Deuteronomychapter 22
30 verses · Moses, by tradition · 15th to 13th century BC · The Law
Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
Introduction
Moses, by tradition, The Law, Deuteronomy Overview.
Moses speaks these rules to a people who will soon live in small towns, close enough to see into one another's yards. The chapter stands in the long central section of the book, where the covenant is applied to daily life. It moves from what a man owes a neighbour to what he keeps distinct, and then to the marriage cases tried at the gate. Listen for the way ordinary carelessness becomes a covenant matter. Listen also for who carries the burden of proof when a charge is made. It shows the law reaching into the house next door.
Context
- Who
- People about to live in small towns where everyone knew everything
- What
- A run of statutes on a neighbour's stray animal, a bird's nest, a roof, mixed kinds and tassels, followed by the marriage cases.
- Where
- The plains of Moab, legislating for the villages, fields and flat-roofed houses of the land ahead
- When
- The fortieth year after the Exodus, about 1406 BC on the early date of the Exodus, a date reached from the evidence since the chapter names no year.
- Why
- To make neighbourly care and faithfulness in marriage a duty owed to the LORD and tried in public before the elders.
Historical context
The chapter is Moses speaking in the fortieth year, legislating for towns Israel will build rather than for the camp it is in. The house reading dates it to about 1406 BC, stated as a reading rather than a settled date. The place is the plains of Moab, and the life in view is village life across the river. The occasion is the settling of what a man owes a neighbour he can see from his own door, and then of the marriage cases tried in the gate. A first hearer knew that roofs were flat, reached by outside stairs, and in constant use for sleeping in hot weather, for drying grain and figs, and for work and company. The parapet of verse 8 is therefore a building rule, and the reason the verse gives for it is the blood a fall would bring on the house. A first hearer also knew that yoking an ox with a donkey injures both animals, since they differ in size and gait, and that the tassels of verse 12 marked an Israelite in a crowd. In the marriage cases the family of a slandered bride produced its evidence before the elders at the gate, so the trial was public and the accuser carried the first burden.
Significance
First hearers lived a few feet from their neighbours. This chapter made everyday negligence a covenant matter, from a wandering animal to an unguarded roof edge to a rumour about a young woman's honour. The tassels kept the point in view, since every Israelite went about wearing four reminders of the commandments. The field case at verses 25 to 27 also told them how the law would read a silence, since a cry nobody could have heard was taken in the woman's favour.
This chapter in Jewish lifeWhat this chapter is in Jewish life and reading.
What is done
More of this chapter is in daily use than of any other chapter in the range. Four of its laws shape an ordinary Jewish household. The tassels of 22:12 are made on the four corners of a garment. Rashi notes that they may be made of wool and linen together (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:12:1, citing Yevamot 4a). That is why the ban on mixtures and the command of the tassels stand side by side. The mixture itself, shatnez, was explained by the rabbis as cloth that is pressed, spun or twisted together (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:11:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 232:1). The guard rail of 22:8 goes on the roof of a new house. The nest of 22:6 is left when it comes upon a man by chance, which excludes birds always at hand in his own courtyard (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:6:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 227:1 and Chullin 139a).
Two further laws govern the field. Sowing the vineyard with mixed seed means throwing wheat and barley with grape kernels in one cast of the hand (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:9:1, citing Berachot 22a, Kiddushin 39a and Chullin 82b). The ban on ploughing with an ox and an ass together is extended to any two kinds of animal (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:10:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 232:1-2 and Bava Metzia 8b). It covers driving them yoked with any load.
The duty of the lost animal is worked out in the same practical way. Hiding from it means closing the eyes and pretending not to see (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:1:1 and 22:3:1). Raising it up covers reloading the burden that fell (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:4:1). The finder examines the claimant closely, so that the goods do not go to a fraud (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:2:1, citing Bava Metzia 27b and Sifrei Devarim 223:4).
How it is read
The case of the slandered bride at 22:13 to 22:21 is read as a court procedure rather than as a ritual. Rashi takes the spreading of the cloth as a figure of speech. The parties "must make the matter as white (as clear) as a sheet" before the elders (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:17:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 237:1 and Ketubot 46a). The chastisement of the husband who is found to have lied is lashes (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:18:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 238:2 and Ketubot 46a). A charge against the woman stands only when it is proven by witnesses and after legal warning (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:20:1, citing Ketubot 44b). Rashi reads the parents' appearance as a shaming of those who reared the child (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:15:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 235:9). From the father speaking alone he draws the classical ruling that a woman does not speak in her husband's presence in such a case (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:16:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 235:10). This site reports that as the classical ruling it is.
