Continuing a chronological Bible study:
(Deuteronomy 22:1) “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall in any case bring them back to your brother."
Moses continued reviewing laws with the people of Israel, as he had been doing for most of the book of Deuteronomy. Here he discussed humanity toward their brethren. If one saw that his brother's ox or sheep had gone or been driven astray, he was not to pretend he did not notice and continue on his way, but he was to bring it back to his brother.
(2) “And if your brother is not near to you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks after it, and you shall restore it to him again."
In the case of strays belonging to someone far away, or if the owner was not known, they were to be brought to the finder's own house and cared for, until the owner sought after them. The one who found the strays was to then give them back to their owner.
(3) "In like manner shall you do with his ass, and so shall you do with his clothing; and with any lost thing of your brother's, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you may not hide yourself."
The same applied to his donkey, his clothing, or any lost thing of his brother. He was not to pretend he didn't see the lost thing, but was to return it to his brother or protect it until his brother came looking for it.
(4) “You shall not see your brother’s ass or his ox fall down along the way and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again."
Additionally, if one was to see his brother's donkey or ox fall down, he must not act as if he didn't see it and continue on his way; he was to help his brother lift the animal up again. Basically, all these acts are summed up by the golden rule, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We must act in love and help our brother in distress as we will surely need help one day and would hope someone was there to help us.
(5) "The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are abomination to the LORD your God."
Women were not to wear men's clothing and men weren't to wear women's clothing as confusing the sexes that way was an abomination to the Lord. This should not be understood as simply putting on the other sex's clothing for one occasion, as the warrior Deborah might have worn men's garments into battle. Perhaps a man might dress as a woman to escape capture. Those cases wouldn't be abomination to the Lord. The sense is that one should not seek to alter what has been naturally and divinely established; altering the order of nature would demonstrate contempt for God's creation. A man wearing the under clothes of a woman because it brings him sensual pleasure is a means for self-gratification rather than a deep, intimate human connection, which has been God's plan from the beginning. In Moses's time it is likely this confusing of garments had been used to gain opportunity of committing sexual impurity, as with the case of Clodius who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in a feast reserved solely for women, purportedly with the intention of seducing Caesar's wife. A woman might dress like a man to gain the attention of a woman because of homosexual desires. These are the reasons that cross dressing would be an abomination to the Lord. As with all God's laws, it's the heart behind the act that matters. Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-28, "You have heard that it was said by them of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
(6) “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; (7) You shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days."
This is said to be the least of all the commandments of the law of Moses. Yet, as Matthew Henry pointed out in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "the same promise is here made to the observance of it that is made to the keeping of the fifth commandment, which is one of the greatest, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days; for as disobedience in a small matter shows a very great contempt of the law, so obedience in a small matter shows a very great regard to it." If a bird's nest was in the way and it had to be disturbed, one was permitted to take the eggs or the young birds, but not the mother bird; she was to be allowed to fly away. In a very practical sense, it makes good common sense, that to destroy both young and old, would make the breed soon become extinct, and destroying animal species in the land would necessarily shorten men's lives in the land that depended on animals. From the beginning in Genesis, God gave man dominion over the animals, and after the flood, God said specifically that all animals could be used for food. However, there are numerous scriptures against cruelty to animals. This particular passage shows an especial tenderness by the Lord for a mother and her young as has been seen in other scriptures, such as not killing a mother and her young both in one day (Leviticus 22:28) and not boiling a kid in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19). Laws like these taught humanity and compassion, but I can't help but take note of what regard the Lord seems to have in these type of laws for the mother and child bond.
(8) “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your house if any man falls from it."
When the people built houses, they were to make them safe. The roofs were generally flat in those times and were often walked upon, so there were occasions when one might fall off the roof if there wasn't a parapet or some such wall to protect against falling. The law was said to protect against guilt of bloodshed implying that one who didn't make a parapet for his roof would indeed be guilty of a man's death who might fall off his roof and die. The same such common sense measures are applied now, for example, covering a well or fencing around a swimming pool, so that fatal accidents be avoided.
(9) “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse seeds, lest the fruit of your seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled."
This and the next two laws don't appear to be morally evil in themselves, but as God's people were to be pure and were not to intermarry with the heathens, so should their vineyards remain pure and not mixed. As Matthew Henry wrote, "They must not gratify their own vanity and curiosity by putting those things together which the Creator in infinite wisdom had made asunder..."
(10) “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together."
The people were not to plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. They could use each separately, but were not to use them together. This seems to be a very good illustration of not being unequally yoked with unbelievers, or of mingling with the unclean, as an ox with a donkey.
(11) “You shall not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woolen and linen together."
Once again here is a law that seems to have no moral or ethical foundation, but would serve to teach the people to be pure and not to experiment with the mixing of fabrics. For one thing, it's a wise and practical law because mixing fabrics that do not wash and wear in the same ways would make for ill-fitting and motley-looking garments. Additionally, as I quoted from Matthew Henry above, it might be seen as a vain and prideful thing to mix and match colors and fabrics.
