Original Meaning
Righteousness Demonstrated in Care for Domestic Animals (22:1–4)
THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH DEALS with two issues: respect for a neighbor’s property in general (vv. 2–3), framed by statements calling for righteous respect for domestic animals. On first sight verse 1 seems to be interested primarily in restoring property to its owner, but the parallelism of verses 1 and 41 suggests these statements should be interpreted together. Both scenarios involve a fellow Israelite’s animal in a threatening situation. Verse 1 involves stray sheep or oxen that are vulnerable to wild animals and thieves. Verse 4 involves a pack animal that has fallen down under its load, perhaps the result of slipping or abuse by the owner, who has overloaded it.
At the sight of a stray or fallen animal one might be tempted to ignore it or claim it as one’s own property (cf. 5:21). Concerned about the well-being of the animal, Moses addresses the first response. In the face of need, sentimental reflection on the plight of the creatures is insufficient; this is a call for action.2 The first animal is to be returned to its owner,3 and the second animal is to be helped back on its feet. Moses prohibits Israelites from ignoring animals that are lost or beasts of burden under stress. Though domestic animals played a vital role in the economy, ownership and control could easily degenerate into abusive treatment.4
Verse 2 still concerns the first animal, but the references to a cloak or anything else that is lost in verse 3 generalizes the principle to any personal property and suggests a shift in focus from the creature’s interests to that of the owner. A “finders keepers, losers weepers” ethic is to be resisted; whatever one finds is to be returned to its owner. If the owner lives far away or if his identity is unknown, the finder must bring the animal home and care for it5 until the owner comes to claims it, or until the unknown owner identifies himself. This paragraph assumes that the covenant love Israelites have for their neighbors extends to livestock.
Bridging Contexts
HISTORY OF THESE LAWS. The narratives of the Old Testament provide few illustrations of lost animals or other property being found and then returned to or held in security for the owners. The circumstances envisioned in verses 1–4 are illustrated in 1 Samuel 9, though from the perspective of the person who lost them. When Saul went out looking for his father’s donkeys, the family was hoping they would find them in the hands of someone like the person Moses describes. Although Samuel assures Saul that this is in fact the case (1 Sam. 9:20; 10:14–20), we do not know who held them or even if Saul brought them back home. Perhaps he had, but the text is more concerned about Saul’s finding the kingdom than about finding the animals.
Allusions to the instructions on cross-dressing (v. 5), finding a bird’s nest (vv. 6–7), parapets on houses (v. 8), and tassels (v. 12) are absent all together. We hear allusions to verses 9–10 in the Proverb of the Farmer in Isaiah 28:23–29:
Listen and hear my voice;
pay attention and hear what I say.
When a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually?
Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil?
When he has leveled the surface,
does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin?
Does he not plant wheat in its place,
barley in its plot,
and spelt in its field?
His God instructs him
and teaches him the right way.
Caraway is not threshed with a sledge,
nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin;
Caraway is beaten out with a rod,
and cummin with a stick.
Grain must be ground to make bread;
so one does not go on threshing it forever.
Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it,
his horses do not grind it.
All this also comes from the LORD Almighty,
wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom.
Although the text contains technical horticultural vocabulary, some of which is obscure, several theological lessons are obvious. (1) Yahweh, the source of true knowledge is also the source of wisdom for the farmer. (2) The soil is carefully prepared before planting, and the farmer carefully plots his crops, each one assigned its own space. (3) The methods of harvesting are crop specific; different species are in their appointed places and should not be mixed.25
Contemporary Significance
CHRISTIANS AND THESE REGULATIONS. Do Christians need to keep these regulations? Many, perhaps most in our churches would say, “No.” These instructions are part of ancient Israel’s civil and ceremonial laws that have been rendered passé through the work of Christ and have no authority for us. It is true that the kingdom of God has burst the ethnic and ethnocentric boundaries of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, but if we take Matthew 5:17–19 and 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously, perhaps rather than asking whether we need to keep them, we should be asking, “How should we keep these regulations?” Although each segment here represented a specific application of covenantal principles of righteousness within the Israelite context, since the Israel of the Old Testament was to function as a microcosm of humanity at large, underlying all are theological principles rooted in the very nature of God and his relation to the world.
As image-bearers of God, charged with the management of the world on his behalf, human beings must tend to animals in distress not only because they belong to our fellow citizens, but for the sake of the animals themselves. The God who pities the livestock of Nineveh (Jon. 4:11) and feeds the birds (Matt. 6:26; Luke 12:24) enjoins his people to be exemplary in the way they treat domestic animals (vv. 1–4) and wild creatures (vv. 6–7).26 In the Western world we seldom witness the abuse of domestic animals take the form cited here (overloading a donkey), but the well-being of our livestock is jeopardized in more subtle ways—like massive overcrowding in factory farms and the injection of steroids and other chemicals to increase efficiency in the conversion of grain to meat. Moreover, in recent decades we have witnessed the extinction of many species of animals as humans have encroached on animal habitats. Every species was created by God to add its distinctive voice to the glorious cosmic symphony of praise to God. Every species lost is a note of praise lost.27
Although the ordinance demanding parapets on houses (v. 8) applies most specifically to Israelites, the responsibilities of householders for the well-being of all who come “under one’s roof” was recognized even in extrabiblical law codes.28 How much more does it apply to Christians, who should seek the welfare of all in their charge. Little imagination is needed to see how this principle should work in our context. In northern climates, it may mean something as simple as keeping ice off the sidewalk so that all who pass by are safe.