Two readings will surprise a Christian reader. The ban on a woman wearing a man's clothing is read as aimed at the purpose of the disguise (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:5:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 226:1 and Nazir 59a). What it forbids is going among men for unchastity, rather than dress in itself. On the betrothed girl found in the city Rashi carries the rabbis' hard saying that a breach in the wall invites the thief (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:23:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 242:2-3). The meeting outdoors made the offence possible. Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 22:19:1 and 22:24:1 stands in the corpus without an English text and is cited without quotation.
What the rabbis say
The rabbis read the middle of this chapter as a chain of rewards rather than a list of rules. A man who keeps the easy command of the nest will come to build a new house and keep the command of the guard rail. He will go on to a vineyard, fields and fine garments, because one good deed brings another in its train (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:8:1, citing Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 1). That is why the sections stand next to each other.
On the same easy command Rashi carries their argument from the lesser to the greater. Scripture promises long life for a command that costs nothing, so the reward for the harder commands follows all the more (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:7:1, citing Chullin 142a). The rabbis ran the chain the other way too. A man who hates his wife will end by slandering her, since one sin brings another in its train (Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:14:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 235:3).
The corpus carries more locators on this chapter, given for a reader to follow. Bava Kamma 54a:12 and Bava Kamma 57a:9 stand at 22:1. Bava Metzia 31a:20 and Bava Metzia 32a:17 stand at 22:4, Makkot 20b:5 at 22:5. Avot DeRabbi Natan, Recension B 24:7 and Bamidbar Rabbah 12:3 stand at 22:6 and 22:7. Bava Kamma 15b:18 and Bava Kamma 46a:5 stand at 22:8, Bamidbar Rabbah 10:1 at 22:10. Arakhin 3b:8 and Bamidbar Rabbah 19:19 stand at 22:11, Bekhorot 39b:14 at 22:12. Esther Rabbah 3:2 stands at 22:14, Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 4:3:2 at 22:17. Ein Yaakov, Sanhedrin 6:5 stands at 22:21.
Sources: Rashi, Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:1 to 22:23, Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, public domain, 1929-1934; Ibn Ezra, Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 22:19:1 and 22:24:1, cited without text; The Sefaria corpus on disk, scripts/data/sources/sefaria/deuteronomy/22.json, fetched 2026-09-19, 2026.
The heads below are this chapter's scenes. The numbered points under each are its verses.
Bring your brother's ox back to him
Deuteronomy 22:1-4
The chapter opens on lost property, and the phrase “you must not ignore it” runs through it. Exodus 23:4-5 gave the same duty about an enemy's ox and donkey, and here the animal belongs to a brother, so the duty covers both ends of that range. Verse 2 adds the case where the owner is unknown, and the finder keeps the animal until it is claimed.
Deuteronomy 22:1
“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, Exo 23:4, Exo 23:5, well calculated to keep in remembrance the second grand branch of the law of God, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. A humane man cannot bear to see even an ass fall under his burden, and not endeavor to relieve him; and a man who loves his neighbor as himself cannot see his property in danger without endeavoring to preserve it.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Wesley reads the brother of verse 1 as any man, and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown extend the word to a foreigner and even an enemy. The finder takes the animal home and feeds it with his own until the owner comes seeking it. The finder becomes a keeper.
The rule reaches from the ox to anything a brother lost. Henry reports a Jewish practice: the one who found it had the loss cried in public three or four times. Clarke sets the priest and Levite of Luke 10:31 and 32 against this command, men who saw and passed by.
Deuteronomy 22:3
“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 neighbor any service. The priest and the Levite, when they saw the wounded man, passed by on the other side of the way, Luk 10:31, Luk 10:32. This was a notorious breach of the merciful law mentioned above.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Deuteronomy 22:3
“The Jews say, "He that found the lost goods was to give public notice of them by the common crier three or four times," according to the usage with us; if the owner could not be found, he that found the goods might convert them to his own use; but (say some learned writers in this case) he would do very well to give the value of the goods to the poor.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
The man who sees the fallen ox must help its owner lift it on the road. Clarke ties the rule to the command to love a neighbor as oneself, Leviticus 19:18, and says a humane man cannot watch even a donkey sink under its load. The work is shared.
