Deuteronomy 23 continues laws that expand and rely on the Ten Commandments. And in this chapter, we meet some especially interesting commands for our reflection. Deuteronomy 23 has moments as you read through the chapter that you think, okay, it says that. It says that right there. There's the language. There's the instruction. How should I think about this? A Deuteronomy 23 reminds us that the biblical authors do not mind using very plain and straightforward speech about the body and about Israel's regulatory lives. And therefore, in the lives of those Israelites, they receive these instructions for their good. We want to ponder tonight. of these instructions in the first eight verses, and we are remembering that these parts of Deuteronomy are relying on the Ten Commandments. I'm insisting that we should see Deuteronomy 23, one to eight, as continuing a reliance on the Seventh Commandment. The Seventh Commandment said, you shall not commit adultery, and I've suggested that from Deuteronomy 22, verse nine, and now into chapter 23, through about verse 14, the Seventh Commandment is in the background. The seventh commandment, you shall not commit adultery, is aiming at faithfulness and purity and sexual covenant and intimate love within the proper confines as God has designed it. And the seventh commandment, therefore, is more encompassing than just forbidding one particular spouse from having an adulterous affair with someone he's not married to. Instead, we see in Jesus' language in Matthew 5 that the spirit of the seventh commandment is deeply connected to orient the heart of the worshiper in ways where body and soul and the pursuit of purity are bringing honor to the Lord. The seventh commandment then underlies Deuteronomy 23 and in through verse 14 of this chapter. What we'll see tonight are references to bodily organs as well as various peoples that descended through the acts of procreation. Therefore, the Seventh Commandment has a logical connection here because these Ammonites and Moabites and Egyptians and all the other peoples that multiplied among the nations, they have a line of descent and lines of descent take place through the procreative act. And in chapter 23, 1 to 8, we see the seventh commandment being the thing most likely underlying it. Now, some scholars have even argued that there are links between the laws of Deuteronomy and certain narratives in Genesis. And this can be the case from what we were talking about last week, for instance. In chapter 22, at the very end, it speaks about a man not taking his father's wife so that he doesn't uncover his father's nakedness. And in chapter 2230, I suggested to you that uncovering nakedness is something that happens as early as Genesis 9, with this event with Noah and his son Ham, who humiliated his father. Sometimes you read a law, in other words, and you think, that reminds me of a story. That kind of interplay is intended by the biblical authors so that you will see both laws and narratives, these commands and these stories having a relation. Tonight, as you hear from Deuteronomy 23, several names are going to recall earlier stories. Several descriptions may bring to mind explicitly or implicitly things that the Bible teaches earlier. And that's okay. In fact, I think that's how we're meant to see the relationship of these laws to previous texts. I do want to note an occurrence of a phrase, And you heard it read multiple times in these eight verses. The six times this phrase is used in these eight verses should help us think, well, that repetition means we should understand what assembly of the Lord means. You heard me say that over and over again. Verse 1 mentions it. It's mentioned twice in verse 2, twice in verse 3, and again in verse 8. Entering the assembly of the Lord. What does that mean and what does that not mean? Now, I wish that among Old Testament interpreters who have thought and written much about this chapter, that there was a unanimous sense of how to answer that question, just a nice consensus, where you could say, here's what everybody has said, and they think about it for decades, and so we can trust their careful and fine-tuned literary work. Unfortunately, there's not unanimous clarity on what it means to enter the assembly of the Lord. And that gives us some challenges because it tells us here certain groups are actually prohibited from entering the assembly of the Lord. I think there's one way we don't want to take this phrase. We don't want to take assembly of the Lord to mean all Israelites in the community. And the reason we don't want to say that assembly of the Lord equals all Israelites in the community is because Gentiles and even various peoples from named or prohibited groups were incorporated into the people of God. I think of somebody like Ruth, who is a Moabite in the book of Ruth. And she, though not originally from the promised land, joins her mother-in-law Naomi for life in Bethlehem and is incorporated into the people of God. Rather than thinking the assembly of the Lord means all Israelites everywhere, we would want to be more specific, I think, with how assembly of the Lord language can be used. This kind of technical introduction to this passage matters because we want to know, what does it mean that some can enter? What does it mean that some are prohibited? What's the thing they're prohibited from? An assembly of the Lord seems to be some kind of gathering in the most formal of ways that include festival