, to cry and shame a false lover at once, rather than suffer herself to be ruined for ever. If she was where her cries could not be heard, the law compelled the young man to marry her, and to indemnify the father. The Consistories of Switzerland, we are told by Ostervald, still enforce this law. The elders and ministers of the Kirk of Scotland have very much followed the Swiss; but in England and Ireland we are strangely relaxed. Oh what crimes might be prevented, if all good men would vigorously concur in the suppression of vice and wickedness. An institution should be established for this purpose in every town, which would urge and embolden the magistrates to act, and make the wicked afraid.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Deuteronomy 22 – 25
The portion of our book on which we now enter, though not calling for elaborate exposition, yet teaches us two very important practical lessons In the first place, many of the institutions and ordinances here set forth prove and illustrate, in a most striking way, the terrible depravity of the human heart. They show us, with unmistakable distinctness, what man is capable of doing, if left to himself. We must ever remember, as we read some of the paragraphs of this section of Deuteronomy, that God the Holy Ghost has indicted them. We, in our fancied wisdom, may feel disposed to ask why such passages were ever penned? Can it be possible that they are actually inspired by the Holy Ghost? and of what possible value can they be to us? If they were written for our learning, then what are we to learn from them?
Our reply to all these questions is, at once, simple and direct; and it is this, the very passages which we might least expect to and on the page of inspiration teach us, in their own peculiar way, the moral material of which we are made, and the moral depths into which we are capable of plunging. And is not this of great moment? Is it not well to have a faithful mirror held up before our eyes in which we may see every moral trait, feature and lineament perfectly reflected? Unquestionably. We hear a great deal about the dignity of human nature, and very many find it exceedingly hard to admit that they are really capable of committing some of the sins prohibited in the section before us, and in other portions of the divine Volume. But we may rest assured that when God commands us not to commit this or that particular sin, we are verily capable of committing it. This is beyond all question. Divine wisdom would never erect a dam if there was not a current to be resisted. There would be no necessity to tell an angel not to steal; but man has theft in his nature, and hence the command applies to him. And just so in reference to every other prohibited thing; the prohibition proves the tendency – proves it beyond all question. We must either admit this or imply the positive blasphemy that God has spoken in vain.
But then it may be said; and is said by many, that while some very terrible samples of fallen humanity are capable of committing some of the abominable sins prohibited in scripture, yet all are not so. This is a most thorough mistake. Hear what the Holy Ghost says, in the seventeenth chapter of the prophet Jeremiah. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” Whose heart is he speaking of? Is it the heart of some atrocious criminal, or of some untutored savage? Nay; it is the human heart, the heart of the writer and of the reader of these lines.
Hear also what our Lord Jesus Christ says on this subject. “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” Out of what heart? Is it the heart of some hideously depraved and abominable wretch wholly unfit to appear in decent society? Nay; it is out of the human heart the heart of the writer and of the reader of these lines.
Let us never forget this; it is a wholesome truth for every one of us. We all need to bear in mind that if God were to withdraw His sustaining grace, for one moment, there is no depth of iniquity into which we are not capable of plunging; indeed, we may add – and we do it with deep thankfulness it is His own gracious hand that preserves us, each moment, from becoming a complete wreck, in every way, physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and in our circumstances. May we keep this ever in the remembrance of the thoughts of our hearts, so that we may walk humbly and watchfully, and lean upon that arm which alone can sustain and preserve us!
But, we have said, there is another valuable lesson furnished by this section of our book which now lies open before us. It teaches us, in a manner peculiar to itself, the marvellous way in which God provided for everything connected with His people. Nothing escaped His gracious notice; nothing was too trivial for His tender care. No mother could be more careful of the habits and manners of her little child, than the Almighty Creator and moral Governor of the universe was of the most minute details connected with the daily history of His people. By day and by night, waking and sleeping at home and abroad, He looked after them. Their clothing, their food, their manners and ways toward one another, how they were to build their houses, how they were to plough and sow their ground, how they were to carry themselves in the deepest privacy of their personal life – all was attended to and provided for in a manner that fills us with wonder, love and praise. We may here see, in a most striking way, that there is nothing too small for our God to take notice of when His people are concerned. He takes a loving, tender, fatherly interest in their most minute concerns. We are amazed to find the Most High God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, the Sustainer of the vast universe, condescending to legislate about the matter of a bird’s nest; and yet why should we be amazed when we know that it is just the same to Him to provide for a sparrow as to feed a thousand millions of people daily?
But there was one grand fact which was ever to be kept prominently before each member of the congregation of Israel, namely, the divine presence in their midst. This fact was to govern their most private habits, and give character to all their ways. “The Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up, thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy; that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.” (Deut. 23: 14.)
What a precious privilege to have Jehovah walking in their midst! What a motive for purity of conduct, and refined delicacy in their persons and domestic habits! If He was in their midst to secure victory over their enemies, He was also there to demand holiness of life. They were never, for one moment, to forget the august Person who walked up and down in their midst. Would the thought of this be irksome to any? Only to such as did not love holiness, purity and moral order. Every true Israelite would delight in the thought of having One dwelling in their midst who could not endure ought that was unholy, unseemly or impure.
The Christian reader will be at no loss to seize the moral force and application of this holy principle. It is our privilege to have God the Spirit dwelling in us, individually and collectively. Thus we read, in 1 Corinthians 6: 19, “What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” This is individual. Each believer is a temple of the Holy Ghost, and this most glorious and precious truth is the ground of the exhortation given in Ephesians 4: 30, “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.”