Nests, roof rails, mixtures, and fringes
Deuteronomy 22:5-8
Four rules with little in common on the surface stand together, and the last shows what kind of law this is. A railing on a new roof is required “so that you do not bring bloodguilt on your house”, which makes building safety a question of guilt. The bird's nest rule carries the promise attached to honouring parents at Exodus 20:12, “that you may prolong your days”.
Deuteronomy 22:5
“Now, if you will consider it well, that which nature herself abhors must be incongruous. For why do you not wish to be thought a man, seeing that you are born such? why do you assume an appearance which is foreign to you? why do you play the woman, or you, O woman, the man? Nature clothes each sex in their proper raiment. Moreover in men and women, habits, complexion, gestures, gait, strength and voice are all different.”
Ambrose of Milan · written before 397 · Letters 61-70patristic
2 more voices on this verse
Deuteronomy 22:5
“That which pertaineth unto a man - i. e. not only his dress but all that especially pertains distinctively to his sex; arms, domestic and other utensils, etc. The distinction between the sexes is natural and divinely established, and cannot be neglected without indecorum and consequent danger to purity (compare 1Co 11:3-15).”
Deuteronomy 22:5
“To befriend a lawful escape or concealment it may be done, but whether for sport or in the acting of plays is justly questionable. Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles: in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour, and men in women's clothes; this, as other such superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
The mother bird sitting on her chicks or eggs goes free, and Barnes sets this beside the ox of Deuteronomy 25:4 and the mother and young of Leviticus 22:28. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown add that birds kept down snakes and locusts. Both laws spare the mother.
Deuteronomy 22:6
“These precepts are designed to cultivate a spirit of humanity. Compare Deu 25:4; Lev 22:28; and 1Co 9:9-10. Deu 22:8 The roofs of houses in Palestine were flat and used for various purposes. Compare Jos 2:6; 2Sa 11:2; Act 10:9, etc. A battlement was almost a necessary protection. It was to be, according to the rabbis, at least two cubits high (about 3 ft.).”
Wesley gives two reasons to let the mother go: she has lost her young already, and the man who takes them must leave a future brood for others. Clarke reads the promise to prolong your days plainly, for a people who took both mother and young would soon have no birds. Greed shortens days.
Deuteronomy 22:7
“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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Roofs were flat and lived on, as Rahab's roof at Joshua 2:6 and Peter's at Acts 10:9 show, so a new house needed a railing. The rabbis set the railing at two cubits, Barnes reports. Wesley adds that the Jews carried the same duty to wells, bridges and anything else where someone could fall.
Deuteronomy 22:8
“When thou buildest a new house,.... Which is to be understood of a house to dwell in, not of a granary, barn, or stable, or such like, and every house that is not four cubits square, as Maimonides observes (f): then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof; in the Talmud (g) it is asked, what is the meaning of, or why is it said, "thy roof?" to except synagogues and schools; the gloss upon which is, synagogues, &c. do not belong to any single person, and besides are no dwelling place.”
2 more voices on this verse
Deuteronomy 22:8
“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, etc.; 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 defense 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Deuteronomy 22:8
“When you build a house, you do not quit before building the protective parapet of the house. It is this parapet that prevents one who has ascended onto the house from falling. So it is with the house of the Word. Consequently those who fall because of unfinished buildings fall only from houses which lack the parapet. Those architects and builders bear the blame for such slaughters and falls.”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.7patristic
Deuteronomy 22:9-12
Two kinds of seed in a vineyard, an ox and a donkey under one yoke, wool and linen in one garment, and then tassels on the four corners of the cloak. The first three keep kinds distinct with no reason given, as Leviticus 19:19 leaves them. Numbers 15:38-40 explains the tassels as a reminder of the commandments, and Matthew 9:20 has a woman reaching for Jesus' hem.
Deuteronomy 22:9
“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.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Barnes reads the rule as mercy to the donkey, yoked together with an ox far above it in size and strength, so the plow would pull unevenly. Wesley sees a clean and an unclean animal under one yoke. Paul uses the yoke at 2 Corinthians 6:14.
