Deuteronomy · Chapter 22

V. 1. Thy brother’s-Any man’s. Thou shalt not hide thyself-Dissemble or pretend that thou dost not see them; or pass them by as if thou hadst not seen them.

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, Exodus 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’s note on “Exodus 23:4”.

Verses 1, 2. Thy brother’s — Any man’s, 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.

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.

V. 2. To thine own house-To be used like thine own cattle.

Verses 1, 2. Thy brother’s — Any man’s, 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.

V. 3. Hide thyself-Dissemble that thou hast found it. Or, hide it, that is, conceal the thing lost.

Verse 3. Thou mayest not hide thyself.] Thou shalt not keep out of the way of affording help, nor pretend thou didst not see occasion to render thy neighbour any service. The priest and the Levite, when they saw the wounded man, passed by on the other side of the way, Luke 10:31, 32. This was a notorious breach of the merciful law mentioned above.

V. 5. Shall not wear-Namely, ordinarily or unnecessarily, for in some cases this may be lawful, as to make an escape for one’s life. Now this is forbidden, both for decency sake, that men might not confound those sexes which God hath distinguished, that all appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a manifest sign of effeminacy in the man, of arrogance in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both; and also to cut off all suspicions and occasions of evil, which this practice opens a wide door to.

Verse 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man] rbg ylk keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word rbg geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male’s attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.

Verse 5. Shall not wear — That is, ordinarily or unnecessarily, for in some cases this may be lawful, as to make an escape for one’s life. Now this is forbidden for decency’s sake, that men might not confound those sexes which God hath distinguished; that all appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a manifest sign of effeminacy in the man, of arrogance in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both; and also to cut off all suspicions and occasions of evil, for which this practice would open a wide door.

Verse 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.

5. The sexes are to be distinguished by their dress. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment — This prohibition was in the interest of morality. The interchange of dress would give occasion for great license. At festivals of Baal the priests and worshippers appeared in red transparent female garments, and were in other respects attired as women, while the women were dressed as men, and carried swords and lances. In the Annals of Tacitus, 3:53, Tiberius is represented as severely condemning the interchange of dress between men and women.

Verses 6, 7. Thou shalt not take the dam with the young — This and such like merciful precepts of the law of Moses tended to humanize the hearts of the Israelites, to produce in them a sense of the divine providence extending itself to all creatures, and to teach them to exercise dominion over them with gentleness. The command also respected posterity, restrained a selfish and covetous disposition, and taught them not to monopolize all to themselves, but leave the hopes of a future seed for others.

6, 7. A bird’s nest — Comp. Leviticus 22:28.

V. 7. Let the dam go-Partly for the bird’s sake, which suffered enough by the loss of its young; for God would not have cruelty exercised towards the brute creatures: and partly for mens sake, to refrain their greediness, that, they should not monopolize all to themselves, but leave the hopes of a future seed for others.

Verse 7. Thou shalt-let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee] This passage may be understood literally. If they destroyed both young and old, must not the breed soon fail, and would it not in the end be ill with them; and by thus cutting off the means of their continual support, must not their days be shortened on the land? But we may look for a humane precept in this law. The young never knew the sweets of liberty; the dam did: they might be taken and used for any lawful purpose, but the dam must not be brought into a state of captivity. They who can act otherwise must be either very inconsiderate or devoid of feeling; and such persons can never be objects of God’s peculiar care and attention, and therefore need not expect that it shall be well with them, or that they shall prolong their days on the earth. Every thing contrary to the spirit of mercy and kindness the ever blessed God has in utter abhorrence. And we should remember a fact, that he who can exercise cruelty towards a sparrow or a wren, will, when circumstances are favourable, be cruel to his fellow creatures. The poet Phocylides has a maxim in his admonitory poem very similar to that in the sacred text:—

Mhde tiv oruiqav kalihv ama pantav elosqw\

Mhtera dJ ekproliphv, inJ echv pali thsde neottouv.

PHOCYL. Poihma Nouqet., ver. 80.

“Nor from a nest take all the birds away;

The mother spare, she’ll breed a future day.”