activities, some kind of formal festival gathering at the tabernacle, and, maybe or, political leadership in the Israelites, such as elders and other leaders among the Israelites. Because think of this phrase that you see from time to time when a word from the Lord is given to the people. It might say, and the elders assembled together, or an assembly heard this said, and it didn't mean every Israelite everywhere. it meant some kind of representation. So I'm going to take that word for a moment and I'm just going to double click on it because representation and the way these prohibitions work, it seems to say if someone has certain characteristics about themselves, they're prohibited. And it reminds us of a different kind of representation from Leviticus. So I'm going to draw an analogy. In the book of Leviticus, we're told that if you are a descendant of Aaron, You would be qualified for the priesthood unless there were certain characteristics true of you. And the importance of the priesthood is that you represented the people of God at the tabernacle. But here's what Leviticus 21 says. Speak to Aaron, saying, none of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. No one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face, or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot, or an injured hand, or a hunchback, or dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sight, or an itching disease, or scabs, or crushed testicles. No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's offerings." Think of that list there. As an example, maybe not even exhaustive, but a representative set of blemishes. To approach the Lord in order to represent others, it is expected that you have a bodily wholeness about you. It is expected that you have a bodily wholeness about you because locations of representation tended to be before the tabernacle where maybe a prophet like Moses or something to do with the priest mediating words of sacrifice and blessing. There was representation drawing near to the tabernacle in a bodily unblemished state. So if you were a priest from Aaron's line and you had various blemishes, you could not represent the people. I'm taking assembly of the Lord more in that direction in Deuteronomy 23. I think it's prohibiting certain kinds of people to represent the Israelites. So here's an error I think to avoid. If someone reads Deuteronomy 23 and says, are they saying Ammonites and Moabites can't be a part of the people of God? That's not what it's saying. So if someone reads this and says, are Egyptians the Edomites? Are they allowed into the people of God? But someone who has various bodily damage, like in 23 verse 1, they're not a part of the people of God. This is not about belonging to the people of God. I think the emphasis here with assembling is about formal gathering for some kind of representation. And so some kind of leadership or festival activity and certain characteristics would prohibit you. So we don't want to overthink this passage. We don't want to say, is it just spiritually excluding people left and right from the Israelite community? That's not what's happening. Something more specific, I think, is happening that has to deal with representation, and this gathering or assembly is that kind of thing. Now, what's the reasoning behind that? The tabernacle was a place that symbolized the holiness, glory, and presence of God. The Ark of the Covenant is behind the veil. And if you approach the tabernacle as a priest to represent the people, or if you were an offerer who brought your animal sacrifice, those kinds of things had to be ritually fit. In fact, if you were a worshiper, you couldn't be going through certain things bodily and be allowed to approach the tabernacle. Losses of fluids and blood could mean that you are on the spectrum, if you will, away from life and more toward death because of the loss of something bodily. And once that was restored, you could then return to tabernacle worship. But it was about the symbolism and ritual of approaching in a fitted way. Think about Deuteronomy 23 as tapping into this whole notion of being ritually fit to represent. So this is not about offering a sacrifice, but it does seem to be representing the people in a ritually fit way, and because God is holy, If they and their bodies have some sort of malfunction, some kind of corruption, they would not be ritually fit to represent. Okay, so I know that this, listen, we haven't even looked at any detail of any verse, I realize that. But I'm trying to say, this is some challenging verses here. And we want to see what kind of big picture ideas might be framing the discussion. So that when we look at these verses, we're able to see it in relation, like pieces that you're putting into place because you have the puzzle box. Okay, so Deuteronomy 23, we're seeing now in verse 1, the discussion of eunuchs. So the word eunuch, refers to someone who has experienced something bodily that now prohibits them from procreating. It could be the case that according to verse one, no one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off, that there was a terrible accident that brought this to pass. Or maybe it was some kind of incident that birth itself revealed. So here you have this newborn and you realize something is not going to work right. Or it could be the case that someone is in this condition because they have submitted themselves to a process, a procedure, an act. You could be made a