The respectful distinction between the sexes reflected in the prohibition on wearing the clothing of the opposite gender and the homosexual conduct often associated with it are reinforced repeatedly in the New Testament. Paul has the sharpest words for these kinds of perversions in Romans 1:24–27. While Christians should never stop loving those for whom cross-dressing is a fetish and those who are confused in their gender identity, the biblical witness coherently and consistently rejects these as tolerable options for God’s people.
Few Christians today heed Moses’ prohibitions on mixing different varieties of plants in a single plot of land or wearing two different fabrics. However, underlying these commands is a profoundly theological concern for order. The blurring of boundaries symbolizes chaos. The lives of the redeemed should be characterized by order and resistance to everything that causes disintegration of that order in one’s life. Everything about our external conduct and appearance reflects on the name and reputation of our God. To claim the name of Christ (=Yahweh) and to live in a chaotic environment is to misrepresent the one whose name we bear.
Few would see any relevance in Moses’ injunction to attach tassels to the corners of the garments. And yet the principle is clear. In a culture increasingly characterized by lewdness and immodesty, the appeal for Christians to adopt distinctive forms of dress gains relevance. Faithful Christians are recognizable by their countercultural values and their sensitivity to the way outsiders read them. While we resist legalism and treating issues of faith as merely or primarily external, verse 12 reminds us that spiritual commitments are not simply matters of the heart. I should indeed “want to be a Christian/more loving/more holy/like Jesus in my heart,” but I must declare my commitments publicly, and even more importantly embody the grace of Christ in every aspect of life. Ethical boundaries are determined by our citizenship in heaven, rather than on earth.
Original Meaning
Righteousness Demonstrated in Respect for Sexual Distinctions (22:5)
VERSE 5 CONSISTS OF three clauses; the first two describe the issue and the third lays the foundation for a righteous response. The former represent two sides of the coin expressed in asymmetrical parallelism. Although the NIV assumes synonymity of words here by using the word “clothing” twice, these are two separate words, and the range of meanings for the former (kelî) extends beyond “clothing” to vessels and receptacles, utensils, tools and implements, furniture and furnishings, and jewelry.6 Here it probably refers to any item of decoration normally associated with men. But the second term (śimlâ) is more specific, referring to the outer wrapper or mantle.7
The prohibition is vague and its meaning uncertain. The characterization of the actions as something that “the LORD your God detests”8 may suggest an association with idolatry, perhaps a prohibition against cross-dressing and transvestite practices associated with pagan religions. However, the absence of cultic interest in the rest of chapter 22 argues against this view.9 Similar to verses 9–11, this injunction seeks to preserve the order built into creation, specifically the fundamental distinction between male and female. For a person to wear anything associated with the opposite gender confuses one’s sexual identity and blurs established boundaries.10
Bridging Contexts
HISTORY OF THESE LAWS. The narratives of the Old Testament provide few illustrations of lost animals or other property being found and then returned to or held in security for the owners. The circumstances envisioned in verses 1–4 are illustrated in 1 Samuel 9, though from the perspective of the person who lost them. When Saul went out looking for his father’s donkeys, the family was hoping they would find them in the hands of someone like the person Moses describes. Although Samuel assures Saul that this is in fact the case (1 Sam. 9:20; 10:14–20), we do not know who held them or even if Saul brought them back home. Perhaps he had, but the text is more concerned about Saul’s finding the kingdom than about finding the animals.
Allusions to the instructions on cross-dressing (v. 5), finding a bird’s nest (vv. 6–7), parapets on houses (v. 8), and tassels (v. 12) are absent all together. We hear allusions to verses 9–10 in the Proverb of the Farmer in Isaiah 28:23–29:
Listen and hear my voice;
pay attention and hear what I say.
When a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually?
Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil?
When he has leveled the surface,
does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin?
Does he not plant wheat in its place,
barley in its plot,
and spelt in its field?
His God instructs him
and teaches him the right way.
Caraway is not threshed with a sledge,
nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin;
Caraway is beaten out with a rod,
and cummin with a stick.
Grain must be ground to make bread;
so one does not go on threshing it forever.
Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it,
his horses do not grind it.
All this also comes from the LORD Almighty,
wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom.
Although the text contains technical horticultural vocabulary, some of which is obscure, several theological lessons are obvious. (1) Yahweh, the source of true knowledge is also the source of wisdom for the farmer. (2) The soil is carefully prepared before planting, and the farmer carefully plots his crops, each one assigned its own space. (3) The methods of harvesting are crop specific; different species are in their appointed places and should not be mixed.25
Contemporary Significance
CHRISTIANS AND THESE REGULATIONS. Do Christians need to keep these regulations? Many, perhaps most in our churches would say, “No.” These instructions are part of ancient Israel’s civil and ceremonial laws that have been rendered passé through the work of Christ and have no authority for us. It is true that the kingdom of God has burst the ethnic and ethnocentric boundaries of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, but if we take Matthew 5:17–19 and 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously, perhaps rather than asking whether we need to keep them, we should be asking, “How should we keep these regulations?” Although each segment here represented a specific application of covenantal principles of righteousness within the Israelite context, since the Israel of the Old Testament was to function as a microcosm of humanity at large, underlying all are theological principles rooted in the very nature of God and his relation to the world.
