Deuteronomy 22

The major emphasis in these chapters is on how the law of the Lord governed relationships in the nation of Israel. The material is so varied that perhaps the best way to study what Moses said is to arrange it in general categories.

Protecting the family (21:15–21; 24:1–5; 25:5–10) The foundation for human society is the family, a gift from God for which no successful substitute has been found. Sociologist Margaret Mead said, “No matter how many communes anybody invents, the family keeps creeping back.” It was God who established the home and in so doing remedied the only thing that was “not good” in His creation, that the man was alone (Gen. 1:26–31; 2:18–25). The people of Israel were commanded to honor father and mother (Ex. 20:12), and since four generations might live together as an extended family, that honor covered a lot of territory.

The firstborn son (21:15–17). The original divine pattern for marriage was one man and one woman devoted to each other for one lifetime, and the two exceptions—polygamy and divorce—were permitted in Israel because of the “hardness of men’s hearts” (Matt. 19:3–9). The first polygamist was Lamech, a rebel against God (Gen. 4:19), and the men in Scripture who followed his example brought heartache and trouble into their homes. Jacob discovered that having multiple wives meant competition and friction in the home and brought a great deal of grief into the family (Gen. 29:30; 31:1ff.). God overruled the selfishness in the home and accomplished His purposes in building the nation, but some of the family members paid a price.

At Passover, God spared the firstborn Jewish males who were sheltered by the blood of the lamb. In honor of this gracious miracle, He commanded that all the firstborn of Israel, man and beast, should be dedicated to Him (Ex. 13:1–16). Israel was God’s firstborn son (4:22–23), and Israel’s firstborn also belonged to Him. It was also ordained that the firstborn son in the family would inherit a double portion of the estate. If there were two sons, the elder son received two-thirds and the younger son one-third. Nothing could change this law, not even the husband’s love for his favorite wife.

In salvation history, it should be noted that God occasionally bypassed the firstborn son and chose the second born. Abraham’s firstborn son was Ishmael, but God chose Isaac,and Esau was Isaac’s firstborn, but God chose Jacob (Rom. 9:6–13). Jacob gave the special blessing to Ephraim, Joseph’s second son, and not to Manasseh, the firstborn (Gen. 48). God doesn’t accept our first birth, which is of the flesh, but offers us a second birth, a spiritual birth, that makes us His firstborn children (John 3:1–18; Heb. 12:23).

The rebellious son (vv. 18–21). This boy was the original “prodigal son” (Luke 15:11–32), except that he didn’t leave home to disobey the fifth commandment, dishonor his parents, and disgrace his community. Day after day, he resisted the pleas, warnings, and chastenings of his parents as he refused to work, reveled with the drunkards, and contributed nothing to the home or the community. This kind of sin was so heinous that it was included in the curses read in the land of Canaan (Deut. 27:16; see Ex. 21:17).

This was more than a family concern, for it involved the peace and reputation of the community. The solidarity of the people of Israel was an important element in their civil, social, and religious life, for the sin of a single person, family, city, or tribe could affect the whole nation (see Deut. 13; Josh. 7:1–15). This is also true of the church, for as members of one spiritual body (1 Cor. 12), we belong to each other and we affect each other (1 Cor. 5). The parents of the rebellious son were to take him to the local council at the gate, bear witness of his rebellion and obstinacy, and let the council decide. If the boy refused to change his ways, then the only verdict was death by stoning, with all the men of the community participating. Why? In order to “put away evil” and to warn other profligates of what might happen to them. The phrase “put away evil” is found nine times in Deuteronomy (see 13: and references), and the phrase “hear and fear” four times (13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21). The Lord and Moses believed that the public punishment of offenders could be a detriment to others sinning. Furthermore, the future of that family was at stake if this son were allowed to continue in his sins.

This “law of the prodigal” helps us understand one aspect of our Lord’s parable, the fact that the father ran to meet his son (Luke 15:20). In the East, it isn’t customary for older men to run. Of course, the father’s love for his son compelled him to hasten to meet him, but there was something else involved. The news of this boy’s wicked life in the far country had certainly drifted back to his hometown, and the law-abiding citizens knew that he had disgraced their city. Seeing the boy approach, the elders at the gate might have been tempted to refuse to let him in, or in their anger, they might have picked up stones to stone him! But with the father holding the boy in his arms, kissing him, and welcoming him, the elders could do nothing. Had anybody thrown stones, they would have hit the father. This speaks to us of Calvary where God took our punishment for us that He might be able to welcome us home.