eunuch. This would be the practice of castration in the ancient world. And there are reasons for this. There are cultic and political reasons for castration in the ancient world. I don't think we have to choose which one might be behind this kind of verse, but the subject of eunuchs here seems to have in mind someone who is in this situation as a result of forbidden things. Now, let's think about the spiritual aspect or the cultic aspect of it, and then the political aspect of it. In the ancient world, one way you could demonstrate your seriousness to the gods is you underwent, as a male, a process of castration. And this would affect your ability to procreate, but it would demonstrate in some sort of worshipful act with your idols and with your cultic community, something that would demonstrate that kind of devotion. So in the ancient world, and I don't know if you've ever heard of this, this might be very surprising to you, you think, did they really? They really did. And so you have examples in the ancient world of false worship being a context in which the crushing or the cutting would take place. But not only is there a cultic or spiritual component to this, there are also administrations that would prefer people working in their administrations who had become eunuchs, who were made eunuchs. As one writer puts it, emasculation would eliminate incentive for eunuchs who were made high-ranking officials to attempt to ascend the throne since they would not be capable of producing an heir to the throne. So if you think about the actual components here in verse one, what is gonna be the effect of this crushing and this cutting? No procreation. And that administrations would actually prefer this kind of thing because if you had someone who could not then produce an heir, they might be less likely to try to undermine your rule. So there is some ancient logic behind this. You might not be persuaded of that, but it's still to say this is the thinking that goes into it. There's another element here that castration would subdue the servants of a king in an administration. And so there would be less to worry about, you might say, if you had men in your administration and you had already taken care of a very important matter that might otherwise cause you great grief. So, emasculation, or the castration process, for both cultic spiritual reasons and also political reasons, seems to lie behind this verse. This means there is now a lack of bodily wholeness. And one of the ways that's identified is that this is not a man who is able to produce an heir, and therefore, as a result of this, he's not going to represent a people who should be ritually fit. Here's the connection, I think. The Israelites are supposed to approach the Lord ritually fit. They can't have representatives who are not ritually fit bringing forward a people that they're representing who are supposed to be ritually fit. So it means the representatives or leaders in some sort of assembly have to embody what the people should strive to be in their moral and ritual regulations. Okay, so, I don't know, that is a lot to think through here with verse one, but I think that's what's behind the situation with the eunuchs. They don't want representatives for the assembly of the Lord who will enter that assembly with certain kinds of bodily defect. Now, um, In verse two, the second of the four categories, the first one being eunuchs, the second is those born of a forbidden union. No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the 10th generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord. And what seems to be happening here is, here is procreation implied because this is a born person from a union. And so therefore I think the theme of bringing forth children, though inhibited by the act in verse 1, is something that does take place in verse 2. But the birth is from a union forbidden by the Lord. And there are a couple possibilities here. One way that interpreters have taken this is that the forbidden union is an incestual union. You have within the Israelite community people within a family who have made decisions with and for one another that has resulted in not only this forbidden union, but a birth from it. So that could be the case. It's also possible that this notion of a forbidden union is involving an Israelite covenant community member and someone who doesn't belong to the Sinai covenant. So you have this forbidden union because it is an intermingling of true worship of Yahweh and false worship of idols. And if you're going to have people who are coming before the Lord for true worship, their representatives are not to be characterized with this kind of parentage. No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. And that language at the end of verse 2, even to the 10th generation, might not mean literally 10 generations. You could take it that way. If you've got your ancestry.com information and you realize what generation you might be, maybe you could think, okay, it's been 10 generations. That's such a strong number though. 