Deuteronomy Chapter 22
Various Laws
A. Laws to Demonstrate Kindness and Purity
1. (Deuteronomy 22:1–4) Kindness to your brother regarding his animals
_“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.”
The Lord commanded Israel to actively practice love toward their neighbor by refusing to ignore the needs of others. To “see… and hide thyself” is to deliberately withhold compassion. Indifference is treated as sin. This law confronts the heart that says, “It is not my problem,” and instead requires practical righteousness. Proverbs 3:27–28 says, “Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it… Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again… when thou hast it by thee.” God does not only condemn the one who commits evil, but also the one who refuses to do good when it is within his reach.
God extended this duty beyond close relationships. If the animal belonged to “thy brother,” or even if the owner was unknown or far away, the finder was to secure it, care for it, and restore it to him again when he came seeking it. This prohibited greed. One could not claim, “finders keepers.” Leviticus 19:11 commands, “Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another,” which applies even when theft is passive rather than active. Righteousness meant safeguarding another man’s property, even at personal inconvenience.
This same ethic is demanded even toward an enemy. Exodus 23:4–5 says, “If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again… thou shalt surely help with him.” God requires His people to overcome animosity with righteousness. Jesus later affirmed this heart in the New Testament when He said, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12). Neighbor-love is not sentimental feeling, but practical obedience.
The command also extends to acts of mercy. If an animal fell under its burden, the believer must “surely help him to lift them up again.” This is manual, physical work. True compassion is not merely emotional but active. To refuse is to sin against God and man. James 4:17 declares, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Indifference before a need is not neutral; it is guilt. Likewise, 1 John 3:17 says, “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”
In this law, we see the character of God Himself—One who cares for what is lost and restores what has gone astray. He calls His people to reflect His nature. This principle anticipates the heart of Christ, the Good Shepherd, who came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10) and who does not pass by the broken, but bears their burdens.
2. (Deuteronomy 22:5) A command to keep distinction between the sexes in clothing
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
God here commands Israel to maintain clear, God-ordained distinctions between male and female. In the ancient world, both men and women often wore similar types of garments such as robes or tunics; however, they were tailored, styled, and worn in distinctly different ways. This law does not focus on a particular garment type (robe, tunic, cloak), but on the intentional crossing of gender boundaries through clothing or presentation in order to blur or erase the distinctions God established at creation. Genesis 1:27 declares, “So God created man in his own image… male and female created he them.” Clothing, therefore, was not merely functional, but symbolic of identity, role, and divine order.
To “wear that which pertaineth unto a man” means more than borrowing a jacket; it refers to adopting attire, appearances, or accessories specifically designed to appear as the opposite sex, thereby rejecting the role God assigned. The same applies to a man wearing a woman’s garment. The purpose here is not legalism over fabric, but preservation of created order. First Corinthians 11:14–15 says, “Doth not even nature itself teach you…?” Nature itself recognizes male and female distinctions. God built this difference into biology, appearance, and social function.
This verse is also tied to ceremonial purity and moral order. Many pagan religions, such as those that worshipped Ashtoreth or Astarte, involved cross-dressing priests and priestesses as part of fertility rituals. Historians like Lucian and Eusebius record men dressing as women in temple ceremonies. Therefore, cross-dressing was not merely a fashion issue but associated with idolatry and sexual perversion. God’s people were forbidden from mimicking such practices. Romans 12:2 commands, “And be not conformed to this world…”
It is important to note that this passage does not forbid every garment shared between male and female use (such as general clothing protection or climate garments), nor does it address cultural variations like Scottish kilts or Middle Eastern robes when such clothing is distinctly masculine within that culture. The focus is on intentionally adopting the dress of the opposite sex to confuse, obscure, or reject gender identity. It is a moral law, not a mere cultural preference.
God emphasizes the seriousness of this law by calling it “an abomination unto the LORD.” This is the same strong term used for idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:25) and sexual perversion (Leviticus 18:22). Why? Because when gender distinctions are blurred, marriage roles, family structure, and societal order begin to collapse. When the creature seeks to redefine what God has created, rebellion is taking place at its core. Isaiah 5:20 warns, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil… that put darkness for light.” The current rise in transgenderism, cross-dressing, and rejection of biological sex is not new—it is an ancient rebellion resurfacing.
This law protects the honor of manhood and womanhood. Each gender is God’s design, not a social construct. To despise or reject that identity is to despise the Creator. The New Testament reaffirms this principle by declaring, “Male and female created he them” (Mark 10:6) and by warning against effeminacy and gender distortion in 1 Corinthians 6:9.
3. (Deuteronomy 22:6–7) A command to show kindness to animals
“If a bird’s 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 upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.”