How very important to keep this ever in the remembrance of the thoughts of our hearts! What a mighty moral motive for the diligent cultivation of purity of heart, and holiness of life! When tempted to indulge in any wrong current of thought or feeling, any unworthy manner of speech, any unseemly line of conduct, what a powerful corrective would be found in the realisation of the blessed fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in our body as in His temple! If only we could keep this ever before us it would preserve us from many a wandering thought, many an unguarded and foolish utterance, many an unbecoming act.
But, not only does the Holy Spirit dwell in each individual believer, He also dwells in the church collectively. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Cor. 3: 16.) It is upon this fact that the apostle grounds his exhortation in 1 Thess 5: 19 “Quench not the Spirit.” How divinely perfect is scripture! How blessedly it hangs together! The Holy Ghost dwells in us individually; hence we are not to grieve Him. He dwells in the assembly, hence we are not to quench Him, but give Him His right place, and allow full scope for His blessed operations. May these great practical truths find a deep place in our hearts, and exerts more powerful influence over our ways both in private life and in the public assembly!
We shall now proceed to quote a few passages from the section of our book which now lies open before us strikingly illustrative of the wisdom, goodness, tenderness, holiness and righteousness which marked all the dealings of God with His people of old. Take, for example, the very opening paragraph. “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again. In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found shalt thou do likewise; thou mayest not hide thyself. Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again” (Deut. 22: 1-4)
Here the two lessons of which we have spoken are, very distinctly, presented. What a deeply humbling picture of the human heart have we in that one sentence, “Thou mayest not hide thyself!” We are capable of the base and detestable selfishness of hiding ourselves from our brother’s claims upon our sympathy and succour – of shirking the holy duty of looking after his interests – of pretending not to see his real need of our aid. Such is man! Such is the writer!
But oh! how blessedly the character of our God shines out in this passage! The brother’s ox, or his sheep, or his ass was not – to use a modern phrase – to be thrust into pound, for trespass; it was to be brought home, cared for, and restored, safe and sound, to the owner without charge for damage. And so with the raiment. How lovely is all this! How it breathes upon us the very air of the divine presence, the fragrant atmosphere of divine goodness, tenderness and thoughtful love! What a high and holy privilege for any people to have their conduct governed and their character formed by such exquisite statutes and judgements!
Again, take the following passage so beautifully illustrative of divine thoughtfulness: “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.” The Lord would have His people thoughtful and considerate of others; and hence, in building their houses, they were not merely to think of themselves, and their convenience, but also of others and their safety.
Cannot Christians learn something from this? How prone we are to think only of ourselves, our own interests, our own comfort and convenience! How rarely it happens that, in the building or furnishing of our houses, we bestow a thought upon other people! We build and furnish for ourselves; alas! self is too much our object and motive spring in all our undertakings; nor can it be otherwise unless the heart be kept under the governing power of those motives and objects which belong to Christianity. We must live in the pure and heavenly atmosphere of the new creation, in order to get above and beyond the base selfishness which characterizes fallen humanity. Every unconverted man woman and child on the face of the earth is governed simply by self, in some shape or another. Self is the centre, the object, the motive-spring of every action.
True, some are more amiable, more affectionate, more benevolent, more unselfish, more disinterested, more agreeable than others; but it is utterly impossible that “the natural man” can be governed by spiritual motives, or an earthly man be animated by heavenly objects. Alas! We have to confess, with shame and sorrow, that we who profess to be heavenly and spiritual are so prone to live for ourselves, to seek our own things, to maintain our own interests, to consult our own ease and convenience. We are all alive and on the alert when self, in any shape or form, is concerned.
All this is most sad and deeply humbling. It really ought not to be, and it would not be if we were looking more simply and earnestly to Christ as our great Exemplar and model in all things. Earnest and constant occupation of heart with Christ is the true secret of all practical Christianity. It is not rules and regulations that will ever make us Christ-like in our spirit, manner and ways. We must drink into His spirit, walk in His footsteps, dwell more profoundly upon His moral glories, and then we shall, of blessed necessity, be conformed to His image. “We all with open face beholding as in a glass [or mirror katoptrizomenoi.] the glory, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the, Spirit of the Lord.” (2 Cor. 3.)
We must now ask the reader to turn, for a moment, to the following very important practical instructions – full of suggestive power for all Christian workers “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds, lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard be defiled.” (Deut. 22: 9.)
What a weighty principle is here! Do we really understand it? Do we see its true spiritual application? It is to be feared there is a terrible amount of “mingled seed” used in the so-called spiritual husbandry of the present day. How much of “philosophy and vain deceit.,” how much of “science falsely so called,” how much of “the rudiments of the world” do we find mixed up in the teaching and preaching throughout the length and breadth of the professing church! How little of the pure, unadulterated seed of the word of God, the “incorruptible seed” of the precious gospel of Christ, is scattered broadcast over the field of Christendom, in this our day! How few, comparatively, are content to confine themselves within the covers of the Bible for the material of their ministry! Those who are, by the grace of God faithful enough to do so, are looked upon as men of one idea, men of the old school, narrow and behind the times.