10 generations could be a way of figuratively saying, it's just not going to happen. It's just not going to happen anytime. The number 10 can sometimes be used as a number of completion. And so to the uttermost, we might say, from here forward, 10 generations, let's say. It's like when Jesus and the disciples are talking about forgiveness. And the question is, you know, how many times do I forgive? Seven times? And Jesus is like, 70 times seven. You're not to actually keep a record of that, okay? It's like, all right, my tally marks, how many have I done? Well, that's not the point, is it? The actual use of that number means until, it's the uttermost. And here in verse two, those born of a forbidden union are not to have that kind of entrance into a gathered assembly to lead and to represent the people. So it could be that these are children in some sort of spiritual and prostitution situation with idols, Canaanite relationships, or maybe some kind of union forbidden by Leviticus 18, like an incestuous one. All right, so verse one, Unix, verse two, those born of a forbidden union. Now, I just want to remember tonight, like we all knew this text was coming. OK, and the rest of Deuteronomy 23 doesn't necessarily get easier beyond tonight. But the way I think about these laws is that with Leviticus and numbers behind us, We're thinking through matters that do seem to connect to some earlier themes and laws that we're wanting to bring forward to help us here. Are these the easiest and most comfortable laws to think through? Well, they're not, are they? Not the easiest and most comfortable laws to preach through, to be quite frank. But nevertheless, those born of a forbidden union and the eunuchs exemplify these damaged or corrupted or in some way no longer whole individuals prohibited to lead and represent. Now, there are some groups that move beyond some sort of bodily or or kind of union emphasis. In verses three to six, peoples in general are now being incorporated. No Ammonite and no Moabite. Now, in verses three to six, this third group of people, Ammonites and Moabites, we hold these two together. these Ammonites and Moabites to see what verses three to six are unpacking accordingly. And they say no Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord, even to the 10th generation. So you see that use of the number 10 again. Which, you know, one way to take it again is it's literal number and you can count that and if you're in the 10th generation, well now a shift is taking place and you can enter. Maybe it's just another way of saying figuratively, to the end, you're not going to represent. You're not going to enter such a formal assembly. So no Ammonite or Moabite, but why? Now there's some reasons unpacked here. If you've got questions about verse one, this text isn't answering them all. If you've got questions about verse two, this text isn't answering them all. But you get a little more expansion about verse three. All right, so in verse four, because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way when you came out of Egypt. All right, well now what we're doing is we're referencing something earlier in Israel's history. The Israelites, you'll recall in the book of Exodus, come out of Egyptian captivity. And then they're going to travel through the wilderness. And for 40 years, they're going to travel through the wilderness. And then after Moses has led them all of this way, and the Lord has ensured the death of the former generation, while a new generation of Israelites grows up in the wilderness, they're ready to enter the land. and they are approaching the land, going south under the Dead Sea, on the eastern side of the Jordan River next, to the land of Moab. But along the way, here's what you find. Along the way, there are the Edomites that are next to the Dead Sea, and then north of the Edomites are the Moabites, and then north of the Moabites are the Ammonites. When it mentions Ammonites and Moabites, it's referencing neighbors of the Promised Land. These are not far-off peoples. They're next-door neighbors, okay? And right now, when Moses is giving these speeches, these sermons, the Israelites are in the land of Moab. So the question would be, what's going on to prohibit the Moabites and Ammonites from entering the assembly in any formal way? They didn't meet you with bread and with water on the way. That at first might seem like, is this just a nitpicky situation where they didn't feed them, didn't give them drink? What's happening? Think about what this represents. According to the book of Deuteronomy and earlier, This is a refusal of hospitality that is tantamount to a rejection of something God has deemed for his people. Namely, that he has delivered them from captivity, they're going to enter the promised land, and it's a refusal to recognize that reality. It's a hostile position. So the refusal of bread and the refusal of water is not some light thing. It is the surprising posture of hostility toward the covenant people. Well, that's not good. That's not good. That's a serious thing. They didn't meet you with bread and with water on the way when you came out of Egypt. Now, we can add to the situation about the Moabites. We also know what else happened because we have the book of Numbers. What happens here in verse 4 and verse 5 references the story in Numbers, chapters 22 to 24. because they hired against you Balaam." Now, King Balak of Moab did not want the Israelites walking under the blessing of the Lord, and he knew a prophet who would be summonable, and they could pay this prophet, you know, name your price, Balaam, and you will curse the people of Israel. That's what we want from you, right? So not only had they adopted a hostile position by the refusal of hospitality, They are actively seeking the demise of the Israelites. That's what's represented by the Moabite king. They hired against you Balaam, the