As image-bearers of God, charged with the management of the world on his behalf, human beings must tend to animals in distress not only because they belong to our fellow citizens, but for the sake of the animals themselves. The God who pities the livestock of Nineveh (Jon. 4:11) and feeds the birds (Matt. 6:26; Luke 12:24) enjoins his people to be exemplary in the way they treat domestic animals (vv. 1–4) and wild creatures (vv. 6–7).26 In the Western world we seldom witness the abuse of domestic animals take the form cited here (overloading a donkey), but the well-being of our livestock is jeopardized in more subtle ways—like massive overcrowding in factory farms and the injection of steroids and other chemicals to increase efficiency in the conversion of grain to meat. Moreover, in recent decades we have witnessed the extinction of many species of animals as humans have encroached on animal habitats. Every species was created by God to add its distinctive voice to the glorious cosmic symphony of praise to God. Every species lost is a note of praise lost.27
Although the ordinance demanding parapets on houses (v. 8) applies most specifically to Israelites, the responsibilities of householders for the well-being of all who come “under one’s roof” was recognized even in extrabiblical law codes.28 How much more does it apply to Christians, who should seek the welfare of all in their charge. Little imagination is needed to see how this principle should work in our context. In northern climates, it may mean something as simple as keeping ice off the sidewalk so that all who pass by are safe.
The respectful distinction between the sexes reflected in the prohibition on wearing the clothing of the opposite gender and the homosexual conduct often associated with it are reinforced repeatedly in the New Testament. Paul has the sharpest words for these kinds of perversions in Romans 1:24–27. While Christians should never stop loving those for whom cross-dressing is a fetish and those who are confused in their gender identity, the biblical witness coherently and consistently rejects these as tolerable options for God’s people.
Few Christians today heed Moses’ prohibitions on mixing different varieties of plants in a single plot of land or wearing two different fabrics. However, underlying these commands is a profoundly theological concern for order. The blurring of boundaries symbolizes chaos. The lives of the redeemed should be characterized by order and resistance to everything that causes disintegration of that order in one’s life. Everything about our external conduct and appearance reflects on the name and reputation of our God. To claim the name of Christ (=Yahweh) and to live in a chaotic environment is to misrepresent the one whose name we bear.
Few would see any relevance in Moses’ injunction to attach tassels to the corners of the garments. And yet the principle is clear. In a culture increasingly characterized by lewdness and immodesty, the appeal for Christians to adopt distinctive forms of dress gains relevance. Faithful Christians are recognizable by their countercultural values and their sensitivity to the way outsiders read them. While we resist legalism and treating issues of faith as merely or primarily external, verse 12 reminds us that spiritual commitments are not simply matters of the heart. I should indeed “want to be a Christian/more loving/more holy/like Jesus in my heart,” but I must declare my commitments publicly, and even more importantly embody the grace of Christ in every aspect of life. Ethical boundaries are determined by our citizenship in heaven, rather than on earth.
Original Meaning
Righteousness Demonstrated in Care for Wild Animals (22:6–8)
ALTHOUGH SEVERAL TEXTS CALL for compassion toward domestic animals, this appeal for a tender and sympathetic disposition toward wild birds is unparalleled in the Old Testament.11 The opening line describes the context to which the following injunctions apply: the chance discovery of a wild bird’s nest containing fledglings or eggs, with the mother bird sitting on them. The use of a generic term for bird (cf. 14:11) and the references to nests “beside the road,” “in a tree,” and “on the ground” cover the full range of possibilities.
While people who discover the nest of a wild bird have several options, Moses offers simple counsel: Israelites may take the eggs/fledglings, but they must spare the mother. Reining in the temptation to cruelty, verse 7 reiterates that if a mother bird is found with its young, the mother is not to be taken. The wisdom of this counsel is obvious: Taking the mother but sparing the young would have meant the death of all, for unhatched eggs and fledgling birds depend on the mother. Israelites are not to kill for killing’s sake, nor to exploit natural resources without concern for the survival of the species.12
Even so this text appears to ground the instructions in human self-interest. If Israelites will treat birds’ nests this way, they will prosper and enjoy long life on the land. The motive clause links this ordinance with other weighty preconditions to longevity (4:40; 5:33; 11:9; cf. 30:18) and highlights its covenantal significance by locating this action in the same class as general statutes Moses has given elsewhere (4:40; 5:29; 6:18; 12:28). The vibrant covenantal relationship involving Yahweh, Israel, and their natural environment represents in microcosm the triangular relationship among God, the earth, and its creatures. The scope of righteous living extends to respect for the life of helpless creatures.13
Bridging Contexts
HISTORY OF THESE LAWS. The narratives of the Old Testament provide few illustrations of lost animals or other property being found and then returned to or held in security for the owners. The circumstances envisioned in verses 1–4 are illustrated in 1 Samuel 9, though from the perspective of the person who lost them. When Saul went out looking for his father’s donkeys, the family was hoping they would find them in the hands of someone like the person Moses describes. Although Samuel assures Saul that this is in fact the case (1 Sam. 9:20; 10:14–20), we do not know who held them or even if Saul brought them back home. Perhaps he had, but the text is more concerned about Saul’s finding the kingdom than about finding the animals.