Well, we can only say, with a full and glowing heart, God bless the men of one idea, men of the precious old school of apostolic preaching! Most heartily do we congratulate them on their blessed narrowness, and their being behind these dark and infidel times. We are fully aware of what we expose ourselves to in thus writing; but this does not move us. We are persuaded that every true servant of Christ must be a man of one idea, and that idea is Christ; he must belong to the very oldest school, the school of Christ; he must be as narrow as the truth of God; and he must, with stern decision, refuse to move one hair’s breadth in the direction of this infidel age. We cannot shake off the conviction that the effort on the part of the preachers and teachers of Christendom to keep abreast of the literature of the day must, to a very large extent, account for the rapid advance of rationalism and infidelity. They have got away from the holy scriptures, and sought to adorn their ministry by the resources of philosophy, science and literature. They have catered more for the intellect than for the heart and conscience. The pure and precious doctrines of holy scripture, the sincere milk of the word, the gospel of the grace of God and of the glory of Christ, were found insufficient to attract and keep together large congregations. As Israel of old despised the manna, got tired of it, and pronounced it light food, so the professing church grew weary of the pure doctrines of that glorious Christianity unfolded in the pages of the New Testament, and sighed for something to gratify the intellect, and feed the imagination. The doctrines of the cross, in which the blessed apostle gloried, have lost their charm for the professing church, and any who would be faithful enough to adhere and confine themselves in their ministry to those doctrines might abandon all thought of popularity.
But let all the true and faithful ministers of Christ, all true workers in His vineyard apply their hearts to the spiritual principle set forth in Deuteronomy 22: 9; let them, with unflinching decision, refuse to make use of “divers seeds” in their spiritual husbandry; let them confine themselves in their ministry to “the form of sound words,” and ever seek “rightly to divide the word of truth,” that so: they may not be ashamed of their work, but receive a full reward in that day when every man’s work shall be tried of what sort it is. We may depend upon it, the word of God – the pure seed – is the only proper material for the spiritual workman to use. We do not despise learning; far from it, we consider it most valuable in its right place. The facts of science, too, and the resources of sound philosophy may all be turned to profitable account in unfolding and illustrating the truth of holy scripture. We find the blessed Master Himself and His inspired apostles making use of the facts of history and of nature in their public teaching; and who in his sober senses, would think of calling in question the value and importance of a competent knowledge of the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, in the private study and public exposition of the word of God?
But admitting all this, as we most fully do, it leaves wholly untouched the great practical principle before us-a principle to which all the Lord’s people and His servants are bound to adhere, namely, that the Holy Ghost is the only power, and holy scripture the only material for all true ministry in the gospel and the church of God. If this were more fully understood and faithfully acted upon, we should witness a very different condition of things throughout the length and breadth of the vineyard of Christ.
Here, however, we must close this section. We have elsewhere sought to handle the subject of “The Unequal Yoke,” and shall not therefore dwell upon it here.* The Israelite was not to plow with an ox and an ass together; neither was he to wear a, garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen. The spiritual application of both these things is as simple as it is important. The Christian is not to link himself with an unbeliever, for any object whatsoever, be it domestic, religious, philanthropic, or commercial, neither must he allow himself to be governed by mixed principles. His character must be formed and his conduct ruled by the pure and lofty principles of the word of God. Thus may it be with all who profess and call themselves Christians.
{*See a pamphlet entitled, “The Unequal Yoke.”}
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Deu 22:1-4. See Exo 23:4 f.* (JE) and Lev 6:1-7* (P), and cf. CH. 913.
Deu 22:5. Peculiar to Dt. In one of the rites of Canaanite, Phnician, and Syrian heathenism the sexes changed dresses (see references in Driver).
Deu 22:6 f. Respect for parenthood, so prominent in Dt. (Deu 21:18-21, cf. Deu 5:16) is the probable source of this law (peculiar to Dt.).
Deu 22:8. Another example of the hunianitarianism (Deu 15:12-18*) so characteiistic of Dt. In the East people spend much of their evenings on the flat roof of their houses (Jdg 16:27, 1Sa 9:25, 2Sa 11:2, etc.). They were used for religious ceremonies (Neh 8:16, Jer 19:13, Zep 1:5) and for private prayer (Act 10:9). Without such a parapet as is here prescribed, accidents would be common. The present writer has spent many a social evening in Palestine on such a house-top, always protected by a parapet or surrounding wall.blood: Deu 19:10.
Deu 22:9-11. Lev 19:19* (H).
Deu 22:12. See Num 15:37-41*.fringes: an inaccurate rendering due to LXX (cf. Mat 9:20, hem) [RV, border]. What is meant is a kind of tassel found still attached to the Jewish talith or prayer-shawl.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
LAWS THAT TEST TRUE DISCERNMENT
(vs.1-12)
The laws in this section require a proper consideration of God’s creation, whether of humans, animals, birds or even inanimate things. This involves our discernment of things from God’s viewpoint. If someone’s ox or sheep went astray, then one who saw this was responsible to see that it was brought back to its owner (v 1). If the owner was not known, the finder was to keep the animal until he found its owner (v.2). This is just as proper today as it was then. The same was to be true of any animal or with anything else belonging to another (v.3).
If a donkey or an ox should accidentally fall on the road, then it was only right that one who witnessed this should help to get the animal on its feet again, irrespective of who the owner was (v.4).