son of Baor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. Now, think about Genesis 12. Do you hear an echo of the promise to Abraham? Those who bless you, I will bless. Those who curse you I will curse. And the Moabites, in their hostile posture toward Israel, had endeavored to see curse fall upon the Israelites. Verse 5 tells us the turn of events. But the Lord your God wouldn't listen to Baalim. Instead, the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loved you. So if you go to Numbers 23 and Numbers 24, when Balaam finally does arrive in Moab, and King Balak and Balaam are looking out over the encampment of the Israelites, everything Balaam says sounds like good news for Israel. It's very upsetting to the king of Moab. And then in verse five, we see the very end Not only did the Lord turn the curse into a blessing, it's because the Lord your God loved you. The Israelites are reminded of his covenant steadfast love that would not be undermined by the plots of the Moabites, by Balaam in particular, who had joined forces with Balak. In verse 6, he says of these peoples, you shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever. That's a very technical way of putting something. It doesn't sound like A treaty is necessarily involved in the way our English text sounds. But to seek peace and prosperity within other people is treaty language. So I'm going to reword this and say, I think this is prohibiting political arrangements with these people. I think he's saying they have adopted a covenant posture of hostility. They've sought to curse you. So when you're thinking about peace and prosperity, don't form treaties and agreements of a political nature with them. That's what I think would be the main takeaway from verse six. Obviously, they would love to see people who are of the nations come to know Yahweh and worship the living God. Verse 6 doesn't have anything to do with that. I think verse 6 is talking about their future as a nation there, engaging in civil and judicial proceedings and recognizing the goings-on of other nations. Don't pursue treaties with them. Don't seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever. One writer puts it this way, these words belong to the vocabulary of treaties in the ancient Near East. The Israelites were forbidden to negotiate political treaties with Ammon and Moab. Now, there's also something I haven't mentioned about Ammon and Moab. I'm gonna mention it, even though the text doesn't bring it out, because sometimes a particular law that mentions a people could remind you of a story, even if it's not explicitly brought out itself. Do you recall how the Ammonites and the Moabites came to be? In the book of Genesis, there is an origin story. And Abraham's nephew Lot has fled Sodom when the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is taking place. Lot's two daughters facilitate a situation where they are impregnated by their own premeditation here by their father. And one of the sons is named Moab, and another of the sons is Ben-Ami, the head, or what would eventually be the one from whom the Ammonites descend. So both Moabites and Ammonites have an origin in forbidden unions. It's interesting when we're considering here Deuteronomy 23 that has a context of some situations that would be disqualifying. Even if that is not brought out explicitly here, but rather the recent hostility and lack of hospitality. It still makes you wonder, hey, even earlier than the lack of hospitality and the active hostility, you got all the way back to Genesis here, a concerning origin for what's going on. So I'm just putting that forward as something to consider. So those are the three groups so far. The eunuchs, those born of a forbidden union, and then this Ammonites, Moabites group. There's a fourth. The fourth and last one is in verses 7 and 8. The Edomites and Egyptians. Now, you might be expecting at this point more prohibition that they're not going to enter the assembly of the Lord. That's why I think verses seven and eight read so interestingly. You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Wait a second, what's going on there? What do you mean he's your brother? Think about the origin. The origin story of the Edomites is that they are descendants of Esau. So I'm thinking verse seven could further confirm that where peoples come from can have some sort of either explicit or underlying reason for why things are worded the way they are. So consider that Jacob and Esau are brothers born by Rebekah in Genesis 25. And when Isaac and Rebekah have Jacob and Esau, Jacob will be the one from whom the Israelites descend, And the Edomites will descend from Esau. So it's like Jacob and Esau are brothers. Think of the Israelites and Edomites as having a kind of sibling relationship, okay? Let's call it that. A kind of sibling relationship. And in order to go toward the land of Moab, where they are right now in Deuteronomy, They had to pass through the land of Edom. You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. I don't think that's a spiritual statement. I don't think he's saying, I don't think that the Edomites just by default are covenant members. I don't think that's what he means. You shall not abhor an Edomite. You shall not abhor an Egyptian. This is the most surprising, I think, of the names in the list where you think, wait a second, let's recall what happened in earlier history. What do you mean not abhor an Egyptian? If there's any