Allusions to the instructions on cross-dressing (v. 5), finding a bird’s nest (vv. 6–7), parapets on houses (v. 8), and tassels (v. 12) are absent all together. We hear allusions to verses 9–10 in the Proverb of the Farmer in Isaiah 28:23–29:
Listen and hear my voice;
pay attention and hear what I say.
When a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually?
Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil?
When he has leveled the surface,
does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin?
Does he not plant wheat in its place,
barley in its plot,
and spelt in its field?
His God instructs him
and teaches him the right way.
Caraway is not threshed with a sledge,
nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin;
Caraway is beaten out with a rod,
and cummin with a stick.
Grain must be ground to make bread;
so one does not go on threshing it forever.
Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it,
his horses do not grind it.
All this also comes from the LORD Almighty,
wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom.
Although the text contains technical horticultural vocabulary, some of which is obscure, several theological lessons are obvious. (1) Yahweh, the source of true knowledge is also the source of wisdom for the farmer. (2) The soil is carefully prepared before planting, and the farmer carefully plots his crops, each one assigned its own space. (3) The methods of harvesting are crop specific; different species are in their appointed places and should not be mixed.25
Contemporary Significance
CHRISTIANS AND THESE REGULATIONS. Do Christians need to keep these regulations? Many, perhaps most in our churches would say, “No.” These instructions are part of ancient Israel’s civil and ceremonial laws that have been rendered passé through the work of Christ and have no authority for us. It is true that the kingdom of God has burst the ethnic and ethnocentric boundaries of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, but if we take Matthew 5:17–19 and 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously, perhaps rather than asking whether we need to keep them, we should be asking, “How should we keep these regulations?” Although each segment here represented a specific application of covenantal principles of righteousness within the Israelite context, since the Israel of the Old Testament was to function as a microcosm of humanity at large, underlying all are theological principles rooted in the very nature of God and his relation to the world.
As image-bearers of God, charged with the management of the world on his behalf, human beings must tend to animals in distress not only because they belong to our fellow citizens, but for the sake of the animals themselves. The God who pities the livestock of Nineveh (Jon. 4:11) and feeds the birds (Matt. 6:26; Luke 12:24) enjoins his people to be exemplary in the way they treat domestic animals (vv. 1–4) and wild creatures (vv. 6–7).26 In the Western world we seldom witness the abuse of domestic animals take the form cited here (overloading a donkey), but the well-being of our livestock is jeopardized in more subtle ways—like massive overcrowding in factory farms and the injection of steroids and other chemicals to increase efficiency in the conversion of grain to meat. Moreover, in recent decades we have witnessed the extinction of many species of animals as humans have encroached on animal habitats. Every species was created by God to add its distinctive voice to the glorious cosmic symphony of praise to God. Every species lost is a note of praise lost.27
Although the ordinance demanding parapets on houses (v. 8) applies most specifically to Israelites, the responsibilities of householders for the well-being of all who come “under one’s roof” was recognized even in extrabiblical law codes.28 How much more does it apply to Christians, who should seek the welfare of all in their charge. Little imagination is needed to see how this principle should work in our context. In northern climates, it may mean something as simple as keeping ice off the sidewalk so that all who pass by are safe.
The respectful distinction between the sexes reflected in the prohibition on wearing the clothing of the opposite gender and the homosexual conduct often associated with it are reinforced repeatedly in the New Testament. Paul has the sharpest words for these kinds of perversions in Romans 1:24–27. While Christians should never stop loving those for whom cross-dressing is a fetish and those who are confused in their gender identity, the biblical witness coherently and consistently rejects these as tolerable options for God’s people.
Few Christians today heed Moses’ prohibitions on mixing different varieties of plants in a single plot of land or wearing two different fabrics. However, underlying these commands is a profoundly theological concern for order. The blurring of boundaries symbolizes chaos. The lives of the redeemed should be characterized by order and resistance to everything that causes disintegration of that order in one’s life. Everything about our external conduct and appearance reflects on the name and reputation of our God. To claim the name of Christ (=Yahweh) and to live in a chaotic environment is to misrepresent the one whose name we bear.
Few would see any relevance in Moses’ injunction to attach tassels to the corners of the garments. And yet the principle is clear. In a culture increasingly characterized by lewdness and immodesty, the appeal for Christians to adopt distinctive forms of dress gains relevance. Faithful Christians are recognizable by their countercultural values and their sensitivity to the way outsiders read them. While we resist legalism and treating issues of faith as merely or primarily external, verse 12 reminds us that spiritual commitments are not simply matters of the heart. I should indeed “want to be a Christian/more loving/more holy/like Jesus in my heart,” but I must declare my commitments publicly, and even more importantly embody the grace of Christ in every aspect of life. Ethical boundaries are determined by our citizenship in heaven, rather than on earth.