Verse 5 forbids a woman to wear man’s clothing or a man to wear women’s clothing, for it is an abomination to thus try to pass as a member of the opposite sex. If God has created one as a man, it is an insult to God for him to outwardly take the place of a woman, and similarly for a woman to take a man’s place. Let us rather be thankful for what God has made us and seek to bear faithfully the responsibilities of that place as well as to enjoy the blessings of it.
We may not understand why the eggs or young birds of a mother bird could be taken from her, but the mother not taken, but this must have a spiritual significance which escapes us (vs.6-7).
In a land of flat roofs, on which people commonly walked, the law required a parapet to protect anyone from falling (v.8). This is proper concern for the safety of others. We should be concerned also that they be protected from spiritual dangers.
In sowing a field, seeds were not to be mixed, but kept distinct (v.9). This reminds us of such truths as that of 2Co 6:14 : “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” Mixtures, whether of people or of principles, are not scriptural and will lead to confusion.
Verse 10 is similar, forbidding plowing with an ox and a donkey together. Thus, a believer is not to join with an unbeliever in doing the Lord’s work. Verse 11 refers to the garments worn, that two kinds of cloth were not to be used together. Garments speak of habits. Let them be clear and distinct, not compromised in any way.
The tassels on the four corners of one’s garment (v.12) are more fully explained in Num 15:38-40. The tassels were to have a blue thread in them. These were evidently on the lower edge of the garments, so that when one looked down, he has reminded to look up, for the blue speaks of heaven. The word “tassel” evidently means primarily a flower bud, speaking of fruitfulness and beauty in contrast to the drab desolation of the wilderness world through which we pass.
LAWS CONCERNING SEXUAL CONDUCT
(vs.13-30)
If a man had married a woman and afterward charged her with not being a virgin when he married her, the case was heard in the gate (the place of judgment). If her parents brought the clear evidence before the court that she had indeed been a virgin, so that her husband was falsely accusing her, then the man should be punished, being fined one hundred shekels of silver, which was given to the father of the young woman. But he would be required to keep her as his wife and was forbidden to divorce her (vs.13-19). We should naturally question, Was this fair to the wife? But this is one of the results of being under law. The wife would have to wait for eternity to balance this matter. How different is the case under grace, where believers have received the grace of God, so that they may show grace to one another. In the world today there are cases far more unfair than this one, but what a difference will be made if only souls are saved by faith in the Lord Jesus!
On the other hand, if the wife had been guilty of fornication and had hid this from her husband, she was to be stoned to death (vs.20-21). This was solemn judgment, but again, this was under law, and the same judgment cannot be carried out under grace, though the crime is abhorrent to God. But grace seeks to restore rather than to condemn.
In the case of a man committing adultery with a woman married to a husband, both the guilty man and the woman were to be put to death (v.22). This is justice. If such a sentence were carried out today, how many people would die! But too many people, taking advantage of God’s patient grace, think they can get away with much evil. What a shock it will be for many who have not actually received the .grace of God by faith, when they find themselves faced before God with all the evils they have so lightly practiced!
A young woman might be engaged to be married, yet consent to have sexual intercourse with another man. If the man enticed her, being in a city, she could cry out for help (vs.22-23). If she did not, then she was implicated in the guilt of adultery, and both were to be put to death.
In contrast to being in the city, where a woman’s cries for help could be heard, a man may have, in the country, forced a betrothed woman against her will in spite of her cries for help (v.25). This was rape, for which the man must die and the woman be held innocent (vs.26-27).
If a man and woman who were not married nor engaged were guilty of having sexual intercourse, the man must pay fifty shekels of silver to the woman’s father and keep her as his wife, being forbidden to ever divorce her (vs.28-29). In all of these things God shows the seriousness of having sexual relationships. He intended this only within the marriage bond, and those who today violate this can expect unpleasant consequences, as well as the displeasure of the Lord.
Finally, a man was not to take his father’s wife, that is, his stepmother. Whether his father had died or not, this was forbidden. Even among the Gentile nations this was recognized as thoroughly wrong (1Co 5:1). How much more so for Christians! Yet a man in the Corinthian assembly was guilty of this evil and had to be excommunicated (1Co 5:1-13).
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
22:1 Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and {a} hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.
(a) As though your did not see it.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Preventing accidental death 22:1-8
Love for one’s neighbor comes through in several concrete situations in Deu 22:1-4. Failure to get involved and help a neighbor in need is also wrong under the New Covenant (Jas 2:15-16; 1Jn 3:17).
Men appeared in women’s clothing and vice versa (Deu 22:5) in some of the worship rituals of Astarte. [Note: Ibid., p. 234.] Furthermore transvestism did and still does have associations with certain forms of homosexuality. [Note: Craigie, The Book . . ., p. 288.] Perhaps for these reasons God gave the command to wear clothing appropriate to one’s own sex as well as because God intended to keep the sexes distinct (Deu 22:5). Homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Lev 20:13).
"There are positive values in preserving the differences between the sexes in matters of dress. The New Testament instruction in Gal 3:28, that there is neither male nor female, but that Christians are all one in Christ Jesus, applies rather to status in God’s sight than to such things as dress. Without being legalistic some attempt to recognize the relative difference of the sexes, within their common unity as persons, is a principle worth safeguarding." [Note: Thompson, p. 234.]
Deu 22:6-7 show that God cares for the least of His creatures, and He wanted His people to do the same. Israelites could not kill mother birds along with their young or vice versa.