sort of prior situation or facilitation of circumstances that might explain prohibition, it's gonna be that Egyptian captivity of Israel. But that's not the point it draws out, is it? You shall not abhor an Egyptian because you were a sojourner in his land. Think earlier than the captivity. You have to go outside of Exodus into Genesis before that. The Israelites had a famine in the land of Canaan. In the days of Jacob and his sons, there was a famine in Canaan, and Joseph had already been sent ahead by the Lord, though not so intentionally by his brothers to Egypt, in the way that Joseph's life took a turn and he was elevated. They wanted to do away with their brother. They'd hope for his demise, even selling him to those traders as they passed into Egypt. This was all part of their plan to get rid of their brother. But according to Genesis, the Lord had meant for good what they had meant for evil, and the place of Egypt became the place of refuge for the Israelites. Joseph was actually the right person in the right place at the right time where the land of Goshen was the place worked out for the Israelites to dwell. And so the foreseeable centuries of the Israelites' life was east of the Nile River in the land of Egypt in a region called Goshen. That is what is in view with verse seven. You were a sojourner in his land. You didn't belong to Egypt, you came from Canaan, but you were welcomed in. You were a sojourner. Children born to them in the third generation may enter the assembly of the Lord. Oh, that's interesting. So you've had earlier, you know, up to the 10th generation prohibited. Children born in the third generation may. This is likely counting from that initial Israelite generation that left Egypt in the Exodus, which would mean, therefore, something like the grandchildren of that first generation of Israelites that left Egypt. Children born to them in the third generation may enter the assembly of the Lord. So the fact that the Edomites have a sibling relationship and the fact that the Egyptians have pre-captivity, a situation of hosting the Israelites, a hospitality, if you will. Let's make a connection here. Earlier in verse 4, the Ammonites and the Moabites wouldn't give the Israelites bread and water. What did the Israelites have in Egypt? A land of Goshen to dwell in and be hosted in and survive in for many years. So, in the third generation, these may enter the assembly of the Lord. Now, okay, so we've looked at four groups. Eunuchs, those born of a forbidden union, Ammonites and Moabites, and then Edomites and Egyptians. This seems very technical in Deuteronomy 23 about who can go and why, and who can't and why. And then some of the reasoning, if it's not been explicit, I've tried to suggest reasons for the laws that are worded the way they are. Later on in Nehemiah, There seems to be a call back to Deuteronomy 23. In Nehemiah, you're dealing with the end of the Old Testament era. You're leading into those 400 years of silence. Nehemiah's ministry overlapped with Ezra and Malachi the prophet. So you're quite late in Israel's history. You're in about the 400s BC, and Nehemiah was the one who came from Persia in order to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. So the city had been restored, the people who were exiled, many returned, the temple had been rebuilt by that point, and Nehemiah oversaw the rebuilding of the walls. Here's what we read in Nehemiah 13. This is the last chapter of the book of Nehemiah. On that day, they read from the book of Moses in the hearing of the people. And in it, it was found that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the assembly of the Lord. Okay, so where in the book of Moses is that kind of prohibition found? It's found in Deuteronomy 23. In fact, I think in Nehemiah 13, it's even clearer that Deuteronomy 23 is in the background because Nehemiah goes on to say, for they did not meet the people of Israel with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them to curse them. And that sounds just like Deuteronomy 23. It's the language right from it. So they're reading the book of Moses, in particular, Deuteronomy 23. And as people heard the law, they separated from Israel all those of foreign descent. And Nehemiah is in a day and age where laws are being broken left and right. Ezra has been a skilled scribe to teach and instruct the people, but there's so much spiritual compromise. There's intermarrying with unions forbidden by the Lord. There is a laxity of posture toward the laws of God that is deeply concerning when you get to the end of the Old Testament era. You would hope that when you got to the end of the Old Testament era, there would be tremendous seal for the promises of God, a widespread commitment to his law. But when you read Ezra and Nehemiah, you get quite concerned about the hearts of the people there, because here you are near the end of the Old Testament era and there's much rebellion. So what is in store for these peoples who can be excluded from certain formal assemblies or political leadership in the people? Well, there is hope. The prophet Isaiah gives us a bit of this. In Isaiah 56, we read some words that hold out something, I think, with this kind of text in the background. Deuteronomy 23 is in view in Nehemiah 13. Deuteronomy 23 also might be invoked when we hear what we do from Isaiah 56. Isaiah 56 says in verse 3, let not the foreigner who's joined himself to the Lord say, the Lord will surely separate me