Deuteronomy 22:10
“Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together,.... They might be used separately, but not together; nor was it uncommon in some countries for asses to be employed in ploughing as well as oxen. Pliny (h) makes mention of some fruitful land in Africa, which when it was dry weather could not be ploughed by oxen, but after showers of rain might be ploughed by a mean little ass; so Leo Africanus (i) says, the Africans only use horses and asses in ploughing.”
3 more voices on this verse
Deuteronomy 22:10
“Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass - It is generally supposed that mixtures of different sorts in seed, breed, etc., 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Deuteronomy 22:10
“Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together--Whether this association, like the mixture of seeds, had been dictated by superstitious motives and the prohibition was symbolical, designed to teach a moral lesson (2Co 6:14), may or may not have been the case.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
Deuteronomy 22:10
“Compare the marginal reference. The prohibition of Deu 22:10 was also dictated by humanity. The ox and the donkey being of such different size and strength, it would be cruel to the latter to yoke them together. These two animals are named as being those ordinarily employed in agriculture; compare Isa 32:20.”
Gill reports that the Jews read the Hebrew shaatnez as wool and linen carded, spun and woven together into one cloth. He adds from Josephus that the priests alone could wear such clothing. The law keeps two kinds apart.
Deuteronomy 22:11
“Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts,.... The Jews say nothing is forbidden under the name of sorts but what is spun and wove, as it is said, "thou shalt not wear sheatnez", a thing that is carded, spun, and wove (l); which Ainsworth translates "linsie woolsie", and is explained by what follows: as "of woollen and linen together"; of which See Gill on Lev 19:19, whereas Josephus (m) observes, this was granted to the priests only to wear such garments.”
Wesley reads the four tassels on the cloak as a public mark, so Israel would remember the commands of the LORD before strangers. Jesus faults tassels worn long for show at Matthew 23:5.
Deuteronomy 22:12
“Fringes - Or laces, or strings, partly to bring the commands of God to their remembrance, as it is expressed, Num. xv, 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.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
When a husband slanders his bride
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
A husband who accuses his bride is answered by her parents bringing proof to the elders at the gate, so the case is public and the burden falls first on the accuser. If the charge fails he is fined a hundred shekels, twice the fifty of verse 29, and may never divorce her. If it holds the penalty is death for “an outrage in Israel”, the charge of Genesis 34:7.
Deuteronomy 22:13
“If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her. That is, marries a wife, and cohabits with her as man and wife, and after some time dislikes her, and is desirous of parting with her, and therefore takes the following wicked method to obtain it: this is to be understood of a virgin taken to wife, as the Targum of Jonathan explains it; and what follows confirms it.”
Henry notes that a man who came to hate his wife could divorce her under Deuteronomy 24:1, at the cost of returning her dowry. A false accusation kept the dowry and gave her a bad name as well. The slander was the cheaper road.
Wesley notes that the learned differ over what the proof of virginity was, and that the people under this law knew it well. Clarke explains the custom from brides given in marriage at ten to fourteen years old. The young woman's father and mother kept the proof.
Deuteronomy 22:15
“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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
The father speaks for his daughter, and Henry reads it as a duty, for a child's good name is a branch of the father and mother's own. Wesley adds that the charge also shamed the father's house. The father names the man's hatred first.
Clarke calls the custom of spreading out the cloth for the elders rough to European taste, and he rejects every attempt to read the law as a figure. He reports the same custom among Muslims of his own day. The proof was shown at the city gate.
Deuteronomy 22:17
“They shall spread the cloth, etc. - 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
The elders of the city punish the man, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan both render the punishment as a beating. Gill counts it as forty stripes less one, under the limit Deuteronomy 25:3 sets. The man who gave a bad name was flogged.
Deuteronomy 22:18
“And the elders of that city shall take the man, and chastise him. Not with words, but blows. Jarchi interprets it of beating, and so does the Talmud (x); and both the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan render it,"shall beat him;'' that is, with the beating or scourging of forty stripes, save one. (x) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 46. 1.”
Barnes explains the fine paid to the father: the bad name struck him as head of the house, and a daughter with no father received the silver herself. Barnes also judges the fixed penalty light for the wrong, a sign of how low a woman then stood. The silver went to the house wronged.
Deuteronomy 22:19
“The fine was to be paid to the father, because the slander was against him principally as the head of the wife’s family. If the damsel were an orphan the fine reverted to herself. The fact that the penalties attached to bearing false witness against a wife are fixed and comparatively light indicates the low estimation and position of the woman at that time.”