"The affectionate relation of parents to their young which God had established even in the animal world, was to be kept just as sacred [among animals as among humans, Deu 22:6-7]." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:410.]
Another view is that this law taught the Israelites to protect this important source of food, namely, eggs. [Note: Deere, p. 302. On the law of the bird’s nest (Deu 22:6-7), see Robert M. Johnston, "The Least of the Commandments: Deuteronomy 22:6-7 in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity," Andrews University Seminary Studies 20:3 (Autumn 1982):205-15.] Building parapets on their flat-roofed houses, to keep people from falling off, reminded them of the value of human life and to love their neighbors (Deu 22:8).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
LAWS OF PURITY (CHASTITY AND MARRIAGE)
IN dealing with the ten commandments it has been already shown that, though these great statements of religious and moral truth were to some extent inadequate as expressions of the highest life, they yet contained the living germs of all that has followed. But we cannot suppose that the reality of Israelite life from the first corresponded with them. They contained much that only the experience and teaching of ages could fully bring to light; therefore we cannot expect that the actual laws in regard to the relations of the sexes and the virtue of chastity should stand upon the same high level as the Decalogue. The former represent the reality, this the ultimate ideal of Israelite law on these subjects. But neither is unimportant in forming an estimate of the value of the revelation given to Israel, and of the moral condition of early Israel itself, nor can either be justly viewed altogether alone. The actual law at any moment in the history of Israel must be regarded as inspired and up-borne by the ideal set forth in the ten commandments. But it must, at the same time, be a very incomplete realization of these, and its various stages will be best regarded as installments of advance towards that comparative perfection.
In regard to the relations of the sexes and the virtue of purity this must be peculiarly the case. For though chastity has been safeguarded by almost all nations up to a certain low point, it has never been really cherished by any naturalistic system. Nor has it ever been favored by mere humanism. Consequently there is no point of morals in regard to which man has more conspicuously failed to work out the merely animal impulse from his nature than in this. And yet, for all the higher ends of life, as well as for the prosperity and vigor of mankind, purity in the sexual relations is entirely vital. One great cause of the decay of nations, nay, even of civilizations, has been the abandonment of this virtue. This was the main cause of the destruction of the Canaanites. It may even be said to have been the cause of the wreck of the whole ancient world. We should consequently measure what the Mosaic influence did for purity of life, not by comparing early Israelite laws with what has been accomplished by Christianity, but with the condition of the Semitic peoples surrounding Israel, in and after the Mosaic times.
What that was we know. Their religions, far from discouraging sexual immorality, made it a part of their holiest rites. Both men and women gave themselves up to natural and unnatural lusts, in honor of their gods. To the north, and south, and east, and west of Israel these practices prevailed, and as a natural result the moral fabric of these nations life fell into utter ruin. In private life adultery, and the still more degrading sin of Sodom were common. The man had a right to indiscriminate divorce and remarriage, and marriage connections now reckoned incestuous, such as those between brother and sister, were entirely approved. In all these points Israel as a nation was without reproach. The higher teaching this people had received in respect to the character of God, and it may be some reminiscence of Egyptian custom, which was in some respects purer than that of the Semitic peoples, raised them to a higher level. Yet in the main the early Israelite view of women was fundamentally the uncivilized one.
But at all periods of Israelite history, even the earliest, women had asserted their personality. In the eye of the law they might be the chattels of their male relatives, but as a fact they were dealt with as persons, with many personal rights. They had no independent position in the community, it is true. They could take no part in a festival so important as the Passover, nor were they free to make vows without the consent of their husbands. In other ways also social restraints were laid upon them. Nevertheless their position in early Israel was much higher than it is in the East today, and their liberty was in no wise unreasonably abridged. In Davids day women could appear in public to converse with men without scandal (Cf. 1Sa 25:18 ff.; 2Sa 14:1 ff.). They also took part in religious festivals and processions, giving, life to them by beating their timbrels, by singing, and by dancing (Cf. Exo 15:1-27 and 1Sa 18:6 f.). They could be present also at all ordinary sacrifices and at sacrificial feasts; and, as we see in the case of Deborah and others, they could occupy a high, almost a supreme, position as prophetesses. In the main, too, the relations between husband and wife were loving and respectful, and in Israels best days, when the people still remained landed yeomanry, the wife, by her industry within the house, supplemented and completed her husbands labor in the fields. The Israelite woman was consequently a very important person in the community whatever her status in law might be; and if she had not the full rights which are now granted to her sex in Western and Christian lands, her position was for the times a noble and independent one. That all this was so was largely due to the improvements which Mosaism wrought on the basis of that ancient Semitic custom which we sketched at the beginning of this chapter, and with which it seems natural to suppose the Israelite tribes had also begun.