This law shows that God cares even for the smallest creatures and expects His people to imitate His compassion. If an Israelite came across a bird’s nest with the mother sitting over her young or her eggs, he was permitted to take the eggs or the young birds for necessary provision, but he was forbidden from seizing the mother along with them. God preserved the life of the mother so that she might reproduce again and sustain creation’s order. This reflects a moral pattern: man may use animals for food and sustenance, but he must not act with needless cruelty or consume in a way that destroys future life. Psalm 145:9 declares, “The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works,” showing that kindness to animals flows from the nature of God Himself.
Jewish teachers sometimes referred to this as the “least” commandment, yet God attached a blessing to it—“that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.” This is the same promise associated with honoring father and mother in Exodus 20:12 and Ephesians 6:2–3. Even in the smallest matters, obedience positions a person under divine favor. This teaches Israel that no command of God is insignificant, and no act of obedience is wasted. Jesus later said, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much” (Luke 16:10).
Matthew Poole notes that this command restrains both unnecessary cruelty and covetous greed. To take both the mother and the young would destroy future provision and reflect a spirit that hoards without restraint. God commands moderation; He allowed the young to be taken, but required the source of life to be preserved. This not only protected creatures, but cultivated self-control in people. A person unrestrained in taking everything now will show the same spirit in greater matters, even among men. Proverbs 12:10 says, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”
Why does God connect such a small act to national longevity and blessing? First, because obedience, even in what appears insignificant, reveals a heart that submits to God’s authority. Obedience in little things trains the soul in reverence and humility. Second, because a culture that tolerates cruelty toward animals often drifts toward cruelty toward human beings. History proves that where compassion dies in small things, it soon perishes in greater things. If Israel allowed callousness to fester—even toward birds—it would erode into social injustice, oppression of the poor, and eventually national decay. God therefore tied mercy to survival: a society that honors life—whether great or small—is a society that endures.
Christ Himself emphasized the Father’s care for birds in Matthew 10:29, “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.” If God sees the fall of a sparrow, He surely sees how man treats His creation. Therefore, when Israel spared the mother bird, they reflected the heart of a Creator who delights in mercy. A hard-hearted people cannot long remain a blessed people.
4. (Deuteronomy 22:8) Liability and building codes
“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.”
In ancient Israel, the roof of a house was flat and used as a living space—a place for conversation, rest, prayer, and even sleeping on warm nights. Because people made practical use of their rooftops, God commanded homeowners to build a “battlement,” meaning a protective railing or parapet around the edges. This law reveals God’s concern for human life in the smallest details of daily living. To leave a dangerous edge unguarded was to act carelessly with another person’s safety. If someone fell and died, guilt would rest upon the householder for neglecting this simple precaution. Moral responsibility, therefore, included practical foresight. Exodus 21:29 teaches a similar principle: if an ox is known to gore and its owner does nothing to restrain it, the death caused is counted against him. God holds people accountable not only for direct harm but also for negligent failure to prevent harm.
This law establishes the foundation of civil liability and ethical construction. Property owners are not free to disregard the safety of others; love thy neighbour as thyself means anticipating danger and preventing it. A righteous man does not say, “It is not my fault if he falls,” when he had the ability to build a railing. Spiritually, Charles Spurgeon used this law to illustrate the need for spiritual safeguards. Just as roofs needed physical barriers, hearts and homes must have moral and spiritual boundaries to prevent falling into sin. Many fall not because the roof is high, but because there is no railing. God’s Word, prayer, accountability, and obedience function as such railings. Psalm 119:11 says, “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” It is easier to prevent a fall than to recover from one.
5. (Deuteronomy 22:9–12) Four laws of separation
“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. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.”
God gave Israel laws that, on the surface, concern agriculture, animals, clothing, and garments, yet each one teaches the principle of distinction and separation. Israel was not to mix different kinds of seed in a vineyard. They were forbidden from yoking an ox and a donkey together for plowing. They were not to weave wool and linen into the same garment. These laws were not merely about farming or fabric but were physical reminders of a spiritual truth: God’s people were to remain distinct and unmixed with pagan practices, idolatry, and corruption. Pagan religions of the ancient Near East often combined seeds, animals, and fabrics in superstitious rituals, believing such mixtures harnessed magical or spiritual power. God rejected such inventions and called His people to purity. Leviticus 19:19 contains the same principle, commanding separation in seed, beasts, and garments.
Spiritually, these commands teach that God rejects mixtures in worship and morality. Truth must not be mixed with error, nor righteousness with lawlessness. Second Corinthians 6:14 echoes this when it says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” As an ox and a donkey differ in strength, temperament, and ability, so believers and unbelievers cannot pull together in covenant or spiritual labor without injury and disorder. Poole notes that these laws symbolically warn against blending human inventions with divine institutions. God demands purity in doctrine, in worship, and in all of life.