Original Meaning
Righteousness Demonstrated in Care for Wild Animals (22:6–8)
ALTHOUGH SEVERAL TEXTS CALL for compassion toward domestic animals, this appeal for a tender and sympathetic disposition toward wild birds is unparalleled in the Old Testament.11 The opening line describes the context to which the following injunctions apply: the chance discovery of a wild bird’s nest containing fledglings or eggs, with the mother bird sitting on them. The use of a generic term for bird (cf. 14:11) and the references to nests “beside the road,” “in a tree,” and “on the ground” cover the full range of possibilities.
While people who discover the nest of a wild bird have several options, Moses offers simple counsel: Israelites may take the eggs/fledglings, but they must spare the mother. Reining in the temptation to cruelty, verse 7 reiterates that if a mother bird is found with its young, the mother is not to be taken. The wisdom of this counsel is obvious: Taking the mother but sparing the young would have meant the death of all, for unhatched eggs and fledgling birds depend on the mother. Israelites are not to kill for killing’s sake, nor to exploit natural resources without concern for the survival of the species.12
Even so this text appears to ground the instructions in human self-interest. If Israelites will treat birds’ nests this way, they will prosper and enjoy long life on the land. The motive clause links this ordinance with other weighty preconditions to longevity (4:40; 5:33; 11:9; cf. 30:18) and highlights its covenantal significance by locating this action in the same class as general statutes Moses has given elsewhere (4:40; 5:29; 6:18; 12:28). The vibrant covenantal relationship involving Yahweh, Israel, and their natural environment represents in microcosm the triangular relationship among God, the earth, and its creatures. The scope of righteous living extends to respect for the life of helpless creatures.13
Bridging Contexts
HISTORY OF THESE LAWS. The narratives of the Old Testament provide few illustrations of lost animals or other property being found and then returned to or held in security for the owners. The circumstances envisioned in verses 1–4 are illustrated in 1 Samuel 9, though from the perspective of the person who lost them. When Saul went out looking for his father’s donkeys, the family was hoping they would find them in the hands of someone like the person Moses describes. Although Samuel assures Saul that this is in fact the case (1 Sam. 9:20; 10:14–20), we do not know who held them or even if Saul brought them back home. Perhaps he had, but the text is more concerned about Saul’s finding the kingdom than about finding the animals.
Allusions to the instructions on cross-dressing (v. 5), finding a bird’s nest (vv. 6–7), parapets on houses (v. 8), and tassels (v. 12) are absent all together. We hear allusions to verses 9–10 in the Proverb of the Farmer in Isaiah 28:23–29:
Listen and hear my voice;
pay attention and hear what I say.
When a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually?
Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil?
When he has leveled the surface,
does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin?
Does he not plant wheat in its place,
barley in its plot,
and spelt in its field?
His God instructs him
and teaches him the right way.
Caraway is not threshed with a sledge,
nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin;
Caraway is beaten out with a rod,
and cummin with a stick.
Grain must be ground to make bread;
so one does not go on threshing it forever.
Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it,
his horses do not grind it.
All this also comes from the LORD Almighty,
wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom.
Although the text contains technical horticultural vocabulary, some of which is obscure, several theological lessons are obvious. (1) Yahweh, the source of true knowledge is also the source of wisdom for the farmer. (2) The soil is carefully prepared before planting, and the farmer carefully plots his crops, each one assigned its own space. (3) The methods of harvesting are crop specific; different species are in their appointed places and should not be mixed.25
Contemporary Significance
CHRISTIANS AND THESE REGULATIONS. Do Christians need to keep these regulations? Many, perhaps most in our churches would say, “No.” These instructions are part of ancient Israel’s civil and ceremonial laws that have been rendered passé through the work of Christ and have no authority for us. It is true that the kingdom of God has burst the ethnic and ethnocentric boundaries of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, but if we take Matthew 5:17–19 and 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously, perhaps rather than asking whether we need to keep them, we should be asking, “How should we keep these regulations?” Although each segment here represented a specific application of covenantal principles of righteousness within the Israelite context, since the Israel of the Old Testament was to function as a microcosm of humanity at large, underlying all are theological principles rooted in the very nature of God and his relation to the world.
As image-bearers of God, charged with the management of the world on his behalf, human beings must tend to animals in distress not only because they belong to our fellow citizens, but for the sake of the animals themselves. The God who pities the livestock of Nineveh (Jon. 4:11) and feeds the birds (Matt. 6:26; Luke 12:24) enjoins his people to be exemplary in the way they treat domestic animals (vv. 1–4) and wild creatures (vv. 6–7).26 In the Western world we seldom witness the abuse of domestic animals take the form cited here (overloading a donkey), but the well-being of our livestock is jeopardized in more subtle ways—like massive overcrowding in factory farms and the injection of steroids and other chemicals to increase efficiency in the conversion of grain to meat. Moreover, in recent decades we have witnessed the extinction of many species of animals as humans have encroached on animal habitats. Every species was created by God to add its distinctive voice to the glorious cosmic symphony of praise to God. Every species lost is a note of praise lost.27
Although the ordinance demanding parapets on houses (v. 8) applies most specifically to Israelites, the responsibilities of householders for the well-being of all who come “under one’s roof” was recognized even in extrabiblical law codes.28 How much more does it apply to Christians, who should seek the welfare of all in their charge. Little imagination is needed to see how this principle should work in our context. In northern climates, it may mean something as simple as keeping ice off the sidewalk so that all who pass by are safe.