Bearing these preliminary considerations in mind, we now go on to consider the actual legislation in regard to the relations of the sexes. But here we must once more, recall the fact that, in regard to all matters vitally affecting the community, there had always been a custom, and even before written law appears that custom had been adopted and modified in Yahwism by Moses himself. That this was actually the case here is rendered highly probable by the history of legislation in this matter. In the Book of the Covenant there is no mention of sexual sin, save in one passage, {Exo 22:16} where the penalty for seduction of a virgin who is not betrothed is that the seducer shall offer a “mohar” for her, and marry her without possibility of divorce, if her father consent. If he will not, then the “mohar” is forfeited to the father nevertheless, as compensation for the degradation of his daughter. But it is obvious that there must have been laws or customs regulating marriage other than this, for without them there could have been no such crime as is here punished. Obviously, also, there must have been laws or customs of divorce. But of what these laws of marriage and divorce were Exodus gives us no hint. Deuteronomy, the next code, which on the critical hypothesis arose at a much later time as a revision of the Book of the Covenant, contains much more, i.e., it draws out of the obscurity of unwritten custom a more extensive series of provisions in regard to purity. The Law of Holiness then adds largely to Deuteronomy, and with it the main points of the law of purity have attained to written expression. But the influence of the higher standard set in the Decalogue also makes itself felt, -not in the law so much as in the historic books and the prophets-and our task now is to trace out first the legal development, then the prophetical, and to show how the whole movement culminated and was crowned in the teaching of Christ.
Beginning then with Deuteronomy, we find that the chastity of women was surrounded by ample safeguards. Religious prostitution was absolutely prohibited. {Deu 23:18} Further, if any violence was done to a woman who had been betrothed, the punishment of the wrong was death; if done to a woman who was not betrothed, the wrong was atoned for by payment of fifty shekels of silver to her father, and by offering marriage without possibility of divorce. If marriage was refused, then the fifty shekels was retained by the father in consideration of the wrong done him. When the woman was a sharer in the guilt the punishment in all cases was death; while pre-nuptial unchastity, when discovered after marriage, was punished, as adultery also was, with the same severity. {Deu 22:13-18} In women who were free, therefore, purity was demanded in Israel as strenuously as it ever has been anywhere, though in man the only limit to sexual indulgence was the demand, that in seeking it he should not infringe upon the fathers property in his daughter, or the husbands in his wife or his betrothed bride.
Admittedly the original underlying motive for this moral severity was a low one, the mere proprietary rights of the father or husband. But it would be a mistake to suppose that purely ethical and religious motives had no place in establishing the customs or enactments which we find in Deuteronomy. With the lapse of time higher motives entwined themselves with the coarse strand of personal proprietary interest, which had originally, though perhaps never alone, been the line of limitation. Gradually there grew up a standard of higher purity; and when Deuteronomy was written, though the original line was still clearly visible, it was justified by appeals to a moral sense which reached far beyond the original motives of the customary law. The continually recurring burden of Deuteronomy in dealing with these matters is that to work “folly in Israel” is a crime for which only the severest punishment can atone. To “extinguish the evil from Israel,” and to put away such things as were “abominations to Yahweh their God,” are the great reasons on which the writer of Deuteronomy founds the claim for obedience in these cases. Obviously, therefore, by his time, under the teaching of the religion of Yahweh, Israel had risen to a moral height which took account of graver interests than the rights of property in legislating for female purity. The cases included in the law had been determined by considerations of that kind; but the sanctions by which the commands were buttressed had entirely changed their character. The holiness of God and the dignity of man, the consideration of what alone was worthy of a “son of Israel,” have taken the place of the coarser sanctions. In this way a possibility of unlimited moral progress was secured, since the cause of purity was indissolubly bound to the general and irresistible advance of religious and moral enlightenment in the chosen people.
Moreover the personality of the woman was acknowledged in the entire acquittal of the betrothed woman who had been exposed to outrage in the country, where her cries could bring no help. In the earliest times most probably the punishment of death would have been inflicted equally in that case, since the husbands property had been deteriorated to such a degree as to make it unworthy of him. But in the Deuteronomic provision quite other things are drawn into the estimate. The moral guilt of the person concerned is now the decisive consideration. The woman has ceased to be a mere chattel, and the full claims of her personality are in the way to be recognized. These were great advances, and for these it is vain to seek for other causes than the persistent upward pressure of the Mosaic religion. The moral superiority of Israel at the time of the conquest over the much more cultured Canaanites, as also over the nomadic tribes to which they were more nearly related, is due, as Stade says, ultimately to their religion; and no reader of the Old Testament, in our time at least, can fail to see that their moral progress ill the land they conquered depended entirely upon the same cause. At the Deuteronomic epoch purity had already been placed upon a worthy basis, as a moral achievement of the first importance, and impurity had taken its proper place as a degrading sin. But much still remained to be done before these principles could be extended into all domains of life equally.
How far they had penetrated in early times may perhaps best be seen in the Deuteronomic references to divorce. Before Deuteronomy there is no law of divorce, nor indeed is there any after it. We may perhaps even say that there is in it not so much the statement of a law of divorce, as a reference to custom which the writer wishes to correct or reinforce in one particular respect only. Notwithstanding the Jewish view, therefore, which finds in Deu 24:1-4 a divorce law, we must adduce the passage as a new and striking proof of what we have all along asserted, that neither Deuteronomy nor any other of the legal codes can be taken as complete statements of what was legally permitted or forbidden in Israel. Behind all of them there is a vast mass of unwritten customary law, and divorce was doubtless always determined by it. That this was the case will be seen at once if the passage we are now concerned with be rightly translated. It runs thus: “When a man taketh a wife and marrieth her, and it shall be (if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found in her some unseemly thing) that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it into her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, and she go forth out of his house and goeth and becometh the wife of another man, and if the latter husband also hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand and send her out of his house, or if the latter husband die who took her to him to wife, then her former husband who sent her away may not take her again to be his wife after that she has permitted herself to be defiled.” All the passage provides for, therefore, is that a divorced woman shall not be remarried to the divorcing man after she has been married again, even though she be separated from her second husband by divorce or death.