Verses 6, 7. Thou shalt not take the dam with the young — This and such like merciful precepts of the law of Moses tended to humanize the hearts of the Israelites, to produce in them a sense of the divine providence extending itself to all creatures, and to teach them to exercise dominion over them with gentleness. The command also respected posterity, restrained a selfish and covetous disposition, and taught them not to monopolize all to themselves, but leave the hopes of a future seed for others.

6, 7. A bird’s nest — Comp. Leviticus 22:28.

V. 8. A battlement-A fence or breastwork, because the roofs of their houses were made flat, that men might walk on them. Blood-The guilt of blood, by a man’s fall from the top of thy house, thro’ thy neglect of this necessary provision. The Jew’s say, that by the equity of this law, they are obliged, and so are we, to fence or remove every thing, whereby life may he endangered, as wells, or bridges, lest if any perish thro’ our omission, their blood be required at our hand.

Verse 8. A battlement for thy roof] Houses in the East are in general built with flat roofs, and on them men walk to enjoy the fresh air, converse together, sleep, &c.; it was therefore necessary to have a sort of battlement or balustrade to prevent persons from falling off. If a man neglected to make a sufficient defence against such accidents, and the death of another was occasioned by it, the owner of the house must be considered in the light of a murderer.

Verse 8. Thou shalt make a battlement — A fence or breast-work, because the roofs of their houses were made flat, that men might walk on them. Blood — The guilt of blood, by a man’s fall from the top of thy house, through thy neglect of this necessary provision. The Jews say, that by the equity of this law, they are obliged, and so are we, to fence or remove every thing whereby life may be endangered, as wells, or bridges, lest if any perish through the omission, their blood be required at the hands of those who have neglected to perform so plain a duty.

Ver. 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.

8. Thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof — The flat roofs of the eastern houses were used for so many purposes that some provision for protecting life seemed important. Some kind of a parapet was very necessary. According to the Jewish authorities it was to be two cubits in height.

V. 9. Divers seeds-Either 1. With divers kinds of seed mixed and sowed together between the rows of vines in thy vineyard: which was forbidden to be done in the field, Leviticus 19:19, and here, in the vineyard. Or, 2. With any kind of seed differing from that of the vine, which would produce either herbs, or corn, or fruit-bearing trees, whose fruit might be mingled with the fruit of the vines. Now this and the following precepts, tho’ in themselves small and trivial, are given, according to that time and state of the church, for instructions in greater matters, and particularly to commend to them simplicity in all their carriage towards God and man, and to forbid all mixture of their inventions with God’s institutions in doctrine or worship. Defiled-Legally and morally, as being prohibited by God’s law, and therefore made unclean; as on the contrary, things are sanctified by God’s word, allowing and approving them, 1 Timothy 4:5.

Verse 9. Divers seeds] See Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 19:19”.

Verses 9, 10. Divers seeds — Either, 1st, With divers kinds of seeds mixed and sowed together between the rows of vines in thy vineyard: which was forbidden to be done in the field, (Leviticus 19:19,) and here in the vineyard. Or, 2d, With any kind of seed differing from that of the vine, which would produce either herbs, or corn, or fruit-bearing trees, whose fruit might be mingled with the fruit of the vines. Now this and the following precepts, though in themselves small and trivial, are given, according to that time and state of the church, for instructions in greater matters, and particularly to commend to them simplicity in all their carriage toward God and men, and to forbid all mixture of their inventions with God’s institutions in doctrine and worship. An ox and an ass — Because the one was a clean beast, the other unclean; whereby God would teach men to avoid polluting themselves by the touch of unclean persons or things.

9-11. Not sow… divers seeds — These prohibitions are similar to those in Leviticus 19:19, and seem founded on an aversion to mingling things unlike.

V. 10. An ox and an ass-Because the one was a clean beast, the other unclean whereby God would teach men to avoid polluting themselves by the touch of unclean persons or things.