The respectful distinction between the sexes reflected in the prohibition on wearing the clothing of the opposite gender and the homosexual conduct often associated with it are reinforced repeatedly in the New Testament. Paul has the sharpest words for these kinds of perversions in Romans 1:24–27. While Christians should never stop loving those for whom cross-dressing is a fetish and those who are confused in their gender identity, the biblical witness coherently and consistently rejects these as tolerable options for God’s people.
Few Christians today heed Moses’ prohibitions on mixing different varieties of plants in a single plot of land or wearing two different fabrics. However, underlying these commands is a profoundly theological concern for order. The blurring of boundaries symbolizes chaos. The lives of the redeemed should be characterized by order and resistance to everything that causes disintegration of that order in one’s life. Everything about our external conduct and appearance reflects on the name and reputation of our God. To claim the name of Christ (=Yahweh) and to live in a chaotic environment is to misrepresent the one whose name we bear.
Few would see any relevance in Moses’ injunction to attach tassels to the corners of the garments. And yet the principle is clear. In a culture increasingly characterized by lewdness and immodesty, the appeal for Christians to adopt distinctive forms of dress gains relevance. Faithful Christians are recognizable by their countercultural values and their sensitivity to the way outsiders read them. While we resist legalism and treating issues of faith as merely or primarily external, verse 12 reminds us that spiritual commitments are not simply matters of the heart. I should indeed “want to be a Christian/more loving/more holy/like Jesus in my heart,” but I must declare my commitments publicly, and even more importantly embody the grace of Christ in every aspect of life. Ethical boundaries are determined by our citizenship in heaven, rather than on earth.
Original Meaning
Righteousness Demonstrated in Farming the Land (22:9–11)
THIS FRAGMENT OF INSTRUCTION exhibits obvious links with Leviticus 19:19, where a similar statement is embedded in a long series of commands describing what being holy just as Yahweh is holy means in everyday life.16 However, this text only hints at the notion of “holiness,” with an odd use of the root qdš in verse 9.
The prohibition on seeding a vineyard with other seeds (v. 9). Whereas Leviticus 19:19 prohibits mixing any two kinds of seed in a field, this statement disallows sowing different kinds of plants in a vineyard. The proscription addresses a common practice in ancient and modern times of seeding another crop between the rows of grapevines (“intercropping”), making use of every inch of arable land. However, the motive clause annuls whatever economic benefits the practice might yield, lest the whole crop sown between the vines and the produce of the vineyard be declared sacrosanct (tiqdaš)17 and therefore off limits to the farmer and his family.18 The clause implies consecration of the produce, which means treating it like produce presented at the sanctuary. It seems priests confiscated and set apart for sanctuary use any grain and wine produced in vineyards where another crop was sown.19
The prohibition on plowing with two species of animals (v. 10). This prohibition is more concise. Whereas Leviticus 19:19 had referred to domesticated animals generally, here Moses specifies oxen and donkeys; and whereas Leviticus 19:19 had prohibited the interbreeding of two kinds of domesticated animals, this proscription forbids yoking oxen and donkeys together. This practice creates a fundamentally incongruous image: the animals’ anatomies require different types of harness and a drastically modified yoke to link the two; their unequal strength and stamina could cause the more vigorous to exhaust the weaker. However, to kosher-minded Israelites, these factors were probably less significant than forcing a bond between clean and unclean, which happens when ox and donkey are yoked together.20
The prohibition on wearing divergent kinds of fabric (v. 11). Since wool and linen are both agricultural products, this taboo fits logically with the taboo on mixing crops and mixing draft animals. Moses does not justify this taboo, even though it contradicts the prescriptions for the fabric of the tabernacle21 and the high priest’s garments.22 While forbidden for laypersons, wearing garments of mixed fabrics was reserved for those who served in Yahweh’s presence.
In general, it seems that all these prohibitions were intended to guard against boundary violations that defy the order of the universe (Gen. 1).23 In contrast to the chaotic life of non-Israelites, the life of Yahweh’s people is to be characterized by order and clearly defined boundaries. However, the concern goes beyond order in everyday life. These instructions draw clear boundaries between that which is appropriate for deity (mixtures of all sorts) and that which is appropriate for mortals (no mixtures at all). Certain mixtures were fitting for Yahweh and those who represented him, but not for laypeople who lived before a watching world.
Bridging Contexts
HISTORY OF THESE LAWS. The narratives of the Old Testament provide few illustrations of lost animals or other property being found and then returned to or held in security for the owners. The circumstances envisioned in verses 1–4 are illustrated in 1 Samuel 9, though from the perspective of the person who lost them. When Saul went out looking for his father’s donkeys, the family was hoping they would find them in the hands of someone like the person Moses describes. Although Samuel assures Saul that this is in fact the case (1 Sam. 9:20; 10:14–20), we do not know who held them or even if Saul brought them back home. Perhaps he had, but the text is more concerned about Saul’s finding the kingdom than about finding the animals.
Allusions to the instructions on cross-dressing (v. 5), finding a bird’s nest (vv. 6–7), parapets on houses (v. 8), and tassels (v. 12) are absent all together. We hear allusions to verses 9–10 in the Proverb of the Farmer in Isaiah 28:23–29:
Listen and hear my voice;
pay attention and hear what I say.