There is consequently no law of divorce here stated. There is merely a reference to a general law or custom by which divorce was permitted for “any unseemly thing,” and according to which a chief wife at any rate could be divorced only by a “bill of divorcement,” and not by mere word of mouth, as is common in many Eastern lands today. Mosaic influence may have procured this last slight increase in rigor, and Deuteronomy certainly adds three other restrictions, viz. that after remarriage a woman cannot be again married to her first husband, and that pre-nuptial wrong done to a woman by her husband, or a false accusation by him after marriage, takes away his right of divorce altogether. But the woman has no right of divorce at all, so firmly fixed throughout all Old Testament time was the belief in the inferiority of women. On the whole, therefore, divorce in Israel remained, after the law had dealt with it, much on the level to which the tribal customs had brought it. So far as the legislation dealt with it, it tended to restriction; but when all is said it remains true that the Israelite law of divorce was in the main much what it would have been had there been no revelation. But the spirit of the religion of Yahweh was against laxity in this matter, and this more rigorous feeling finds expression in the evident distaste for the remarriage of a divorced woman which is expressed Deu 24:4. Remarriage is not forbidden; but the woman who remarries is spoken of as one who has “let herself be defiled.” No such expression could have been used, had not remarriage after divorce been looked upon as something which detracted from perfect feminine purity. The legislator evidently regarded it as the higher way for a divorced woman to remain unmarried so long at least as the divorcing husband lived. If she remained so, the possibility of reunion was always kept open, and the law evidently looked upon the ultimate annulment of the divorce as the course which was most consonant with the ideal of marriage.
It is thus clearly seen how our Lords statement {Mat 19:8} -” Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been so”-is true.
And when we leave the law and come to history and prophecy, we find this view to have been a prevalent one from early times. In one of the earliest connected historical narratives, that of J, {Gen 2:24} the union of husband and wife is said to be so peculiarly intimate that it makes them one body, so that separation is equivalent to mutilation. And the prophets remain true to this conception of marriage, as the one which fitted best into their deeper and loftier views of morality. From Hosea onwards {Hos 2:19} they represent the indissoluble bond between Yahweh and His people as a marriage relation, founded on free choice and unchangeable love. The possibility of divorce is no doubt often admitted, and the conduct of Israel is represented as justifying that course. But the prophetic message always is that the love of God will never permit Him to put away His people; and the people are often addressed as faithless and faint-hearted, because they yield to the temptation of believing that He has cast them off. {Isa 1:1} Evidently, therefore, the prophetic ideal of marriage was that it should be indissoluble, that it should be founded upon free mutual love, and that such a love should make it impossible for either husband or wife to give the other up, however desperate the errors of the guilty one might have been.
Perhaps the finest expression of this view occurs in Isa 54:1-17 in the exhortation addressed to exiled Israel and beginning. “Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear.” There the ideal Israel is urged to lay aside all her fears with this assurance: “For thy Maker is thine husband; Yahweh of Hosts is His name: and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall He be called. For Yahweh hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit; how can a wife of youth be rejected? saith thy God.” The full meaning of this last touching question has been well brought out by Prof. Cheyne (Isa 2:1-22, p. 55): “Even many an earthly husband (how much more then Yahweh!) cannot bear to see the misery of his divorced wife, and therefore at length recalls her; and when his wife is one who has been wooed and won in youth, how impossible is it for her to be absolutely dismissed.” The rising tide of prophetic feeling on this subject culminates in the pathetic scene depicted by Malachi, who in Mal 2:12 ff. reproves his people for their cruel and frivolous use of divorce. Drawn away by love of idolatrous women, they had divorced their Hebrew wives; and these in their misery crowded the Temple, covering the altar of Yahweh with “tears and weeping and sobbing,” till He could endure it no more. He had been witness of the covenant made between each of these men and the wife of his youth; yet they had broken this Divinely sanctioned bond. He therefore warns them to take heed, “for Yahweh the God of Israel saith, I hate putting away, and him who covers his garment with violence.” The Rabbinic interpreters, not being minded to give up the privilege of divorce, have wrested these words into “for Yahweh the God of Israel saith, if he hate her put her away.” But, so wrested, the words bring down the whole context in one ruin. They are intelligible only if they denounce divorce, and in this sense they must undoubtedly be taken.