The final command, to place fringes or tassels on the four corners of their garment, marked the Israelite as belonging to the Lord. Numbers 15:38–40 explains that these tassels were reminders to keep all the commandments of the Lord and not to go after their own heart and eyes. The blue thread included in the tassel symbolized heaven and divine authority. It was not a decoration but a daily call to covenant faithfulness. However, as with many good commands, hypocrisy soon corrupted it. In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees enlarged their tassels to appear exceptionally holy before men. Matthew 23:5 says, “They make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments.” What God intended as a humble reminder became a tool for pride.
These laws, though simple, teach profound truths. God cares about order, distinction, and holiness. Creation itself testifies to this: light is not darkness, male is not female, Israel is not Egypt. When distinctions are erased—whether in doctrine, worship, morality, or even clothing—confusion and compromise soon follow. God calls His people to be holy, for He is holy.
B. Laws of Sexual Morality
1. (Deuteronomy 22:13–21) Resolving an accusation of marital deception
“If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 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 hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”
This law addresses a serious accusation that could destroy a woman’s reputation and family honor. After marriage and consummation, a husband might claim that his wife was not a virgin, accusing her of deception and fornication. Virginity before marriage was highly esteemed in Israel, not merely as a cultural norm but as a moral expectation tied to covenant purity. A woman who entered marriage under false pretenses was seen as having committed both sexual sin and fraud. The accusation carried potential for ruin or death, therefore God established a public legal process to determine the truth and protect the innocent.
The case would be brought before the elders at the city gate, which functioned as the court of law. If the husband accused his wife falsely, the bride’s parents were permitted to present the “tokens of virginity,” historically understood as the blood-stained cloth from the wedding night. In ancient Israelite custom, the marital bed was prepared with a cloth to collect the blood from the woman’s ruptured hymen as evidence of chastity. That cloth was often retained by her parents to defend her honor if questioned. Though some modern critics call this custom primitive or unreliable, it was widely accepted in the ancient Near East and is still practiced in certain traditional cultures. It served as legal protection for the woman against false accusations.
If the evidence proved the woman was a virgin, the elders publicly rebuked and punished the husband. He was fined one hundred shekels of silver, double the typical bride price, and this was paid to the bride’s father, whose family name had been slandered. Additionally, the husband forfeited the right to ever divorce his wife. This prevented him from falsely accusing her simply to rid himself of her. In this way, God protected the dignity of women and upheld justice in marriage. Exodus 20:16 says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour,” and this law applies that command directly to the marriage covenant.
However, if the accusation was found to be true and no evidence of virginity could be produced, then the woman was guilty of fornication and deception. She was brought to the door of her father’s house and stoned to death. Her sin was not only sexual immorality but also hypocrisy, pretending righteousness while secretly living in sin. She brought shame to her father’s household, and her execution served as a deterrent. “So shalt thou put evil away from among you,” meaning that unrepentant immorality must be purged from the covenant community. Ecclesiastes 12:14 declares, “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”
This law also connects with Exodus 22:16–17, where a man who seduces a virgin must pay the bride-price and marry her, unless the father refuses. In Deuteronomy 22, the situation is different: this woman did not claim her rights under Exodus but instead concealed her sin to gain the honor and financial value of a virgin bride. Thus, God distinguishes between weakness and willful deception. Virginity was not merely a physical condition; it was a symbol of faithfulness, purity, and value. Today, culture cheapens chastity, mocking it as outdated, yet Scripture esteems it as honorable. Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
The severity of this law speaks not of cruelty but of the seriousness with which God views covenant fidelity, honesty, and family integrity. A society that treats sexual sin lightly will eventually collapse morally and spiritually. Israel was called to be holy in body and conduct. God cares about truth in marriage, purity before marriage, and fidelity after marriage. In the New Testament, while the civil penalties no longer apply under the Law of Moses, the moral principle remains intact. First Thessalonians 4:3 says, “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication.”
2. (Deuteronomy 22:22) The penalty for adultery
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”
God commanded that if a married woman and another man were found in the act of adultery, both were to be put to death. This severe penalty shows how seriously God views marriage, the covenant symbol of Christ and His people. Adultery in Israel was more than private immorality, it was a direct attack on the integrity of family, inheritance, covenant promises, and the moral foundation of the nation. When the marriage bed is defiled, families crumble, children are harmed, trust is broken, and society begins to rot from within. Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
God showed no partiality in this law. “Both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman.” This law rejected any double standard. If it was sin for the woman, it was sin for the man. The guilty parties were equally condemned. This standard stands in contrast to many pagan cultures where men were permitted unfaithfulness while women were harshly judged. God’s law defended the righteousness of marriage for both husband and wife.