from his people. let not the eunuchs say, behold, I am a dry tree. So if you have foreigners who are coming to worship Yahweh, or if you have eunuchs who are coming to worship Yahweh, Isaiah's saying, don't let the foreigner say, the Lord's gonna separate me from his people. Don't let the eunuchs say, behold, I'm a dry tree, which is a reference to his ability to be fertile and virile. And then he says, to the eunuchs who keep my Sabbath, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I'll give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters." So the eunuch may recognize, okay, sons and daughters are not my future. God says, I will give you what is better. I will give you in my house and within my walls a monument and a name. I'll give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off." Likely a play on words there of what exactly led to the reality of the eunuch's condition. And the Lord says, but a great name will be yours. Something everlasting, something glorious, something better than what you seem to have lost. And then it says in verse six, and the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and doesn't profane it and holds fast to my covenant, these I'll bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar. For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. Doesn't that sound like the scene in the Gospels when Jesus is cleansing the temple and they, in their religious zeal and sacrificial setups, have ended up excluding the Gentiles from rightful worship because of all the coin changing and all of the tables and buying and selling? And Jesus says, my father's house is to be a house of prayer for the nations. You've made it a den of robbers. to his drawing upon Isaiah 56. In fact, Jesus has come to be the one to bring to pass this kind of reunification of peoples, that both Israelites and Gentiles, those deemed once ritually unfit, but in Christ, who's come to fulfill these signs and wonders, these sacrificial procedures, these rituals, Things take on a tone of great hope in Christ. So Isaiah 56, 8, the Lord God who gathers the outcasts of Israel declares, I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered. It's like Jesus who says, I have sheep that are not of this fold. I'm going to bring them also. So he's come for the house of Israel and he's come for the nations because the prophets said that while many in the Old Testament ceremonies and shadows of Israel's life might be excluded from various things, in Christ he's bringing them together. And that's because the representation that Jesus accomplishes transcends any and all representation they had enjoyed as Israelites. He's the great prophet. the great priest, and the great king. He is the one whose own person and work has accomplished a work of atonement and cleansing that has made people whole. In other words, Jesus has come to give to sinners what we, in our own sinful corruption, would certainly be disqualified from, and that is disqualified from the mercies of God and the presence of God, drawing near to God to a throne of grace. Christ says, you are coming to this through me. I'm the way and the truth and the life. So the outcasts and the eunuchs and the foreigners and the Israelites, they all come to the one shepherd and the one people of God. And this is really good news because we might read of these external imperfections in Deuteronomy 23, and we're reminded that we are all blemished because of sin. We are all marked and stained by the corruption and depravity of our nature in Adam. So what is our hope? Because we don't possess merely physical flaws. We have spiritual shortcomings and failures and shame. It's like the psalmist asked, who can ascend the hill of the Lord? Who's going to stand in his holy place? And the answer is, we will, by faith in Christ, the one who has come to make sinners whole, the one whose power to cleanse and pardon brings sinners into a people, though they be eunuchs and foreigners and Israelites, no matter their background, in Christ, all things are new. And so if we say, but my sin, and my failures, and my shortcomings, and my shame, how is it that I shall approach the presence of the Lord? And the answer is, the perfect righteousness of Christ. You don't find yourself in some situation where you've managed to deal with your own blemishes and now you have taken your shortcomings and you've compensated for them and now, now I have fitted myself to approach. The message of the gospel is only Christ can ascend the hill of the Lord and so by faith in him we shall as well. The follower of Jesus stands before God in the righteousness of Christ. clothed in His perfection, with His wholeness counted to us. And so we see Deuteronomy 23 and we think, there's so much disconnection and disjointedness in the lives and conditions of these people that has kept them away. So much history and so many shortcomings. What is it that will make things new? Because in this old covenant, these barriers and these boundaries seem drawn so hard and strong. And the answer is not merely a revamping of the old covenant, but a new one, a new covenant where all come to God in the righteousness of Christ alone. And that by faith in Christ, his righteousness counted to us means we stand in a union with Christ where it's not our imperfections that are on display. It's rather the son of God's perfection and atoning work that is on display. We come in his name, clothed in his perfect righteousness. Let's pray.