Chapter 22
More rules of behavior.
2 And if he does not live near you and you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall stay with you until your brother seeks it. Then you shall restore it to him. 3 And you shall do the same with his donkey or with his garment, or with any lost thing of your brother's, which he loses and you find; you may not ignore it. [Deu 22:2-3 ESV]
Here is what was to be done with "found" valuables. You were not to just ignore them and leave them where they were. You were to take them home and keep them safe until someone came looking for them.
Here it is in black and white. Transgender was an abomination in Israel.
5 "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. [Deu 22:5 ESV]
MSB says this appears only here in the Pentateuch, and it prohibits transvestism. No exceptions. The created order of male and female - as determined by biology - is to be maintained.
Possible FB post.
2024 - Even so, this is part of the Law, and the Law has been fulfilled. The Law was abrogated by Christ. We cannot be as "resolute" about claims such as this as they could be in Moses time. Then, wearing the clothes of the other sex was a stoning offense. But under the New Covenant, it is the internal guidance of the Holy Spirit within the saved that guides us. I absolutely maintain that the Holy Spirit is never going to guide a saved person to wear the clothing of the opposite sex, or to mimic the characteristics of the opposite sex, as a rebellious act against God's created order. The Spirit will also never lead one to do this to illicit immoral thoughts or actions in others. So even if you say the Law no longer applies there is still more than enough "wrong" about cross-dressing to make it a problem. However, a woman wearing jeans and boots and a cowboy hat while she feeds the cattle would not be a violation of God's intentions in writing this Law. I think of Harvey Korman on Carol Burnett, dressed up in "drag" for a comedy skit. I really do not think God would condemn Harvey to stoning for that.
2024 - These verses:
6 "If you come across a bird's nest 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 let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long.
Consider what this is saying. When the choice is between the mother and the babies and life hangs in the balance, even the life of one other than the mother or the chicks, the mother must go free. We are never to "end" them all. Crudely stated, the mother can make more chicks, but the chicks can't reproduce the mother. And the chicks in the example would not make it if we did things the other way either. To me, there is justification here for abortion if the life of the mother is endangered. I don't think we have any evidence at all that such a thing was actually practiced in those days...but consider a difficult birth, where the midwife had to make some hard choices about who to save first. It is clear in this verse that the mother has priority. Even so...the context, and connecting that last phrase with the right preceding phrase, might make this a poor interpretation.
Ahhh....this is not about people, it is about survival. The above is flat wrong. If you find yourself needing food, and come upon this situation, you are still not to "reduce" the species by eating both mother and chicks. If you must eat, eat the chicks, because there will be more. Eat them all, and there won't be any to eat the next time. This is probably a lot closer to the right interpretation.
2024 - Here is another with long term legal implication: 8 "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it. [Deu 22:6-8 ESV]. We are liable for negligence in the death of another. If we see an obvious danger, and we do nothing about it, and someone else is harmed by our inaction, we are liable for that harm. That legal concept goes all the way back to here.
9 "You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole yield be forfeited, the crop that you have sown and the yield of the vineyard. 10 You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together. [Deu 22:9-11 ESV]
This is a repeat. Like kinds are important. If in seeds, livestock, and clothing, how about in marriage? This is the closest I have seen to an argument against inter-racial marriage. Yet Moses had a black wife, and Song of Solomon celebrates Solomon's love for a black woman. Both caused problems of course. And maybe that is the reason for this rule...
As I read it now, it looks like in the first one, you weren't allowed to do something like plant runner beans in with your grapes to try and increase the yield of that land. You were risking both crops. So we ought to think about this when companion planting. But how does harnessing a donkey and an ox together endanger the plowing? MSB notes says a donkey was unclean, an ox clean, and also that the two together couldn't possibly plow a straight furrow. So this law, as the one before it, is to ensure a good crop. As for wool and linen, MSB note refers us back to Lev. 19:19, where the note says combining these two may have been associated with idolatrous practices of that time.
Rules about proof of virginity. This is a difficult one for us today. Sex with a virgin doesn't always produce blood...at least I don't think it does. So how could it ever be proven?
2024 - And the penalties seem very mismatched in this case. If he is the one in the wrong, he pays money and has a wife forever. But if she is wrong, she dies. Very lopsided. I do not understand this one.
22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. [Deu 22:22 ESV]
Both shall die. No discrimination here. Following this verse are several more rules where the man is punished, along with the woman, and one where the man is to be killed but not the woman.
A phrase that has been repeated many times in Deuteronomy is "so you shall purge the evil from your midst." There is no attempt at rehabilitation in these laws. No prison reforms to turn criminals into model citizens. For certain crimes, the only "cure" was death of the criminal, so that the attitudes, the internal misconceptions and attitudes that led them to commit these crimes, could not be observed and copied, and so that criminals would not continue to commit their crimes. Getting away with crime leads inevitably to more crime seems to be the concept. Not only that, but this way of doing things did not tie up resources taking care of criminals that could be put to more productive use elsewhere.
How though, did the New Covenant affect the punishment for crimes like this? Is there specific instruction in the NT? I surely don't recall any right now...