Verse 10. Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass] It is generally supposed that mixtures of different sorts in seed, breed, &c., were employed for superstitious purposes, and therefore prohibited in this law. It is more likely, however, that there was a physical reason for this; two beasts of a different species cannot associate comfortably together, and on this ground never pull pleasantly either in cart or plough; and every farmer knows that it is of considerable consequence to the comfort of the cattle to put those together that have an affection for each other. This may be very frequently remarked in certain cattle, which, on this account, are termed true yoke-fellows. After all, it is very probable that the general design was to prevent improper alliances in civil and religious life. And to this St. Paul seems evidently to refer, 2 Corinthians 6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers; which is simply to be understood as prohibiting all intercourse between Christians and idolaters in social, matrimonial, and religious life. And to teach the Jews the propriety of this, a variety of precepts relative to improper and heterogeneous mixtures were interspersed through their law, so that in civil and domestic life they might have them ever before their eyes.

Verses 9, 10. Divers seeds — Either, 1st, With divers kinds of seeds mixed and sowed together between the rows of vines in thy vineyard: which was forbidden to be done in the field, (Leviticus 19:19,) and here in the vineyard. Or, 2d, With any kind of seed differing from that of the vine, which would produce either herbs, or corn, or fruit-bearing trees, whose fruit might be mingled with the fruit of the vines. Now this and the following precepts, though in themselves small and trivial, are given, according to that time and state of the church, for instructions in greater matters, and particularly to commend to them simplicity in all their carriage toward God and men, and to forbid all mixture of their inventions with God’s institutions in doctrine and worship. An ox and an ass — Because the one was a clean beast, the other unclean; whereby God would teach men to avoid polluting themselves by the touch of unclean persons or things.

Ver. 10. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass; as the land might then be polluted by unnatural intercourse.

9-11. Not sow… divers seeds — These prohibitions are similar to those in Leviticus 19:19, and seem founded on an aversion to mingling things unlike.

9-11. Not sow… divers seeds — These prohibitions are similar to those in Leviticus 19:19, and seem founded on an aversion to mingling things unlike.

V. 12. Fringes-Or laces, or strings, partly to bring the commands of God to their remembrance, as it is expressed, Numbers 15:38, and partly is a public profession of their nation and religion, whereby they might be distinguished from strangers, that so they might be more circumspect to behave as became the people of God, and that they should own their religion before all the world. Thou coverest thyself-These words seem restrictive to the upper garment wherewith the rest were covered.

Verse 12. Fringes] See Clarke on “Numbers 15:38”.

Verse 12. Fringes — Or laces, or strings, partly to bring the commands of God to their remembrance, as it is expressed Numbers 15:38, and partly as a public profession of their nation and religion, whereby they might be distinguished from strangers, that so they might be more circumspect to behave as became the people of God, and that they should own their religion before all the world. Thou coverest thyself — These words seem to confine the precept to the upper garment wherewith the rest were covered.

12. Thou shalt make thee fringes — The word which our translators have rendered fringes might better be translated tassels. The outer garment was a rectangular piece of cloth, to the corners of which tassels were to be attached. Comp. Numbers 15:38; also Matthew 23:5.

V. 13. If any man take a wife-And afterward falsely accuse her-What the meaning of that evidence is, by which the accusation was proved false, the learned are not agreed. Nor is it necessary for us to know: they for whom this law was intended, undoubtedly understood it.

Verse 13. If any man take a wife — And afterward falsely accuse her. What the meaning of that evidence is, by which the accusation was proved false, the learned are not agreed. Nor is it necessary for us to know: they for whom this law was intended, undoubtedly understood it.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

Verse 15. Tokens of the damsel’s virginity] This was a perfectly possible case in all places where girls were married at ten, twelve, and fourteen years of age, which is frequent in the East. I have known several instances of persons having had two or three children at separate births before they were fourteen years of age. Such tokens, therefore, as the text speaks of, must be infallibly exhibited by females so very young on the consummation of their marriage.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

Verse 17. They shall spread the cloth, &c.] A usage of this kind argues a roughness of manners which would ill comport with the refinement of European ideas on so delicate a subject. Attempts have been made to show that the law here is to be understood metaphorically; but they so perfectly fail to establish any thing like probability, that it would be wasting my own and my reader’s time to detail them. A custom similar to that above is observed among the Mohammedans to the present day.

Ver. 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.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

V. 19. The father-Because this was a reproach to his family, and to himself, as such a miscarriage of his daughter would have been ascribed to his evil education.