The case now turns to an accusation found true. Gill reports from Maimonides that the judges first asked whether some illness or family condition could explain the missing proof of virginity. Only an accusation that survived that inquiry went further.
Deuteronomy 22:20
“But if this thing be true,.... Which the husband of the damsel laid to her charge, that she was no virgin when married to him, and she had committed whoredom, of which there was plain proof: and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel; by her parents, or those who had the care of her; or no sufficient reason could be assigned for the want of them, through any family defect, or any disorder of her own; which, as Maimonides (z) says, the judges were to inquire into. (z) Hilchot Ishot, c. 11. sect. 12.”
the door of her father’s house: Henry reads the stoning at her father's door as a charge to every father and mother, who bore the grief and shame at their own house. He names two readings of her sin: deceit toward the man she married, or promiscuous conduct after she was pledged in marriage. The sentence fell at home.
Adultery, betrothal, and violence in the field
Deuteronomy 22:22-24
Adultery is capital for both parties and verse 22 names both of them twice. A betrothed woman is treated as married, and the city case turns on the fact that she cried not, being in the city, where a cry would have been heard. The next three verses take the same reasoning and run it the other way.
Deuteronomy 22:22
“This law we had before, Lev. xx. For a married man to lie with a single woman was not a crime of so high a nature, nor was it punished with death, because not introducing a spurious brood into families under the character of legitimate children.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
A virgin pledged in marriage was already called a wife, and Gill notes a man could make the pledge by money or by a deed written before witnesses. Henry notes that Mary stood under this law when she was found with child, until an angel spoke to Joseph. Matthew 1:19 shows the danger.
Each party receives a separate charge. Wesley takes her silence as grounds for a presumption of consent, and the man is charged with the wrong he did to his neighbour. Both are stoned at the city gate, where judgment was given.
Deuteronomy 22:24
“Now by this law it is intimated to us, (1.) That we shall suffer only for the wickedness we do, not for that which is done to us. That is no sin which has not more or less of the will in it.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
In the open country only the man dies. The statute says “she has committed no sin worthy of death” and gives its reason, that “there was no one to save her”, so the lack of witnesses is read in her favour. It then classes the act with murder in so many words, like a man who attacks his neighbor and murders him.
Deuteronomy 22:25
“And the man force her - A rape also, by these ancient institutions, was punished with death, because a woman’s honor was considered equally as precious as her life; therefore the same punishment was inflicted on the ravisher as upon the murderer. This offense is considered in the same point of view in the British laws, and by them also it is punished with death.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Clarke explains the case as like murder: a woman's honor was counted as precious as her life, so the man who attacks her would die as a murderer. Wesley calls the act one of force, with no choice on her side. The law finds no sin in her.
No witness heard the betrothed woman out in the field. The law still counts her as having cried out, and Wesley calls this charity, which believes the best until the contrary is shown.
Deuteronomy 22:27
“For he found her in the field,.... Which is a circumstance in her favour, from which it might he presumed that she was forced, and did not consent; for had the sin been committed by agreement, they would doubtless have betook themselves to another place: and the betrothed damsel cried as it might be concluded from the above circumstance she did, and as she herself declared, and which he could not gainsay, or however disprove: and there was none to save her; to help her against him, and deliver her out of his hands.”
Deuteronomy 22:28-30
The unbetrothed case ends in fifty shekels to the father and a marriage the man may never dissolve, and Exodus 22:16-17 sets beside it a father's right to refuse the match. Commentators differ over how far the two passages govern each other and over the force of the Hebrew verb for seizing her. The chapter closes on a father's wife, the case 1 Corinthians 5:1 finds in a church.
Wesley, following Philo, reads the fifty shekels as a penalty paid on top of the usual dowry. He adds that the marriage required her father's consent.
Deuteronomy 22:29
“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.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Henry reads the ban as shorthand for all of Leviticus 18, and Clarke as the case of a stepmother, a young wife whom the son would marry once his father died. Clarke thinks Solomon made it his pretext for killing Adonijah, who had asked for Abishag, 1 Kings 2:13 to 25. Such a son dishonors his father's marriage bed.
