Deuteronomy chapter 24

vs 12

Now this one makes more sense. Just because someone pledges something to you doesn't mean you need to keep it with you all the time, especially if they are poor and will need it, and you are rich and don't need it at all.

vs 13

The example given being a cloak that a poor person might need to sleep in - if you take even their cloak away from them, then they might freeze to death when they sleep.

Okay, that might be a little dramatic, but still, why deprive them of a warm night sleep? Instead, you can show mercy to them, but still allow them a pledge so that they can maintain their honour - no wonder God will be pleased.

This whole system of pledges does show that money was still going to be loaned to other Jews - just that you didn't get interest off them for it.

vs 14

This verse encapsulates the disempowerment of poverty. God understands that poor people are disadvantaged, and therefore he speaks out about it. Not only that, he expects his people to look out for them.

vs 15

Not necessarily to give them equality of lifestyle, mind you. But you are to give them what they are owed, and smartly.

vs 16

I'm sure a lot of parents (and probably children) breathed a sigh of relief at this one. And it is an important point being made here. Although the life of Israel is communal, God still maintains a stark individual distinction between people, and their individual responsibility for sin. God cares for both his people as a community, but also about the lives of individuals.

vs 17

This is almost proverbial in its language. These are three disempowered subgroups of society - the foreigner was not a Jew, so didn't have the same rights. The fatherless and the widow have the same problem - they are missing the powerful male figure of the family. It is a discredit to the society (and hence to God) if it cannot protect justice for the sake of it being justice, rather than to make sure that only rich or powerful people get it.

Furthermore, widows are objects of charity, not loans.

vs 18

Not only were they slaves, but they were treated unjustly. It's hard for us to not simply think that slave = abused and mistreated. But slaves weren't always treated that way, and in fact had the opportunity to buy themselves out. They were a part of the family - I mean sure, more like a dog is a part of the family, but still, people love dogs too.

vs 19

We saw this in Ruth, the idea of not being too strict on your harvesting in order that the poor might glean from your fields. In not being greedy, God will bless you.

vs 20

Same principle.

vs 21

Do you get the picture? Moses, in naming three different situations where you should be practicing this principle, has hopefully covered it for all harvesting practices. Or, by naming three, it could be that he excludes the others, and the poor have to live on bread, oil and wine (or grapes). I would think that the principle extends to all crops, but it doesn't actually say.

vs 22

But it is verses like this that should make the principle more important than the individual rules. If they remember their history as slaves, they should be kind to the disempowered. It's almost Rawlsian - but rather than hypothesising, it is calling on a memory of their actual situation (or the memory of the situation as suffered by their parents).