Divorce (24:1–4). It’s bad enough when a family has a rebellious son to disturb the home, but it’s even worse when the husband and wife don’t get along and the marriage breaks up. The original Edenic law of marriage said nothing about divorce (Gen. 2:18–25). Marriage is fundamentally a physical union (“one flesh”), so only a physical reason can dissolve it, and there are two such reasons: the death of one spouse (Rom. 7:1–3; 1 Cor. 7:39) and adultery (Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:10). The adulterous man and woman were killed, leaving the innocent spouses free to remarry. The law of Moses did not allow divorce for adultery because the guilty spouse was stoned to death for his or her sin.

Since the “uncleanness” (“something indecent,” niv) couldn’t be adultery, what was it that it permitted a man to divorce his wife? In our Lord’s day, the rabbinical school of Hillel took a very broad view and interpreted “uncleanness” to mean “anything that displeased the husband.” But the school of Rabbi Shammai took the narrow view that “uncleanness” meant some kind of sexual sin. (See Matt. 5:31–32; 19:1–9; Mark 10:1–12.) Jesus didn’t define “uncleanness” but made it clear that the Mosaic law of divorce was a concession and not a command. God permitted it because of the hardness of the human heart. However, it appears that Jesus did permit divorce if one of the spouses committed adultery. The assumption is that the innocent spouse was free to remarry; otherwise, why get a divorce?

When our Lord permitted divorce because of adultery, He was equating divorce with death. The church doesn’t have the right to kill people for committing adultery or any other sin, but they can accept divorce as the equivalent of death, thus leaving the innocent partner free to remarry. Jesus affirmed the priority of the original Edenic law of marriage, but He also granted this concession. Of course, it’s better that the guilty party confess the sin, repent, and be restored and forgiven, but this doesn’t always happen. Sin is the great destroyer, and where the privileges are the highest, as in marriage, the pain of that sin is the greatest.

The “bill of divorcement” was an official document that protected the women from slander and abuse and also gave her the privilege of a second marriage. The time that was required to secure this document would give the husband opportunity to think the matter through and possibly reconsider. He would lose what was left of the marriage price or dowry, and that might be costly. Too many separations and divorces are the result of built-up emotions, festering wounds, and thoughtless words that could have been avoided if the spouses had been honest with each other, talked things over, and sought the Lord’s help earlier in the problem.

Should her second marriage end in divorce, the woman was forbidden to return to her former husband because she had been “defiled” (Deut. 24:4). Perhaps this means that the consummation of the second marriage was considered adultery, because only death or adultery could dissolve the marriage. (Adultery is called “defilement” in Lev. 18: and Num. 5:13–14.) For her to return to the first husband would cheapen her and make her nothing but a piece of property that could be bought and sold at will.

Deferment (v. 5). This law has been considered in 20:7. Any able-bodied man could take the new husband’s place in the army but nobody could take his place at home. His wife would suffer from the pain of separation from her beloved and, if he died in battle, the sorrow of bereavement. This law shows the high value God puts on human love and the responsibilities of marriage.

Levirate marriage (vv. 5–10). The word “levirate” comes from the Latin and means “a husband’s brother,” i.e., a brother-in-law. It was this law that the Sadducees used when they tried to trip up Jesus (Matt. 22:23–33). Basically, this law required a deceased man’s brother to marry the widow and have children by her so that the name of the deceased wouldn’t perish from Israel. However, there were some special conditions to observe. First, the married brother and single brother had to live together; second, the married couple had to be childless; and, third, the single brother had to be willing to marry the widow and have children by her.

The first requirement—“living together”—didn’t demand a common house but only that the brothers lived near each other (Gen. 13:6). The wife, therefore, wasn’t a stranger to her brother-in-law. As to the second requirement, if the couple were not childless, there would be no need for the second marriage. In fact, it was against the law for a brother-in-law to marry his sister-in-law if they had children (Lev. 18:16). The third requirement was the critical one: would the brother-in-law be willing to marry his brother’s widow? The unnamed relative in the book of Ruth refused to marry Ruth because it would have jeopardized his own inheritance (Ruth 4:1–6).