When a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually?
Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil?
When he has leveled the surface,
does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin?
Does he not plant wheat in its place,
barley in its plot,
and spelt in its field?
His God instructs him
and teaches him the right way.
Caraway is not threshed with a sledge,
nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin;
Caraway is beaten out with a rod,
and cummin with a stick.
Grain must be ground to make bread;
so one does not go on threshing it forever.
Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it,
his horses do not grind it.
All this also comes from the LORD Almighty,
wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom.
Although the text contains technical horticultural vocabulary, some of which is obscure, several theological lessons are obvious. (1) Yahweh, the source of true knowledge is also the source of wisdom for the farmer. (2) The soil is carefully prepared before planting, and the farmer carefully plots his crops, each one assigned its own space. (3) The methods of harvesting are crop specific; different species are in their appointed places and should not be mixed.25
Contemporary Significance
CHRISTIANS AND THESE REGULATIONS. Do Christians need to keep these regulations? Many, perhaps most in our churches would say, “No.” These instructions are part of ancient Israel’s civil and ceremonial laws that have been rendered passé through the work of Christ and have no authority for us. It is true that the kingdom of God has burst the ethnic and ethnocentric boundaries of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, but if we take Matthew 5:17–19 and 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously, perhaps rather than asking whether we need to keep them, we should be asking, “How should we keep these regulations?” Although each segment here represented a specific application of covenantal principles of righteousness within the Israelite context, since the Israel of the Old Testament was to function as a microcosm of humanity at large, underlying all are theological principles rooted in the very nature of God and his relation to the world.
As image-bearers of God, charged with the management of the world on his behalf, human beings must tend to animals in distress not only because they belong to our fellow citizens, but for the sake of the animals themselves. The God who pities the livestock of Nineveh (Jon. 4:11) and feeds the birds (Matt. 6:26; Luke 12:24) enjoins his people to be exemplary in the way they treat domestic animals (vv. 1–4) and wild creatures (vv. 6–7).26 In the Western world we seldom witness the abuse of domestic animals take the form cited here (overloading a donkey), but the well-being of our livestock is jeopardized in more subtle ways—like massive overcrowding in factory farms and the injection of steroids and other chemicals to increase efficiency in the conversion of grain to meat. Moreover, in recent decades we have witnessed the extinction of many species of animals as humans have encroached on animal habitats. Every species was created by God to add its distinctive voice to the glorious cosmic symphony of praise to God. Every species lost is a note of praise lost.27
Although the ordinance demanding parapets on houses (v. 8) applies most specifically to Israelites, the responsibilities of householders for the well-being of all who come “under one’s roof” was recognized even in extrabiblical law codes.28 How much more does it apply to Christians, who should seek the welfare of all in their charge. Little imagination is needed to see how this principle should work in our context. In northern climates, it may mean something as simple as keeping ice off the sidewalk so that all who pass by are safe.
The respectful distinction between the sexes reflected in the prohibition on wearing the clothing of the opposite gender and the homosexual conduct often associated with it are reinforced repeatedly in the New Testament. Paul has the sharpest words for these kinds of perversions in Romans 1:24–27. While Christians should never stop loving those for whom cross-dressing is a fetish and those who are confused in their gender identity, the biblical witness coherently and consistently rejects these as tolerable options for God’s people.
Few Christians today heed Moses’ prohibitions on mixing different varieties of plants in a single plot of land or wearing two different fabrics. However, underlying these commands is a profoundly theological concern for order. The blurring of boundaries symbolizes chaos. The lives of the redeemed should be characterized by order and resistance to everything that causes disintegration of that order in one’s life. Everything about our external conduct and appearance reflects on the name and reputation of our God. To claim the name of Christ (=Yahweh) and to live in a chaotic environment is to misrepresent the one whose name we bear.
Few would see any relevance in Moses’ injunction to attach tassels to the corners of the garments. And yet the principle is clear. In a culture increasingly characterized by lewdness and immodesty, the appeal for Christians to adopt distinctive forms of dress gains relevance. Faithful Christians are recognizable by their countercultural values and their sensitivity to the way outsiders read them. While we resist legalism and treating issues of faith as merely or primarily external, verse 12 reminds us that spiritual commitments are not simply matters of the heart. I should indeed “want to be a Christian/more loving/more holy/like Jesus in my heart,” but I must declare my commitments publicly, and even more importantly embody the grace of Christ in every aspect of life. Ethical boundaries are determined by our citizenship in heaven, rather than on earth.
Original Meaning
Righteousness Demonstrated in Dress (22:12)
THIS SECTION OF MISCELLANEOUS pastoral instructions ends with an appeal to wear tassels attached to the four corners of one’s garment. Moses assumes familiarity with the fuller description in Numbers 15:37–41. These tassels had no utilitarian function; they were purely decorative and symbolic. Like words of covenant commitment written on hands and foreheads and on the doorposts of houses and gates (Deut. 6:4–9), the tassels reminded the one who wore them and outsiders of Israel’s special status as the covenant people of Yahweh.24
Bridging Contexts
HISTORY OF THESE LAWS. The narratives of the Old Testament provide few illustrations of lost animals or other property being found and then returned to or held in security for the owners. The circumstances envisioned in verses 1–4 are illustrated in 1 Samuel 9, though from the perspective of the person who lost them. When Saul went out looking for his father’s donkeys, the family was hoping they would find them in the hands of someone like the person Moses describes. Although Samuel assures Saul that this is in fact the case (1 Sam. 9:20; 10:14–20), we do not know who held them or even if Saul brought them back home. Perhaps he had, but the text is more concerned about Saul’s finding the kingdom than about finding the animals.
