Deuteronomy 24:5-22, Thoughts on Deut. 22-24

Some of these “statutes and judgments” might be considered intrusive into the “rights” of individuals.  Is there a “national” purpose for these details? Let’s see.

·       22:1-4: Basic kindness was expected of citizens. 

·       22:5: The distinction between men and women was to be observed and observable.

·       22:6-7: Birds (and certainly, animals in general) were to be treated is a way that fit their usefulness to humanity (it would prolong their days).  In other words, there is no brute “meanness” in life, toward any of God’s creation.

·       22:8: Homeowners were responsible for the safety of occupants and visitors. 

·       22:9-10: Even the farmer/rancher was not to disrupt basic food supply by mismanagement.

·       22:11-12: The tassels are explained in Num. 15:37-41.  It reminded them of their special calling as the people of the LORD.

·       22:13-30: The regulations concerning sexual immorality are in more detail in Leviticus.  They promote holiness and faithfulness to one’s spouse and family.  Note that the woman, in a “rape” situation, is responsible to cry out for help at the time of the crime.

·       23:1-8: These are unique to Israel.  The issues at stake are, first, the prophetic picture of the Savior to come; and, second, Israel’s special calling as God’s treasure, His people; and, third, God’s justice for past sins of neighboring nations.

·       23:9-14: This makes a lot of sense.  Nations that build their societies on Biblical truth tend to be “clean” societies. 

·       23:15-25: This collection of statutes is interesting.  Slavery (v15-16) was a fact in those days; but Israelites were permitted to grant refuge to those escaping masters in surrounding nations.  Temple prostitutes (v17-18) were common in the nations, but were forbidden in Israel.  You were to give to your fellow-Israelites and not engage in loaning at interest (22:19-20).  Faithfulness to your promises to God was required (22:21-22).  In 22:23-24, one action was sharing in the joy of your neighbor’s productivity; the other was stealing from your neighbor.

·       24:1-4: Divorce laws were for the protection of the woman.  Later generations of Rabbis debated the meaning of “uncleanness” with some saying that burning the toast was sufficient reason for divorce.  The statute in v4 was meant to maintain the importance of marriage and not let it become “easy.”

·       24:5-22: Here are more interesting statutes and judgments.  I have heard it said that today v5 should be a law and amended to forbid television or cell phones or game consuls in the first year of marriage.  Prov. 22:7 says the borrower is servant to the lender.  True! Dt. 24:10-13 forbids the lender from being overbearing.  The same is true of the hired hand and his treatment by the boss/business owner (24:14-16).  Good neighbors, not the government, are responsible for the care of the poor and needy (24:19-22).

We are not under law.  However, I find a lot that is refreshing in these statutes.