Though the law prescribed death, in practice the execution was rare. Capital punishment required two or three eyewitnesses who saw the act itself, not merely the suspicion or aftermath. Deuteronomy 17:6–7 says, “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death… The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death.” Those witnesses had to be so certain of the crime that they were willing to throw the first stone themselves. Because adultery is typically done in secret, it was seldom exposed with the level of testimony required for execution. Therefore, although this law existed, it served more as a moral standard and warning than as a commonly enforced sentence.
This background helps explain Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1–11. The Pharisees claimed to have caught her “in the very act,” yet they only brought the woman, not the man. If they had truly caught her in the act, the man should also have been brought forward in obedience to this law. Additionally, none of the accusers stepped forward to cast the first stone, revealing that either they did not meet the lawful standard to serve as witnesses or they were exposed as hypocrites. Christ did not overturn the law, but He upheld its righteousness while exposing their false judgment. He told her, “Go, and sin no more,” upholding both mercy and holiness.
“So shalt thou put away evil from Israel.” This phrase demonstrates the purpose of the law: to purge persistent, unrepentant sin so it would not spread like leaven through the nation. Public justice was meant to protect the covenant community from moral decay. Even if the death penalty was seldom enforced, the existence of the law elevated the seriousness of marriage and warned Israel against casual attitudes toward infidelity. Modern society, having abandoned this standard, has reaped broken homes, fatherless children, betrayal, and emotional devastation. God’s moral law remains unchanged, even if civil penalties differ today.
Adultery is not only treachery against a spouse, but sin against God. Psalm 51:4 says, “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned,” spoken by David after his adultery with Bathsheba. Though forgiveness is offered in Christ, the consequences of this sin remain severe. God’s Word still calls His people to holiness and marital faithfulness. Proverbs 6:32 warns, “But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding, he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.”
3. (Deuteronomy 22:23–29) Laws concerning sexual assault (rape and seduction)
“If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 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. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
God gives three separate judgments based on circumstance, consent, and covenant status. First, if a virgin who is betrothed is found in the city with a man engaging in sexual intercourse, both are to be stoned. The reasoning is this: in a populated city, if she was truly forced, she could have cried out and been heard. Her silence is treated as consent. The man is executed because he lay with his neighbour’s wife, for in Israel, betrothal was binding. A betrothed woman is already legally a man’s wife though the marriage has not yet been consummated. Joseph is called Mary’s husband before they came together in Matthew 1:19. The woman is executed not merely for fornication, but for covenant betrayal and deceit.
Second, if a betrothed woman is found in the countryside and a man forces her, only the man dies. The woman is guiltless. Scripture says, “for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter.” Rape is treated as an act of violence and assault, equal in moral weight to murder. The woman is not blamed. This completely destroys the pagan and modern lie that victims of sexual assault bear guilt. The text reinforces, “there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death.” If she cried out but no one could hear, her innocence stands before God.
Third, if a virgin who is not betrothed is seized and the two are discovered, the man must pay fifty shekels of silver to the father and marry her, and he is never allowed to divorce her. This fifty-shekel fine is the standard bride-price and compensates the father whose daughter’s honor was diminished. This does not mean the woman is forced to marry her attacker against her will. Exodus 22:16–17 offers the same law and gives the father the authority to refuse the marriage. The purpose is restitution and lifelong commitment. The man cannot take her virginity lightly and then discard her. God protects the woman from being used and abandoned. Jewish tradition holds that this payment is in addition to the dowry.
Through all of these cases, God demonstrates that sexual sin is never treated carelessly. He distinguishes between consensual immorality and violent assault, between covenant-breaking adultery and premarital sin, and between cities where help is possible and fields where it is not. Scripture is precise, just, and righteous.
4. (Deuteronomy 22:30) A law concerning incest
“A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.”
This law forbids a son from marrying or having sexual relations with his father’s wife, even if she is not his biological mother. This is incest because the marriage covenant unites husband and wife as one flesh. To uncover his father’s skirt is to shame his father and violate the sanctity of the family. This exact sin occurred in Corinth where a man had his father’s wife and the church tolerated it. Paul rebuked them sharply in 1 Corinthians 5:1–2, commanding them to remove the wicked person from among them. This sin had already been condemned in Leviticus 18:8, where God calls it abomination.
This type of incest is also seen earlier in Scripture. Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn son, committed this sin when he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine. Because of this, Jacob declared in Genesis 49:4, “Thou shalt not excel,” removing Reuben’s birthright. God shows that such sins destroy authority in the home and stability in the nation. For that reason He says, “so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”