Deuteronomy 22:30
“A man shall not take his father's wife,.... Not marry her, whether his own mother, or a stepmother; or even, as Aben Ezra thinks, anyone that was deflowered by his father.”
2 more voices on this verse
Deuteronomy 22:30
“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 pretense 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, 1Ki 2:13-25.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Deuteronomy 22:30
“And, probably, it is intended (as bishop Patrick notes) for a short memorandum to them carefully to observe all the laws there made against incestuous marriages, that being specified which is the most detestable of all; it is that of which the apostle says, It is not so much as named among the Gentiles, 1 Cor. v. 1 .”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
How this psalm is built
The form: Law restated inside a spoken address, standing in the stipulations of a covenant treaty, as Kline classes it.
The patterns in this chapter
| Device | What it does | Where to see it |
|---|---|---|
| Four rules with little in common, and the last explains the kind | Verses 5 to 8 set a clothing rule, a bird's nest rule, a parapet and a mixing rule side by side. The parapet shows what kind of law this is, since it is required so that a householder does not bring blood on his house if a man falls from the roof. Building safety is put as a question of guilt.Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, on Deuteronomy 22:8. | Deuteronomy 22:5, Deuteronomy 22:6, Deuteronomy 22:8 |
| Kinds kept distinct, with no reason given | Verses 9 to 11 forbid two seeds in a vineyard, an ox and a donkey under one yoke, and wool with linen in one garment. The text gives no reason for any of the three, which is how Leviticus 19:19 leaves them as well. The tassels of verse 12 stand beside them and do carry a reason, since Numbers 15:38-40 explains them as a reminder of the commandments.John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament, 1748 to 1763, on Deuteronomy 22:9. | Deuteronomy 22:9, Deuteronomy 22:10, Deuteronomy 22:11, Deuteronomy 22:12 |
| The city and the field, the same reasoning run both ways | The city case at verses 23 and 24 turns on the fact that the woman did not cry out where a cry would have been heard. The field case at verses 25 to 27 runs the reasoning the other way and reads the absence of witnesses in her favour, saying outright that there is in her no sin worthy of death.Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, on Deuteronomy 22:23-27. | Deuteronomy 22:23, Deuteronomy 22:25, Deuteronomy 22:27 |
| Wrought folly in Israel | The phrase naming the offence at verse 21 is the one Genesis 34:7 used first, and Judges 20:6 and 2 Samuel 13:12 use it again. The statute reaches for a term already carrying three narratives behind it.Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, on Deuteronomy 22:13-21. | Deuteronomy 22:21 |
The New Testament's use
8 more paragraphs on the patterns
The tassels of verse 12 are the garment edge people reach for at Matthew 9:20 and Matthew 14:36. The prohibition at verse 30 is the case Paul finds in the Corinthian church at 1 Corinthians 5:1.
The field case at verses 25 to 27 classes the act with murder in so many words, as when a man rises against his neighbour and kills him. The statute supplies its own comparison, so no later reader has to draw it.
What the law leaves unexplained, and what it does not
Three of the mixing rules stand with no reason attached, and this site carries that as it stands rather than supplying one. The fourth rule in the group, the tassels, is explained at Numbers 15:38-40 as a reminder of the commandments. The parapet at verse 8 is explained inside the verse itself, by the blood a fall would bring on the house.
The case law and the codes around it
This site's dossier sets these statutes beside the Code of Hammurabi, which covers theft, assault, marriage and deposit in the same if-then form, with penalties graded by the social rank of the parties. The dossier reads the shared form as a legal idiom across the ancient Near East rather than as borrowing, and it marks where Deuteronomy parts from it. Deuteronomy refuses to grade a life by rank and bends its statutes toward the widow, the orphan, the sojourner and the debtor.
The two fines, set against each other
The hundred shekels of verse 19 and the fifty of verse 29 are the only two money penalties in the chapter, and the larger one falls on the husband who brought a false charge. The chapter therefore prices a lie about a wife at twice the price of the act against an unbetrothed woman.
Keep studying
Sources for this chapter
The summary
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory; John Calvin, Commentaries; John Wesley, Notes on the Old Testament and Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary.
The form and classifications
Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, 1963; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1972 and This site's published dossier on Deuteronomy, src/components/book/dossier-content/deuteronomy.ts, the entry on the Code of Hammurabi.
The exposition
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments (1832-1869); Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; John Gill; John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament; Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch and Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible.