DEUTERONOMY 24 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

1 If a man marries a woman who becomes

displeasing to him because he finds something

indecent about her, and he writes her a

certificate of divorce,gives it to her and sends

her from his house,

BARNES 1-4, "In this and the next chapter certain particular rights and duties, domestic, social, and civil, are treated. The cases brought forward have often no definite connection, and seem selected in order to illustrate the application of the great principles of the Law in certain important events and circumstances.

These four verses contain only one sentence, and should be rendered thus: If a man hath taken a wife, etc., and given her a bill of divorcement and Deu_24:2 if she has departed out of his house and become another man’s wife; and Deu_24:3 if the latter husband hates her, then Deu_24:4 her former husband, etc.

Moses neither institutes nor enjoins divorce. The exact spirit of the passage is given in our Lord’s words to the Jews’, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives” Mat_19:8. Not only does the original institution of marriage as recorded by Moses Gen_2:24 set forth the perpetuity of the bond, but the verses before us plainly intimate that divorce, while tolerated for the time, contravenes the order of nature and of God. The divorced woman who marries again is “defiled” Deu_24:4, and is grouped in this particular with the adulteress (compare Lev_18:20). Our Lord then was speaking according to the spirit of the law of Moses when he declared, “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” Mat_19:9. He was speaking too not less according to the mind of the prophets (compare Mal_2:14-16). But Moses could not absolutely put an end to a practice which was traditional, and common to the Jews with other Oriental nations. His aim is therefore to regulate and thus to mitigate an evil which he could not extirpate.

CLARKE, "Some uncleanness - Any cause of dislike, for this great latitude of meaning the fact itself authorizes us to adopt, for it is certain that a Jew might put

1

away his wife for any cause that seemed good to himself; and so hard were their hearts, that Moses suffered this; and we find they continued this practice even to the time of our Lord, who strongly reprehended them on the account, and showed that such license was wholly inconsistent with the original design of marriage; see Mat_5:31 (note), etc.; Mat_19:3 (note), etc., and the notes there.

GILL, "When a man hath taken a wife and married her,.... That is, when a man has made choice of a woman for his wife, and has obtained her consent, and the consent of her parents; and has not only betrothed her, but taken her home, and consummated the marriage:

and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes; is not agreeable to him, he takes no delight in her person, nor pleasure in her company and conversation; but, on the contrary, his affections are alienated from her, and he cannot bear the sight of her:

because he hath found some uncleanness in her; something that he disliked, and was disagreeable to him, and which made their continuance together in the marriage state very uncomfortable; which led him on to be very ill-natured, severe, and cruel to her; so that her life was exposed to danger, or at least become very uneasy; in which case a divorce was permitted, both for the badness of the man's heart, and in favour of the woman, that she might be freed from such rigorous usage. This word "uncleanness" does not signify adultery, or any of the uncleannesses forbidden in Lev_18:6; because that was punishable with death, when it could be proved; and where there was only a suspicion of it, the husband might make use of the bitter water: though the house of Shammai seem to take it in this sense; for they say a man might not divorce his wife unless he found her in some unclean thing, something dishonest and wicked, and which they ground upon these words; but the house of Hillell say, if she burnt his food, or spoiled it by over salting, or over roasting it; and Akiba says, even if he found another woman more beautiful than her or more agreeable to him. But neither his sense, nor that of the house of Shammai, are approved of by the Jews in general, but that of the house of Hillell (m); and they suppose a man might divorce his wife for any ill qualities of mind in her, or for any ill or impudent behaviour of hers; as if her husband saw her go abroad with her head uncovered, and spinning in the streets, and so showing her naked arms to men; or having her garments slit on both sides; or washing in a bath with men, or where men use to wash, and talking with every man, and joking with young men; or her voice is sonorous and noisy; or any disease of body, as the leprosy, and the like; or any blemishes, as warts, are upon her; or any disagreeable smell that might arise from any parts of the body, from sweat, or a stinking breath (n):

then let him write her a bill of divorcement; Jarchi says, this is a command upon him to divorce her, because she finds not favour in his eyes; and so the Jews (o)generally understand it, and so they did in the time of Christ, Mat_19:7; whereas it was no more than a permission, for reasons before given. A man might not dismiss his wife by word of mouth, which might be done hastily, in a passion, of which he might soon repent; but by writing, which was to be drawn up in form; and, as the Targum of Jonathan, before the sanhedrim, in a court of judicature, which required time, during which he might think more of it, and either recede from his purpose before the case was finished, or do it upon mature deliberation; and a firm resolution. The Jews say (p) many things of the witnesses before whom it was to be

2

written and sealed, and at what time, and upon what, and with what it was to be written, and who were proper persons to write it or not, in a treatise of theirs, called Gittin, or divorces. In the Hebrew text this bill is called "a bill of cutting off" (q); because the marriage was rescinded, and man and wife were cut off and separated from one another for ever; of the form of such a bill; see Gill on Mat_5:31,

and give it in her hand; which was to be done before witnesses, and which is one of the ten things requisite to a divorce (r); though it made no difference whether it was delivered by himself, or by a messenger; or whether to her, or to her deputy, appointed by her before witnesses; or whether it was put into her hand, or in her bosom, so be it that she was but possessed of it; with which agrees the Jewish canon,"if he casts a bill to his wife, and she is within the house, or within the court, she is divorced; if he casts it into her bosom, or into her work basket, she is divorced (s):"

and send her out of his house; which was a visible token and public declaration of her divorce; besides, were she to be continued in his house afterwards, it would give suspicion of cohabitation, which after a divorce was not lawful.

HENRY, "This is that permission which the Pharisees erroneously referred to as a precept, Mat_19:7, Moses commanded to give a writing of divorcement. It was not so; our Saviour told them that he only suffered it because of the hardness of their hearts, lest, if they had not had liberty to divorce their wives, they should have ruled them with rigour, and it may be, have been the death of them. It is probable that divorces were in use before (they are taken for granted, Lev_21:14), and Moses thought it needful here to give some rules concerning them. 1. That a man might not divorce his wife unless he found some uncleanness in her, Deu_24:1. It was not sufficient to say that he did not like her, or that he liked another better, but he must show cause for his dislike; something that made her disagreeable and unpleasant to him, though it might not make her so to another. This uncleanness must mean something less than adultery; for, for that, she was to die; and less than the suspicion of it, for in that case he might give her the waters of jealousy; but it means either a light carriage, or a cross froward disposition, or some loathsome sore or disease; nay, some of the Jewish writers suppose that an offensive breath might be a just ground for divorce. Whatever is meant by it, doubtless it was something considerable; so that their modern doctors erred who allowed divorce for every cause, though ever so trivial, Mat_19:3. 2. That it must be done, not by word of mouth, for that might be spoken hastily, but by writing, and that put in due form, and solemnly declared, before witnesses, to be his own act and deed, which was a work of time, and left room for consideration, that it might not be done rashly. 3. That the husband must give it into the hand of his wife, and send her away, which some think obliged him to endow her and make provision for her, according to her quality and such as might help to marry her again; and good reason he should do this, since the cause of quarrel was not her fault, but her infelicity. 4. That being divorced it was lawful for her to marry another husband, Deu_24:2. The divorce had dissolved the bond of marriage as effectually as death could dissolve it; so that she was as free to marry again as if her first husband had been naturally dead. 5. That if her second husband died, or divorced her, then still she might marry a third, but her first husband should never take her again (Deu_24:3, Deu_24:4), which he might have done if she had not married another; for by that act of her own she had perfectly renounced him for ever, and, as to him was looked upon as defiled, though not as to another person. The Jewish writers say that this was to prevent a most vile and wicked practice which the

3

Egyptians had of changing wives; or perhaps it was intended to prevent men's rashness in putting away their wives; for the wife that was divorced would be apt, in revenge, to marry another immediately, and perhaps the husband that divorced her, how much soever he though to better himself by another choice, would find the next worse, and something in her more disagreeable, so that he would wish for his first wife again. “No” (says this law) “you shall not have her, you should have kept her when you had her.” Note, It is best to be content with such things as we have, since changes made by discontent often prove for the worse. The uneasiness we know is commonly better, though we are apt to think it worse, than that which we do not know. By the strictness of this law God illustrates the riches of his grace in his willingness to be reconciled to his people that had gone a whoring from him. Jer_3:1, Thou hast played the harlot with many lovers, yet return again to me. For his thoughts and ways are above ours.

JAMISON, "Deu_24:1-22. Of divorces.

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes — It appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt [Lane]. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Mat_19:8). But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of that second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her.

K&D, "Deu_24:1-5 contain two laws concerning the relation of a man to his wife. The first (Deu_24:1-4) has reference to divorce. In these verses, however, divorce is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away, or had died. The four verses form a period, in which Deu_24:1-3 are the clauses of the protasis, which describe the matter treated about; and Deu_24:4 contains the apodosis, with the law concerning the point in question. If a man married a wife, and he put her away with a letter of divorce, because she did not please him any longer, and the divorced woman married another man, and he either put her away in the same manner or died, the first husband could not take her as his wife again. The putting away (divorce) of a wife with a letter of divorce, which the husband gave to the wife whom he put away, is assumed as a custom founded upon tradition. This tradition left the question of divorce entirely at the will of the husband: “if the wife does not find favour in his eyes (i.e., does not please him), because he has found in her something shameful”

(Deu_23:15). ערוה, nakedness, shame, disgrace (Isa_20:4; 1Sa_20:30); in connection

with בר, the shame of a thing, i.e., a shameful thing (lxx σχηµον πρ�γµα; Vulg.

aliquam faetiditatem). The meaning of this expression as a ground of divorce was disputed even among the Rabbins. Hillel's school interpret it in the widest and most lax manner possible, according to the explanation of the Pharisees in Mat_19:3, “for

every cause.” They no doubt followed the rendering of Onkelos, פתגם the ,עבירת

4

transgression of a thing; but this is contrary to the use of the word ערוה, to which the

interpretation given by Shammai adhered more strictly. His explanation of בר ערות is

“rem impudicam, libidinem, lasciviam, impudicitiam.” Adultery, to which some of the Rabbins would restrict the expression, is certainly not to be thought of, because this was to be punished with death.

(Note: For the different views of the Rabbins upon this subject, see Mishnah tract. Gittin ix. 10; Buxtorf, de sponsal. et divort. pp. 88ff.; Selden, uxor ebr. l. iii. c. 18 and 20; and Lightfoot, horae ebr. et talm. ad Matth. v. 31f.)

ריתת βιβλίον ,ספר &ποστασίου, a letter of divorce; ריתת , hewing off, cutting off, sc.,

from the man, with whom the wife was to be one flesh (Gen_2:24). The custom of giving letters of divorce was probably adopted by the Israelites in Egypt, where the practice of writing had already found its way into all the relations of life.

(Note: The rabbinical rules on the grounds of divorce and the letter of divorce, according to Maimonides, have been collected by Surenhusius, ad Mishn. tr. Gittin, c. 1 (T. iii. pp. 322f. of the Mishnah of Sur.), where different specimens of letters of divorce are given; the latter also in Lightfoot, l.c.)

The law that the first husband could not take his divorced wife back again, if she had married another husband in the meantime, even supposing that the second husband was dead, would necessarily put a check upon frivolous divorces. Moses could not entirely abolish the traditional custom, if only “because of the hardness of the people's hearts” (Mat_19:8). The thought, therefore, of the impossibility of reunion with the first husband, after the wife had contracted a second marriage, would put some restraint upon a frivolous rupture of the marriage tie: it would have this effect, that whilst, on the one hand, the man would reflect when inducements to divorce his wife presented themselves, and would recall a rash act if it had been performed, before the wife he had put away had married another husband; on the other hand, the wife would yield more readily to the will of her husband, and seek to avoid furnishing him with an inducement for divorce. But this effect would be still more readily produced by the reason assigned by Moses, namely, that the divorced woman

was defiled (ה)*+ה, Hothpael, as in Num_1:47) by her marriage with a second

husband. The second marriage of a woman who had been divorced is designated by Moses a defilement of the woman, primarily no doubt with reference to the fact that the emissio seminis in sexual intercourse rendered unclean, though not merely in the sense of such a defilement as was removed in the evening by simple washing, but as a moral defilement, i.e., blemishing, desecration of the sexual communion with was sanctified by marriage, in the same sense in which adultery is called a defilement in Lev_18:20 and Num_5:13-14. Thus the second marriage of a divorced woman was placed implicite upon a par with adultery, and some approach made towards the teaching of Christ concerning marriage: “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery” (Mat_5:32). - But if the second marriage of a divorced woman was a moral defilement, of course the wife could not marry the first again even after the death of her second husband, not only because such a reunion would lower the dignity of the woman, and the woman would appear too much like property, which could be disposed of at one time and reclaimed at another (Schultz), but because the defilement of the wife would be thereby repeated, and even increased, as the moral defilement which the divorced wife acquired through the second marriage was not removed by a divorce from the second husband, nor yet by his death. Such defilement was an abomination before Jehovah, by which they would cause the land to sin, i.e., stain it with sin, as much as by the sins of incest and unnatural licentiousness (Lev_18:25).

5

Attached to this law, which is intended to prevent a frivolous severance of the marriage tie, there is another in Deu_24:5, which was of a more positive character, and adapted to fortify the marriage bond. The newly married man was not required to perform military service for a whole year; “and there shall not come (anything) upon him with regard to any matter.” The meaning of this last clause is to be found in what follows: “Free shall he be for his house for a year,” i.e., they shall put no public burdens upon him, that he may devote himself entirely to his newly established domestic relations, and be able to gladden his wife (compare Deu_20:7).

CALVIN, "Although what relates to divorce was granted in indulgence to the

Jews, yet Christ pronounces that it was never in accordance with the Law,

because it is directly repugnant to the first institution of God, from whence a

perpetual and inviolable rule is to be sought. It is proverbially said that the laws

of nature are indissoluble; and God has declared once for all, that the bond of

union between husband and wife is closer than that of parent and child;

wherefore, if a son cannot shake off the paternal yoke, no cause can permit the

dissolution of the connection which a man has with his wife. Hence it appears

how great was the perverseness of that nation, which could not be restrained

from dissolving a most sacred and inviolable tie. Meanwhile the Jews improperly

concluded from their impunity that that was lawful, which God did not punish

because of the hardness of their hearts; whereas they ought rather to have

considered, agreeably to the answer of Christ, that man is not at liberty to

separate those whom God hath joined together. (Matthew 19:6.) Still, God chose

to make a provision for women who were cruelly oppressed, and for whom it was

better that they should at once be set free, than that they should groan beneath a

cruel tyranny during their whole lives. Thus, in Malachi, divorce is preferred to

polygamy, since it would be a more tolerable condition to be divorced than to

bear with a harlot and a rival. (Malachi 2:14.) And undoubtedly the bill or scroll

of divorce, whilst it cleared the woman from all disgrace, cast some reproach on

the husband; for he who confesses that he puts away his wife, because she does

not please him, brings himself under the accusation both of moroseness and

inconstancy. For what gross levity and disgraceful inconstancy it shows, that a

husband should be so offended with some imperfection or disease in his wife, as

to east away from him half of himself! We see, then, that husbands were

indirectly condemned by the writing of divorce, since they thus committed an

6

injury against their wives who were chaste, and in other respects what they

should be. On these grounds, God in Isaiah, in order that He might take away

from the Jews all subject of complaint, bids them produce the bill of divorce, if

He had given any to their mother, (Isaiah 1:1;) as much as to say, that His cause

for rejecting them was just, because they had treacherously revolted to

ungodliness.

Some interpreters do not read these three verses continuously, but suppose the

sense to be complete at the end of the first, wherein the husband testifies that he

divorces his wife for no offense, but because her beauty does not satisfy his lust.

If, however, we give more close attention, we shall see that it is only one provision

of the Law, viz., that when a man has divorced his wife, it is not lawful for him to

marry her again if she have married another. The reason of the law is, that, by

prostituting his wife, he would be, as far as in him lay, acting like a procurer. In

this view, it is said that she was defiled, because he had contaminated her body,

for the liberty which he gave her could not abolish the first institution of God,

but rather, as Christ teaches, gave cause for adultery. (Matthew 5:31, and 19:9.)

Thus, the Israelites were reminded that, although they divorced their wives with

impunity, still this license was by no means excused before God.

BENSON, "Deuteronomy 24:1. Some uncleanness — Some hateful thing, some

distemper of body, or quality of mind, not observed before marriage: or some

light carriage, as this phrase commonly signifies, but not amounting to adultery.

Let him write — This is not a command, as some of the Jews understood it, nor

an allowance and approbation, but merely a permission of that practice for

prevention of greater mischiefs, and this only until the time of reformation, till

the coming of the Messiah, when things were to return to their first institution

and purest condition.

COFFMAN, "Verse 1

Kline's analysis of this chapter is thus:

7

(1) Laws of Family (Deuteronomy 24:1-5)

(2) Laws of Life (Deuteronomy 24:6-15)

(3) Laws of Justice (Deuteronomy 24:16-18)

(4) Laws of Charity (Deuteronomy 24:19-22).[1]

A number of these have already been studied earlier in the Pentateuch, the

repetition of them here being recalled, apparently at random, by Moses in one of

his great farewell addresses. This entire third division of Deuteronomy extending

through Deuteronomy 26:19 is nearing the end, the whole of this long section

being devoted to "Covenant Stipulations," a general summary of the whole

Covenant duties of God's people, including a very large number of specific rules

and regulations. The Decalogue and other portions of the sacred law were

already committed to writing and known by God's people, and Moses' words in

this section do not replace any of the previously written ordinances, but serve,

rather as a reminder and restatement of all of them, with, here and there, a

specific addition.

In the larger context, all of Deuteronomy "follows the structure of that

suzerainty type of covenant (or treaty) in its classical mid-second millennium

B.C. form, confirming the unity and authenticity of Deuteronomy as a Mosaic

product."[2] It is important to remember in this connection that, throughout,

Moses speaks as the personal representative of God Himself, the sovereign ruler

of the Chosen Nation. Efforts of the critical community to deny the authorship

and approximate mid-second millennium B.C. date of Deuteronomy have now

been thoroughly refuted and discredited.

8

LAWS OF FAMILY

"When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no

favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall

write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his

house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another

man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of

divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the

latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband, who sent

her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that

is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which

Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

"When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not go out in the host, neither shall he

be charged with any business: he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer

his wife whom he hath taken."

The first paragraph here is that famous passage brought up by the Pharisees in

the presence of Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:3. The view of those evil men was

that Moses commanded to give a bill of divorcement (Matthew 19:7), but Christ

corrected them, pointing out that Moses indeed permitted divorce because of the

hardness of men's hearts, but that he, in no sense whatever commanded it. Some

of the commentators today also need to be corrected. For example, Dummelow

stated that, "The right of the husband to divorce his wife is here

acknowledged."[3] This passage, of course, does no such thing. "This is not a law

instituting or regulating divorce but a regulation concerning this ancient Semitic

custom."[4] Cook has elaborated this correct view a little more fully, as follows:

9

"Moses neither instituted nor enjoined divorce. The exact spirit of this passage is

found in our Lord's words to the Pharisees: "Moses because of the hardness of

your hearts suffered you to put away your wives (Matthew 19:8). Moses reported

the original institution of marriage (Genesis 2:24), setting forth the perpetuity of

the bond, and even the passage before us plainly indicates that divorce, while

tolerated for the time, contravenes the order of nature and of God. The divorced

woman who marries again is "defiled" (Deuteronomy 24:4), and is grouped in

this particular with the adulteress. Our Lord, then, was speaking according to

the spirit of this passage when he declared, "Whoso marrieth her that is put

away committeth adultery" (Matthew 19:9)."[5]

(For further comment on this question, see in Vol. 1 of our series on the N.T.,

under Matthew 19:1ff.)

There are a number of very interesting things here. "Some unseemly thing in

her ..." what can this mean? The Hebrew has, literally, "some matter of

nakedness."[6] The Jews spawned two schools of authorities on this, those of

Shammai thought it meant something disgraceful, such as adultery, and those of

Hillel took the position that it meant any "unbecomingness," actually meaning

that, "for any reason," a man could put away his wife.[7] It is not hard to

discover the position of the Pharisees (Matthew 19:3) who accepted Hillel's

position on this, believing that divorce was possible "for every cause."

The first three verses here are all conditional, the one affirmation in the whole

first paragraph being that the woman's first husband may not take her back

after her union with another man. Needless to say, there have been many

disputes about what some of these clauses mean. Deuteronomy 24:2, for example,

is cited by Dummelow as proof that a divorced woman had the right to remarry.

"The bill of divorcement contained the sentence, "And thou art free to be

married to another man."[8] Also, some have disputed that there are any

exceptions at all, not even allowing what Jesus said, regarding "except for

10

fornication" (Matthew 19:9).

Occasionally, some commentator affirms that Jesus' exception `except for

fornication" should not be allowed because the parallel passages in Mark and in

Luke do not record it, but to us this appears little short of blasphemy. All of

everything written in all of the gospels is true, dependable, authentic, and of full

authority. It is NOT required that anything in any gospel be repeated by another

in order for it to be acceptable. The same thing is true of all of the Bible, and

thus Paul's additional "exception" in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is just as much the

Word of God as any other part of the Bible.

One insight into the passage should be stressed and that is the prevalence of

writing. The time here is the mid-second millennium B.C. (around 1400 B.C.),

and writing was generally known and in constant use in that society. Therefore,

the notion that Moses would not have written all of the pertinent material

contained in the Pentateuch borders on foolishness, especially in view of the

specific commandment of God that he was to do so, as in Exodus 17:14.

Summarizing the instructions relating to marriage and divorce in these first four

verses, these rules, it appears, were fashioned:

(1) in order to make divorce harder to get;

(2) requiring that a legal document be prepared in writing;

(3) thus probably involving the services of a scribe and perhaps also a

magistrate;

11

(4) forbidding any return to the original marriage after another had been

contracted; and

(5) indicating altogether God's displeasure with the whole business of "putting

away" wives.

If there should remain any doubt about how God actually views this sin, it is

found in the following verse:

"And did not he (God) make one ...? Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let

none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. FOR I HATE PUTTING

AWAY, saith Jehovah the God of hosts." (Malachi 2:15,16)

The instruction in Deuteronomy 24:5 regarding the man newly-married,

exempting him from any kind of military service for a whole year is also

mentioned again in Deuteronomy 20:7. Kline was correct in grouping this along

with the previous four verses. As Klein pointed out that:

"Attached to the laws regarding marriage which are intended to prevent a

frivolous severance of the marriage tie, Deuteronomy 24:5 is of a more positive

character and adapted to fortify the marriage tie."[9]

There is an amazing echo of this sequence in the sacred teachings in Matthew 19,

where, following the conversation about divorce, the apostles brought unto him

little children that Christ should place his hands upon them and bless them

(Matthew 19:13). It will be remembered that the apostles said, after that

conversation, " ...it is not expedient to marry." By bringing this beautiful episode

involving little children into focus at that very point, "It served as a comment on

the discussion of divorce, and left a better impression with reference to married

12

life.[10]

"To cheer his wife ..." (Deuteronomy 24:5). This is variously translated: "Rejoice

with his wife" (Douay Version), "Be happy with his wife" (RSV), "Para felicidad

de su mujer" (Spanish Version), "Stay at home and bring happiness to his wife"

(NIV), "Be happy with his wife" (Moffatt), "Cheer up his wife" (KJV and the

Polyglot). Tyndale has this, literally, "Fhalbe fre at home one yere and reioyfe

with his wife whiche he hath taken."

COKE, "Ver. 1. When a man hath taken a wife— The Hebrew nation having

been accustomed to the liberty of putting away their wives from motives of

dislike and aversion, and Moses being sensible that their hardness of heart, and

severity of temper, would, upon an absolute restraint from such liberty, produce

greater inconveniences and distractions in families; he now enacted, that when

any husband laboured under an absolute dislike to his wife, either upon account

of any bodily disease, or of her disagreeable temper, he should have the privilege

of parting with her; yet not in a violent, hasty, and passionate method, but

deliberately, by giving her, signed with his own hand, a discharge from all

further relation to him; whence she obtained a full right to marry any other

person. That by the phrase found some uncleanness in her, cannot be meant

adultery, or any other enormous crime, as idolatry, apostacy, and the like, is

evident, because those crimes were punished with death. The word uncleanness,

therefore, which is used with great latitude in these books, must signify any thing

creating dislike or aversion; something, either in her body or mind, which

created in the husband a fixed disgust: but as he himself was sole judge what this

uncleanness or turpitude was, whatever displeased him about her he might call

by that name. Mr. Locke observes, in agreement to the Margin of our Bibles,

that the phrase literally signifies the nakedness of any thing; and nakedness, says

he, is usually referred in Scripture to the mind, as well as body. Houbigant is of

opinion, that this uncleanness refers solely to some secret bodily defect, of which

the husband alone could be conscious; and that such defect only could justify

divorce. This, no doubt, gave husbands a great power over their wives, and must

have been attended with very great inconveniencies to society. See ch.

13

Deuteronomy 22:19; Deuteronomy 22:29 and Matthew 19:3-9. The law enjoins,

that a bill of divorcement (or of cutting off, so called, as it cut off a woman from

her husband) was to be written and given to the woman. A form of this divorce

may be seen in Selden and Buxtorf. As we have mention of divorces in several

places, (Leviticus 21:14; Leviticus 22:13. Numbers 30:9.) many judicious

interpreters have been of opinion, that it was usual to put away wives before the

law of Moses; that he only indulged them in an established custom, which he

knew their intractable tempers would not bear to have quite abolished; and

therefore he contented himself with bringing it under proper regulations and

restrictions. For more on this subject, we refer to St. Matthew as above, as well

as to Selden's Treatise de Uxor. Heb. lib. 3: cap. 18. J. Buxtorf de Sponsalib. &

Divort. Grotius de Jure B. & P. lib. 2: cap. 5 sect. 9 and a very learned

dissertation of the famous Mr. Mosheim, de Divortio.

CONSTABLE, "Marital duties and rights 24:1-5

A discussion of divorce and remarriage fits into this context because both

practices involve respect for the rights of others. The first of the two situations

Moses dealt with in this section concerns a married, divorced, and remarried

woman (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

"In modern society, marriage and divorce are not only regulated by law, but are

invalid unless conducted or decreed by accredited officials in accredited places

(churches and register offices, or law-courts in the case of divorce). In Israel,

however, both were purely domestic matters, with no officials and scarcely any

documents involved; the bill of divorce was the exception, and it was essential, to

protect the divorced woman from any charge of adultery, which was punishable

by death (cf. Deuteronomy 22:22)." [Note: Ibid., pp. 133-34.]

Moses allowed divorce for the "hardness of heart" of the Israelites, but God's

preference was that there be no divorce (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:24; Malachi

2:16; Matthew 19:8). This, then, is another example of God regulating practices

that were not His desire for people, but that He permitted in Israel (e.g.,

polygamy, etc.). The worst situation envisaged in these verses is divorce,

14

remarriage, divorce, and then remarriage to the first spouse. The better situation

was divorce and remarriage. Still better was divorce and no remarriage. Best of

all was no divorce.

The Egyptians practiced divorce and gave written certificates of divorce, so

perhaps the Israelites learned these practices from them. [Note: Keil and

Delitzsch, 3:417.] Divorce was common in the ancient Near East, and it was easy

to obtain. [Note: Thompson, p. 244.] However, the Israelites took marriage more

seriously than their neighbors did.

The reason for the granting of the divorce by the husband, who alone had the

power to divorce, was "some indecency" in his wife (Deuteronomy 24:1). This

could not have been simple adultery since the Israelites stoned adulteresses

(Deuteronomy 22:22). However it is debatable whether the Israelites enforced the

death penalty for adultery. [Note: Henry McKeating, "Sanctions Against

Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society," Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament 11 (1979):57-72.] It could not have been just suspicion of adultery

either since there was a specified procedure for dealing with that (Numbers

5:5-31). Two schools of rabbinic interpretation of this phrase developed in time.

Rabbi Hillel's liberal position was that God permitted a divorce "for every

cause" (Matthew 19:3), for example, burning the husband's food. Rabbi

Shammai's conservative position allowed divorce only for fornication (sexual

sin). Jesus said that God permitted divorce for fornication, but He warned

against remarrying after such a divorce (Matthew 19:9). [Note: See Appendix 1

at the end of these notes for a detailed discussion of the major interpretive

problems in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. See also Appendix 2 for some suggestions for

preventing divorce.]

Divorce not permitted by God followed by remarriage, which involved post-

marital adultery for the woman, resulted in the moral defilement and

15

uncleanness of the woman (Deuteronomy 24:4; cf. Leviticus 18:20; Numbers

5:12-14).

The point of Moses' legislation was that when a couple divorced and then wanted

to remarry, the woman's first husband could not marry her again if she had

married someone else following her divorce. Evidently Israel's neighbors would

divorce their mates, marry someone else, and then remarry their first spouse

after their "affair." This ordinance would have discouraged hasty divorce as

well as strengthening second marriages in Israel. [Note: For discussion of other

possible purposes, see J. Carl Laney, "Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the Issue of

Divorce," Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):9-13.]

"Thus the intent of the legislation seems to be to apply certain restrictions on the

already existing practice of divorce. If divorce became too easy, then it could be

abused and it would become a 'legal' form of committing adultery." [Note:

Craigie, The Book . . ., p. 305.]

One scholar argued that the giving of a certificate of divorce implies not only a

legal permission for divorce but also the legal permission for the woman to

remarry. He also believed that the improper behavior for which divorce was

allowed was behavior that fundamentally violated the essence of the marriage

covenant. [Note: Sprinkle, pp. 529-32 and 546-47.]

Jesus taught His disciples not to divorce (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12).

Matthew included Jesus' clarification of the condition for divorce that God

permitted (Matthew 19:9; cf. Deuteronomy 24:1), but Mark did not. Paul

restated Jesus' point (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) and added that a believing spouse

need not remain with an unbelieving mate if the unbeliever departs (i.e.,

divorces; 1 Corinthians 7:12-16). After a divorce he encouraged remarriage to

the former spouse or remaining single (1 Corinthians 7:11). [Note: Some of the

best writings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage are these. For the view that

16

God permitted divorce and remarriage for immorality and desertion, see John

Murray, Divorce (scholarly); Jay E. Adams, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

(popular); and Tim Crater, "Bill Gothard's View of the Exception Clause,"

Journal of Pastoral Practice 4 (1980):5-10 (popular). For the view that God

permitted divorce and remarriage for unlawful marriages, as the Mosaic Law

specified unlawful marriages, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce

Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence," Theological Studies 37:2 (June

1976):197-226 (scholarly); J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (popular); and

Charles C. Ryrie, You Mean the Bible Teaches That ..., pp. 45-56 (popular). For

the view that God permitted divorce and remarriage in Israel for unfaithfulness

during the betrothal period, see Abel Isaksson, "Marriage and Ministry in the

New Temple," pp. 7-152 (scholarly); and Mark Geldard, "Jesus' Teaching on

Divorce," Churchman 92 (1978):134-43 (popular). For the view that God

permitted divorce but not remarriage, see William A. Heth and Gordon J.

Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (scholarly). A helpful general resource is James B.

Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective.]

The second situation Moses dealt with in this section concerns a recently married

male (Deuteronomy 24:5). Such a person did not have to participate in military

service for one year. The reason for this provision was so the man could establish

a strong home and begin producing descendants. Both strong homes and

descendants were essential to God's purposes through Israel. Going into war and

dying was a type of stealing from his wife.

ELLICOTT, ". DIVORCE.

Some uncleanness.—Evidently mere caprice and dislike are not intended here.

There must be some real ground of complaint. (See Margin.)

Let him write her a bill of divorcement.—“Moses, because of the hardness of

your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives,” is the Divine comment upon

this. It is a distinct concession to the weakness of Israel—not the ideal standard

of the Law, but the highest which it was found practicable to enforce. (See

Matthew 19:2 seq.) There are many other particular enactments in the Law of

17

Moses of which the same thing may be said. The ideal standard of morality has

never varied. There is no higher ideal than that of the Pentateuch. But the Law

which was actually enforced, in many particulars fell short of that ideal.

(2) If the latter husband hate her.—Rashi says here that “the Scripture intimates

that the end of such a marriage will be that he will hate her.” He makes a similar

remark on the marriage with the captive in Deuteronomy 21. The result of the

marriage will be a hated wife, and a firstborn son of her, who will be a glutton

and a drunkard.

(4) Her former husband . . . may not take her again . . . and thou shalt not cause

the land to sin.—The comment upon this, supplied by Jeremiah 3:1, is singularly

beautiful. “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and

become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be

greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return

again to me, saith the Lord.”

HAWKER, "The Chapter before us is a continuation of certain laws, appointed

to be observed in certain cases. Here are directions concerning divorces; of the

permission, for the newly married to refrain from war; concerning pledges; men-

stealers; leprosy; hire of wages; of justice, and of charity.

Verses 1-4

Our blessed LORD'S comment upon this law throws a full light upon the subject

of divorces in general. The permission of such acts, carries with it the evidence of

the hardness of the human heart. Matthew 19:8. But what a precious thought is

it to the true believer in JESUS, that his union with him admits of no divorce.

No, not even our backsliding, for he saith himself, I have betrothed thee to me

forever. And though thou hast played the harlot with many lovers, yet return

again unto me, saith the LORD, Jeremiah 3:1; Hosea 2:19.

PETT, "Regulation On Divorce and Remarriage With The Same Woman

(Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

This regulation caused much dissension between the Rabbis. The question for

18

them was as to what ‘because he has found some unseemly thing (literally ‘some

nakedness of a thing’, compare Deuteronomy 23:14) in her’ meant. Shammai

said that it signified fornication and unclean behaviour. Hillel argued that it

simply meant anything that displeased the husband. Jesus came down on the side

of Shammai, but limited it to adultery.

The argument that it could not refer to adultery, because the punishment for

adultery was death, overlooks the fact that such a sentence would only be passed

where the husband had lodged his case and called in witnesses. If the husband

did not wish to pursue the death penalty, and no one else took up the case, it

would not necessarily be exacted, unless the woman was discovered by others in

open breach. (Compare how in the Matthew 1:19, in what appeared to be a

similar case, ‘Joseph being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public

example, was minded to put her away secretly’).

But this was not actually a law laying down a case for divorce. The Law in fact

never lays down a case for divorce. It was disapproved of by God. This was

about one particular point as to what was to happen when a man following

custom had divorced a wife who then remarried, and was later divorced by the

second husband, or whose second husband died. The point being made was that

the first husband could not remarry her. That was seen as a step too far.

Such a position would in practise be very important. Otherwise there would

always be the danger that the longstanding relationship of the first marriage

might act as a constant magnet to draw the woman out of a second marriage to

remarry her first husband. It might produce instability in the second marriage.

It might even cause some women to poison their second husbands so as to be able

to return to the first.

It also prevented reckless divorces gone through on the basis that if they wished

19

they could always come together again. The introduction of this regulation here

might suggest that Moses was very much aware of recent cases where these

things had occurred.

This chapter again has ‘thou, thee’ all the way through apart from Deuteronomy

24:7 and Deuteronomy 24:8 where the change simply stresses that everyone is

involved.

Analysis using the words of Moses.

· When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no

favour in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing (literally

‘nakedness of a word/thing’) in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement,

and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house (Deuteronomy 24:1).

· And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another

man’s wife (Deuteronomy 24:2).

· And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement,

and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house, or if the latter husband

die, who took her to be his wife (Deuteronomy 24:3).

· Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his

wife, after she is shown as (declared to be) defiled, for that is abomination before

Yahweh, and you shall not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh your God gives

you for an inheritance (Deuteronomy 24:4).

Note that in ‘a’ the husband divorces his wife, and in the parallel may not take

her again once she has remarried, even if her husband dies. In ‘b’ she marries

another man, and in the parallel it is posited that she is divorced by him, or that

he dies.

20

Deuteronomy 24:1

‘When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favour

in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing (literally ‘nakedness of a

word/thing’) in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in

her hand, and send her out of his house.’

Moses was really here only explaining that a divorce had taken place for some

particular reason, without going into detail, although he undoubtedly did see it

as a valid reason. He was not, however, intending it to be analysed, either by the

Rabbis, or by would be divorce seekers of the present day. He expected his

listeners to know the customary conditions for divorce, so he did not explain

them here. His reference was not specific. But what did ‘nakedness of a

word/thing’ convey. It would certainly seem to suggest some sexual transgression

or something unpleasantly unclean. We can compare Deuteronomy 23:14 where

the same phrase is used and translated as ‘unclean’ and signifies a man’s waste

products.

The word for ‘nakedness’ is regularly used of the shame of a person’s nakedness

being revealed. It is not the word for ritually unclean nor for things which were

just generally unseemly. So ‘nakedness’ usually connects with something to do

with sex or the sexual organs. An act of adultery or near adultery for which he

did not wish to press charges would fit the bill exactly, possibly a case where she

had been discovered before the actual adultery took place, or of actual adultery

where there were no witnesses, and his reticence on the matter is then explained

by the fact that he divorced her rather than openly accusing her and that he was

represented as loving her enough to be willing to take her back after the second

divorce.

But while he did not press charges it had been sufficient of a blow to his family

honour and his own sense of pride for him to give her a divorce contract in

21

writing and send her away. Possibly out of shame she had even demanded it. It

would seem, also, that she left without any rights, which would indicate that she

had sinned grievously. That divorce was possible is made clear by Deuteronomy

22:19; Deuteronomy 22:29, but not on what conditions. Those verses were simply

saying that never again could those particular men bring an action for divorce

against that woman for any reason. (Others could accuse her but not them. They

had forfeited their right by their behaviour. They were not considered

trustworthy). So the grounds for divorce here seems to be restricted to sexual

misconduct.

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Of divorce. If a man put away his wife because she did not any longer please

him, and she became the wife of another man, by whom also she was put away,

or from whom she was severed by his death, the first husband might not remarry

her, for that would be an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and would bring

sin on the land. This is not a law sanctioning or regulating divorce; that is simply

assumed as what might occur, and what is here regulated is the treatment by the

first husband of a woman who has been divorced a second time.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

These verses should be read as one continuous sentence, of which the protasis is

in Deuteronomy 24:1-3, and the apodosis in Deuteronomy 24:4, thus: "If a man

hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she doth not find

favor in his eyes, because of some uncleanness in her, and he hath written her a

bill of divorcement, and given it in her hand, and sent her out of his house; and if

she hath departed out of his house, and hath gone and become another man's;

and if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give

it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband who took

her to be his wife, die; her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her

22

again to be his wife," etc.

Deuteronomy 24:1

Because he hath found some uncleanness in her; literally, a thing or matter of

nakedness, i.e. some shameful thing, something disgraceful; LXX; ἄσχημον

πρᾶγμα: Vulgate, "aliquam foeditatem." In the Targum of Onkelos, the

expression is explained by עבירת פתגם; "aliquid foeditatis" (London Polyglot);

"iniquitas rei alicujus"(Buxtorf); "the transgression of a [Divine] word" (Levi).

On this the school of Hillel among the rabbins put the interpretation that a man

might divorce his wife for any unbecomingness (Mishna, 'Gittin,' 9.10), or indeed

for any cause, as the Pharisees in our Lord's day taught (Matthew 19:3). The

school of Shammai, on the other hand, taught that only for something

disgraceful, such as adultery, could a wife be divorced (Lightfoot, 'Her. Hebrews

et Talm.,' on Matthew 5:31, Opp; tom. 2.290). Adultery, however, cannot be

supposed here because that was punishable with death. A bill of divorcement;

literally, a writing of excision; the man and woman having by marriage become

one flesh, the divorce of the woman was a cutting of her off from the one whole.

Lightfoot has given (loc. cit.) different forms of letters of divorce in use among

the Jews (see also Maimonides, 'De Divortiis,' ch. 4. § 12).

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:1-5

Permissive legislation.

No treatment of this passage can Be appropriate which does not set it in the light

thrown upon it by Matthew 19:1-12. The heading we have given to this outline

indicates a point on which special stress should be laid whenever an expositor

has occasion to refer to it. In the course of time, men had come to regard this

passage in the light of a command. Hence the wording of the question in

23

Matthew 19:7. But our Lord informs us that it was simply permissive. Divorce,

under the circumstances here named, was tolerated a while by Moses owing to

"the hardness of men's hearts," but that the original Divine arrangement

contemplated the indissolubility of marriage. The entire principle of the Mosaic

Law was that of educating the people out of a semi-degraded state into

something higher, Its method of doing this was by giving the people the best

legislation they could bear; tolerating some ill for a while rather than forcing on

the people revolutionary methods. The more gentle and gracious, though the

slower process, was to sow the seed of higher good, and to let it have time to

grow. The following Divine teaching on marriage may well be brought forward

with this passage as a basis.

I. That the marriage bond is holy in the eye of God, and ought ever to be

recognized as very sacred by man.

II. That by God's own declared appointment this most sacred of all nature's ties

is indissoluble.

III. That however, owing to the degeneracy of national habit and thought, civil

legislation may suffer the legal cessation of the marriage bond, yet it can in no

case be severed, save by death, without heinous sin on one side or on both.

IV. That the claims of married life are such that, with them, not even the

exigencies of military service are unduly to interfere (Matthew 19:5).

V. That the highest and purest enjoyments of wedded life come to perfection only

when it is entered on and spent in the Lord Jesus Christ. The law was but a

παιδαγωγός εἰς χριστὸν (see 1 Corinthians 7:39).

24

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:1-5

Permissive legislation.

No treatment of this passage can Be appropriate which does not set it in the light

thrown upon it by Matthew 19:1-12. The heading we have given to this outline

indicates a point on which special stress should be laid whenever an expositor

has occasion to refer to it. In the course of time, men had come to regard this

passage in the light of a command. Hence the wording of the question in

Matthew 19:7. But our Lord informs us that it was simply permissive. Divorce,

under the circumstances here named, was tolerated a while by Moses owing to

"the hardness of men's hearts," but that the original Divine arrangement

contemplated the indissolubility of marriage. The entire principle of the Mosaic

Law was that of educating the people out of a semi-degraded state into

something higher, Its method of doing this was by giving the people the best

legislation they could bear; tolerating some ill for a while rather than forcing on

the people revolutionary methods. The more gentle and gracious, though the

slower process, was to sow the seed of higher good, and to let it have time to

grow. The following Divine teaching on marriage may well be brought forward

with this passage as a basis.

I. That the marriage bond is holy in the eye of God, and ought ever to be

recognized as very sacred by man.

II. That by God's own declared appointment this most sacred of all nature's ties

is indissoluble.

III. That however, owing to the degeneracy of national habit and thought, civil

legislation may suffer the legal cessation of the marriage bond, yet it can in no

25

case be severed, save by death, without heinous sin on one side or on both.

IV. That the claims of married life are such that, with them, not even the

exigencies of military service are unduly to interfere (Matthew 19:5).

V. That the highest and purest enjoyments of wedded life come to perfection only

when it is entered on and spent in the Lord Jesus Christ. The law was but a

παιδαγωγός εἰς χριστὸν (see 1 Corinthians 7:39).

2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes

the wife of another man,

GILL, "And when she is departed out of his house,.... With her bill of divorce, by which departure out of his house it is notified to all:

she may go and be other man's wife; it was permitted her to marry another

man, she being by her divorce freed from the law of her former husband; and who

indeed, in express words contained in the divorce, gave her leave so to do; which ran

thus,"thou art in thine own hand, and hast power over thyself to go and marry any

other man whom thou pleasest; and let no man hinder thee in my name, from this

day forward and for ever; and, lo, thou art free to any man;''See Gill on Mat_5:31

PETT, "Deuteronomy 24:2

‘And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s

26

wife.’

Once the woman was dismissed from his household she may take the step of

going and becoming another man’s wife. (This was not giving permission for

this, only stating that it may happen. Unless she returned home it was almost her

only option). She had her written contract declaring her to be free. We note here

that it was seemingly seen as perfectly acceptable by custom for her to remarry,

but never stated in God’s Law. It was this remarriage that Jesus called adultery,

and said that it was only allowed by God, although never authorised by Him, for

the hardness of their hearts. The point was not that He had condoned it, but that

He did not interfere with the general custom and actually forbid it.

3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes

her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and

sends her from his house, or if he dies,

CLARKE, "And write her a bill of divorcement - These bills, though varying in expression, are the same in substance among the Jews in all places. The following, collected from Maimonides and others, is a general form, and contains all the particulars of such instruments. The reader who is curious may find a full account of divorces in the Biblioth. Rab. of Bartolocci, and the following form in that work, vol. iv., p. 550.

“In - day of the week, or day - of the month A., in - year from the creation of the world, or from the supputation (of Alexander) after the account that we are accustomed to count by, here, in the place B., I, C., the son of D., of the place B., (or if there be any other name which I have, or my father hath had, or which my place or my father’s place hath had), have voluntarily, and with the willingness of my soul, without constraint, dismissed, and left, and put away thee, even thee, E., the daughter of F., of the city G., (or if thou have any other name or surname, thou or thy father, or thy place or thy father’s place), who hast been my wife heretofore; but now I dismiss thee, and leave thee, and put thee away, that thou mayest be free, and have power over thy

27

own life, to go away to be married to any man whom thou wilt; and that no man be refused of thine hand, for my name, from this day and for ever. And thus thou art lawful for any man; and this is unto thee, from me, a writing of divorcement, and book (instrument) of dismission, and an epistle of putting away; according to the Law of Moses and Israel.

A., son of B., witness.C., son of D., witness.”

GILL, "And if the latter husband hate her,.... Or less loves her than another woman, and she is disliked by him as she was by her former husband:

and write her a bill off divorcement, and giveth it into her hand,

and sendeth her out of his house: as he had by this law a permission, in like manner as her former husband had; See Gill on Deu_24:1,

or if her latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; and she survives him; as she is then by death loosed from the law of an husband, she may lawfully marry another man, but not her former husband, as follows.

PETT, "Deuteronomy 24:3-4

‘And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give

it in her hand, and send her out of his house, or if the latter husband die, who

took her to be his wife, her former husband, who sent her away, may not take

her again to be his wife, after she is shown as (declared to be) defiled, for that is

abomination before Yahweh, and you shall not cause the land to sin, which

Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.’

But the second husband might hate her and also give her a bill of divorcement,

and send her from his household. Here the condition for the divorce is the

husband’s ‘hate’. It is the same word as that which caused a false accusation of

adultery in Deuteronomy 22:13-14. It is thus in the wider context connected with

a man who accused his wife of sexual misbehaviour. (The fact that the one who

made the false charge of adultery in Deuteronomy 22:13-14 found it necessary to

do so demonstrates that divorce was not easy). But no detail of why this second

husband hated her is given. There is nothing to say what it was. For that is not

what Moses was seeking to demonstrate here. It is probably suggesting in

28

summary form the fact that she had done exactly the same as she did to her first

husband.

Alternately the second husband might die. By adding the clause ‘if the second

husband dies’ Moses has put us on the spot. We must immediately ask in passing

why Moses complicated things and even mentioned the possibility of a divorce in

the second case. It is clearly irrelevant to the case, for if it had not happened it

would have made no difference to the argument. The second husband’s death

would produce the same situation. Why then did he not just use the illustration

that her second husband died? The answer can only be because he wanted to

bring out what the woman was like, that all the fault lay with the woman. She

was the kind of woman, said Moses, who might easily have had a second divorce.

She was a disaster waiting to happen.

But the vital point was now reached. She was again free. However, we now learn

that even under the old law the first husband cannot now remarry her. He knows

that she was ‘shown as defiled’. But why was she ‘shown as defiled’? We may

basically ignore the actions of the second husband, because the same would

apply even if he had done nothing and had simply died. Thus we must

concentrate on the first husband. And here we must ignore the effect of the

theoretical remarriage to the first husband because she was ‘shown to be defiled’

before that had happened.

How had she been shown to be defiled? It may be by her behaviour which had

caused the first divorce, of which possibly only he knew, or it may be by her, to

his knowledge, having married a second time, or both. To him she had twice

revealed herself as an adulteress. There was, however, no suggestion about

whether she was or was not permitted to marry again. It was simply stated as

something that did happen. No comment is made on it, although as we have seen

Moses does make clear what he thought of her.

This is very important to note. Had God approved of divorce it would have been

so important a factor that surely it would have been legislated for. Yet it was

never legislated for. The only concession that God made was not to interfere with

the custom because of the hardness of their hearts. He did not step in to interfere

29

with the custom. But divorce nowhere has God’s blessing.

Thus the ‘showing of defilement’ only seems to apply to the first husband. He not

only knew about the divorce certificate, but he also knew the facts behind the

case. For him therefore to take her now would be for him to take a woman he

knew to be permanently defiled, and defiled in such a way that the defilement

could not be removed. For she had committed adultery by going with her second

husband. And that could surely only indicate a continuingly adulterous woman.

To marry her would result in his own permanent defilement and would defile the

land (compare Jeremiah 3:1).

Another alternative explanation is that he was the only one who knew about the

two (or one) divorce contracts. Others would have only known about one, or

none at all. So he knew that she had been married twice while her first husband

was still alive and was thereby an adulteress against him. Thus to marry her as

an adulteress against him would be to confirm her adultery and be equally

defiling, and would defile the land. She could no longer come to him as unsullied

to become one with him. It would in Yahweh’s eyes be obscene. It would be

making a mockery of all that marriage stood for. It would be so obscene that it

would cause the land which had been given to them as an inheritance from

Yahweh to sin. For the sins done in the land were the sins of the land.

Whichever way it was, (and in some ways they were saying the same thing), it

was her continuing adulterous state that banned the marriage. And yet as the

banning is only in relation to marriage with him it must connect with his

personal knowledge of her. He would know that she had not just made one slip

up, but was an adulteress through and through. Anyone else who married her

might not realise what kind of woman she was, and would not therefore be

deliberately sinning against the land. But he did know and would be doing so.

30

4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is

not allowed to marry her again after she has

been defiled. That would be detestable in the

eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land

the Lord your God is giving you as an

inheritance.

CLARKE, "She is defiled - Does not this refer to her having been divorced, and married in consequence to another? Though God, for the hardness of their hearts, suffered them to put away their wives, yet he considered all after-marriages in that case to be pollution and defilement; and it is on this ground that our Lord argues in the places referred to above, that whoever marries the woman that is put away is an adulterer: now this could not have been the case if God had allowed the divorce to be a legal and proper separation of the man from his wife; but in the sight of God nothing can be a legal cause of separation but adultery on either side. In such a case, according to the law of God, a man may put away his wife, and a wife may put away her husband; (see Mat_19:9); for it appears that the wife had as much right to put away her husband as the husband had to put away his wife, see Mar_10:12.

GILL, "Her former husband which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife,.... Though ever so desirous of it, and having heartily repented that he had put her away: this is the punishment of his fickleness and inconstancy, and was ordered to make men cautious how they put away their wives; since when they had so done, and they had been married to another, they could not enjoy them again even on the death of the second husband; yea, though she was only espoused to him, and he had never lain with her, as Ben Melech observes, it was forbidden the former husband to marry her; though if she had only played the whore, according to the same writer, and others (a), she might return to him:

after that she is defiled; not by whoredom, for in that case she was not forbidden, as it is interpreted, but by her being married to another man; when she was defiled, not by him, or with respect to him, nor with regard to any other man, whom she might lawfully marry after the decease of her latter husband; but with respect to her first husband, being by her divorce from him, and by her marriage to another, entirely alienated and separated from him, and so prohibited to him; and thus R. Joseph Kimchi interprets this defilement of prohibition, things prohibited being reckoned unclean, or not lawful to be used:

31

for that is abomination before the Lord; for a man to take his wife again, after she had been divorced by him, and married to another man; and yet, such is the grace and goodness of God to his backsliding people, that he receives them when they return unto him their first husband, and forsake other lovers, Jer_3:1,

and thou shalt not cause the land to sin which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance; since if this was allowed, that men might put away their wives, and take them again at pleasure, and change them as often as they thought fit, no order could be observed, and the utmost confusion in families introduced, and lewdness encouraged, and which would subject the land and the inhabitants of it to many evils and calamities, as the just punishment thereof.

COKE, "Ver. 4. Her former husband—may not take her again— To restrain

them from the abuse of this permission, the law provides, that the husband, who

had once put away his wife, should, upon her being married to another, be for

ever incapable of having her again. The law considered her as defiled; i.e.

unclean, as to her first husband, by having been the wife of a second, and so

forbidden to that first. See Acts 10:14-15. This intimates, that if she had not been

married to another, but kept herself free, her husband might have taken her

again to wife, if he were inclined so to do. Such, at least, is the opinion of Grotius,

and several other learned interpreters. Had husbands been allowed to take their

wives again, after being married to others, this might have produced the

abominable practice of prostitution, by exchanging wives at pleasure, whereby

the land would have been filled with pollutions, and the Lord provoked to inflict

judgments upon it; and, therefore, the sacred writer adds, for that is

abomination, &c. Abarbanel says, that this custom was common among the

Egyptians; and Selden observes, that Mahomet permitted his followers to take

their wives again, after having been divorced even three times. The Turks,

however, are not the only people who were deficient in delicacy upon this point;

it is well known, that the Lacedemonians were guilty of shameful pollutions in

this way. A person expressing surprise that no adulterers were to be heard of

among that people, was answered, that "through the prevalence of the custom

now mentioned, their very marriages were rank adulteries." See Grotius on the

place., "

BENSON, "Deuteronomy 24:4. Her former husband may not take her again —

This is the punishment of his levity and injustice in putting her away without

32

sufficient cause, which, by this offer, he now acknowledgeth. Defiled — Not

absolutely, as if her second marriage were a sin, but with respect to her first

husband, to whom she is as a defiled or unclean woman; that is, forbidden; for

things forbidden are accounted and called unclean, ( 13:7,) because they may no

more be touched or used than an unclean thing. Thou shalt not cause the land to

sin — Thou shalt not suffer such lightness to be practised, lest the people be

polluted, and the land defiled and accursed by that means.

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:4

The woman was held to be defiled by her second marriage, and thus by

implication, the marrying of a woman who had been divorced was pronounced

immoral, as is by our Lord explicitly asserted (Matthew 5:32). The prohibition of

a return of the wife to her first husband, as well as the necessity of a formal bill

of divorcement being given to the woman before she could be sent away, could

not fail to be checks on the license of divorce, as doubtless they were intended to

be.

5 If a man has recently married, he must not be

sent to war or have any other duty laid on him.

For one year he is to be free to stay at home and

bring happiness to the wife he has married.

CLARKE, "When a man hath taken a new wife - Other people made a similar provision for such circumstances. Alexander ordered those of his soldiers who had married that year to spend the winter with their wives, while the army was

33

in winter quarters. See Arrian, lib. i.

GILL, "When a man hath taken a new wife,.... A wife he has lately married, new to him, though a widow, as Jarchi observes; but the Targum of Jonathan says a virgin; however this is opposed to his old wife, and divorced; for this, as Jarchi and Ben Melech say, excepts the return of a divorced wife, who cannot be said to be a new one:

he shall not go out to war; this is to be understood of a man that had not only betrothed, but married a wife; a man that had betrothed a wife, and not married her, who went out to war, might return if he would, Deu_20:7; but one that had married a wife was not to go out to war:

neither shall be charged with any business; as betrothed ones were; they, though they had a liberty of returning, yet they were to provide food and drink for the army, and to prepare or mend the highways, as Jarchi observes; but these were not obliged to such things, nor even to keep watch on the walls of the city, or to pay taxes, as Maimonides (b) writes:

but he shall be free at home one year; not only from all tributes and taxes, and everything relative to the affairs of war, but from public offices and employments, which might occasion absence from home. Jarchi remarks, that his house or home comprehends his vineyard; and so he thinks that this respects his house and his vineyard, that if he had built a house and dedicated it, or planted a vineyard and made it common, yet was not to remove from his house because of the necessities of war:

and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken; or rejoice with his wife which he hath taken, and solace themselves with love; and thereby not only endear himself to her, but settle his affections on her, and be so confirmed in conjugal love, that hereafter no jealousies may arise, or any cause of divorce, which this law seems to be made to guard against. So it is said (c), that Alexander after the battle of Granicus sent home to Macedonia his newly married soldiers, to winter with their wives, and return at spring; which his master Aristotle had taught him, and as he was taught by a Jew.

HENRY, "Here is, I. Provision made for the preservation and confirmation of love between new-married people, Deu_24:5. This fitly follows upon the laws concerning divorce, which would be prevented if their affection to each other were well settled at first. If the husband were much abroad from his wife the first year, his love to her would be in danger of cooling, and of being drawn aside to others whom he would meet with abroad; therefore his service to his country in war, embassies, or other public business that would call him from home, shall be dispensed with, that he may cheer up the wife that he has taken. Note, 1. It is of great consequence that love be kept up between husband and wife, and that every thing be very carefully avoided which might make them strange one to another, especially at first; for in that relation, where there is not the love that should be, there is an inlet ready to abundance of guilt and grief. 2. One of the duties of that relation is to cheer up one another under the cares and crosses that happen, as helpers of each other's joy; for a

34

cheerful heart does good like a medicine.

JAMISON, "When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war — This law of exemption was founded on good policy and was favorable to matrimony, as it afforded a full opportunity for the affections of the newly married pair being more firmly rooted, and it diminished or removed occasions for the divorces just mentioned.

CALVIN, "The immunity here given has for its object the awakening of that

mutual love which may preserve the conjugal fidelity of husband and wife; for

there is danger lest, if a husband departs from his wife immediately after

marriage, the bride, before she has become thoroughly accustomed to him,

should be too prone to fall in love with some one else. A similar danger affects

the husband; for in war, and other expeditions, many things occur which tempt

men to sin. God, therefore, would have the love of husband and wife fostered by

their association for a whole year, that thus mutual confidence may be

established between them, and they may afterwards continually beware of all

incontinency.

But that God should permit a bride to enjoy herself with her husband, affords no

trifling proof of His indulgence. Assuredly, it cannot be but that the lust of the

flesh must affect the connection of husband and wife with some amount of sin;

yet God not only pardons it, but covers it with the veil of holy matrimony, lest

that which is sinful in itself should be so imputed; nay, He spontaneously allows

them to enjoy themselves. With this injunction corresponds what Paul says,

“Let the husband render unto his wife due benevolence: and likewise also the

wife unto the husband. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent

for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer.” (1 Corinthians

7:3.)

BENSON "Deuteronomy 24:5. Business — Any public office or employment,

which may cause an absence from or neglect of his wife. One year — That their

affections may be firmly settled, so as there may be no occasion for the divorces

last mentioned.

35

HAWKER, "This precept very properly follows the one respecting divorces.

Absence from the object we love begets coolness; and it would be well to be

considered by the married, whether much of the infidelity we hear of in common

life, doth not begin in this. But whether this be so or not; well I know that the

absence of my affections, from the LORD my husband, and the earthly concerns,

which so much carry away my soul from frequent communion with JESUS, are

the sad causes why my unworthy and unfaithful heart, is living so far from him.

Oh! for more constant enjoyment of thy presence, dearest Redeemer!

PETT, "Further Commands Related to Relationships (Deuteronomy 24:5-15).

The relationship between the people was to be that of ‘neighbours’, and they

must love their neighbour as themselves (Leviticus 19:18). Thus they must ensure

that men received immediately the benefit of contracts (Deuteronomy 24:5 and

Deuteronomy 24:15), that their necessities should not be retained in pledges

(Deuteronomy 24:6 and Deuteronomy 24:13), that their households were

protected from violation (Deuteronomy 24:7 and Deuteronomy 24:10-11), and

that they were not made unclean by another’s skin disease (Deuteronomy

24:8-9).

Analysis using the words of Moses:

a When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, nor shall

he be charged with any business. He shall be free at home one year, and shall

pleasure his wife whom he has taken (Deuteronomy 24:5).

b No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge, for he takes a

man’s life to pledge (Deuteronomy 24:6).

c If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel,

and he deal with him as a slave, or sell him, then that thief shall die. So shall you

put away the evil from the midst of you (Deuteronomy 24:7).

36

d Take heed in the plague of skin disease, that you observe diligently, and

do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you (Deuteronomy

24:8).

d As I commanded them, so you shall observe to do. Remember what

Yahweh your God did to Miriam, by the way as you came forth out of Egypt

(Deuteronomy 24:9).

c When you lend your neighbour any manner of loan, you shall not go into

his house to fetch his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you

lend shall bring forth the pledge outside to you (Deuteronomy 24:10-11).

b And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep holding on to his pledge, you

shall surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goes down, that he may sleep

in his garment, and bless you, and it shall be righteousness to you before Yahweh

your God (Deuteronomy 24:12-13).

a You shall not take advantage of a hired servant who is poor and needy,

whether he be of your brethren, or of your resident aliens who are in your land

within your gates, in the same day you shall give him his hire, nor shall the sun

go down on it, for he is poor, and sets his heart on it, lest he cry against you to

Yahweh, and it be sin to you (14-15).

Note that in ‘a’ a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, nor shall

he be charged with any business. He shall be free at home one year, and shall

pleasure his wife whom he has taken. Advantage must not be taken of him for he

has a right to receive immediately the benefits of his marriage. In the parallel

advantage must not be taken of a hired servant. He too has a right to receive

immediately the benefits of his contract. In ‘b’ no man shall take the mill or the

upper millstone to pledge, for he takes a man’s life to pledge, and in the parallel

he must not retain a poor man’s pledge overnight but must restore it to him so

that he may sleep in it. In ‘c’ if a man is found stealing any of his brethren of the

children of Israel, and he deal with him as a slave, or sell him, then that thief

must die, he has forced himself on and violated another’s household, and in the

parallel when a man lends his neighbour any manner of loan, he must not go into

his neighbour’s house to fetch his pledge, forcing himself on his household and

37

violating it. He must stand outside, and the man to whom he lends will bring out

the pledge to him. In ‘d’ all must take heed in the plague of skin disease, that

they observe diligently, and do according to all that the priests the Levites shall

teach them out of concern for their neighbour’s and the cleanliness of the camp,

and in the parallel they must observe to do what Moses commanded them in this

regard, remembering what Yahweh your God did to Miriam in smiting her with

skin disease by the way as you came forth out of Egypt (and then healing her

after which she had to observe her seven days - Numbers 12:10-15).

A Newly Married Man Free From Military Service For A Year (Deuteronomy

24:5).

The thought of the previous case caused Moses to want to relieve the gloom

about marriage so he now introduced a case which revealed the other side of

things. This is absolutely understandable in the context of Moses speaking to

Israel. It is not so in the case of someone making up a story to hang on Moses.

There are so many of these small indications of a speaker’s concern that no one

could have had the consummate artistry to think of them all. They ring true as

being what they claim to be.

This is the first in a series where the stress is on fair dealing and consideration

towards the individual, with regard to relationships.

Deuteronomy 24:5

‘When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, nor shall he be

charged with any business. He shall be free at home one year, and shall pleasure

his wife whom he has taken.’

Here was a man for whom marriage was a delight. He had taken a new wife and

38

his only desire was to be at home with her. The Law concurred. For a whole year

he was to be free from army call-up, or from any pressing business that would

take him away from home, so that he could pleasure his wife.

It may well be true that part of the reason for this was in order to produce an

heir so that his name would live on if he was killed in war. That no doubt was a

reason behind the regulation. But that is not what Moses brought out in his

speech. He was stressing the positive side of marriage as well rectifying the sad

view of marriage revealed in the previous case. Here advantage must not be

taken of the newly wed household. They must be allowed immediately to enjoy

the benefits of the marriage.

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:5

A man newly married was to be exempt from going to war, and was not to have

any public burdens imposed on him for a year after his marriage. Charged with

any business; literally, there shall not pass upon him for any matter; i.e. there

shall not be laid on him anything in respect of any business. This is explained by

what follows. Free shall he be for his house for one year; i.e. no public burden

shall be laid on him, that he may be free to devote himself entirely to his

household relations, and be able to cheer and gladden his wife (comp.

Deuteronomy 20:7). "By this law God showed how he approved of holy wedlock

(as by the former he showed his hatred of unjust divorces) when, to encourage

the newly married against the cumbrances which that estate bringeth with it,

and to settle their love each to other, he exempted those men from all wars, cares,

and expenses, that they might the more comfortably provide for their own

estate" (Ainsworth).

BI, "Free at home.

Home

Some words contain a history in themselves, and are the monuments of great movements of thought and life. Such a word is “home.” With something like a sacramental sacredness it enshrines a deep and precious meaning and a history. That the English-speaking people and their congeners alone should have this word, indicates that there are certain peculiar domestic and social traits of character belonging to them. When we study their history we find that from the very first they have been distinguished, as Tacitus tells us, by the manly and womanly virtues of

39

fidelity and chastity; by the faithful devotion of wife to husband and husband to wife; by the recognised headship and guardianship of the married man as indicated in the old word “husband,” and the domestic dignity and function of the married woman as indicated in the old word “wife,” betokening the presence of those home-making, home-keeping, home-loving qualities of mind and heart which have always belonged to this sturdy race. And when upon these qualities the vitalising, sanctifying influence of Christianity was brought to bear, the outcome has been the building up of the noblest of all the institutions of the Christian life. No man is poor, no matter what storms of ill-fortune have beaten upon him, who can still find refuge beneath its sacred shelter; and no man is rich, no matter how splendid his fortune or his lot, who cannot claim some spot of earth as his home. My purpose, however, is neither philological nor ethnological; it is rather to speak of the function of Christianity in the home. It is upon God’s special enactment that this great institution rests. Its function is to carry out His purposes in training and ennobling men to do His will. Its perfection is the reflection of His love in the majestic order of His Godhead with fatherhood, sonship, life; its beatitude is the maintenance on earth of the peace and purity of heaven. Taking the Christian home as we know it, then, there are certain broad features of its economy, the mention of which will serve to bring out its character.

I. The first of these is its unity of orderly administration, in the supreme headship of one man, the husband; the supreme dignity of one woman, the wife; the providence of parental love in the nurture of children, and the natural piety of children in their reverence and obedience to their parents.

1. First, with reference to the discipline of the home, it is to be remembered that there is a home discipline to which all the members thereof are subject—the father and mother not less than the children. The husband and father, the wife and mother, while they are the source of authority in the home, are themselves under the authority of the God and Father of all, of whose great economy they are the earthly representatives.

2. The only basis, for instance, on which the headship of the husband can securely rest is in its conformity to the headship of Christ over His Church. From Christ he learns that all his true authority is derived from self-surrender, all his real power from self-sacrifice. Nor is the wife, the husband’s consort, exempt from this discipline of self-sacrificing love. Such service, indeed, the fond mother heart of woman is quick to render, and therein lies the hiding of her power. But this service is due not to children only, but to the husband as well. And this is to be shown not only in those gentle ministries of the home which every good wife is glad to render, and in the rendering of which her true queenship lies, but it is to be shown likewise in the reverence which she ought always to feel towards the husband. Whensoever the wife acts on this principle, she calls out what is noblest in her husband. To such parental authority I need not say that children ought to be altogether obedient in all things. Obedience is the crown and grace of childhood, without which no child can learn to be strong and great; without which no child can be lovable or lovely.

II. In the next place, let me speak of three dangers that beset the Christian home—care, worldliness, and passion.

1. First, care. The lives of all earnest men are full of care. Men have to toil and struggle to keep their place while the busy world is moving. There is one thing that can be done, however, and that is, we can keep care away from the sacred precincts of the home.

2. Even more fatal to the peace and safety of the home is worldliness—the

40

worldliness of the husband which takes him away from his home in the calm evenings. But even worse is the worldliness of the wife. No woman is fit to be the queen she ought to be in her own household who does not, no matter what her station may be, find her chief pleasure and count her chief delight in the employments and endearments of her home.

3. And lastly, passion. Not to speak of its darker aspects—the fretful, peevish, ungovernable temper, the hasty word, the harsh unloving look, the little unkindnesses—oh, how often do these break up the peace, and finally desolate the home! Therefore there is need of prayer in the home. Therefore there is need that the fire of sacrifice should be always kept burning on its altars. But when this is so, then we see the blessedness of a Christian home. Beneath its shelter alone can the care-worn toiler and thinker lay his heavy burden down; in its calm haven alone can the weary or storm-tossed spirit find rest. (Bp. S. S. Harris.)

6 Do not take a pair of millstones—not even the

upper one—as security for a debt, because that

would be taking a person’s livelihood as

security.

CLARKE, "The nether or the upper mill-stone - Small hand-mills which can be worked by a single person were formerly in use among the Jews, and are still used in many parts of the East. As therefore the day’s meal was generally ground for each day, they keeping no stock beforehand, hence they were forbidden to take either of the stones to pledge, because in such a case the family must be without bread. On this account the text terms the millstone the man’s life.

GILL, "No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge,.... The first word being of the dual number takes in both stones, wherefore Vatablus renders the words,"ye shall not take for a pledge both the millstones, nor indeed the uppermost;''which is the least; so far should they be from taking both, that they were not allowed to take the uppermost, which was the shortest, meanest, and lightest; and indeed if anyone of them was taken, the other became useless, so that neither was to be taken:

for he taketh a man's life to pledge; or with which his life is supported, and the

41

life of his family; for if he has corn to supply them with, yet if his mill or millstones are pawned, he cannot grind his corn, and so he and his family must starve: and in those times and countries they did, as the Arabs do to this day, as Dr. Shaw (d)relates,"most families grind their wheat and barley at home, having two portable millstones for that purpose; the uppermost whereof is turned round by a small handle of wood or iron, that is placed in the rim;''and these millstones being portable, might be the more easily taken for pledges, which is here forbidden, for the above reason; and this takes in any other thing whatever, on which a man's living depends, or by which he gets his bread (e).

JAMISON, "No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge — The “upper” stone being concave, covers the “nether” like a lid; and it has a small aperture, through which the corn is poured, as well as a handle by which it is turned. The propriety of the law was founded on the custom of grinding corn every morning for daily consumption. If either of the stones, therefore, which composed the handmill was wanting, a person would be deprived of his necessary provision.

CALVIN, "Deuteronomy 24:6No man shall take the nether. God now enforces

another principle of equity in relation to loans, (not to be too strict (107)) in

requiring pledges, whereby the poor are often exceedingly distressed. In the first

place, He prohibits the taking of anything in pledge which is necessary to the

poor for the support of existence; for by the words which I have translated meta

and catillus, i e. , the upper and nether millstone, He designates by synecdoche

all other instruments, which workmen cannot do without in earning their daily

bread. As if any one should forcibly deprive a husbandman of his plough, or his

spade, or harrow, or other tools, or should empty a shoemaker’s, or potter’s, or

other person’s shop, who could not exercise his trade when deprived of its

implements; and this is sufficiently clear from the context, where it is said, “He

taketh a man’s life to pledge,” together with his millstones. He, then, is as cruel,

whosoever takes in pledge what supports a poor man’s life, as if he should take

away bread from a starving man, and thus his life itself, which, as it is sustained

by labor, so, when its means of subsistence are cut off, is, as it were, itself

destroyed.

COKE, "Ver. 6. No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge—

This law is of the same merciful kind with that in Exodus 22:26-27 which is

repeated in the following verses; and it is founded upon the same equitable and

compassionate reasons. On the same account it was, that at Rome they were

42

forbidden to take the oxen or plough of a labourer, for the payment of his debts;

and there is the same humane provision in our laws also, which prohibit the

distraining of a labouring man's working tools or implements. See Blackstone's

Commentaries, Book 3: ch. 1.

COFFMAN, "LAWS OF LIFE

"No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge; for he taketh a

man's life to pledge.

"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and he

deal with him as a slave, or sell him; then that thief shall die: so shalt thou put

away the evil from the midst of thee.

HAWKER, "This precept had much of mercy in it, because the nether, or upper

mill-stone, was daily needed to grind the borrower's food. But, do I not see here

a fence thrown up, to secure to a believer, his inheritance both in the upper and

the nether springs of all our mercies in JESUS? Reader, depend upon it, if

JESUS be your portion, or as this verse expresseth it, your life, you cannot

pledge him, neither can any take him from you. Sweet thought! in all our wants,

in all our poverty, borrowings, and distresses, though the creditor be come to

take our two sources of comfort from us, in the upper and the nether springs of

JESUS'S love; the vessels of grace shall be filled, and we shall have enough and

to spare. See that sweet scripture, and read the spiritual illustration of it in

proof, 2 Kings 4:1-7.

"Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe diligently, and do

according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you: as I commanded

them, so ye shall observe to do. Remember what Jehovah thy God did unto

Miriam, by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt.

"When thou dost lend thy neighbor any manner of loan, thou shalt not go into

his house to fetch his pledge. Thou shalt stand without, and the man to whom

thou dost lend shall bring forth the pledge without unto thee. And if he be a poor

43

man, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge; thou shalt surely restore to him the

pledge when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless

thee: and it shall be righteousness unto thee before Jehovah thy God.

"Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of

thy brethren, or of thy sojourners that are in thy land within thy gates: in his

day, thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it (for he is

poor, and setteth his heart upon it); lest he cry against thee unto Jehovah, and it

be sin unto thee."

In Deuteronomy 24:6, the KJV has "the nether or the upper millstone," instead

of "the mill or the upper millstone." The KJV is preferable, because, by any

definition, "the mill" would include both millstones. "The upper millstone was

concave and fitted like a lid over the nether millstone which was convex. There

was a small aperture through which the grain was poured, and also a handle by

which the mill was turned."[11] This important device was necessary in the daily

preparation of meals in the home, and therefore, lenders were not allowed to

touch it as a pledge. Exodus 22:25,26 relates to the subject here.

The crime in view in Deuteronomy 24:7 is kidnapping, and there is hardly a

civilized nation on earth, even today, that does not affix the death penalty for

such crimes.

Deuteronomy 24:8 and Deuteronomy 24:9 are understood in two different ways.

Alexander, and others think the passage is an admonition for people afflicted

with leprosy, counseling them to be careful to comply with all the priestly

regulations applicable to those thus afflicted.[12] On the other hand, Keil and the

commentators who usually follow him, are certain that this is an admonition to

all the people to keep all of God's laws commanded through the priests, in order

to avoid the onset of the plague of leprosy.[13] It seems to us that the example of

44

Miriam (Numbers 12:9f), to which Moses here appealed, would fit the view of

Keil better than that of Alexander. It is not impossible, however, that both

meanings are in the passage; for certainly neither view is incompatible with what

is right and true. (For directions regarding lepers see Leviticus 13-14.)

In Deuteronomy 24:10-13, regarding the taking of pledges, it should be

remembered that, "Although interest on loans to fellow-Israelites was forbidden

(Deuteronomy 23:19,20), the taking of pledges was allowed; but even this was not

to be procured in such a manner as not to compromise the dignity, much less the

life, of the debtor."[14] In line with this thought is the prohibition of the lender

going into a neighbor's house to procure a pledge, also the rule that anything

vital to the well being and comfort of the debtor was to be returned before

sundown! The practical effect of all this was to limit or even forbid the taking of

a pledge.

In Deuteronomy 24:14,15, the oppression or mistreatment of poor laborers is

forbidden. Some employers were guilty of retaining the wages of day laborers

beyond the time limit given here, and James pronounced a stern rebuke against

such abusers of sacred law, saying, "Behold the hire of the laborers who mowed

your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth out: and the cries of them

that reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth!" (James 5:4). See

Leviticus 19:13.

CONSTABLE, "Stealing livelihood and life 24:6-7

To take a millstone from a person amounted to depriving him of his ability to

grind his meal to make his daily bread (Deuteronomy 24:6). Evidently a small

millstone is in view here, not a large one that required an animal to turn.

Kidnapping violated the right to freedom of choice that God wanted every

Israelite to enjoy (Deuteronomy 24:7; cf. Exodus 21:16).

PETT, "A Mill Or Millstone May Not Be Taken In Pledge (Deuteronomy 24:6).

45

Deuteronomy 24:6

‘No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge, for he takes a man’s

life to pledge.’

The next case of fair dealing and consideration consisted of when a pledge was

taken for a loan. Such a pledge must never be a man’s mill, or the detachable

upper millstone. To take either would be to take away the man’s ability to

prepare his food. This was probably the small mill that each household would

have in order to grind the unmilled grain. By taking this the creditor would be

taking the man’s very life. This must never happen.

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:6

No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge; rather, the hand

mill and the upper millstone (literally, the rider) shall not be taken (literally, one

shall not take) in pledge. Neither the mill itself nor the upper millstone, the

removal of which would render the mill useless, was to be taken. The upper

millstone is still called the rider by the Arabs (Hebrew reehebh, Arabic rekkab).

For he taketh a man's life to pledge; or for (thereby) life itself is pledged; if a

man were deprived of that by which food for the sustaining of life could be

prepared, his life itself would be imperiled (cf. Job 22:6; Proverbs 22:27; Amos

2:8).

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:6-15

The treatment of the poor.

The helplessness and dependence of the poor expose them to much harsh

treatment. The poor man has, however, his Friend and Judge in God, whose Law

here steps in for his protection. It ordains—

46

I. THAT THE NECESSARIES OF LIFE ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM

HIM. The millstone (Deuteronomy 24:6). His raiment, which if taken in pledge is

to be restored by nightfall (Deuteronomy 24:12, Deuteronomy 24:13). These are

considerate provisions. It is the excess of cruelty to press law against a man to the

extent of depriving him of the necessaries of life. This would apply to needful

clothing, to a bed, to cooking utensils, to the tools by which he earns his bread. It

is nearly as bad to receive and keep these things in pledge or pawn. Help, free

and ungrudging, should be forthcoming to all honest persons in need, without

driving them to such straits. If men will not work, neither should they eat (2

Thessalonians 3:10), but while this may be a reason for refusing to support them

in their indolence, it can be no reason for helping them to strip themselves of the

necessaries of their existence. Instead of taking a man's tools from him, he should

rather he encouraged to retain and ply them, "working with his hands the thing

that is good," that he may both support himself and "have to give to him that

needeth" (Ephesians 4:28).

II. THAT HIS PERSONAL FREEDOM IS TO BE RESPECTED. (Deuteronomy

24:7.) No strong or rich neighbor was to be allowed to steal, enslave, or sell him.

The stealing of a man was punishable with death. And the spirit of the Law

carries us beyond its letter. It requires that we respect the poor man's freedom in

all the relations of his life. Whatever the degree of his dependence, it does not

entitle another to force his convictions, or do aught that would interfere with the

exercise of his rights as man or citizen. Yet how often is compulsion and

intimidation applied to those in dependent situations to compel them to act, not

as their consciences approve, but as their superiors desire! He who takes

advantage of a man's weakness to do anything of the kind is a "man-stealer" in

principle and at heart.

III. THAT HIS DWELLING IS NOT TO BE INVADED. (Deuteronomy 24:10,

Deuteronomy 24:11.) The fine sense of justice, the delicacy of feeling, in these

47

precepts, is certainly remarkable. The poor man's house is to be as sacred from

invasion as the house of the wealthy. Even his creditor is to wait outside, and let

the man fetch as his pledge what he can best spare. We are taught a lesson of

respect for the domiciliary and proprietary rights of the poor. Many act as if the

homes of the poor were not entitled to have their privacy respected in the same

way as the homes of the rich, The Law of God teaches otherwise. We owe it to

God, and we owe it to the humanity which is in our poorer brethren as well as in

us, that we treat them and their belongings with precisely the same amount of

respect that we would show to persons in a better social position.

IV. THAT HIS WAGES ARE TO BE PAID WITH REGULARITY.

(Deuteronomy 24:14, Deuteronomy 24:15.) Every day, the text says, and in the

East this was necessary. During the Indian famines it was found that the persons

engaged on the relief works had to be paid in this manner. Great suffering was

sometimes experienced from the neglect of the rule. The law extends to hired

service of all kinds, and enjoins in principle regularity in payment of wages. A

like principle applies to the payment of tradesmen's accounts. We have heard

tradesmen complain bitterly of the inconvenience to which they were subjected

from the singular want of consideration displayed by wealthy families in this

particular. Accounts are allowed to run on, and payment is withheld, not from

want of ability to pay, but from sheer indolence and carelessness in attending to

such matters. While to crave payment would, on the tradesman's part, mean the

forfeiture of custom.—J.O.

K&D, "Various Prohibitions. - Deu_24:6. “No man shall take in pledge the

handmill and millstone, for he (who does this) is pawning life.” רחים, the handmill;

lit., the runner, i.e., the upper millstone. Neither the whole mill nor the upper ,רכב

millstone was to be asked for as a pledge, by which the mill would be rendered useless, since the handmill was indispensable for preparing the daily food for the house; so that whoever took them away injured life itself, by withdrawing what was indispensable to the preservation of life. The mill is mentioned as one specimen of articles of this kind, like the clothing in Exo_22:25-26, which served the poor man as bed-clothes also. Breaches of this commandment are reproved in Amo_2:8; Job_22:6; Pro_20:16; Pro_22:27; Pro_27:13.

BI, "No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge.

48

The law respecting millstones

The Jewish law was important to that people as their national code. Its enactments were wisely adapted to their condition and the land they inhabited, and were calculated to secure their prosperity. But these considerations alone would not have justified its adoption in the Word of God. The Divine mind aims at higher objects than those which are included in this world’s prosperity. Who can imagine, with a worthy idea of infinite wisdom, the laws of this and the two foregoing chapters to have come from God, unless besides the letter in which they served the Jews, they have some deeper import by which they can give wisdom to Christians? Before proceeding further with the subject before us, let me remind you of that most important fact, which is equally true in vegetable growth and in the growth of religion, that all progress is gradual. It is “first the blade, then the ear, and then the full corn in the ear.” But corn, before it is fit for human food, must be brought to the mill and ground; and this operation is more especially connected with the subject before us.

I. The use of grinding is two fold: first, the separation of the husk and less nutritious portion from the richer interior substance of the corn; and secondly, the trituration and pulverising, which reduces the grain to flour and thus presents it fully prepared for the sustentation of man. Both these essential services are done by the mill. In ancient times each family had its own mill, and the flour for daily use was ground each day. The mill was composed of two circular flat stones; one the upper, the other the lower. In the upper one there was a hole, in which a wooden handle was fixed, by which it was made to go round. The persons grinding sat to their work, and frequently when women did it there would be two, and one passed the handle round to the other, and so the work went on. To this our blessed Lord alludes when He says, at the end of the Church, meant by the end of the age, or world: “Two women shall be grinding at the mill, the one shall be taken and the other left” (Mat_24:41). These circumstances all guide us to the correspondence. Corn corresponds to the good in life to which truth leads. The virtues which our views of religion open up to us are a harvest of graces; but, as general principles, they are not quite ready for daily use. They require to be rationally investigated, to be stripped of the forms in which we learned them, and to be accommodated to our own wants and circumstances. This is one of the works of the rational faculty in man. In this respect it is a spiritual mill. To know and understand the truth, that we may love and practise it, this is the spirit in which to read and hear the Word. The wisdom we understand enters into the mind, the wisdom we love enters into the heart. “The opening of Thy words giveth light, it giveth understanding unto the simple” (Psa_119:130). The words which remain in the memory, and do not enter the intellect, leave us, and have left the world, unenlightened and unedified. The grand use of the rational faculty, then, as a spiritual mill is evident. May we never surrender it, or barter it away. But the mill had two stones, an upper and a nether millstone. Stones represent truths of doctrine, especially in relation to the firmness they afford as a foundation and a defensive wall to our faith. In this sense stones are constantly employed in the Word (Isa_28:16; Mat_7:24-25; Luk_20:17; 1Pe_2:5). The two stones of which the mill consists represent the two grand truths into which the whole Word divides itself: those which teach love to God and love to man. The upper stone is the symbol of the first and great commandment. Our Lord refers to this when answering the question, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Mat_22:36-38). The two tables of stone, upon which the Ten Commandments, the first and the essential principles of all the Divine Word, were written, were intended to represent the same two-fold division of all heavenly lessons. The mill, then, with

49

its two stones, represents the rational faculty when it is furnished with these two grand truths. With these two universal principles it can do, and is intended to do, the utmost service to man. Everything that enters the mind should be submitted to its inspection and action. Whatever is taught in relation to God which is inconsistent with love to God and love to man should be rejected; whatever is in harmony with both should be received. All that love would do God will do, for God is love; all that love would reject, God will reject, for God is love. So in relation to man. Our duty in all things is to measure our conduct by the great law, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Mat_7:12). Such is the spiritual mill, and such is its operation. What a wide field of use it has; and how essential is that use! To try to sift, to discriminate, to adapt all that we learn, so that fallacy and mere appearance may be rejected, and only what is really conducive to salvation and blessing be retained: “What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.”

II. With this view of the important objects and indispensable character of the millstones, seen in their correspondence, we shall be prepared to see in spiritual light the reason of the command in our text: “No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life to pledge.” The rational faculty, and its two grand essential principles, must never be parted with, nor even be placed in abeyance. Oh! that this great truth that we ought never to suspend, never to forego the use of this grand principle, our rational faculty, were engraven on every heart. In this sublime portion of our nature the essential means of manhood reside. He will never become a man who never thoughtfully dares to reason for himself; who never strives to penetrate the appearances of things, and see with a single eye Divine realities. Here is the judgment seat for each mind. How poor a being he becomes who fears to use this glorious capability, let degenerate millions answer. He has not the fixed instincts of brutes and their obedience to the laws of their order, and while he is born with debased affections, he does not use this grand means of rising forever higher. Without that we cannot free ourselves from our own passions and prejudices, much less from the domination of other men. Without that we cannot rise to the freedom of citizens of heaven. We are things, not men. Let, then, no man take your mill; it is your life. But neither the lower nor the upper millstone must be taken. The two grand essential truths, upon which all others hang, must neither of them be given up. Whatever is not in harmony with them ought not to be received. Whatever is unworthy of our love to God, whatever would lessen our love to man, should be rejected at once. How great a source of elevation should we constantly have, if in all our hearing and reading we should bring our spiritual corn to the mill, furnished with these spiritual stones!

III. Finally, let me earnestly impress upon you all the importance of using the mill. There is no possibility of true manhood being attained without a conscientious use of reason in receiving the things of God. Have no fear in employing the glorious faculties Divine mercy has blessed you with Oh! that men would, rise manfully to the dignity of their, high character as rational and immortal beings capable of reserving the truth, judging of it, loving it, and making it their own by practice. Reject every attempt to place this heavenly mill in pledge, for it is your real manhood, your life, that is wished to be taken, when you are told to forego the use of your reason. Above all, let us see well that our mill is ever, in good condition, the nether and the upper stones. Let us receive no instruction that is inconsistent with love to our neighbour, the spiritual nether millstone. Let no sectarian sentiments, no idea that heaven was made just for this small party who think with us, or that gain our assent. Let us unite with men of love and virtue, of every name, assured that “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Let not the upper millstone go into pledge. Let us unceasingly try every

50

sentiment proposed to us as true by the great supreme law of love to God above all things. (J. Bayley, Ph. D.)

7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow

Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave,

the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil

from among you.

GILL, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel,.... Whether grown up or little, male or female, an Israelite or a proselyte, or a freed servant; all, as Maimonides (f) says, are included in this general word "brethren"; though Aben Ezra observes, that it is added, "of the children of Israel", for explanation, since an Edomite is called a "brother". Now, a man must be "found" committing this fact; that is, it must plainly appear, there must be full proof of it by witnesses, as Jarchi explains this word:

and maketh merchandise of him; or rather uses him as a servant, and employs him in any service to the least profit and advantage by him, even to the value of a farthing; yea, if he does but lean upon him, and he supports him, though he is an old man that is stolen; this is serving a man's self by him, as Maimonides (g), which is what is forbidden as distinct from selling him, as follows:

or selleth him: to others; and both these, according to the above writer (h), using him for service, and selling him, are necessary to make him guilty of death; not the one without the other; but reading them disjunctively, as we do, gives the better sense of the words:

then that thief shall die; by strangling with a napkin, as the Targum of Jonathan; and so Maimonides (i) says, his death is by strangling:

and thou shall put evil away from among you; both him that does evil, as the Targum of Jonathan, and the guilt of it by inflicting due punishment for it; and so deter from such practices, and prevent evil coming upon the body of the people, should such a sin be connived at; see Exo_21:16.

HENRY, "II. A law against man-stealing, Deu_24:7. It was not death by the law of Moses to steal cattle or goods; but to steal a child, or a weak and simple man, or one that a man had in his power, and to make merchandize of him, this was a capital crime, and could not be expiated, as other thefts, by restitution - so much is a man better than a sheep, Mat_12:12. It was a very heinous offence, for, 1. It was robbing

51

the public of one of its members. 2. It was taking away a man's liberty, the liberty of a free-born Israelite, which was next in value to his life. 3. It was driving a man out from the inheritance of the land, to the privileges of which he was entitled, and bidding him go serve other gods, as David complains against Saul, 1Sa_26:19.

JAMISON, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren — (See Exo_21:16).

CALVIN, "The same punishment is here deservedly denounced against man-

stealers as against murderers; for, so wretched was the condition of slaves, that

liberty was more than half of life; and hence to deprive a man of such a great

blessing, was almost to destroy him. Besides, it is not man-stealing only which is

here condemned, but the accompanying evils of cruelty and fraud, i. e. , if he,

who had stolen a man, had likewise sold him. Now, such a sale could hardly be

made among the people themselves, without the crime being immediately

detected; and nothing could be more hateful than that God’s children should be

alienated from the Church, and delivered over to heathen nations.

PETT, "A Kidnapper Shall Die (Deuteronomy 24:7).

Here we have a contrary example of unfair dealing and lack of consideration

which must be punished by death. The kidnapper violates the household of his

victims and violently interferes with their rights.

Deuteronomy 24:7

‘If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and he

deal with him as a slave, or sell him, then that thief shall die. So shall you put

away the evil from the midst of you.’

A kidnapper who stole any Israelite, whether man, woman or child, with a view

to making them slaves or selling them for slavery, must be sentenced to death. To

make a slave of an Israelite was to reverse God’s deliverance and was

unforgivable. By the kidnapper’s death this dreadful evil would be put away

from their midst.

(This was not, of course, saying that as long as they were not treated as slaves or

sold as slaves then the kidnapping was legal. This obvious case where silence tells

52

us nothing is a warning to us not to read things into what is not said).

Compare Exodus 21:16 where all ‘man-stealing’ is worthy of death.

K&D, "Deu_24:7-9

Repetition of the law against man-stealing (Exo_21:16). - Deu_24:8, Deu_24:9. The command, “Take heed by the plague of leprosy to observe diligently and to do according to all that the priests teach thee,” etc., does not mean, that when they saw signs of leprosy they were to be upon their guard, to observe everything that the priests directed them, as Knobel and many others suppose. For, in the first place, the reference to the punishment of Miriam with leprosy is by no means appropriate to such a thought as this, since Miriam did not act in opposition to the priests after she had been smitten with leprosy, but brought leprosy upon herself as a punishment, by her rebellion against Moses (Num_12:10.). And in the second place, this view cannot

be reconciled with נגע/ ה1מר since ,ה1מר with 2/, either to be upon one's guard against

(before) anything (2Sa_20:10), or when taken in connection with נפש/, to beware by

the soul, i.e., for the sake of the worth of the soul (Jer_17:21). The thought here, therefore, is, “Be on thy guard because of the plague of leprosy,” i.e., that thou dost not get it, have to bear it, as the reward for thy rebellion against what the priests teach according to the commandment of the Lord. “Watch diligently, that thou do not incur the plague of leprosy” (Vulgate); or, “that thou do not sin, so as to be punished with leprosy” (J. H. Michaelis).

8 In cases of defiling skin diseases,[a] be very

careful to do exactly as the Levitical priests

instruct you. You must follow carefully what I

have commanded them.

GILL, "Take heed, in the plague of leprosy,.... Whether in the bodies of men, or in houses, or in garments, not to hide and conceal it; or, as Jarchi, weaken the signs of it, or cut out the bright spot; so the Targum of Jonathan:

that thou observe diligently, and do according to all the priests the Levites shall teach you: according to the laws and rules given in such cases, whether they order to shut up persons, houses, or clothes, or pronounce unclean or clean; in all things they were to do as they directed, which appeared to be agreeably to the said rules; for the judgment, management, and ordering of these things,

53

belonged to the priests: of which see Lev_13:1,

as I commanded them, so shall ye observe to do: which shows the they were not to comply with their orders, and conform to them, any further than they agreed with the commands of God, and the instructions he had given them in the places referred to.

HENRY, "III. A memorandum concerning the leprosy, Deu_24:8, Deu_24:9. 1. The laws concerning it must be carefully observed. The laws concerning it we had, Lev_13:14. They are here said to be commanded to the priests and Levites, and therefore are not repeated in a discourse to the people; but the people are here charged, in case of leprosy, to apply to the priest according to the law, and to abide by his judgment, so far as it agreed with the law and the plain matter of fact. The plague of leprosy being usually a particular mark of God's displeasure for sin, he in whom the signs of it did appear ought not to conceal it, nor cut out the signs of it, nor apply to the physician for relief; but he must go to the priest, and follow his directions. Thus those that feel their consciences under guilt and wrath must not cover it, nor endeavour to shake off their convictions, but by repentance, and prayer, and humble confession, take the appointed way to peace and pardon. 2. The particular case of Miriam, who was smitten with leprosy for quarrelling with Moses, must not be forgotten. It was an explication of the law concerning the leprosy. Remember that, and, (1.) “Take heed of sinning after the similitude of her transgression, by despising dominions and speaking evil of dignities, lest you thereby bring upon yourselves the same judgment.” (2.) “If any of you be smitten with a leprosy, expect not that the law should be dispensed with, nor think it hard to be shut out of the camp and so made a spectacle; there is no remedy: Miriam herself, though a prophetess and the sister of Moses, was not exempted, but was forced to submit to this severe discipline when she was under this divine rebuke.” Thus David, Hezekiah, Peter, and other great men, when they had sinned, humbled themselves, and took to themselves shame and grief; let us not expect to be reconciled upon easier terms.

CALVIN, "8.Take heed in the plague of leprosy. I am aware how greatly

interpreters differ from each other and how variously they twist whatever Moses

has written about Leprosy. Some are too eagerly devoted to allegories; some

think that God, as a prudent Legislator, merely gave a commandment of a

sanitary, nature, in order that a contagious disease should not, spread among the

people. This notion, however, is very. poor, and almost unmeaning; and is

briefly. refuted by Moses himself, both where he recounts the history of

Miriam’s leprosy, and also where he assigns the cause why lepers should be put

out of the camp, viz that they might not defile the camp in which God dwelt,

whilst he ranks them with those that have an issue, and that they are defiled by

the dead. Wherefore, I have thought it well, previous to attempting the full

elucidation of the matter, to adduce two passages, by way of preface, from

54

whence the design of God may more fully appear. When, in this passage from

Deuteronomy, He commands the people to “take heed” and “observe diligently”

the plague of leprosy, there can be no question but that He thus ratifies what He

had before set forth at greater length in Leviticus. And, first of all, He refers the

judgment of the matter to the priests, that what they pronounce should be firm

and unalterable; and secondly, He would have the priests, lest they should

pronounce rashly, and according to their own wishes, to follow simply what He

prescribed to them, so that they may only be the ministers, or heralds; whilst, as

to the sovereign authority, He alone should be the Judge. He confirms the law

which He imposes by a special example; because He had cast out Miriam, the

sister of Moses, for a time, lest her uncleanness during her leprosy should defile

the camp. For the view which some take, that He exhorts the people lest, through

sin, they should bring upon themselves the same evil as Miriam, is not to the

purpose. But that which I have stated makes excellent sense, viz., that God’s

command, whereby He prohibited Miriam from entering the camp, was to have

the force and weight of a perpetual law; because He thus ordained what He

would always have done.

CONSTABLE, "The ninth commandment is, "You shall not bear false witness

against your neighbor" (Deuteronomy 5:20). There may be a deliberate

descending order of hierarchy in the list of offended parties in this section

beginning with the highest to the lowest. [Note: Kaufman, pp. 141-42.]

Leaders 24:8-9

The reference to Miriam recalls her misrepresenting Moses and her punishment

(Numbers 12:1-15). The Israelites were to be careful to submit to the Levites if

the Israelites contracted leprosy. Miriam had given false testimony against a

Levite, Moses, and had contracted leprosy as a result.

ELLICOTT, "(8,9) Take heed in the plague of leprosy. . . . Remember what the

Lord thy God did to Miriam.—The point here seems to be that though Miriam

was one of the three leaders of Israel (“I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and

Miriam”—Micah 6:4), yet she was shut out of the camp seven days (Numbers

12:14) when suddenly smitten with leprosy. There might be a tendency to relax

55

the law in the case of great or wealthy persons. But this would be felt keenly by

poorer lepers, who could obtain no exemption. Moses, whose own sister had

suffered from the leprosy, and had been treated according to the strict letter of

the law, would never consent to any relaxation of it.

The priests the Levites.—The law of leprosy was one of the laws which the

“priests” in particular were ordered to administer. “Aaron looked on Miriam,

and, behold, she was leprous” It seems impossible to maintain that the Levites in

general are meant here. The writer evidently had personal knowledge of the case

of Miriam. Had he or his first readers lived in later times, he would have

explained his meaning more fully.

HAWKER, "Verse 8-9

Leprosy was disease of so singular a nature, and to be treated so differently from

all others, that we cannot hesitate to conclude, what both Jewish and Christian

writers indeed have all agreed in; that it had a reference to somewhat of a

spiritual allusion. The priest, and not the physician, was to be consulted upon it.

All the laws concerning it, were of a religious kind. Seen therefore with an

allusion to the sin of the soul, how apt a representation were all the appointments

concerning it, which pointed to the atonement by blood, as the only cure. 1 John

1:7. The case of Miriam is very striking in point. See Numbers 12:10.

PETT, "Dealing With Severe Skin Disease (Deuteronomy 24:8-9).

When men and women were aware of an unexplainable skin disease they must

play fair and consider their neighbours and ensure that they went to the priest to

be examined. This was another example which demonstrated that this was not a

general giving of law, but a citation of law as it affected the people. The ritual

details as regards the priests were omitted, what was important was what the

people should do.

Deuteronomy 24:8-9

56

‘Take heed in the plague of skin disease, that you observe diligently, and do

according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you. As I commanded

them, so you shall observe to do. Remember what Yahweh your God did to

Miriam, by the way as you came forth out of Egypt.’

Note the different form used here. Moses has varied between apodicitic law, ‘you

shall not--’, and case law, ‘if -- then you shall’. This is exhortatory for it is not

citing a specific regulation. This continual mixture of forms is another indication

of a genuine speech.

His listeners were clearly expected to know about the detailed cultic teaching in

Leviticus 14. What he was concerned with here was that they would obey the

priests’ instruction concerning it. They must do what the levitical priests told

them in accordance with what God had commanded in His Instruction. What

they taught was Yahweh’s command. They must observe to do it.

Let them all remember what Yahweh their God did to Miriam. She disobeyed

Yahweh and was stricken with a skin disease and she also had to spend seven

days outside the camp (Numbers 12:10-15). Let them also therefore be obedient

to Yahweh, especially when it came to skin disease.

Others see the ‘take heed’ or ‘be on your guard’ as referring to obeying God’s

commandments as given through the priests, with the warning that if they do not

they may be stricken with skin disease like Miriam was. That would certainly fit

the illustration better. But if it was so it would be the only case where reference is

made to the commandments as coming through the priests (although see

Deuteronomy 27:9-10. But even that does not directly refer to the giving of the

commandments).

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:8, Deuteronomy 24:9

57

The law concerning the leprosy is in Leviticus 13:1-59; Leviticus 14:1-57. By this

law the priests are directed how to proceed with those afflicted with leprosy; and

here the people are counseled by Moses to follow the directions of the priests in

this case, however painful it might be for them to submit to the restrictions that

would be thereby imposed upon them, remembering what the Lord did to

Miriam the sister of Moses, how even she was separated from the camp by the

express command of God until she was healed (Numbers 12:14). Michaelis, Keil,

and others, following the Vulgate ("Observa diligenter ne incurras plagam

leprae sed facies quaecunque docuerint to sacerdotes"), understand this passage

as inculcating obedience to the priests, lest leprosy should be incurred as a

punishment for disobedience. But it is improbable that a general counsel to

submit to the priests should be introduced among the special counsels here given;

and besides, the formula השמר ב means, "Take heed to yourself in respect of" (cf.

2 Samuel 20:10; Jeremiah 17:21), rather than "Beware of," or "Be on your

guard against."

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:8, Deuteronomy 24:9

Leprosy symbolic.

God has intended the material world to be a schoolhouse, and every event a

vehicle of moral instruction. The sick-chamber may become an audience-room,

where lessons of heavenly wisdom are conveyed by the Spirit of truth. Leprosy

was singled out by God to be a visible picture of sin; so that "out of the eater

there might come forth meat." Out of seeming evil, good can be distilled.

I. LEPROSY HAD A RELIGIOUS CHARACTER. More was meant by the

infliction than was seen by the bodily eye. It was mysterious in its origin, and

irresistible in its progress. It gradually spread and covered the whole man. It

touched and injured every faculty. The intention was salutary, viz. to lead the

58

sufferer's thoughts to the discovery of a deeper malady, and to awaken desire for

a more enduring cure. The outward is an index of the inward. Leprosy is a type

and picture of sin.

II. LEPROSY REQUIRED RELIGIOUS TREATMENT. It was vain to seek the

offices of an ordinary physician. Earthly remedy was and still is unknown. The

sufferer was required to visit the priest. Direct application to God was to be

made. Meanwhile, the leper was to be completely isolated. He might not consort

with his fellows. Hereby he might learn the disastrous effects of sin, viz. in

disintegrating society; and hereby he might in solitude mourn over sin, and seek

its cure. The only possibility of the removal of leprosy was in religious obedience.

Every part of the prescription was furnished by God, and was to be applied by

God's ministers. Completest submission was a condition of cure.

III. LEPROSY, IN ITS CAUSE AND CURE, HAD AN HISTORIC TYPE. This

type was furnished by Miriam. Her specific sin was known; it was

insubordination to authority. Her chastisement was sudden. It came direct from

God in the form of leprosy. The injured man became her intercessor. God

graciously responded to the suit of Moses. Temporary separation and strict

seclusion were the method of cure. Golden lessons lie here. Every leper may

confidently follow this indication of God's will. If he healed Miriam, can he not

also heal me?

IV. LEPROSY HEALED WAS CHARGED WITH RELIGIOUS

OBLIGATIONS. As a healed man will cheerfully recompense the physician for

his pains, so God required the restored leper to express his gratitude in the form

of animal sacrifice. His gratitude could not be expressed in empty words. He was

not permitted to bring that "which cost him nothing." In the slaughter of the

devoted victim, the grateful man would confess that he himself had deserved to

die, and that God had permitted a substitute. If the man were fully penitent, the

59

sight of the dying substitute would vividly impress his heart with a sense of God's

mercy. In every arrangement which God made, the good of man was sought. The

method will often seem strange to our dim vision, but respecting the beneficent

end there can be no question.—D.

9 Remember what the Lord your God did to

Miriam along the way after you came out of

Egypt.

GILL, "Remember what the Lord thy God did unto Miriam,.... Who was stricken with leprosy for speaking against Moses, and was shut up seven days; and they are reminded of this instance, partly to warn them against entertaining evil suspicions, and surmises of persons in power and authority, and speaking evil of them; and partly to expect that punishment would certainly be inflicted on them, should they be guilty of the same crime; nor should they think it hard, either to be smitten with leprosy, or to be shut up for it; since Miriam, a prophetess, and the sister of Moses, was so used; and that when

by the way, after that ye were come out of Egypt: when upon their journey, and were retarded in it, and obliged to stay at least seven days before they could proceed on in it; see Num_12:14.

COKE, "Ver. 9. Remember what the Lord thy God did unto Miriam— This may

be understood, either as an admonition, that they ought not to think much of

being shut out of the camp, and going through the appointed purifications for

the leprosy, since a person of so much distinction as Miriam was not exempted

from that law; or it may be considered as an exhortation, to take care lest they

spoke evil of dignities, or disobeyed the command of the priest, which might

bring such a stroke upon them as God inflicted upon Miriam.

60

10 When you make a loan of any kind to your

neighbor, do not go into their house to get what

is offered to you as a pledge.

GILL, "When thou dost lend thy brother anything,.... Any sum of money he stands in need of, or demanded a debt of him, as Jarchi; money he is indebted to thee, which is the sense of the Septuagint version; and he is not able to pay it, but offers something: in pawn till he can pay it:

thou shall not go into his house to fetch his pledge; which would be an exercise of too much power and authority, to go into a neighbour's house, and take what was liked; and besides, as no doubt he would take the best, so he might take that which the poor man could not spare: and indeed, according to the Jewish canons (k), he could not take any pledge at all, but with the knowledge, and by the leave, of the sanhedrim, or court of judicature.

HENRY 10-13, "IV. Some necessary orders given about pledges for the security of money lent. They are not forbidden to take such securities as would save the lender from loss, and oblige the borrower to be honest; but, 1. They must not take the millstone for a pledge (Deu_24:6), for with that they ground the corn that was to be bread for their families, or, if it were a public mill, with it the miller got his livelihood; and so it forbids the taking of any thing for a pledge by the want of which a man was in danger of being undone. Consonant to this is the ancient common law of England, which provides that no man be distrained of the utensils or instruments of his trade or profession, as the axe of a carpenter, or the books of a scholar, or beasts belonging to the plough, as long as there are other beasts of which distress may be made (Coke, 1 Inst. fol. 47). This teaches us to consult the comfort and subsistence of others as much as our own advantage. That creditor who cares not though his debtor and his family starve, nor is at all concerned what become of them, so he may but get his money or secure it, goes contrary, not only to the law of Christ, but even to the law of Moses too. 2. They must not go into the borrower's house to fetch the pledge, but must stand without, and he must bring it, Deu_24:10, Deu_24:11. The borrower (says Solomon) is servant to the lender; therefore lest the lender should abuse the advantage he has against him, and improve it for his own interest, it is provided that he shall take not what he pleases, but what the borrower can best spare. A man's house is his castle, even the poor man's house is so, and is here taken under the protection of the law. 3. That a poor man's bed-clothes should

61

never be taken for a pledge, Deu_24:12, Deu_24:13. This we had before, Exo_22:26, Exo_22:27. If they were taken in the morning, they must be brought back again at night, which is in effect to say that they must not be taken at all. “Let the poor debtor sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee,” that is, “pray for thee, and praise God for thy kindness to him.” Note, Poor debtors ought to be sensible (more sensible than commonly they are) of the goodness of those creditors that do not take all the advantage of the law against them, and to repay their kindnesses by their prayers for them, when they are not in a capacity to repay it in any other way. “Nay, thou shalt not only have the prayers and good wishes of thy poor brother, but it shall be righteousness to thee before the Lord thy God,” that is, “It shall be accepted and rewarded as an act of mercy to thy brother and obedience to thy God, and an evidence of thy sincere conformity to the law. Though it may be looked upon by men as an act of weakness to deliver up the securities thou hast for thy debt, yet it shall be looked upon by thy God as an act of goodness, which shall in no wise lose its reward.”

JAMISON 10-13, "When thou dost lend thy brother anything, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge — The course recommended was, in kind and considerate regard, to spare the borrower’s feelings. In the case of a poor man who had pledged his cloak, it was to be restored before night, as the poor in Eastern countries have commonly no other covering for wrapping themselves in when they go to sleep than the garment they have worn during the day.

K&D, "Warning against oppressing the Poor. - Deu_24:10, Deu_24:11. If a loan of any kind was lent to a neighbour, the lender was not to go into his house to pledge (take) a pledge, but was to let the borrower bring the pledge out. The meaning is, that they were to leave it to the borrower to give a pledge, and not compel him to give up something as a pledge that might be indispensable to him.

CALVIN, "10.When thou dost lend thy brother anything He provides against

another iniquity in reclaiming a pledge, viz., that the creditor should ransack the

house and furniture of his brother, in order to pick out the pledge at his

pleasure. For, if this option were given to the avaricious rich, they would be

satisfied with no moderation, but would seize upon all that was best, as if making

an assault on the very entrails of the poor: in a word, they would ransack men’s

houses, or at any rate, whilst they contemptuously refused this or that, they

would fill the wretched with rebuke and shame. God, therefore, will have no

pledge reclaimed, except what the debtor of his own accord, and at his own

convenience, shall bring out of his house, lie even proceeds further, that the

creditor shall not take back any pledge which he knows to be necessary for the

poor: for example, if he should pledge the bed on which he sleeps, or his

counterpane, or cloak, or mantle. For it is not just that lie should be stripped, so

62

as to suffer from cold, or to be deprived of other aids, the use of which he could

not forego without loss or inconvenience. A promise, therefore, is added, that this

act of humanity will be pleasing to God, when the poor shall sleep in the garment

which is restored to him. He speaks even more distinctly, and says: The poor will

bless thee, and it shall be accounted to thee for righteousness. For God indicates

that He hears the prayers of the poor and needy, lest the rich man should think

the bounty thrown away which lie confers upon a lowly individual. We must,

indeed, be more than iron-hearted, unless we are disposed to such liberality as

this, when we understand that, although the poor have not the means of repaying

us in this world, still they have the power of recompensing us before God, i e. , by

obtaining grace for us through their prayers. An implied threat is also conveyed,

that if the poor man should sleep inconveniently, or catch cold through our fault,

God. will hear his groans, so that our cruelty will not be unpunished. But if the

poor man, upon whom we have had compassion, should be ungrateful, yet, even

though he is silent, our kindness will cry out to God; whilst, on the other hand,

our tyrannical harshness will suffice to provoke God’s vengeance, although he

who has been treated unkindly should patiently swallow his wrong. To be unto

righteousness (108) is equivalent to being approved by God, or being an

acceptable act; for since the keeping of the Law is true righteousness, this praise

is extended to particular acts of obedience. Although it must be observed that

this righteousness fails and vanishes, unless we universally fulfill whatever God

enjoins. It is, indeed, a part of righteousness to restore a poor man’s pledge; but

if a mall be only beneficent in this respect., whilst in other matters he robs his

brethren; or if, whilst free from avarice, he exercises violence, is given to lust or

gluttony, the particular righteousness, although pleasing in itself to God, will not

come into account. In fact, we must hold fast the axiom, that no work is

accounted righteous before God, unless il, proceeds from a man of purity and

integrity; whereas there is none such to be found. Consequently, no works are

imputed unto righteousness, except because God deigns to bestow His gratuitous

favor on believers. In itself, indeed, it would be true, that whatever act of

obedience to God we perform, it is accounted for righteousness, i e. , if the whole

course of our life corresponded to it, whereas no work proceeds from us which is

not corrupted by some defect. Thus, we must fly to God’s mercy, in order that,

63

being reconciled to us, He may also accept our work.

What he had previously prescribed respecting the poor, lie afterwards applies to

widows alone, yet so as to recommend all poor persons to us under their name;

and this we gather both from the beginning of the verse (17,) in which lie

instructs them to deal fairly and justly with strangers and orphans, and also

from the reason which is added, viz., that they should reflect that they were

bondmen in the land of Egypt; for their condition there did not suffer them

proudly to insult the miserable; and it is natural that he should be the more

affected with the ills of others who has experienced the same. Since, then, this

reason is a general one, it is evident also that the precept is general, that we

should be humane towards all that are in want.

BENSON, "Deuteronomy 24:10-13. Thou shalt not go in — To prevent both the

poor man’s reproach, by having his wants exposed, and the creditor’s greediness,

which might be occasioned by the sight of something which he desired, and the

debtor could not spare. The pledge — He shall choose what pledge he pleases,

provided it be sufficient for the purpose. Thou shalt not sleep — But restore it

before night, which intimates that he should take no such thing for pledge

without which a man could not sleep. Bless thee — Bring down the blessing of

God upon thee by his prayers: for though his prayers, if he be not a good man,

shall not avail for his own behalf, yet they shall avail for thy benefit. It shall be

righteousness unto thee — Esteemed and accepted by God as a work of

righteousness, or mercy.

CONSTABLE, "Debtors 24:10-15

The Israelites were not to take advantage of their poorer brethren because of

their vulnerable condition. God looked out for them. They were not to withhold

their clothing and wages from them (cf. James 5:4). Specifically they were not to

humiliate a debtor by entering his house and demanding repayment of a debt.

They were to allow the debtor to initiate repayment. Perhaps the connection with

the ninth commandment is that by taking the initiative the creditor was saying

something about the debtor that was not necessarily true, namely, that he was

unable and or unwilling to repay the debt.

64

ELLICOTT, "(10-13) When thou dost lend.—The law in these verses is evidently

the production of primitive and simple times, when men had little more than the

bare necessaries of life to offer as security—their own clothing, or the mill-stones

used to prepare their daily food, being almost their only portable property. (See

Exodus 22:26-27.)

It shall be righteousness.—LXX., it shall be alms, or mercy. In other words,

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”

HAWKER, "Verses 10-13

These directions concerning poor debtors, show the mercy of the LORD.

Without going into all the minute circumstances of the case, respecting our

insolvency towards GOD, I would ask the Reader; whether he doth not discern

some very interesting points, which show us our mercies in JESUS. Yes! Reader,

however poor, however insolvent, however obliged to give our pledge by day, all

the people of JESUS sleep in the sure covering of the LORD's righteousness. It

may serve to teach us also, how much these creditors resemble the great and

Almighty Creditor, who are blessed in their kind and compassionate

remembrance of their poorer brethren. 1 John 3:14.

PETT, "Regulation of Pledges (Deuteronomy 24:10-13).

Deuteronomy 24:10-11

‘When you lend your neighbour any manner of loan, you shall not go into his

house to fetch his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend

shall bring forth the pledge outside to you.’

This regulation stressed the sanctity of a man’s home and personal rights, which

were not to be violated. A creditor must not burst in without warning, taking

what he would (like the kidnapper), indeed must not burst in at all. He must be

considerate and thoughtful, and on making his approach to obtain his pledge,

stand outside and let the person bring it out to him. This might be in respect of

65

an initial pledge, or a daily pledge. In the latter case the man would clearly be

very poor. But his right to privacy must still be respected.

Furthermore it prevented the creditor from making his own choice of what was

to be pledged. A man’s property was seen as his own, and that right must be

respected. We must not make free with other people’s possessions.

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:10-13

If one had to take a pledge from another, he was not to go into the house of the

latter and take what he thought fit; he must stand without, and allow the debtor

to bring to him what he saw meet to offer. He might stand outside and summon

the debtor to produce his pledge, but he was not insolently to enter the house and

lay hands on any part of the owner's property. To stand outside and call is still a

common mode of seeking access to a person in his own house or apartment

among the Arabs, and is regarded as the only respectful mode. There would be

thus a mitigation of the severity of the exaction, the tendency of which would be

to preserve good feeling between the parties. If the debtor was needy, and being

such could give in pledge only some necessary article, such as his upper garment

in which he slept at night, the pledge was to be returned ere nightfall, that the

man might sleep in his own raiment, and have a grateful feeling towards his

creditor. In many parts of the East, with the Arabs notably, it is customary for

the poor to sleep in their outer garment. "During the day the poor while at work

can and do dispense with this outside raiment, but at night it is greatly needed,

even in summer. This furnishes a good reason why this sort of pledge should be

restored before night". The earlier legislation (Exodus 22:25, Exodus 22:26) is

evidently assumed here as well known by the people. It shall be righteousness

unto thee (see on Deuteronomy 6:25).

66

11 Stay outside and let the neighbor to whom you

are making the loan bring the pledge out to

you.

GILL, "Thou shall stand abroad,.... Without doors, in the street, as the Targum of Jonathan, while the borrower or debtor looks out, and brings forth what he can best spare as a pledge:

and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee; now as, on the one hand, if the lender or creditor had been allowed to go in and take what he pleased for a pledge, he would choose the best; so, on the other hand, the borrower or debtor would be apt to bring the worst, what was of the least value and use; wherefore the Jews made it a rule that it should be of a middling sort, between both, lest it should be a discouragement and hinderance to lend upon pledges (l).

HENRY, "They must not go into the borrower's house to fetch the pledge, but must

stand without, and he must bring it, Deu_24:10, Deu_24:11. The borrower (says

Solomon) is servant to the lender; therefore lest the lender should abuse the

advantage he has against him, and improve it for his own interest, it is provided that

he shall take not what he pleases, but what the borrower can best spare. A man's

house is his castle, even the poor man's house is so, and is here taken under the

protection of the law.

12 If the neighbor is poor, do not go to sleep with

their pledge in your possession.

CLARKE, "And if the man be poor, etc. - Did not this law preclude pledging entirely, especially in case of the abjectly poor? For who would take a pledge in the morning which he knew, if not redeemed, he must restore at night? However, he might resume his claim in the morning, and have the pledge daily returned, and thus keep up his property in it till the debt was discharged; see the note on Exo_22:26.

67

The Jews in several cases did act contrary to this rule, and we find them cuttingly reproved for it by the Prophet Amos, Amo_2:8.

GILL, "And if the man be poor,.... Which may be thought to be the case of everyone that gives pledges for a debt he owes, or a sum of money he borrows; yet there might be a difference: some might be so very destitute of goods and raiment in their houses, that whatever they parted with was distressing to them, and they could not well do without it:

thou shalt not sleep with his pledge; nor keep it a night; but deliver it to him, before he went to bed, and laid himself down to sleep.

HENRY 12-13, "That a poor man's bed-clothes should never be taken for a pledge, Deu_24:12, Deu_24:13. This we had before, Exo_22:26, Exo_22:27. If they were taken in the morning, they must be brought back again at night, which is in effect to say that they must not be taken at all. “Let the poor debtor sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee,” that is, “pray for thee, and praise God for thy kindness to him.” Note, Poor debtors ought to be sensible (more sensible than commonly they are) of the goodness of those creditors that do not take all the advantage of the law against them, and to repay their kindnesses by their prayers for them, when they are not in a capacity to repay it in any other way. “Nay, thou shalt not only have the prayers and good wishes of thy poor brother, but it shall be righteousness to thee before the Lord thy God,” that is, “It shall be accepted and rewarded as an act of mercy to thy brother and obedience to thy God, and an evidence of thy sincere conformity to the law. Though it may be looked upon by men as an act of weakness to deliver up the securities thou hast for thy debt, yet it shall be looked upon by thy God as an act of goodness, which shall in no wise lose its reward.”

K&D 12-13, "And if the man was in distress (עני), the lender was not to lie (sleep)

upon his pledge, since the poor man had very often nothing but his upper garment, in which he slept, to give as a pledge. This was to be returned to him in the evening. (A repetition of Exo_22:25-26.) On the expression, “It shall be righteousness unto thee,” see Deu_6:25.

PETT, "Deuteronomy 24:12-13

‘And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep holding on to his pledge, you shall

surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his

garment, and bless you, and it shall be righteousness to you before Yahweh your

God.’

And in the case of a very poor man, who has given his robe in pledge, the robe

must be returned to him nightly so that he could sleep in it. For such a man

would use his robe as his bed clothes. Then the man will bless his creditor, and

68

this behaviour will count before God. God will see it and approve. They will be

counted as covenant keepers and be blessed accordingly. Thus as with the taking

of his handmill in Deuteronomy 24:6 this is the taking of what is vital for his

personal welfare.

We should note that, while Deuteronomy continually makes provision for those

in need, ‘the poor’ are only mentioned in this chapter and Deuteronomy 15:4-11.

This was partly because had Israel been obedient there would not have been

poor in the land. so that regularly he speaks in terms of those of whom some

would inevitably be poor, the fatherless, the widow and the resident

alien/foreigner (Deuteronomy 10:18-19; Deuteronomy 14:29; Deuteronomy

16:11; Deuteronomy 16:14; Deuteronomy 27:19; Deuteronomy 1:16;

Deuteronomy 5:14; Deuteronomy 26:11-13; Deuteronomy 29:11 compare Exodus

22:22-23) rather than directly of the poor. For he did not want reference to the

poor to be taken as evidence that there inevitably would be poor people, other

than as a result of misfortune. Poor people in Yahweh’s land were actually a

contradiction. His attitude to the resident alien and the foreigner is especially

paralleled in Leviticus 19:33-34, compare with this Deuteronomy 10:18, but is

common throughout (Exodus 12:48-49; Exodus 20:10; Exodus 22:21; Exodus

23:9; Exodus 23:12; Leviticus 24:22; Leviticus 25:6; Leviticus 25:35; Numbers

9:14; Numbers 15:14-16; Numbers 15:26-30; Numbers 35:15).

13 Return their cloak by sunset so that your

neighbor may sleep in it. Then they will thank

you, and it will be regarded as a righteous act in

69

the sight of the Lordyour God.

BARNES, "Compare Exo_22:25-27.

Deu_24:13

Righteousness unto thee - Compare Deu_6:25 note.

GILL, "In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again, when the sun goeth down,.... If it was a night covering, as Jarchi remarks; but if it was his day clothes, he was to return it in the morning, when the sun arose; and this was to be done every day, which resist occasion a great deal of trouble, and the pledge of little use; so that it seems as though they might as well be without it as have it, and lend freely; but the Jews say, that there was an advantage by it; for it is said in answer to such a question,"of what profit is the pledge? by this means the debt is not released on the seventh year, (when all other debts were released, Deu_15:1) nor could the borrower dispose of his goods to his children, but payment was made from the pledge after his death (m):''now this delivery of the pledge at sun setting was ordered:

that he may sleep in his own raiment; have his night covering to sleep in, his pillow, and bolster, and bedding to lie on, and bed clothes to cover him; and indeed the clothes they wore were made in such form, as would serve for covering to sleep in at night, as well as to wear in the day; and such is the clothing of the Arabs now, which they call "hykes"."The usual size of them (Dr. Shaw says (n)), is six yards long, and five or six feet broad, serving the Arab for a complete dress in the day; and as they "sleep in their raiment", it serves likewise for his bed and covering by night:"

and bless thee: for using him so mercifully and kindly, as to return him his pledge, which is so necessary to his comfortable repose in the night; and not only will he praise him, and speak well of him for it, and give him thanks; but will pray to God to bless him in soul, body, and estate, for such kindness shown him:

and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord thy God; not his justifying righteousness before God, for by the deeds of the law shall no flesh living be justified in his sight; but it shall be owned and approved of as a good and righteous action, and answerable to the intention of this law, which is, that mercy should be shown to persons in distress; in which sense the word "righteousness" is

sometimes used, even for a merciful action, Psa_112:9; so alms is called δικαιοσυνη,

"righteousness", Mat_6:1, in some copies.

BI 13-16, "Thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, measure.

The Christian in commerce

I. Endeavour to point out what Christianity requires of a man in his dealings in business with his fellow men.

70

1. The most rigid adherence to the principles of moral integrity. Truth. Honesty.

2. The exercise of love and kindness.

3. That a man should preserve his soul in peace and patience.

4. That commerce be consecrated and elevated by the spirit of holiness.

II. Having described what a Christian should be in commerce briefly show why he should be it. All considerations by which religion and morality are commended and enforced are applicable here. The course pointed out is right in itself, what we owe to God and connected with eternal destiny. It is necessary to inherit the kingdom of heaven. It is presented to us in the example of Christ, whom all disciples should imitate. In one word, Christianity requires it; all its precepts, principles, blessings, and prospects require it. (A. J. Morris.)

Fluctuation of trade

Trade is a fluctuating thing; it passed from Tyre to Alexandria, from Alexandria to Venice, from Venice to Antwerp, from Antwerp to Amsterdam and London—the English rivalling the Dutch; the French are now rivalling both. All nations, almost, are wisely applying themselves to trade, and it behoves those who are in possession of it to take the greatest care that they do not lose it. It is a plant of tender growth; it requires sun and soil and fine seasons to make it thrive and flourish. It will not grow like the palm tree, which, with the more weight and pressure, rises the more. Liberty is a friend to that, as that is a friend to liberty. But the greatest enemy to both in licentiousness, which tramples upon all law and lawful authority, encourages riots and tumults, sticks at nothing to support its extravagance, practises every art of illicit gain, ruins credit and trade, and will ruin liberty itself. Neither kingdoms, commonwealths, public companies, nor private persons, can long carry on a beneficial and flourishing trade without virtue and what virtue teaches—sobriety, industry, frugality, modesty, honesty, punctuality, humanity, charity, the love of our country, and the fear of our God. (Bp. Newton.)

Justice

From these specific instances of justice let us extend our views to justice in general; let us consider its true nature and importance to human society; the obligations we are under to adhere to it inviolably; and the fatal consequences of every deviation. Justice is that virtue which teaches us to respect the rights of others, and to refrain from all injurious acts or purposes.

1. Some rights men are born to—such as the use of their own limbs, the free and uncontrolled exercise of their faculties of body and mind—these faculties, derived from the Author of life, sufficiently speak the intention of the Giver—that they should be freely, but at the same time innocently used—this is the equal birthright of every man.

2. Again, if every human being that God has made has a right to live, to breathe, to move, to think—he must also have a just claim to the product of his labour and his thought.

3. Another source of right springs from mutual, voluntary engagements—expressed, or implied—which ought all to be candidly interpreted, and conscientiously fulfilled.

71

4. Of all obligations the most binding and indispensable is to do no wrong to any; to hold the rightful claims of our fellow creatures sacred. First, all restraint upon personal liberty exercised by one man upon another—uncompelled by previous aggression—tends wantonly to defeat man’s whole destination; and is therefore a daring outrage against the Author of his being. Equally, or rather more unjust and more criminal is it, to forge chains for the mind—to prohibit the use of reason—to compel men to violate their conscience. Next to the undisturbed use of our bodily and mental faculties, the fruits of their exertion, justice maintains inviolable—and consequently enjoins—the exact observance of those civil laws by which the disposal of property is regulated, “not merely for wrath, but for conscience sake.” Moreover, independently of government and laws, that those contracts which are entered into for mutual aid and benefit, and without which mankind could not act collectively and in concert, are to be formed on fair and upright principles, and fulfilled with punctuality—is as evident as that man was created to be a social being, and that no one should undermine that mutual confidence and that willingness to combine and to cooperate together, on which the common good so manifestly depends. Nor do commercial or pecuniary concerns form the only province of justice. She is equally solicitous to render unto all their dues of every kind. She abstains as carefully from violating another’s reputation as his property; of which, indeed, it often constitutes the most valuable part; and as scrupulously shuns taking any unfair advantage in the most secret transaction, as in the sight of all the world. Who is not sensible of the discordant and tumultuous state into which mankind would fall were justice to take her flight? Selfishness and rapine on all sides prevailing in a short time little would remain for the one to covet or the other to prey upon and monopolise. Justice is essential not only to the comfort, but to the subsistence of the species. But where neither the eye of man can penetrate, nor the hand of man can reach—there the claims of justice are felt by the truly upright; the reasonable expectations of their fellow creatures weighed in an impartial scale, and answered with the same conscientious care and unswerving rectitude, as if they were defined by the strictest statutes, and enforced by the severest penalties. Far beyond all formal compacts, all legal obligations, is the demand of reason and conscience on the just man. In comparing his own rights with those of others, his justice stretches into the domain of generosity; in comparing the claims of others between themselves his generosity never deviates from impartial justice. So imperceptible are the shades of difference that separate justice from generosity—whether we consider their motives, obligations, or effects—that, amongst the ancient philosophers justice was the common name assigned to both; and denoted the general principle of all the social virtues—and our Saviour comprehends all that is equitable and all that is kind and disinterested in one and the same precept—“Do unto others, as ye would that they should do unto you.” I shall only add, that as justice is that virtue which is most essential to every social state, and that state which is reserved for the spirits of the just will be preeminently social; so the habits of justice, which have in this world been interwoven with all their sentiments and actions, must there attain their highest perfection and produce the happiest issue. (P. Houghton.).

72

14 Do not take advantage of a hired worker who

is poor and needy, whether that worker is a

fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of

your towns.

GILL, "Thou shall not oppress an hired servant,.... That is hired by the day, as appears by Deu_24:15; though the law may include such as are hired by the week, or month, or year; neither of whom are to be oppressed by any means, and chiefly by detaining their wages; so the Jerusalem Targum explains the phrase,"ye shall not detain by force the hire of the hired servant;''nor by fraud, as in Jam_5:4,

that is poor and needy; and so cannot bear the lest oppression of this kind, nor to have his wages detained from him any time, and much less wholly to be defrauded of them:

whether he be of thy brethren; an Israelite, and so a brother both by nation and religion:

or of thy strangers that are in thy land, within thy gates; Jarchi interprets this, both of proselytes of righteousness, and of proselytes of the gate; which latter are plainly described by this clause, and the former must be included; for, if proselytes of the gate are not to be oppressed, much less proselytes of righteousness, who were in all respects as Israelites, the same law was to them both. Jarchi says, the phrase "in thy land" is intended to comprehend the hire of beasts, and of vessels; and these in the Misnah (o) are said to be comprehended in this precept, as well as the hire of man.

HENRY 14-15, "Here, I. Masters are commanded to be just to their poor servants, Deu_24:14, Deu_24:15. 1. They must not oppress them, by overloading them with work, by giving them undue and unreasonable rebukes, or by withholding from them proper maintenance. A servant, though a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel, must not be abused: “For thou wast a bondman in the land where thou wast a stranger (Deu_24:18), and thou knowest what a grievous thing it is to be oppressed by a task-master, and therefore, in tenderness to those that are servants and strangers, and in gratitude to that God who set thee at liberty and settled thee in a country of thy own, thou shalt not oppress a servant.” Let not masters be tyrants to their servants, for their Master is in heaven. See Job_31:13. 2. They must be faithful and punctual in paying them their wages: “At his day thou shalt give him his hire,not only pay it in time, without further delay. As soon as he had done his day's work, if he desire it, let him have his day's wages,” as those labourers (Mat_20:8) when evening had come. he that works by day-wages is supposed to live from hand to

73

mouth, and cannot have tomorrow's bread for his family till be is paid for this day's labour. If the wages be withheld, (1.) It will be grief to the servant, for, poor man, he sets his heart upon it,. or, as the word is, he lifts up his soul to it, he is earnestly desirous of it, as the reward of his work (Job_7:2), and depends upon it as the gift of God's providence for the maintenance of his family. A compassionate master, though it should be somewhat inconvenient to himself, would not disappoint the expectation of a poor servant that was so fond to think of receiving his wages. But that is not the worst. (2.) It will be guilt to the master. “The injured servant will cry against thee to the Lord; since he has no one else to appeal to, he will lodge his appeal in the court of heaven, and it will be sin to thee.” Or, if he do not complain, the cause will speak for itself, the “hire of the labourers which is kept back by fraud will itself cry,” Jam_5:4. It is a greater sin than most people think it is, and will be found so in the great day, to put hardships upon poor servants, labourers, and workmen, that we employ. God will do them right if men do not.

JAMISON, "Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy — Hired servants in the East are paid at the close of the day; and for a master to defraud the laborer of his hire, or to withhold it wrongfully for a night, might have subjected a poor man with his family to suffering and was therefore an injustice to be avoided (Lev_19:13).

K&D, "They were not to oppress a poor and distressed labourer, by withholding his wages. This command is repeated here from Lev_19:13, with special reference to the distress of the poor man. “And to it (his wages) he lifts up his soul:” i.e., he feels a longing for it. “Lifts up his soul:” as in Psa_24:4; Hos_4:8; Jer_22:27. On Deu_24:15, see Deu_15:9 and Jam_5:4.

CALVIN, "14.Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant. This precept is akin to

the foregoing. Moses pronounces that he who has hired a poor person for wages

oppresses him unless he gives him immediate recompense for his labor; since the

two admonitions, “thou shalt; not; oppress,” and “thou shalt give him his hire,”

are to be read in connection with each other. Hence it follows, that if a hireling

suffers from want because we do not pay him what he has earned, we are by our

very delay alone convicted of unrighteousness. The reason is now more clearly

expressed, viz., because he sustains his life by his daily labors. (101) Although,

however, this provision only refers to the poor, lest they should suffer hunger

from the negligence or pride of the rich, still humanity in general is enforced,

lest, whilst the poor labor for our profit, we should arrogantly abuse them as if

they were our slaves, or should be too illiberal and stingy towards them, since

74

nothing can be more disgraceful than that, when they are in our service, they

should not at least have enough to live upon frugally. Finally, Moses admonishes

us that this tyranny on the part of the rich shall not be unpunished, if they do not

supply their workmen with the means of subsistence, even although no account

shall be rendered of it before the tribunals of men. Hence we infer that this law is

not political, but altogether spiritual, and binding on our consciences before the

judgment-seat of God; for although the poor man may not sue us at law, Moses

teaches us that it is sufficient for him to appeal to the faithfulness of God.

Wherefore, although the earthly judge may absolve us a hundred times over, let

us not therefore think that we have escaped; since God will always require of us

from heaven, whatever may have been unjustly excused us on earth. The

question, however, here arises, whether, if he who has been oppressed should not

cry out, the criminality will cease in consequence of his silence; for the words of

Moses seem to imply this, when he says, that the rich will be guilty, if the poor

cry unto God and make complaint of their wrongs. The reply’ is easy, that Moses

had no other intention than to over-. throw the vain confidence of the despisers,

whereby they arc, stimulated to greater audacity in sin, and are hardened in

iniquity. He says, therefore, that although, as far as men are concerned, they may

allow us to pillage and rob, still a more awful judgment is to be dreaded; for God

hears the complaints of the poor, who find no protector or avenger on earth. And

surely, the more patiently he who is despoiled shall bear his wrong, the more

ready will God be to undertake his cause; nor is there any louder cry to Him

than patient endurance. If, however, any should object that the cry here spoken

of is at variance with Christ’s command, that we should pray for our enemies, we

answer at once, that God does not always approve of the prayers which He

nevertheless answers. The imprecation of Jotham, the son of Gideon, took effect

upon the Shechemites, (Jude 9:20,) although it was plainly the offspring of

immoderate anger. Besides, it sometimes happens that the miserable, although

they endure their injuries with pious meekness, still cease not to lay their sorrows

and their groans in the bosom of God. Nor is this a slight consolation for the

poor, that if no one on earth relieves them because their condition is low and

abject, still God will hereafter take cognizance of their cause.

75

BENSON, "Deuteronomy 24:14-15. Not oppress a hired servant — By detaining

his wages from him when due, which is the meaning of oppression here, as

appears from the next verse. At his day thou shalt give him his hire — That is, at

the time appointed, weekly or daily. He speaks of a hireling who was so poor as

not to be able to provide himself and family with necessaries without his wages,

and who therefore eagerly expected them as the support of their lives.

HAWKER, "Verse 14-15

The justice, to say nothing of the mercy, of this precept, is too obvious. The

LORD grant, that no cry of my poor brother, or of a stranger, may ever go up to

my GOD against me. Reader! think only what a discordant thing it would be, if

while you are sending up a prayer for mercy, another should be sending up a

prayer for justice upon your head. Read that scripture: James 5:4.

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:14, Deuteronomy 24:15

Omitted duty ripens into curse.

Thoughtlessness is a flimsy excuse for neglected duty. It is a sin to be thoughtless.

One talent is buried in the earth. In proportion to the mischief produced is the

punishment thereof.

I. WE HAVE HERE A CASE OF OBLIGATION FULLY MATURED.

1. The rich is debtor to the poor. Obligation between the several ranks of society

is equal. The rich rely for many services upon the poor. The king depends upon

the cook. The laborer gives his strength, the employer contributes his money.

There is as much obligation on the one side as on the other.

2. At a fixed point of time the obligation is matured. Henceforth the neglect of

76

the obligation becomes sin. My obligations today differ from those of yesterday.

The element of time plays an important part. Obligations grow.

3. Obligations are implied as well as expressed. Custom is unwritten law. Riches

carry with them no warrant for arrogance. Riches have cursed the man if they

have made him churlish.

II. NEGLECTED OBLIGATION ENTAILS UNKNOWN MISERY. We cannot

follow the effects of thoughtlessness into all their intricate ramifications and to

their utmost issues. What would be regarded as a trivial disappointment on the

part of one man may be an agony of pain to another. Wages expected and

deferred may mean to a needy laborer pinching hunger, not only to himself, but

to feeble wife and to helpless babes. A gloomy and sleepless night may follow.

Bitter and angry feelings may be engendered. Faith in human integrity may be

lost. Self-restraint may vanish. For want of a nail a shoe was lost, a battle was

lost, ay, an empire fell!

III. NEGLECTED OBLIGATION MAY BRING HEAVY CURSE UPON THE

CULPRIT. It is not safe to treat any human being with contempt, especially the

poor. God is the avowed Champion of such. The command, "Honor all men," is

as binding as "Thou shalt not steal." The cry of the injured man in his distress is

sure to pierce the skies. The ear of God is specially attent to his children's

suffering cry, even as a mother catches the plaintive wail of her firstborn infant.

Swiftly God attaches himself to the side of the oppressed, and takes upon himself

the burden. The injustice done to the man becomes an insult done to God. The

deed alters in its character, intensifies in its immorality, becomes heinous sin.

Vials of wrath are preparing for the head of the unthinking transgressor. It will

be as the sin of blasphemy or of murder unto them.—D.

77

15 Pay them their wages each day before sunset,

because they are poor and are counting on

it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against

you, and you will be guilty of sin.

CLARKE, "He is poor, and setteth his heart upon it - How exceedingly natural is this! The poor servant who seldom sees money, yet finds from his master’s affluence that it procures all the conveniences and comforts of life, longs for the time when he shall receive his wages; should his pay be delayed after the time is expired, he may naturally be expected to cry unto God against him who withholds it. See most of these subjects treated at large on Exo_22:21-27 (note).

GILL, "At his day thou shalt give him his hire,.... At the close of the day, when his work is done, the hire agreed for must be paid him; and, by the same rule, all such that were hired by the week, month, or year, were to have their wages paid them at the day their time was up:

neither shall the sun go down upon it; it was to be paid before sun setting, or at it; see Lev_19:13,

for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it; being poor, he cannot wait any longer for the payment of it; his personal and family wants are such as require immediate payment; and besides, he has been eagerly expecting it, and earnestly desiring it, that he may satisfy the craving necessities of himself and family; and therefore it would be a great balk and disappointment to him to have his wages detained:

lest he cry against thee to the Lord; having none to apply unto but him, who is the patron of the poor and needy, not being able to help himself, nor having interest in any to interpose on his behalf; and his cry, and the cry of his hire too, enter into the ears of the Lord of hosts, and is regarded by him, Jam_5:4,

and it be sin unto thee: be imputed to him, the guilt charged on him, and punishment inflicted for it.

78

COKE, "Ver. 15. At his day thou shalt give him his hire— This particularly

concerns those who live by their daily labour: they ought to be paid before the

sun goes down; all ought to receive their wages, whether labourers or servants,

at the time agreed upon; for this is what he setteth his heart upon; or, as the

Vulgate has it, for from hence he supports his soul, or life. The bread of the

needy is their life, saith the son of Sirach; he that defraudeth him thereof is a

man of blood: he that taketh away his neighbour's living, slayeth him; and he

that defraudeth the labourer of his hire, is a blood-shedder. Sirach 34:21-22. He

sheddeth blood, inasmuch as the wages of the labourer are what supports him,

and as, according to the Scripture, the life of man is in his blood. See St.

Augustin. Quaest. in Levit. col. 516.

16 Parents are not to be put to death for their

children, nor children put to death for their

parents; each will die for their own sin.

CLARKE, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, etc. -This law is explained and illustrated in sufficient detail, Ezekiel 18.

GILL, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children,.... By the civil magistrates, for sins committed by them of a capital nature, and which are worthy of death:

neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; for sins committed by them that deserve it:

every man shall be put to death for his own sin: which is but just and reasonable; see Eze_18:4; which is no contradiction to Exo_20:5; that respects what God himself would do, this what Israel, or the civil magistrates in it, should do; this

79

is a command on Israel, as Aben Ezra observes; that the declaration of the sovereign Being, who is not bound by any law. Jarchi interprets these words differently, as that the one should not be put to death by the testimony of the other; and it is a rule with the Jews,"that an oath of witness is taken of men, and not of women; of those that are not akin, and not of those that are nearly related (p):''on which one of the commentators observes (q) that such that are near akin are not fit to bear testimony, because it is written, "the father shall not be put to death for the children"; that is, for the testimony of the children. Jarchi indeed mentions the other sense, for the sins of the children, which has been given, and is undoubtedly the true sense of the text. The Targum of Jonathan gives both;"fathers should not be put to death, neither by the testimony, nor for the sins of the children; and children shall not be put to death, neither by the testimony, nor for the sins of fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin by proper witnesses.''

HENRY 16-17, "II. Magistrates and judges are commanded to be just in their administrations. 1. In those which we call pleas of the crown a standing rule is here given, that the fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, Deu_24:16. If the children make themselves obnoxious to the law, let them suffer for it, but let not the parents suffer either for them or with them; it is grief enough to them to see their children suffer: if the parents be guilty, let them die for their own sin; but though God, the sovereign Lord of life, sometimes visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, especially the sin of idolatry, and when he deals with nations in their national capacity, yet he does not allow men to do so. Accordingly, we find Amaziah sparing the children, even when the fathers were put to death for killing the king, 2Ki_14:6. It was in an extraordinary case, and no doubt by special direction from heaven, that Saul's sons were put to death for his offence, and they died rather as sacrifices than as malefactors, 2Sa_21:9, 2Sa_21:14. 2. In common pleas between party and party, great care must be taken that none whose cause was just should fare the worse for their weakness, nor for their being destitute of friends, as strangers, fatherless, and widows (Deu_24:17): “Thou shalt not pervert their judgment, nor force them to give their very raiment for a pledge, by defrauding them of their right.” Judges must be advocates for those that cannot speak for themselves and have no friends to speak for them.

JAMISON 16-18, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children — The rule was addressed for the guidance of magistrates, and it established the equitable principle that none should be responsible for the crimes of others.

CALVIN, "Here also God manifests how great is His regard for human life, so

that blood should not be shed indiscriminately, when he forbids that children

should be involved in the punishment of their parents. Nor was this Law by any

means supererogatory, because on account of one man’s crime his whole race

was often severely dealt with. It is not without cause, therefore, that God

interposes for the protection of the innocent, and does not allow the punishment

80

to travel further than where the crime exists. And surely our natural common

sense dictates that it is an act of barbarous madness to put children to death out

of hatred to their father. If any should object, what we have already seen, that

God avenges “unto the third and fourth generation,” the reply is easy, that He is

a law unto Himself, and that He does not rush by a blind impulse to the exercise

of vengeance, so as to confound the innocent with the reprobate, but that He so

visits the iniquity of the fathers upon their children, as to temper extreme

severity with the greatest equity. Moreover, He has not so bound Himself by an

inflexible rule as not to be free, if it so pleases Him, to depart from the Law; as,

for example, He commanded the whole race of Canaan to be rooted out, because

the land would not be purged except by the extermination of their defilements;

and, since they were all reprobate, the children, no less than their fathers, were

doomed to just destruction. Nay, we read that, after Saul’s death, his guilt was

expiated by the death of his children, (2 Samuel 21:0;) still, by this special

exception, the Supreme Lawgiver did not abrogate what He had commanded;

but would have His own admirable wisdom acquiesced in, which is the fountain

from whence all laws proceed.

COFFMAN, "COFFMAN, "Verse 16

LAWS OF JUSTICE

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children

be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Thou shalt not wrest the justice due to the sojourner, or to the fatherless, nor

take the widow's garment to pledge; but thou shalt remember that thou wast a

bondman in Egypt, and Jehovah thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I

command thee to do this thing."

Deuteronomy 24:16 is taken by some to mean that there is no such thing as

corporate responsibility; but the example of the expiation that had to be made by

the nearest city in the case of an unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21) is more

than enough to validate the principle of corporate responsibility. What is

forbidden here is that Israel should follow the example of most ancient nations in

81

those days, in which, "The family of a criminal was included in his

punishment."[15] The Book of Esther details the punishment of Haman and his

seven sons who were all hanged on the gallows that he had prepared for

Mordecai (Esther 9:25); yet Haman alone was the wicked enemy of the Jews. It

was in contrast with such punishments that this law was promulgated.

COKE, "Ver. 16. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither

shall the children be put to death for the fathers— See what we have said

respecting this subject on Exodus 20. It is supposed by some, that there was a law

in Moses's time, among the AEgyptians, or other neighbour nations, that

relations should suffer for the crimes of relations. Thus Ammianus Marcellinus

tells us, that by the law of the Persians, in the case of desertion, and some other

crimes, the whole kindred perished for the guilt of one, ob noxam unius, omnis

propinquitas perit. So we read in Quint. Curt. lib. vi. c. 11. that among the

Macedonians, the relations of those who plotted against the king's life were put

to death as well as themselves; on the contrary, king Amaziah is praised for not

putting to death the sons of his father's murderers; agreeably to this law of

Moses, as well as to that maxim of common equity, that, as faults are personal, so

ought the punishment to be. See Grotius de Jure B. & P. lib. ii. c. 21

CONSTABLE, "Individual responsibility 24:16

The Israelites were not to punish children for the crimes their parents

committed. To do so charged them with guilt unjustly.

". . . it was a common thing among heathen nations-e.g., the Persians,

Macedonians, and others-for the children and families of criminals to be also put

to death (cf. Esther ix. 13, 14 ...)." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:420.]

In the cases where God executed the families of criminals, He may have done so

because the family members were also responsible for the crime (Deuteronomy

24:16; cf. Joshua 7:24-26). In any case God has the right to do things that He

does not allow His people to do. It is one thing for children to suffer physically

and socially because of their parents' sins (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9). It is

82

something else for human authorities to punish them for criminal acts that they

have not committed.

PETT, "No One Shall Die For Another’s Sin (Deuteronomy 24:16).

Fair play and consideration for others was even to reach to those responsible for

justice. This idea of personal responsibility was not late. It appears in early law

codes outside Israel, although as we would expect, in varying degrees. The

unrighteous must be condemned and the innocent justified.

Deuteronomy 24:16

‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be

put to death for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.’

The root principle of justice was to be that every man died for his own sin, and

not for the sins of others (compare Numbers 27:3). The Law Code of

Hammurabi sometimes applied the principle of ‘a life for a life’ in terms of the

fact that if a man killed someone else’s son, his own son must be killed in

recompense. This was never to be so in Israel. Each man was accountable for

himself and himself alone as far as justice was concerned.

This is not contradictory to the principle that the sins of the fathers will be

visited on the third and the fourth generation (Deuteronomy 5:9). There God

was warning of how sin could, and regularly did, work out. He was warning of

the consequences that could result. That is a very different thing from the

administering of individual justice. The consequences brought about by evil in

our lives are inevitable results, not God’s deliberate judgments.

PULPIT, "Among heathen nations it was common for a whole family to be

involved in the penalty incurred by the head of the family, and to be put to death

along with him. Such severity of retribution is here prohibited in the penal code

83

of the Israelites. Though God, in the exercise of his absolute sovereignty, might

visit the sins of the parent upon the children (Exodus 20:5), earthly judges were

not to assume this power. Only the transgressor himself was to bear the penalty

of his sin (cf. 2 Kings 14:6).

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:16-22

Doing justice and loving mercy.

I. EACH SOUL IS TO BEAR ITS OWN SIN. (Deuteronomy 24:16.) This verse

lays down the rule of human jurisprudence. Loss and suffering to the innocent,

as a result of the course of justice inflicting punishment on the guilty, cannot

always be avoided. But this is an incidental, not a designed result. With those

wider movements of Divine justice, which seem to turn on the federal

constitution of the race, and involve different principles, human justice has

nothing to do. The rule for us is that the punishment of crime, with loss and

suffering resulting therefrom, is to be confined as much as possible to the guilty

person.

II. JUSTICE IS TO BE DONE TO THE WEAKEST. (Deuteronomy 24:17,

Deuteronomy 24:18.) The stranger and fatherless and widow are again taken

under the Law's protection. Their right is not to be perverted. The widow's

raiment is not to be taken in pledge. There should need no inducement to do

what is right, but Moses reminds the Israelites of their own past condition as

bondmen. Oppression is doubly disgraceful when those guilty of it are persons

who have themselves tasted its bitterness, or who have themselves been

mercifully dealt with (Matthew 18:23-35). We cannot sufficiently admire the

combined justice and tenderness of these Mosaic precepts.

III. PROVISION IS TO BE LEFT FOR THE NEEDY. (Deuteronomy 24:19-22.)

84

These are beautiful rules. The Jews were under the Law, but it was a Law the

fulfilling of which was "love." The variety of ways in which the Law seeks to

instill love into the hearts of the chosen people would form a study eminently

suitable for the pulpit. The poor we have always with us, and they should be

often in our thoughts. (Southey's poem, 'The Complaints of the Poor.') In the

cornfield, among the olives, in the vineyard, they were to be remembered. When

the wealthy are gathering in their abundance, then is the time for remembering

the needy. Thus will the heart be kept warm, covetousness checked, our own

happiness best secured, the wants of the poor supplied, their blessing obtained, a

treasure laid up in heaven. "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth"

(Proverbs 11:24).—J.O.

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:16-18

Public justice to be pure.

Unseen principles of justice lie at the foundation of human society, and if

rottenness and decay appear in these foundations, the social structure will soon

topple and fall. Visible prosperity is built upon invisible justice. In the absence of

justice, property becomes untenable, commerce vanishes, peace spreads her

wings for flight. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

I. THE MAGISTRATE'S TEMPTATION. Human nature, at its best, is

accessible by temptation; and it is well that from the eyes of the nation a fierce

light beats upon the judicial bench. If only the ear of the judge be open to the

fascinating voice of self-advantage, if his hand be open to a bribe, wickedness

will put on the most ravishing charms to deflect him from his duty. Because he

occupies a seat so conspicuous, temptation selects him as a special target for her

poisoned arrows. Yet even for temptation he may rejoice, for according to his

trials should be his moral triumphs. Avarice may tempt him. Love of ease may

tempt him. His own tastes and predilections may tempt. The praise of the

85

powerful may tempt. He will become either the stronger or the weaker for the

discipline, will grow in moral courage or in cowardice.

II. THE MAGISTRATE'S QUALIFICATION. The qualification for the judicial

throne is ardent love of justice. As only a wise man can be a teacher, so only a

just man can be a true judge. No matter what may be the nationality of the

litigants, no matter what their color, social rank, or sex, every one has an

inherent claim on public justice. To pervert judgment is to arouse all the

elements of wrath in heaven and earth. The judge is the visible exponent of

justice; he wears the garb of justice, and if in him there dwells not the soul of

justice, he is a sham and a pretence. Heart devotion to public justice is the only

anchor that can hold him fast amid those currents and whirlpools of evil

influences which ever surge around him. Things unseen are the most potent.

III. THE MAGISTRATE'S RULE OF ACTION. This is clearly made known to

him by God, viz. that punishment is to be personal, not corporate. The child is

not to die for the father. Where there is corporate guilt there must be corporate

punishment. But this is no contravention of the rule. The inducement is often

great to release oneself from the pains of unraveling a complicated suit; or, if

relatives of the accused seem to be accessories to an evil deed, a judge is often

tempted to embrace all the suspected family in one punishment. The light of

truth is to be his only guide; love of justice his compass; the revealed will of God

his chart. To him human life is to be held a sacred thing; not one life is to be

needlessly sacrificed. It is a sad fact that judges have been amongst the greatest

criminals; they have slain many innocent men.

IV. THE MAGISTRATE'S INSPIRING MOTIVE. Many motives may wisely

influence him. He, too, must appear before a higher tribunal, and submit his

whole life to judicial light. But the motive here pressed upon him is gratitude

derived from past experience. The history of his nation is to mold his character

86

and to teach him the value of human justice. He is expected to sympathize with

the oppressed, to enter into their griefs, because he is a part of a nation that has

felt the sharp scourge of oppression. He has learnt by national experience that,

when justice by man is denied, God appears in court and champions the cause of

the oppressed. He is the representative of a nation that has been redeemed. He

himself is a ransomed one, and is under peculiar obligation to serve his

Deliverer. His time, his capacity, his legal knowledge, his influence are not his

own; he is redeemed, and belongs to another. Past deliverances are not to be lost

upon us, or we are lost. To forget the lessons of the past is self-injury, yea, is

heinous sin. In every station and office fidelity is demanded.—D.

17 Do not deprive the foreigner or the

fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the

widow as a pledge.

BARNES, "Compare the marginal references. The motive assigned for these various acts of consideration is one and the same Deu_24:18, Deu_24:22.

GILL, "Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless,.... Who are unable to defend themselves, and have but few, if any, to take their part; and therefore particular care should be taken by judges and civil magistrates to do them justice, or God will require it of them:

nor take a widow's raiment to pledge; nor anything else, as her ox or cow, Job_24:3; according to the Jewish canons (r), of a widow, whether she is poor or rich, a pledge is not taken; the reason given for which is, that it would raise an ill suspicion, and cause an evil report of her among her neighbours (s); and which is suggested by the Targum of Jonathan"neither shall any of you take for a pledge the raiment of a widow, lest wicked neighbours should arise, and bring an evil report upon her, when ye return the pledge unto her.''But no doubt a poor widow is meant, and the design of the law is mercy to her, and that she might not be distressed by taking that from her she needed.

87

HENRY 17-22, "In common pleas between party and party, great care must be taken that none whose cause was just should fare the worse for their weakness, nor for their being destitute of friends, as strangers, fatherless, and widows (Deu_24:17): “Thou shalt not pervert their judgment, nor force them to give their very raiment for a pledge, by defrauding them of their right.” Judges must be advocates for those that cannot speak for themselves and have no friends to speak for them.

III. The rich are commanded to be kind and charitable to the poor. Many ways they are ordered to be so by the law of Moses. The particular instance of charity here prescribed is that they should not be greedy in gathering in their corn, and grapes, and olives, so as to be afraid of leaving any behind them, but be willing to overlook some, and let the poor have the gleanings, v. 19-22. 1. “Say not, 'It is all my own, and why should not I have it?' But learn a generous contempt of property in small matters. One sheaf or two forgotten will make thee never the poorer at the year's end, and it will do somebody good, if thou have it not.” 2. “Say not, 'What I give I will give, and know whom I give it to, why should I leave it to be gathered by I know not whom, that will never thank me.' But trust God's providence with the disposal of thy charity, perhaps that will direct it to the most necessitous.” Or, “Thou mayest reasonably think it will come to the hands of the most industrious, that are forward to seek and gather that which this law provides for them.” 3. “Say not, 'What should the poor do with grapes and olives? It is enough for them to have bread and water;' for, since they have the same senses that the rich have, why should not they have some little share of the delights of sense?” Boaz ordered handfuls of corn to be left on purpose for Ruth, and God blessed him. All that is left is not lost.

COFFMAN, "The humanitarian aspect of Deuteronomy 24:17,18 is clear

enough. There was special protection in all of God's laws directed to benefit the

strangers, the poor, the wayfarers, the widows, the fatherless, and others of the

poor.

COKE. "Ver. 17. Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, &c.—

Concerning this humane and tender provision for strangers, the fatherless, and

widows, we refer to the places in the Margin of our Bibles: only observing, that

as persons of this kind are commonly in a more destitute condition than others,

therefore all good lawgivers have taken especial care of them, particularly of

orphans; concerning whom Plato ordains, that the conservators of the laws

should be instead of their natural parents, and look after them so well, that they

should not fare the worse for the want of those parents. De Leg. lib. 8:

ELLICOTT, "(17-22) The stranger, the fatherless, and the widow—are the

subject of all the laws in these verses. For the first two (Deuteronomy 24:17-18),

see Exodus 22:22-24. As to the harvest, see Leviticus 23:22. It is noticeable that

88

this law is connected with the Feast of Pentecost in that place. Never was such

care for the widow and the poor manifested as after the day of Pentecost in the

New Testament. When “great grace was upon them all,” it is written that

“neither was there any among them that lacked.”

In a very special way and for some special reason, all through the Old

Testament, “the Lord careth for the stranger.” What the reason is, if we had the

Old Testament only, we might find it hard to discover. But when we open the

New Testament, we may see that this is one aspect of the love of God the Father

to His Son Jesus Christ, who was one day to come among us as “a stranger,”

when there was “no room for Him in the inn.” His coming hither as a stranger

could not be unnoticed. And, therefore, the name and mention of the stranger all

through the Old Testament is like a path strewn with flowers, in expectation of

the coming of one that is greatly beloved. We see angels walking upon the earth,

entertained as strangers. The wealthy patriarch, a “prince of God” among the

Canaanites, confesses himself a “stranger and pilgrim on the earth.” Those that

inherit the land are put in the same category, “Ye are strangers and sojourners

with Me.” The stranger sits beside the Levite at Israel’s table. The second great

commandment is rehearsed again for his especial benefit. “He shall be unto you

as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.” There is only one

key to all this combination of tenderness. “I was a stranger, and ye took me in.”

(18,22) Thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt.—An

exhortation thoroughly in place here, in the writings of Moses. In this form it

occurs repeatedly in the Pentateuch, but not elsewhere. It is not the language

which would naturally suggest itself to the prophets of later times.

HAWKER, "Verse 17-18

The consciousness of our past ruined state, when in the awakened condition of a

poor sinner, a stranger to GOD and to CHRIST, is the best of all possible

arguments, to induce compassion to the souls of the unawakened. Oh! that the

Reader, if the LORD hath in mercy called him out of darkness and the shadow

of death, may feel somewhat of the Psalmist's spirit: Psalms 66:16.

89

PETT, "Justice Must Be Done To The Weak (Deuteronomy 24:17-18).

Consideration and fair play must be extended to the very weakest in society.

They most of all depend on it.

Deuteronomy 24:17

‘You shall not distort the justice due to the resident alien, or to the fatherless,

nor take the widow’s raiment to pledge,’

Compare here Deuteronomy 1:16; Deuteronomy 16:18-20. Justice was especially

to be dispensed fairly to those who could not defend themselves. The resident

alien and the fatherless had nowhere to look for help other than to justices. And

taking a widow’s garment in pledge was so despicable that it could not even be

considered.

But we cannot just turn away and leave it to the justices. It is our responsibility,

as far as we are able, to ensure that they are just. We must all ensure that justice

is being applied properly. And all must have consideration for the poor.

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:17, Deuteronomy 24:18

The law against perverting the right of strangers, widows, and orphans is here

repeated from Exodus 22:20, Exodus 22:21; Exodus 23:9, with the addition that

the raiment of the widow was not to be taken in pledge. To enforce this, the

people are reminded that they themselves as a nation had been in the condition

of strangers and bondmen in Egypt (cf. Le 19:33, 34).

18 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and

theLord your God redeemed you from there.

That is why I command you to do this.

90

CLARKE, "Thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman - Most people who have affluence rose from comparative penury, for those who are born to estates frequently squander them away; such therefore should remember what their feelings, their fears, and anxieties were, when they were poor and abject. A want of attention to this most wholesome precept is the reason why pride and arrogance are the general characteristics of those who have risen in the world from poverty to affluence; and it is the conduct of those men which gave rise to the rugged proverb, “Set a beggar on horseback, and he will ride to the devil.”

GILL, "But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt,.... The remembrance of which may cause sympathy with persons in distress; particularly the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow:

and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence; the Targum of Jonathan,"the Word of the Lord thy God;''which, as it was an act of great kindness and mercy in God to them, taught them, and laid them under obligation to show favour to their fellow creatures in distress:

therefore I command thee to do this thing: not to pervert the judgment of the stranger and fatherless, nor take a widow's raiment for a pledge; and it may be carried further into the context, and respect the laws about the pledge of the poor man, and giving the hired servant his wages in due time.

PETT, "Deuteronomy 24:18

‘But you shall remember that you were a bondsman in Egypt, and Yahweh your

God redeemed you from there. Therefore I command you to do this thing.’

And this especially applied to Israel, for they had been poor. They were to

remember that they had been themselves bondsmen in the land of Egypt, and

that they had not delivered themselves, but that it was Yahweh Who had paid

the price of their deliverance by His display of mighty power. That especially is

why they are commanded to do this thing.

Christians have another motive. They remember the One Who though He was

rich, became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich (2

Corinthians 8:9).

91

NISBET, "BE YE KIND!

‘Remember that thou wast a bondman … therefore I command thee to do this

thing.’

Deuteronomy 24:18

I. What tender, beautiful thoughtfulness pervades this chapter!—For the poor

man’s self-respect, on account of which his house might not be broken into; for

the servant’s wage, which must be paid at nightfall; for the bondslave and

foreigner, who were to receive just judgment; for the fatherless and widow, in

the gleanings of the harvest and vintage. There was no class so needy or lowly as

to be beneath the beneficent thought of this religious nation, which was to repeat

on earth something of that Divine life which God was living in heaven.

II. What a shelter and protection the poor and oppressed have in God!—The

man whom the poor bless for his courteous thought, is remembered for

righteousness in the day of trouble by the Most High; whilst the cry of the poor

against his oppressor brings sin and condemnation with it, as it ascends into the

ear of the Lord God of Sabaoth. The gift of beneficence to the poor will return in

Divine blessing on the man that makes it. It would appear as though God

especially espoused the cause of the poor, identifying Himself with them, and

accepting as for Himself all the treatment meted out to them. It seems as though

throughout this chapter we could hear the voice of Him, who for our sakes

became poor, saying, ‘Inasmuch as ye do it to one of the least of these My

brethren, ye do it unto Me.’

Illustration

‘How wise and just and merciful all these items were; so human and so divine.

As we consider them, we instinctively look round to find Him speaking, whose

words have filled our world with sweetness and light. Ere these words were

spoken the Father had committed all judgment to the Son. Let all who are poor

and fatherless, and widowed and lonely, take heart at these words, and look

trustfully up into the face of God.’

92

BI, "Remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt.

Important recollection

The admonition may seem needless, but we are prone to forget God’s works and wonders. We have need to be stirred up to remembrance for four purposes.

1. For the purpose of humility. We think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think. With the lowly is wisdom. If wise, we were once foolish; if justified, we were once condemned; if sons of God, we were once servants of sin. Look to the rock from whence hewn.

2. For the purpose of gratitude. If affected by kindness flora our fellow creatures, should we overlook our infinite Benefactor? We have no claims upon Him and should be thankful for all His benefits. But herein is love. Blessed be the God of Israel, for He hath visited and redeemed His people.

3. For the purpose of confidence. David argued from the past to the future. Because Thou hast been my help, therefore under the shadow of Thy wings will I rejoice. Here we have peculiar reason for encouragement. What were we when He first took knowledge of us? Was the want of worthiness a bar to His goodness then? Will it be so now? Is there variableness or shadow of turning with Him? Is there not the same power in His arm and the same love in His heart? Did He pardon me when a rebel, and will He cast me off now that He has made me a friend? “He that spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all,” etc.

4. For the purpose of piety and zeal. How many round about you in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity ready to perish? You know the state they are in, and the blessedness of deliverance from it. You are witnesses of what God is able and willing to do. Invite the prisoners of hope to turn to Him—you can speak from experience. (W. Jay.)

Remembrance of the past

I. The exercise of mental activity.

II. The particular object of consideration.

1. Our original state.

2. Our redeemed condition.

III. The especial gain to be derived from this consideration.

1. It will make us humble.

2. It will render us grateful.

3. It should give us confidence and faith.

4. It should kindle our piety and zeal. (Homilist.)

The necessary remembrance

I. The Christian’s original state.

1. Degraded.

2. Oppressed.

93

3. Helpless.

II. The Christian’s happy deliverance. “Redeemed.” God redeemed Israel by His mighty arm. Our redemption, like theirs—

1. Originated in God’s free compassion. Without claim or merit. He saw our self-procured ruin, and exercised His infinite mercy towards us.

2. Was effected by the mission and work of His Son.

3. Is connected with faith and obedience to our great Deliverer.

III. The Christian’s obligation to remember his redemption. But can we forget? Why, the Israelites did. Our own hearts are prone to forget; the cares of the world choke the soul, and cause us to forget God. Satan, by his temptations, would seduce us from this remembrance.

1. We should remember it with intentness of soul and gratitude of heart. Such love and goodness should never be obliterated. A lively remembrance will keep the flame of gratitude burning on the altar of our hearts.

2. We should remember it with feelings of humility and contrition. If self-righteousness would spring up, if we would glory at all in ourselves, this remembrance will lead us back to our original state, and then all boasting will be slain.

3. We should remember that we may feel for those around who are still in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity. The love of Christ to us should fill us with love to our fellowmen.

4. We should especially remember, when in the means of grace, and at the table of the Lord. (J. Burns, D. D.)

The memorable deliverance

I. The deliverance obtained.

1. From the curse of the law.

2. From the bondage of sin.

3. From the tyranny of Satan.

4. From the evils of the world.

II. The deliverer described.

1. Redemption originally proceeds from the mercy and love of God.

2. Redemption is meritoriously procured by the Lord Jesus Christ.

3. Redemption is personally realised by the power of the Holy Ghost.

III. The remembrance enjoined. This command is applicable to the people of God in every age, and extends to all the blessings we receive. As it regards our redemption, we must cherish—

1. A grateful remembrance. We should frequently call to mind the deplorable state from which we are redeemed, the inestimable privileges with which we are honoured, and the ineffable felicities to which we are entitled. Such pious reflections will always be profitable, and associated with deep humility, devoted admiration, unfeigned gratitude, and fervent praise (Psa_103:1-4; Isa_12:1).

94

2. An affectionate remembrance. A consciousness of the unspeakable love of God to us should deeply interest and inspire our souls with a reciprocation of love to Him. Our love to God must be supreme, vigorous, manifest, and progressive. It must be the ruling principle of the heart, and the actuating motive of the life (Mat_22:37-38; Rom_5:5; 1Jn_5:3; 1Jn_5:5).

3. An obedient remembrance. This is the specific argument of the text: “Thou shalt remember, therefore I command thee to do this thing.” Their obedience was demanded on the ground of Divine goodness.

4. A perpetual remembrance. Redeeming grace deeply involves our immortal interests, and therefore should never be forgotten. (Sketches of Four Hundred Sermons.)

19 When you are harvesting in your field and

you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get

it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and

the widow, so that the Lord your God may

bless you in all the work of your hands.

CLARKE, "When thou cuttest down thine harvest - This is an addition to the law, Lev_19:9; Lev_23:22. The corners of the field, the gleanings, and the forgotten sheaf, were all the property of the poor. This the Hebrews extended to any part of the fruit or produce of a field, which had been forgotten in the time of general ingathering, as appears from the concluding verses of this chapter.

GILL, "When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field,.... Whether barley harvest or wheat harvest, when either of them are ripe for cutting, mowing, or reaping, and are cutting down:

and hast forgot a sheaf in the field; Jarchi says the phrase "in the field" is to include standing corn, some of which is forgotten in cutting down, and so is subject to this law as well as a sheaf; and a sheaf claimed by this name is one that is forgotten both by the workman and the owner; if by the one and not by the other, it could not be so called. The canon runs thus (t),"a sheaf which the workmen forget, and not the owner, or the owner forgets, and not the workman, before which the poor stand, or is

95

covered with straw or stubble, is not a forgotten sheaf.''And about this they have various other rules;"a sheaf that is near the gate (of a field), or to an heap (of sheaves), or to oxen, or to instruments, and left, the house of Shammai say it is not to be reckoned a forgotten sheaf; but the house of Hillell say it is;--two sheaves are reckoned forgotten, three are not; a sheaf in which there are two seahs (about a peck and a half), and they leave it, it is not reckoned forgotten (u):"

thou shall not go again to fetch it; which supposes a remembrance of it, or some intelligence about it when at home, and after the field has been cleared, and all carried in but this sheaf; then the owner might not go nor send to fetch it: the beginnings of the rows, they say, show when a sheaf is forgotten, or not; particularly the adverse sheaf, or that over against it, shows it (w); so Jarchi:

it shall be for the stranger; or proselyte; the proselyte of righteousness; of this there is no doubt, but it seems to be for the proselyte of the gate also:

for the fatherless and for the widow; which of them soever should first find it:

that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands; in the culture of their ground the next year, and give them large and fruitful crops; they either purposely leaving the sheaf for the poor, or however suffer them to take it unmolested when found by them. The Targum of Jonathan is, "that the word of the Lord thy God may bless thee", &c.

JAMISON 19-22, "When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field — The grain, pulled up by the roots or cut down with a sickle, was laid in loose sheaves; the fruit of the olive was obtained by striking the branches with long poles; and the grape clusters, severed by a hook, were gathered in the hands of the vintager. Here is a beneficent provision for the poor. Every forgotten sheaf in the harvest-field was to lie; the olive tree was not to be beaten a second time; nor were grapes to be gathered, in order that, in collecting what remained, the hearts of the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow might be gladdened by the bounty of Providence.

K&D, "Directions to allow strangers, widows, and orphans to glean in time of harvest (as in Lev_19:9-10, and Lev_23:22). The reason is given in Deu_24:22, viz., the same as in Deu_24:18 and Deu_15:15.

CALVIN, "God here inculcates liberality upon the possessors of land, when their

fruits are gathered: for, when His bounty is exercised before our eyes, it invites

us to imitate Him; and it is a sign of ingratitude, unkindly and maliciously, to

withhold what we derive from His blessing. God does not indeed require that

those who have abundance should so profusely give away their produce, as to

despoil themselves by enriching others; and, in fact, Paul prescribes this as the

measure of our alms, that their relief of the poor should not bring into distress

96

the rich themselves, who kindly distribute. (2 Corinthians 8:13.) God, therefore,

permits every one to reap his corn, to gather his vintage, and to enjoy his

abundance; provided the rich, content with their own vintage and harvest, do

not grudge the poor the gleaning of the grapes and corn. Not that He absolutely

assigns to the poor whatever remains, so that they may seize it as their own; but

that some small portion may flow gratuitously to them from the munificence of

the rich. He mentions indeed by name the orphans, and widows, and strangers,

yet undoubtedly He designates all the poor and needy, who have no fields of their

own to sow or reap; for it will sometimes occur that orphans are by no means in

want, but rather that they have the means of being liberal themselves; nor are

widows and strangers always hungry; but I have explained elsewhere why these

three classes are mentioned.

COFFMAN, "Verse 19

LAWS OF CHARITY

"When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field,

thou shalt not go again to fetch it: for it shall be for the sojourner, and for the

widow; that Jehovah thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy hands. When

thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be

for the sojourner, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the

grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it after thee: it shall be for the

sojourner, for the fatherless, and for the widow. And thou shalt remember that

thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this

thing."

The expression, "the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow," recurs like a

litany throughout the Bible; and the responsibility for all able citizens to be

concerned and to look out for those less fortunate than themselves is by no means

"an optional" obligation. "Therefore I command thee to do this thing!"

97

The beautiful story of Ruth and Boaz (in the Book of Ruth) turns upon the fact

of Ruth's being a gleaner in Boaz' field. See Leviticus 19:9ff for related material.

"Heathen peoples sometimes had regulations like these in order that some would

be left for the gods, or the demons, but nothing like that is here, for Israel did not

conceive of God as needing earthly food."[16] "The sojourner, the fatherless,

and the widow," like a recurring refrain, focuses attention upon why this is

commanded. "All of the injunctions in these chapters are adapted to the

preservation of brotherliness and love among the people of the Lord."[17]

We appreciate the words of Scott who wrote:

"A spirit that grasps the last penny is contrary to the will of Jehovah and

unworthy of his great redemptive act. See similar legislation in Leviticus 19:9f,

where the "corners" are added, but the olives are omitted."[18]

People should never be overly diligent to squeeze the last penny of profit out of

any venture. It is not merely contrary to what is commanded here, but there is an

accompanying detrimental reaction that invariably occurs, as the Lord has

revealed: "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that

withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty" - Proverbs 11:24.

BENSON, "Deuteronomy 24:19-22. It shall be for the stranger — Moses here

exhorts them to be mindful of those provisions made for the poor by this law,

(Leviticus 19:9-10; Leviticus 23:22,) wherein they are ordered not to be over

exact in reaping the fruits of their fields and vineyards, but to leave something to

be gathered by their poor neighbours. When thou beatest thine olive-tree — As

they were wont to do, with sticks, to bring down the olives. It shall be for the

fatherless, &c. — Surely nothing can be more just, humane, or merciful, than all

these laws here recited.

HAWKER, "Verses 19-22

All these are additional arguments, to manifest the tender mercies of the LORD.

We have a beautiful example, of obedience to these precepts in the instance of

Boaz. And, as in that instance, we have a lively type of the ever-blessed JESUS, I

hope the Reader will not fail to consult it in this place and meditate upon it. Ruth

98

2:15-16. And are we not strangers, when we glean in the scriptures of JESUS?

LORD, do thou command thy servants to let fall handfuls purposely for us, and

give us to glean even among the sheaves.

PETT, "The Gleanings Must Be Left For The Poor (Deuteronomy 24:19-22).

One of Yahweh’s means of ensuring provision for the poor in the land would be

that Israelite farmers out of their prosperity were to leave in their fields,

vineyards and orchards the remnants of what was gathered, which are termed

‘the gleanings’. A description was now given of these in rhythmic form.

Deuteronomy 24:19

“When you reap your harvest in your field,

And have forgotten a sheaf in the field,

You shall not go again to fetch it.

It shall be for the resident alien,

For the fatherless, and for the widow,

That Yahweh your God may bless you,

In all the work of your hands.

When you beat your olive-tree,

You shall not go over the boughs again.

It shall be for the resident alien,

For the fatherless, and for the widow.

When you gather the grapes of your vineyard,

You shall not glean it after you,

99

It shall be for the resident alien,

For the fatherless, and for the widow.”

We have presented it in this way in order to bring out the pattern. Each section

ends with, ‘it (the gleanings) shall be for the resident alien, for the fatherless and

for the widow’. But above that in each case is described a type of gleanings.

Firstly came the grain harvest. When harvesting the grain and producing the

sheaves in the field, which were then gathered in, a sheaf might easily be

overlooked here and there because there was so much. This sheaf was to be left

as gleanings. And in fact some further gleanings were to be left in the corners of

the fields (Leviticus 19:9) and any that was dropped in gathering must be left

(Leviticus 23:22). Compare here Ruth 2. This was so that Yahweh their God

might see it and as a result bless them in the work of their hands.

Then came the olive gathering. The branches would be beaten in order to bring

down the olives. But some obstinate olives would stay in place. They were not to

make another attempt. What remained was to be left as gleanings. When

gathering the grapes, which would be done swiftly and expertly, every now and

then a bunch might escape notice. These were to be left as gleanings (compare

Leviticus 19:10).

PULPIT, "Deuteronomy 24:19-22

Autumn generosity.

If a man is not generous towards his poorer neighbors in time of harvest, he will

never be generous. If the profuse generosity of God be lavished upon him in vain,

his moral nature must be hard indeed. As men "make hay while the sun shines,"

so should we yield to benevolent impulses while God surrounds us with sunshine

of kindness. As we are undeserving recipients, we should share our unpurchased

100

bounty with others.

I. WE HAVE HERE A FITTING OCCASION FOR GENEROSITY. God

supplies us with fitting seasons for getting good and for doing good. It is not

always autumn. We cannot gather corn and olives when we please. We have to

wait the arrival of the season, and this season is God's provision. We must gather

then or verse Opportunity can never be trifled with. If abundance has been put

into our bands, let us forthwith use it well, or it may be suddenly taken from us.

If an unusual generous impulse be upon us, it is wisest to respond to it freely, to

give it largest scope, for this is a visit of God to us for good.

II. FITTING OBJECTS FOR GENEROSITY ARE PROVIDED. Were it not for

the existence of the poor, there would be no outlet for generosity in a practical

and material form. There would be no discipline for the best part of our nature.

It would be a pain and a loss to us if the instinct of benevolence within us found

no field for its exercise. Thankful ought we to be that the poor shall not cease out

of the land. The fatherless and the widow come to us as the sent of God, to loosen

the sluices of our generosity, and to do us good. We are almoners of God's royal

bounty.

III. DELICATE PLANS FOR CONVEYING GENEROSITY. The finer forces of

our bodily nature are conveyed to every part by most delicate, almost invisible,

ducts. Nerve-power is distributed from the center to the circumference by

minutest channels. So, too, should we employ the most refined delicacy in

relieving the necessities of the poor. Let not our gift be spoilt by any assumption

of superiority, nor by any arrogant rudeness. It is a noble thing to respect the

manly feelings of the poor, and to touch with fairy finger the sensibilities of the

suffering. We are to study, not only how much we can give, but especially how

best to give it. From the harvest-field and the olive-grove we may learn this

delicacy of kindness. Both the quantity and the quality of our service are

101

important in God's esteem.

IV. THE POTENT MOTIVE TO GENEROSITY. Remembrance of their own

redemption was the mighty motive for all good deeds. This is the constant refrain

of God's message. As God is not wearied in reiterating the lesson, neither should

we be wearied in hearing it. We are the objects of God's tenderest love. He has

set in motion his most prodigious energies to rescue us from misery. He has

emptied his treasury of blessings so as to enrich us, and the end for which he has

enriched us is that we may enrich others. Ye have been ineffably blessed, do you

bless in return.—D.

SIMEON, "GLEANING, A DIVINE ORDINANCE

Deuteronomy 24:19-22. When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and

hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for

the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the Lord thy God may

bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive-tree, thou

shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless,

and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt

not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the

widow. And thou shalt remember, that thou wast a bondman in the land of

Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing [Note: If this be a Charity

Sermon, the triple repetition of “the Stranger, the Fatherless, and the Widow,”

must, of course, be more largely insisted on.].

IT is surprising to see to what minute things Jehovah condescends in his

legislation to the Jews. In no other community under heaven were such things

accounted worthy of distinct and authoritative enactments. People must not yoke

together in a plough an ox and an ass. They must not seethe a kid in its mother’s

milk. In taking a bird’s nest, they must not take the dam with her young. But

102

“God, their great Lawgiver, is love:” and all his laws breathed love, not to men

only, but to the whole creation: and by them he has shewn, that he desired all his

people to live under the influence of this divine principle; and, in the smallest

matters no less than in the greatest, to bring it into exercise. Hence he appointed,

that, when they gathered in the fruits of the earth, they should guard against

selfishness, and manifest a spirit of love towards their more indigent and

afflicted brethren. In the very words which I have just read, the threefold

repetition of them shews what tenderness there is in the bosom of Almighty God

towards the poor and afflicted, and how desirous he is that all his people should

resemble him: and for this end he commands, that, in the season of their own

prosperity, they should be especially mindful of “the stranger, the fatherless, and

the widow.” The manner in which he enforces this command respecting gleaning,

will lead me to consider,

I. The privilege of gleaning, as accorded to the Jews—

The Jews had been brought out from Egypt from the sorest bondage—

[By mighty signs and wonders had God brought them out: and had throughout

all their generations caused them to enjoy blessings for which they had not

laboured, and to reap an harvest which they had never sown. For the space of

forty years in the wilderness they had no occasion for agricultural labours; but

from day to day did they glean around their tents the food which the Great

Proprietor of all caused to be scattered for their use. And when they came into

the promised land, “they found there great and goodly cities which they had

never built, and houses filled with all manner of good things which they had

never filled, and wells which they had never digged [Note: Deuteronomy

6:10-11.].” Like gleaners, they had only to enter on the field, and to appropriate

every thing which they found to their own use — — —]

103

From this consideration they were enjoined to give somewhat of a like advantage

to their poorer brethren—

[”Freely they had received; and freely they were to give.” They were to bear in

mind the misery from which their forefathers had been delivered; and from a

sense of gratitude to their Heavenly Benefactor, they were to shew love to their

brethren, and liberality to the poor. They were not to be exact even in the

reaping of their crops, but to leave the corners of their fields standing [Note:

Leviticus 19:9.] for the benefit of “the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow:”

and, after having gathered in their corn, or their grapes, or olives, they were not

to be going over their ground or their trees again, but to leave the remaining

produce for those whose necessities called for such aid: yea, and to rejoice in

seeing the wants of others supplied, though at their expense. And surely this was

reasonable in the highest degree, since the whole land itself had been originally

the gift of God, as was also the produce of it in every successive year. What could

their own labours effect without the fruitful showers and the genial warmth of

the sun? On God they depended, notwithstanding their own efforts: and God

gave them an assurance, that on a cheerful and liberal discharge of their duty

towards their brethren, they should receive his blessing on their own labours.]

But let me proceed to mark,

II. The far higher grounds of this privilege as existing amongst us—

True, the Jewish law does not extend to us: nor does the law of this land accord

in this respect with the Jewish law. The matter has been tried, and

authoritatively decided. But, so general is the sense of propriety which exists in

this kingdom, that the privilege of gleaning is conceded to the poor, as much as if

it were a right established by law: and I suppose that for every thousand pounds

that are paid in rent to the proprietor of the soil, not less than one hundred

104

pounds, and perhaps too hundred, are gratuitously left to be gathered by the

poor in the way of gleaning. And this is as it should be. For—

Let it be recollected from what misery we have been redeemed—

[Not an Egyptian bondage merely was ours, but a bondage to sin and Satan,

death and hell. And what has the Great Proprietor of heaven and earth done for

us? He has, by the blood of his only dear Son, brought us out from this bondage:

and in the field of his Gospel has strewed a rich profusion of food, of which all of

us may eat, and live for ever. Take the inspired volume: there is the field, into

which all may enter. and gather for themselves. The promises there scattered,

and standing, as it were, in every corner [Note: Leviticus 19:9.] of the Bible, are

sufficient for the whole world. All that is required is, that we go in, and glean for

ourselves. The manna in the wilderness nourished those only who gathered it for

their daily use: and, if the poor will avail themselves of the bounty scattered in

our fields, they must go out and gather it. Were all the harvest left upon the field,

it would benefit none, unless it were reaped and appropriated to our use: so all

the promises of salvation will have been given to us in vain, if we do not exert

ourselves, from day to day, to appropriate them to ourselves, for our own

personal benefit. But, if we will “labour thus for the meat that endureth unto

eternal life, the Son of Man will give it us” according to the utmost extent of our

necessities. Then shall we gather all the blessings, both of grace and glory; for no

one of which have we any other claim, than as gratuitous largesses, bestowed by

the Lord of the harvest on his necessitous and dependent vassals.]

And can we have any stronger argument than this for liberality to the poor?

[Methinks, “the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow,” should be made to

share our temporal blessings, when we are so richly and gratuitously nourished

with those which are spiritual and eternal. We are taught to “love one another,

105

as Christ has loved us [Note: Ephesians 5:2.].” And when St. Paul was urging the

Corinthian Church to liberality, he could find no stronger argument than this;

“Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for

your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich [Note: 2

Corinthians 8:9.].” Say, Brethren, whether this consideration be not amply

sufficient to animate us to the most enlarged liberality for his sake? Yes, truly;

instead of grudging to others the remnants of our harvest, we should be ready to

say with Zacch ζus, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor [Note:

Luke 19:8.].” Indeed, even for our own sakes we might practise this divine

lesson: for “if we give to the poor, we lend to the Lord; and whatsoever we lay

out, he will pay us again.” In truth, to “honour the Lord with our substance, and

with the first-fruits of all our increase, is the way, the surest way, to fill our

barns with plenty, and to make our presses burst out with new wine [Note:

Proverbs 3:9-10.].” But I rather dwell on the other motive only; because the

“love of Christ,” if duly felt in our hearts, “will constrain us” to every possible

exercise of love to him, and to the poor for his sake [Note: Matthew 25:45.].]

Let me now, then, address you all—

1. As Gleaners, avail yourselves of your privilege—

[I say again, the whole field is open before you: and, as God’s servant, I have

been commissioned to “scatter handfuls for you,” that you may not labour in

vain: yea, I have invited you to “come, even amongst the sheaves;” and, so far

from “reproaching you” for your boldness, have encouraged you [Note: Ruth

2:16.] by the strongest assurances of the unbounded liberality of my Divine

Master. Bear in mind, that you are gleaners. You must indeed labour with

diligence: but the whole that you gather is a gift: you never raised by your own

personal labour one single grain of what you gather: all your labour consists in

gathering up what the Great Proprietor, your Lord and Saviour, has strewed for

106

you. Whilst you, then, have all the benefit, let him have all the glory.]

2. As Proprietors, perform the duty that is here enjoined you—

[Cultivate, every one of you, a spirit of liberality. Let “the stranger” share your

bounty; and let “the fatherless and widows” be the special objects of your care

and tender compassion. If you comply not readily with this injunction, what

pretensions can you have to call yourselves followers of Christ? “If any man see

his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how

dwelleth the love of God in him [Note: 1 John 3:17.]?” “He that loveth not his

brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” On

the other hand, “abound in the riches of liberality;” and “so shall your light

break forth as the morning [Note: Isaiah 58:7-8.],” and “a recompence be given

you at the resurrection of the just [Note: Luke 14:14.].”]

BI 19-21, "It shall be for the stranger.

Care for others

This beautiful passage speaks of the harvest, of the olive, and of the grape. You say, “Well, I am not a farmer, I know nothing of the harvest. Olives do not grow in this cold country. And it is only a few people in England who can grow grapes. What is the meaning of this?” I will tell you what it means, because when God tells us to deal in this way with the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, He means us to do it. You know what the harvest means. It was the in-gathering of the corn, and you know what that was for—to be made into bread. And you know what bread was for—to give strength. The olive was a symbol of fruitfulness, and the grape typified joy. So that the three things God teaches us here to do, are to give strength and peace and joy to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. How can we do that? Turn to Pro_12:25, and let us see how we can do it for the Master. (I am going to take the very lowest thing it is possible for a child of God to do. I am not going to speak to those who can give their hundreds and thousands of pounds and be none the poorer; but let the very poorest of us here today see if we cannot be the means of bringing strength and peace and joy to those who need it.) “Heaviness in the heart of man maketh it stoop.” We all know that is true. What is going to make it glad? A fifty-pound note? No! “But a good word maketh it glad.” It is not only the wealth or the riches that God speaks about. Here it is a kind, loving word, “a good word,” that makes the heart glad. I was thinking only today about the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and about the works, the miracles of Christ. Why, the Lord Jesus accomplished more by His words than by His miracles. And He wants us to be imitators of Him. When He was here He had no long purse, but He had a kind word for everybody except the self-satisfied, the self-righteous, the Scribes and Pharisees. We too can give these and be none the poorer for it. Turn to Isa_50:4: “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in

107

season to him that is weary.” Perhaps you say, “Oh, I would like to have the tongue of the learned to show people how clever I am! The Lord Jesus had “the tongue of the learned” for one purpose, and that was to know how to speak a word in season to him that was weary. Here again it is the word; it is not the power or the miracle. Read also in Col_3:17: “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him.” Has it ever struck you that this is a very strange way of putting it, “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed? We may be disposed to think it ought to have been, “Whatsoever ye say in word or do in deed.” But it is not so: “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed.” As if God said, “Every word you speak for Me is a good work.” And what we want is to have “the tongue of the learned,” to know how to speak a word to those that are weary. If we want to be happy, if we want to be joyful and glad, let us try to make others glad. Let us try to give them strength and peace and joy. The most miserable man here today is the man who lives for self; the happiest man is the one who forgets self, and lives for others. What a sweet thing it is to know that God has told us, “Whatsoever ye do in word.” Up yonder He is keeping a record of it. (H. Moorhouse.).

20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do

not go over the branches a second time.Leave

what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless

and the widow.

GILL, "When thou beatest thine olive tree,.... With sticks and staves, to get off the olives when ripe:

thou shall not go over the boughs again; to beat off some few that may remain; they were not nicely to examine the boughs over again, whether there were any left or not:

it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow; who might come into their oliveyards after the trees had been beaten, and gather what were left.

21 When you harvest the grapes in your

vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave

108

what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless

and the widow.

GILL, "When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard,.... Which was done much about the same time that the olives were gathered, and both after wheat harvest, about the latter end of June, or beginning of July; for they were more forward in those hot countries:

thou shall not glean it afterwards; go over the vines a second time, to pick off every berry or bunch that escaped them at first gathering:

it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow; as the forgotten sheaf, and the olive berries left; these are all supposed to be poor persons, otherwise no doubt there were strangers, and fatherless persons, and widows, in good circumstances; who, as they needed not, so neither would give themselves the trouble, but think it beneath them to go into fields, oliveyards, and vineyards, to gather what was left by the owners. These laws were made in favour of the poor, that mercy and kindness might be showed to them, and that they might have a taste of all the fruits of the earth.

PULPIT, "Thou shalt not glean it afterward; literally, Thou shalt not glean after

thee, i.e. after thou hast reaped and gathered for thyself. It is still the custom

among the Arabs for the poor to be allowed to gather the berries that may be left

on the olive trees after they have been beaten and the main produce carried off

by the owner. All the injunctions in this section are adapted to preserve relations

of brotherliness and love among the people of the Lord.

22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt.

That is why I command you to do this.

GILL, "And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt,.... When they would have been glad to have enjoyed the like favours, as small as they might seem to be, even to glean in their fields, vineyards, and

109

oliveyards:

therefore I command thee to do this thing; to suffer the poor to take the forgotten sheaf, and to come into their oliveyards and vineyards, and gather what olives and grapes remained after the first beating of the one, and the ingathering of the other.

HAWKER, "Verse 22

REFLECTIONS

I BESEECH my GOD and Saviour, that he will enlighten the eyes of my

understanding, that in reading those precepts of his holy law, I may be led to

view somewhat either leading to JESUS, or pointing to him, in every one. If,

dearest LORD, thou hast betrothed me to thyself, thou wilt not give me a writing

of divorcement, though I am altogether unworthy of thy love, for thou hatest

putting away, and thou hast said I shall be thine forever. LORD, give me grace

to imitate thy tenderness, and in all my concerns with my poorer brother, forget

not that thou hast condescended to call me thy brother; and even to strangers,

may I never forget, that when in the bondage of sin and corruption, thou didst

seek me out and free me, I was a stranger in the land of Egypt. Oh! for grace to

manifest my love to thee, in the remembrance of all thine afflicted, tried, and

distressed family. The LORD JESUS help me by his sweet constraining love, to

do by others as he hath done by me; and to put on, as the elect of GOD, bowels of

mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering: that it may be

manifest to my own heart, and to all with whom I have to do, that the same mind

is in me, which was also in CHRIST JESUS.

PETT, "Deuteronomy 24:22

‘But you shall remember that you were a bondsman in Egypt, and Yahweh your

God redeemed you from there. Therefore I command you to do this thing .’

And they should do this because they remembered that they were bondsmen in

Egypt, and had through it learned compassion for those worse off than

themselves. And that is why they were commanded to do this thing.

110

Note how this phrase, ‘you shall remember that you were a bondsman in the

land of Egypt’ connects the perverting of justice for the weak and helpless

(Deuteronomy 24:17 with Deuteronomy 24:18) with the leaving of gleanings for

the weak and helpless (Deuteronomy 24:19-21 with Deuteronomy 24:22). Their

experiences were to give them compassion for the weak and helpless in every

way.

111