(12) “You shall make fringes upon the four quarters of your vesture, with which you cover yourself."
The Israelites were to put fringes on the four corners of their cover garments. In Numbers 15:38-39, they were told to do this so that they might look upon the fringes as reminders of God's commandments. Additionally, it could be for a public profession of their nation and religion, and as God's special people, they might be distinguished from other peoples. They were called to be pure and set apart, and the previous few laws were illustrative of this.
(13) “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and hates her, (14) And gives occasions of speech against her, and brings up an evil name upon her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maiden,' (15) Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the evidence of the damsel's virginity to the elders of the city in the gate."
This law covers the case of a man who took a wife and was intimate with her, but then decided he didn't like her. He then talked badly about her and accused her of not being a virgin when he married her. It was up to the parents of the woman to bring forth the evidence of their daughter's virginity to the elders of their city. What evidence that was is not explained here, but no doubt the people of the time understood what evidence was required to prove a daughter's virginity.
(16) "And the damsel's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he hates her; (17) And, lo, he has given occasions of speech against her, saying, "I found your daughter not a maiden," and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city."
The father of the maiden who had been slandered would present her case to the elders and provide the evidence of her virginity. Again, what exactly this could be is unknown, but it appears there was physical evidence that would be shown to the elders.
(18) "And the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; (19) And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the damsel, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel, and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days."
The man who lied about his wife's virginity was to be punished and fined 100 shekels of silver to be given to her father, as his lie had been injurious to the reputation of the woman's family. The man would not be allowed to ever divorce his wife. Dr. John Gill pointed out in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, that it was permitted within the law to divorce a wife, but the man would have to give his wife a dowry. It appears in this case, the man sought to save himself the dowry and chose to lie and ruin her reputation. For this evil act, the fine he paid was double what the dowry would have been, according to Dr. Gill, which seems a reasonable punishment.
(20) “But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the damsel; (21) Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she has wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house; so shall you put evil away from among you."
However, if it was found that the husband was telling the truth and there was found no evidence to prove his wife's virginity before their marriage, then the woman was to be brought to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city were to stone her to death. The reason given was that she had wrought folly or foolishness in Israel. Actually, the archaic meaning of the word folly was wickedness or wantonness, and that is more likely what is meant here. Because she had played the whore in her father's house which is where she had been before her marriage, she was brought back to his door. With this punishment, the children of Israel put away such evil from among them. They literally put away the evil one in this case, and by that example, deterred other young women from such action.
(22) “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away evil from Israel."
If any man, married or unmarried, lay with a married woman, then both of them were to be put to death for the crime of adultery. Again this was said to put away evil from Israel.
(23) “If a damsel who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, (24) Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she did not cry out, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away evil from among you."
If a young virgin who was betrothed to a husband, but not yet married and the marriage not yet consummated, was found in the city and a man lay with her, and she did not cry out, indicating her consent, both the man and the woman were to be brought to the gate of that city and stoned to death. This was seen as adultery even though the woman was not yet married. She was promised to her husband and the man who lay with her had taken what should have been her husband's alone. Note this was just indicated for the woman in a city. The young woman probably shouldn't have been wandering the city alone, exposing herself to temptation. If she was completely innocent, she would have cried out against the man trying to take advantage of her.
(25) "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, then the man only that lay with her shall die."
However, if a man found a young betrothed woman in the field and he forced himself on her to lie with her, then the man only was to be put to death. The young woman alone in a field would not be seen as curiously tempting fate, and the fact that she was alone in a field meant that there would be no one to help her if she cried out.
(26) "But to the damsel you shall do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death; as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter. (27) For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."
Only the man who forced himself on the young woman was to be put to death. It was to be assumed that the young woman cried out, and there was no one to save her. Just as when a man rose up against another and killed him, only the murderer was guilty of sin, and this matter of rape was to be judged the same way.
(28) “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, (29) Then the man who lay with her shall give to the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
If a man found a young woman who was a virgin but was not betrothed to another, and he lay with her, and they were found out, then the man was to marry the woman and give her father a dowry of fifty shekels of silver. In this particular case, the man was not allowed to ever divorce the woman. Although divorce was permissible in some cases, because this man had defiled the young virgin, no matter how unpleasing she might afterward be to him, his "punishment" was that he could never divorce her. This was to deter young men from acting rashly and taking advantage of young virgins.
(30) "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt."
In conclusion of this chapter, a man was forbidden to marry his father's wife, or to lie with her whom his father had thrown his skirt over. This is understood to be the young man's stepmother, his father's second wife. Otherwise, it would have read that he not take his mother. Even if his father had married a much younger woman and then he died, his son was not to marry his widow, as it would be to uncover what was only to have been revealed to his father, his father's "nakedness" as it has been referred to in previous passages (Leviticus 18:8).