Verse 19. Give them unto the father of the damsel — Because this was a reproach to his family, and to himself, as such misconduct of his daughter would have been ascribed to his neglect of properly instructing or watching over her. He may not put her away all his days — Thus he was deprived of the common benefit which every Israelite had who did not like his wife, which was to sue out a divorce.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

Ver. 21. The door of her father’s 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.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

Verse 22. Shall both of them die] Thus we find that in the most ancient of all laws adultery was punished with death in both the parties.

Ver. 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 man’s wife. If our laws be not relax, why is Europe so full of lewdness? The Roman laws, under foul circumstances, punished adultery with death.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

V. 24. She cried not-And therefore is justly presumed to have consented to it.

Verses 24-27. She cried not — And therefore is justly presumed to have consented to it. As when a man riseth against his neighbour, even so is this matter — Not an act of choice, but of force and constraint. The damsel cried — Which is in that case to be presumed; charity obliging us to believe the best, till the contrary be manifest.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

Verse 25. And the man force her] A rape also, by these ancient institutions, was punished with death, because a woman’s honour was considered equally as precious as her life; therefore the same punishment was inflicted on the ravisher as upon the murderer. This offence is considered in the same point of view in the British laws, and by them also it is punished with death.

Verses 24-27. She cried not — And therefore is justly presumed to have consented to it. As when a man riseth against his neighbour, even so is this matter — Not an act of choice, but of force and constraint. The damsel cried — Which is in that case to be presumed; charity obliging us to believe the best, till the contrary be manifest.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

V. 26. Even so-Not an act of choice, but of force and constraint.

Verses 24-27. She cried not — And therefore is justly presumed to have consented to it. As when a man riseth against his neighbour, even so is this matter — Not an act of choice, but of force and constraint. The damsel cried — Which is in that case to be presumed; charity obliging us to believe the best, till the contrary be manifest.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

V. 27. The damsel cried-Which is in that case to be presumed; charity obliging us to believe the best, ‘till the contrary be manifest.

Verses 24-27. She cried not — And therefore is justly presumed to have consented to it. As when a man riseth against his neighbour, even so is this matter — Not an act of choice, but of force and constraint. The damsel cried — Which is in that case to be presumed; charity obliging us to believe the best, till the contrary be manifest.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

V. 29. Fifty shekels-Besides the dowry, as Philo, the learned Jew notes, which is here omitted, because that was customary, it being sufficient here to mention what was peculiar to this case. His wife-If her father consented to it.

Verse 29. Shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels — Besides the dowry, as Philo, the learned Jew, notes, which is here omitted, because that was customary, it being sufficient here to mention what was peculiar to this case. She shall be his wife — He was not at liberty to refuse her, if her father consented to his marrying her, and he was deprived of the privilege of ever divorcing her.

13-29. If any man take a wife, etc. — This section relates to purity in reference to marriage. The wellbeing of the family and of the state depends upon strict observance of the laws of purity in the relation of husband and wife. If a husband unjustly accused his newly married wife of unchastity before marriage he was punished with stripes by the elders of the city, and further punished by a fine, to be paid to the father of the traduced wife. And as it was possible the charge might have arisen from the desire of the husband to contract another marriage, he was not allowed to put away his wife. But if the charge against the chastity of the wife was proved she was to be put to death. Adultery was to be punished with death, the death of both guilty parties. The sanctity of the marriage relation was most strictly protected. The woman betrothed was regarded in the same light as the married woman. The violation of the law required the death penalty. Both the man and the woman were to be put to death. In verses 25-27 violence is supposed on the part of the man. In this case the man suffers the penalty of death. The case supposed in verses 28, 29, is similar to that mentioned in Exodus 22:16.

V. 30. Take-To wife. So this respects the state, and the next branch speaks of the act only.

Verse 30. A man shall not take his father’s wife] This is to be understood as referring to the case of a stepmother. A man in his old age may have married a young wife, and on his dying, his son by a former wife may desire to espouse her: this the law prohibits. It was probably on pretence of having broken this law, that Solomon put his brother Adonijah to death, because he had desired to have his father’s concubine to wife, 1 Kings 2:13-25.

DEUTERONOMY

30. A man shall not take his father’s wife — Comp. Leviticus 18:7, 8.