If the man refused to marry her, the woman took her case to the elders at the gate and they would try to reason with the man. No doubt they would point out that childless widows needed protection and that his late brother needed an heir to maintain the family name and property. If he still refused, then the widow could publicly humiliate him by spitting in (or before) his face (Num. 12:14) and removing his sandal. To put your foot down on land or cast your shoe on it meant to claim it for yourself (Gen. 13:17; Josh. 10:24; Ps. 60:8; 108:9), while to take off your shoe meant to relinquish any claim to the property. If the brother married later and had a family, that family would be known as “the house of the barefooted one.” Only the poor, mourners, and prisoners of war went barefoot (Isa. 20:2–4; Mic. 1:8; Luke 15:22), but to get your shoes back was to be reinstated in society (2 Chron. 28:15; Luke 15:22). By refusing to honor his dead brother, the man brought dishonor on himself and his family.

Because the Israelites were God’s chosen people, separated from other nations, practices that were acceptable in pagan cultures were prohibited to the Jews. God set apart the priests and Levites to teach the people how to know right from wrong and the clean from the unclean, and this helped the people develop discernment. As they obeyed God and sought His blessing, they learned more and more of what was fitting and proper in Jewish society. The nation decayed spiritually because the priests and Levites failed to do their job, and the Jews began to imitate their heathen neighbors (Ezek. 22:23–29; 44:23).

Clothing (v. 5). The familiar and now accepted word “unisex” first appeared in print in Life magazine (June 21, 1968) in an article describing unisex clothing as “good fashion as well as good fun.” In this verse, God calls it “an abomination.” However, people who agree with Moses don’t always agree with each other on how this law should be applied in the church. Since Christians aren’t under the old covenant, some believers disregard the law completely, while others use it to tell the women in their churches how they should dress, both at home and in public. We can’t ignore God’s revelation in the Old Testament, because Jesus and the apostles used the Old Testament in their discussions of spiritual concerns. Even if this law about clothing doesn’t apply to the church in the same way it applied to Israel, there are spiritual principles behind it that are important to us (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

To begin with, this law doesn’t focus only on clothing. Literally it says, “There shall not be man’s things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman’s clothes.” The phrase “man’s things” could refer to anything that was commonly associated with men in that culture, including clothing, tools, and weapons. If we apply this law strictly to believers today, then we have to determine in every culture and in every circumstance what things are feminine and what things are masculine, and that might not be easy to do. Semitic men wore earrings and other gold jewelry, a practice frowned upon by some churches today. That this verse is a prohibition of transvestitism is clear, but could a man in Western culture use a woman’s umbrella or wear her raincoat?

Moses was reminding the people that there is a distinction between the sexes, established by God from the very beginning, and that God wants us to maintain this distinction. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). By divine wisdom, man and woman were made for each other but were made to be different from each other. Many nations in the ancient world approved and practiced homosexuality, even in their religion, but God prohibited it in Israel and made it a capital crime (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). The maintaining and honoring of sexual distinctions neither demeans the woman nor exalts the man. Both were created by God in His image and both shared in the creation blessing and mandate (Gen. 1:28–31). To blur their distinctives, so that men are no longer distinguishable from women is to bring confusion to God’s order for His world (1 Cor. 11:1–16; 1 Tim. 2:9–15).

If men and women in Israel had been allowed to “cross dress,” it would have made it easier for them to sin. All the adulterer had to do was put on women’s clothing and nobody would know who was visiting the neighbor’s house. In today’s society, disguises are no longer needed. In fact, sexual sins are standard fare in media entertainment, and people don’t seem to be ashamed of what they see or do. Furthermore, “cross dressing” would mean imitating the pagan nations that used such practices in their religious rituals. “Be not conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2) doesn’t mean that Christians should look like they came from another world or out of a time warp. Dedicated Christians will not only look and act like Christians, but they’ll also look and act like men and women. This also applies to children and young people. Fashions change and cultures differ, but Christian girls and women should always dress modestly (1 Tim. 2:9) in garments suited to the occasion, and so should men and boys.