There remains for consideration, however, a marriage which the Deuteronomist permits, which seems to run counter to all the finer feelings and instincts of his later time. It is dealt with in Deu 25:5-10, and is notable because it is a clear breach of the definite rule that a man should not marry his deceased brothers wife. But it will be obvious at once that the permission of this marriage stands upon quite a different footing from the prohibition. It is permitted only in a special case for definite ends; and while the sanction of the prohibition is the infliction of childlessness, {Lev 20:21} the man who refuses to enter upon marriage with his deceased brothers wife is punished only by being put to shame by her before the elders of his city. We have not here, therefore, a law in the strict sense. It is only a recognition of a very ancient custom which is not yet abolished, though evidently public feeling was beginning to make light of the obligation. Its place in the twenty-fifth chapter, away from the marriage laws, {which are given in Deu 21:10 ff., Deu 22:13 ff., and Deu 24:1-4} and among duties of kindness, seems to hint this, and we may consequently take the law as a concession. That the custom was ancient in the time of Deuteronomy may be gathered from the fact that in Hebrew there is a special technical term, yibbem, for entering on such a marriage. The probability is, indeed, that levirate marriage was a pre-Mosaic custom connected with ancestor-worship. It certainly is practiced by many other races, e.g., the Hindus and Persians, whose religions can be traced to that source. Under that system, it was necessary that the male line of descent should be kept up in order that the ancestral sacrifices might be continued, and to bear the expense of this the property of the brother dying childless was jealously preserved. In India, at present, both purposes are served by adoption, either by the childless man or by the widow. In earlier times, when fatherhood was to a large extent a merely juridical relationship, when, that is to say, it was a common thing for a man to accept as his son any child born of women under his control, whether he were the father or not, the same end was also attained by this marriage. Originating in this way, the practice was carried over into the Israelite social life when it changed its form, and the motives for it were then brought into line with the new and higher religion. The motive of keeping alive the name and memory of the childless man was substituted for that of securing the continuance of his worship; and the purpose of securing the permanence of property, landed property especially, in each household, was substituted for that of supplying means for the sacrifice. Later, the motive connected with the transmission of property possibly became the main one. For, since the levirate marriage came in, according to the strict wording of our passage, whenever a man died without a son, whether he had daughters or not, this marriage would seem to have been an alternative means of keeping the property in the family to that of letting the daughters inherit. But the spirit of the higher religion, as well as a more advanced civilization, was unfavorable to it. The custom evidently was withering when Deuteronomy was written, though in Judaism it was not disallowed till post-Talmudic times.
The impression, therefore, which the laws and customs regulating the relations of men and women in Israel give to the candid student must be pronounced to be a strangely mixed one. It would probably not be too much to say that it is at first a deeply disappointing one. We have been accustomed to fill all the Old Testament utterances on this subject with the suffused light of Gospel precept and example, till we have lost sight of the lower elements undeniably present in the Old Testament laws and ideas concerning purity. But that is no longer possible. Whether of enmity or of zeal for the truth, these less worthy elements have been dragged forth into the broad light of day, and in that light we are called upon to readjust our thoughts so as to accept and account for them. Evidently at the beginning the Israelite tribes accepted the uncivilized idea of woman. On that as a basis, however, customs and laws regarding chastity, marriage, and divorce were adopted, which transcended and passed beyond that fundamental idea. The moral complicity of woman, or her innocence, in cases where her chastity had been attacked, came to be taken into account. Polygamy, though never forbidden, received grievous wounds from prophets and others of the sacred writers; and as marriage with one became more and more the ideal, the higher teachers of the people kept the indissolubleness of marriage before the public mind, till Malachi denounced divorce in Yahwehs name. In regard to the bars to marriage there was little change, probably, from the days of Moses; but the old family rules were reinforced by a deep and delicate regard for even the less palpable affections and relations which grew up in the home.
The final attainment, therefore, was great and worthy enough; but the cruder and less refined ideas, which had been inherited from pre-Mosaic custom, always make themselves felt, and have even dominated some of the laws. They dominated, even more, the practice of the people and the theory of the scribes; so that on the very eve of His coming who was to proclaim decisively the indissolubility of marriage, the great Jewish schools were wrangling whether mere caprice, or some immodesty only could justify divorce. Nevertheless the Decalogue, with its deep and broad command, culminating in prohibition even of inward evil desire, had always had its own influence. The teachings of the prophets, which breathe passionate hatred of impurity, had I taught all men of good-will in Israel that the wrath of God surely burned against it But the stamp of imperfection was upon Old Testament teaching here as elsewhere. Like the Messianic hope, like the future of Israel, like all Israels greatest destinies, the promise of a higher life in this respect was darkened by the inconsistencies of general practice; and uncertainty prevailed as to the direction in which men were to look for the harmonious development of the higher potencies which were making their presence felt. It was in them rather than in the law, in the ideals rather than in the practice of the people, that the hidden power was silently doing its regenerating work. The religion of Yahweh in its central content surrounded all laws and institutions with an atmosphere which challenged and furthered growth of every wholesome kind. The axe and hammer of the legislative builder was rarely heard at work; but in the silence which seems to some so barren, there slowly grew a fabric of moral and spiritual ideas and aspirations, which needed only the coming of Christ to make it the permanent home of all morally earnest souls.
With Him all that the past generations “had willed, or hoped, or dreamed of good” came actually to exist. He made what had been aspiration only the basis of an actual Kingdom of God. As one of its primary moral foundations He laid down the radical indissolubility of marriage, and made visible to all men, the breadth of the law given in the Decalogue by forbidding even wandering desires. In doing this He completely surpassed all Old Testament teaching, and set up a standard which Christian communities as such have held to hitherto, but which from lack of elevation and earnestness they seem inclined in these days to let slip. That such a standard was ever set up was the work of a Divine revelation of a perfectly unique kind, working through long ages of upward movement. Humanity has been dragged upwards to it most unwillingly. Men have found difficulty in living at that height, and nothing is easier than to throw away all the gain of these many centuries. All that is needed is a plunge or two downwards. But if ever these plunges are taken, the long, slow effort upwards will only have to be begun again, if family life is to be firmly established, and purity is to become a permanent possession of men.