Allusions to the instructions on cross-dressing (v. 5), finding a bird’s nest (vv. 6–7), parapets on houses (v. 8), and tassels (v. 12) are absent all together. We hear allusions to verses 9–10 in the Proverb of the Farmer in Isaiah 28:23–29:
Listen and hear my voice;
pay attention and hear what I say.
When a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually?
Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil?
When he has leveled the surface,
does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin?
Does he not plant wheat in its place,
barley in its plot,
and spelt in its field?
His God instructs him
and teaches him the right way.
Caraway is not threshed with a sledge,
nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin;
Caraway is beaten out with a rod,
and cummin with a stick.
Grain must be ground to make bread;
so one does not go on threshing it forever.
Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it,
his horses do not grind it.
All this also comes from the LORD Almighty,
wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom.
Although the text contains technical horticultural vocabulary, some of which is obscure, several theological lessons are obvious. (1) Yahweh, the source of true knowledge is also the source of wisdom for the farmer. (2) The soil is carefully prepared before planting, and the farmer carefully plots his crops, each one assigned its own space. (3) The methods of harvesting are crop specific; different species are in their appointed places and should not be mixed.25
Contemporary Significance
CHRISTIANS AND THESE REGULATIONS. Do Christians need to keep these regulations? Many, perhaps most in our churches would say, “No.” These instructions are part of ancient Israel’s civil and ceremonial laws that have been rendered passé through the work of Christ and have no authority for us. It is true that the kingdom of God has burst the ethnic and ethnocentric boundaries of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, but if we take Matthew 5:17–19 and 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously, perhaps rather than asking whether we need to keep them, we should be asking, “How should we keep these regulations?” Although each segment here represented a specific application of covenantal principles of righteousness within the Israelite context, since the Israel of the Old Testament was to function as a microcosm of humanity at large, underlying all are theological principles rooted in the very nature of God and his relation to the world.
As image-bearers of God, charged with the management of the world on his behalf, human beings must tend to animals in distress not only because they belong to our fellow citizens, but for the sake of the animals themselves. The God who pities the livestock of Nineveh (Jon. 4:11) and feeds the birds (Matt. 6:26; Luke 12:24) enjoins his people to be exemplary in the way they treat domestic animals (vv. 1–4) and wild creatures (vv. 6–7).26 In the Western world we seldom witness the abuse of domestic animals take the form cited here (overloading a donkey), but the well-being of our livestock is jeopardized in more subtle ways—like massive overcrowding in factory farms and the injection of steroids and other chemicals to increase efficiency in the conversion of grain to meat. Moreover, in recent decades we have witnessed the extinction of many species of animals as humans have encroached on animal habitats. Every species was created by God to add its distinctive voice to the glorious cosmic symphony of praise to God. Every species lost is a note of praise lost.27
Although the ordinance demanding parapets on houses (v. 8) applies most specifically to Israelites, the responsibilities of householders for the well-being of all who come “under one’s roof” was recognized even in extrabiblical law codes.28 How much more does it apply to Christians, who should seek the welfare of all in their charge. Little imagination is needed to see how this principle should work in our context. In northern climates, it may mean something as simple as keeping ice off the sidewalk so that all who pass by are safe.
The respectful distinction between the sexes reflected in the prohibition on wearing the clothing of the opposite gender and the homosexual conduct often associated with it are reinforced repeatedly in the New Testament. Paul has the sharpest words for these kinds of perversions in Romans 1:24–27. While Christians should never stop loving those for whom cross-dressing is a fetish and those who are confused in their gender identity, the biblical witness coherently and consistently rejects these as tolerable options for God’s people.
Few Christians today heed Moses’ prohibitions on mixing different varieties of plants in a single plot of land or wearing two different fabrics. However, underlying these commands is a profoundly theological concern for order. The blurring of boundaries symbolizes chaos. The lives of the redeemed should be characterized by order and resistance to everything that causes disintegration of that order in one’s life. Everything about our external conduct and appearance reflects on the name and reputation of our God. To claim the name of Christ (=Yahweh) and to live in a chaotic environment is to misrepresent the one whose name we bear.
Few would see any relevance in Moses’ injunction to attach tassels to the corners of the garments. And yet the principle is clear. In a culture increasingly characterized by lewdness and immodesty, the appeal for Christians to adopt distinctive forms of dress gains relevance. Faithful Christians are recognizable by their countercultural values and their sensitivity to the way outsiders read them. While we resist legalism and treating issues of faith as merely or primarily external, verse 12 reminds us that spiritual commitments are not simply matters of the heart. I should indeed “want to be a Christian/more loving/more holy/like Jesus in my heart,” but I must declare my commitments publicly, and even more importantly embody the grace of Christ in every aspect of life. Ethical boundaries are determined by our citizenship in heaven, rather than on earth.