The principle behind the law is that of separation from the world and recognition of God’s order for men and women. It’s a principle that helps us honor God and avoid confusion and sin. To say that we have to obey the letter of this law today is to miss the point. Does this also mean we can’t wear garments with mixed fibers (Deut. 22:11) or that we must sew tassels on our clothing (v. 12; see Num. 15:37–40; Matt. 23:5)? Perhaps the prohibition about mixed fabrics is a further reminder of Israel’s responsibility to be separated from the other nations that practiced these things, perhaps as part of their religious system.

Farming (vv. 9–10; Lev. 19:19). By not yoking different kinds of animals together, the Jews were again recognizing God’s order in nature. There was also the matter of separation, for the ox was a clean animal and the ass an unclean animal. From a practical point of view, the animals have different temperaments, and their being yoked together could only create problems. Keeping the various seeds separated when sowing the fields was also recognition of the principle of separation. It’s possible that the pagan nations mingled their seed as a part of their fertility rites in connection with their gods.

Whether they were weaving garments, plowing with their farm animals, or sowing their seed, the Jewish people were to remember that they were God’s people and therefore a separated people. This was the old covenant version of 1 Corinthians 10:31, “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (nkjv).

“Sex has become one of the most discussed subjects of modern times,” said Fulton J. Sheen. “The Victorians pretended it did not exist; the moderns pretend that nothing else exists.” God created sex and has every right to control the way we use it, and if we obey Him, it will bring enrichment and enjoyment. One of the basic rules is that sex must not be experienced outside of the bonds of marriage. The law of Moses and the New Testament magnify personal purity and the importance of honesty and loyalty in marriage.

The slandered wife (vv. 13–21). The sexual purity of women was important in Israel in order to maintain the integrity of the family line and therefore the integrity of the tribes. The legitimacy of a man’s sons guaranteed the protection and perpetuation of the family name and the family property. To us, this seems like a double standard, for there was no law by which the woman could test her husband’s fidelity. But the issue here isn’t just personal morality so much as family legitimacy, the preventing of an illegitimate son from entering the family. If on consummating the marriage the husband discovered that his wife was not a virgin, then it was possible that she was already pregnant. If the husband didn’t act immediately to protect himself, he would have to accept a child fathered by another man, but how could he prove it?

On the marriage night, the wise bride provided herself with a marriage cloth that would be stained with her blood at the consummation of the marriage. This would be proof that she was indeed a virgin when she married. If later on her husband said otherwise, she and her parents could present the marriage cloth as evidence. No faithful woman would want her reputation blemished or her future destroyed just because of a hateful man’s lie. The elders would beat the husband, fine him twice the bride price (vv. 19 and 29), the equivalent of ten years’ wages, and order that he could never divorce her. The law punished the man and protected the woman.

But if the accusation was proven true, the woman would be stoned to death in front of her father’s house, because it was while she was living there that she had sinned. It’s also possible that the parents already knew that their daughter was not a virgin and had lied to the husband. These parents could never walk out their front door without seeing the place where their daughter had been stoned to death. “The wages of sin is death.”

Adultery (vv. 22–24). Fornication is intercourse between single people while adultery involves at least one married person. Those who were found committing adultery were stoned to death. (In the episode described in John 8:1–11, we wonder what happened to the man.) A Jewish girl engaged to be married was considered to be a man’s wife (Deut. 22:24), and if she had intercourse in a city, it was considered adultery and she was stoned. This was true even if the intercourse was more like rape, for she could have cried out for help. Even if nobody came in time to rescue her, her cries were evidence that she wasn’t cooperating in the deed. Her silence would have implied consent.

Rape (vv. 25–29). An engaged woman attacked in the country could cry out and not be helped because nobody was there to hear and come to her aid. Therefore the man was stoned to death but the woman was allowed to live. Nothing is said about her future wedding, for perhaps her fiancé wouldn’t want her if she had lost her virginity. About this, Moses is silent.

The man who raped a girl who was not engaged had to marry the girl and pay her father the bride price of fifty shekels, and he was forbidden to divorce her. We wonder how successful marriages will be that begin with lust and are held together only by law. But once again, the law protected the woman and punished the man.

Incest (v. 30). The woman here is stepmother to the man committing the sin and not his mother (see Lev. 18:7–8). Leviticus 20: condemns them both to death. This sin was among those condemned on Mount Ebal (Deut. 27:20). Apparently this was the sin of the man in the Corinthian church who needed to be disciplined (1 Cor. 5).