Likely this will be a shorter study. It's a pretty cut and dry passage, pretty clear. Chapter 22, we're looking at verses 5 to 15, the larger section. Laws concerning property damage and theft. So, first, in this book of the covenant, we saw the laws concerning servants, and then the laws concerning homicide and bodily injury, that was in chapter 21, 12 to 32, and then the laws concerning property, beginning in chapter 21 at verse 33 and continuing to chapter 22 at verse 15. So I want to read 22, 1 to 15, and then we'll look in detail at 5 to 15. So if a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five ox and four an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double. If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard. If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man's house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor's goods. For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges, and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, then an oath of the Lord shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor's goods, and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good. But if in fact it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn. And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. If its owner was with it, he shall not make it good. For it was hired, it came for its hire. Amen. Well, just sort of an overview. Remember in chapter 20, you have the Decalogue of the Ten Words or Ten Commandments, General Principles, the Moral Law of God. On the heels of that, you see in chapter 21 at verse 1, now these are the judgments which you shall set before them. And that governs all that follows. This is called the Book of the Covenant, chapters 21 to 24. 21 to 23, specifically dealing with law or the application. of God's law in civil society, and chapter 24 is the ratification of the Old Covenant. Now, this deals with what we typically call the judicial law. And the Confession of Faith says, concerning the judicial law, to them also, as a body politic, talking about the nation of Israel, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require. So since the Commonwealth of Israel is no longer, the theocratic nation no longer exists, there's not that sort of a place or a people group that is in direct contact or governed by God in terms of a theocratic regime. What we have is general equity. So whatever the equity principle is involved in these particular laws, they are useful and applicable to us in this new covenant setting. Now, as I said, you've got laws dealing with homicide and bodily injury that the Bible takes, obviously the sixth commandment, and applies that in terms of society. When we come to these laws concerning property, it's the eighth commandment, and it applies that in terms of life in the body politic. Here in chapter 22, specifically in verses 5 to 15, you'll notice that the emphasis is upon negligence. People that are negligent are oftentimes sanctioned, or should be sanctioned, within the body politics. So negligence is a costly business. The call by God, in terms of responsible citizenship, is responsibility. You're supposed to give, or you're supposed to rather deal with people in a responsible, functional way. And so the law is there for the judges to interpret. Remember, it doesn't deal with every specific eventuality that may arise, but it deals with some of the more common things, and then this would serve as a code for the judges to investigate in individual cases and then apply as they see fit. Now, in our passage, when it refers to judges, the text literally says, God. It's the plural form Elohim, and oftentimes, or at least sometimes, you see that applied to earthly judges. In Psalm 82, for instance, you see that application, that God is in the congregation of the gods, or of the Elohim. And so the emphasis is, is that God is present when it comes to jurisprudence. And it made me think about 1 Timothy 2, where we have the call by Paul to the church to pray for civil government. We know in Romans 13 that civil government is there because of the direct imposition of God. There is no authority except from God. Remember reading Calvin, who said on 1 Timothy 2 that bad magistrates are a reflection of God's judgment upon a body politic. And as I reflected upon this particular section, yeah, the Lord God was with the King of Israel to be sure, but this is a very conspicuous emphasis that He's with the judges. And so if we have a corrupt bench, or we have a lawless bench, or a bench that is partisan in nature, I would suspect that that in turn is a judgment from God Most High. It's probably not something that we think about a lot, but we should think about it. We should think about the reality that bad judges affect the body politic in a very negative way. And so as we look at this particular passage, we'll see that emphasis of judges in terms of rendering verdict with reference to property dispute. So as we look at these laws concerning negligence, we'll notice first the grazing animal in verse 5, secondly the blazing fire in verse 6, and then finally the irresponsible neighbor in verses 7 to 15. Now notice first the grazing animal. The problem is pretty simple. If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed, he might have his own field, he has his own animal, and he wants him to graze, but he lets lose his animal and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution, notice, from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard. So the owner of an animal lets his animal loose in order to graze in his own field. The owner of an animal lets his animal loose and it escapes his field and goes into the neighboring farm or into the neighboring field. So obviously the owner of the animal was negligent. Now the commentator, one of the commentators that I use by the name of Stuart, a modern, makes the observation that wood was so rare and expensive in ancient Israel that using it for a fence was virtually out of the question. When Solomon comes to build the temple, we know he has to appeal to the king of Tyre for supplies. So when it comes to the sorts of fences and the sorts of elaborate ways that we have to pen up animals, they didn't have that in this particular time frame. So it really was incumbent upon the owner to be diligent and vigilant when it came to his own grazing animal. Stone walls, he says, also were used to confine animals, but even so, the barriers readily available to Old Testament-era farmers were of limited strength. A farmer with grazing animals had to be vigilant, and animals generally had to be tethered, even in well-bounded fields. At night, or in cases of a large animal known to be dangerous, They were confined either to courtyards or to strong pens. We see that in the section previous to this. Notice in chapter 21 at verse 29. If the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined. Same thing down in verse 36, "...or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined." So it was, again, incumbent upon that owner to make sure that his either dangerous animal or his hungry animal did not go wandering around the countryside either goring innocent parties or eating food of other innocent parties. And so the sanction is clear. He shall make restitution, and the restitution must be an equal amount to what was eaten or trampled or otherwise ruined. The lex talionis, certainly it's a law of retaliation, but the principle holds. The punishment must fit the crime. If my animal goes and grazes in your field, I'm responsible or I'm on the hook for whatever it is he ate, whatever he damaged, whatever he trampled, whatever he ruined, I'm on the hook for. But then notice it says from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard. So it's not just the case that it's an equal payout, but it has to be the best from his particular abundance. And again, Stewart makes the observation. A farmer knew that if he were neglectful in the manner described in this law, he would lose not merely a certain amount of grain or fruit, the quality factor serving as a serious deterrent in addition to the quantity factor. Remember, laws oftentimes are written not only for the punishment of the guilty, but for the deterrent factor. This wasn't, you know, to be kept in Moses' back pocket and, you know, just a handful of the judges. This was read. This was made known. Remember, when we get to chapter 24, this book of the covenant is read to the people of Israel, and they swear fidelity to Yahweh. All that the Lord has commanded, we will do. So it wasn't a secret, it wasn't sort of put away, it was published so that the body politic knew how to function in these common goings-on within the agrarian community that they found themselves at. Now notice, secondly, the blazing fire. Similar, same sort of an emphasis. Verse 6, if fire breaks out and catches in thorns, So that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution, most likely from the best of his, if we are to see balance between verses 5 and 6. So the owner of a field has a fire, the owner of the field lets the fire get out of control, or somebody sets the fire, and the owner of the field is ultimately negligent. So again, same principle, the same application of the law, and it's obvious to us. When we come to this, you know, clause in the confession concerning general equity, now most likely this isn't going to happen, you know, in the exact same way for you and I. You could see application in terms of, you know, any kind of property damage, any sorts of things wherein we're negligent, or we run the risk of of damaging somebody's property. And so this sort of stuff was there or available for the judges so that they could render verdict in these matters. Now, next we come to the irresponsible neighbor. There's a lot going on in verses 7 to 15. In the first place, you have straightforward theft. So verse 7, if a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man's house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. So that's very straightforward. It repeats what we've already seen in verse 4. Notice in verse 4, "...if the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double." So the idea is that I have property, I have something, and I deliver it over to my neighbor for safekeeping. While it's under my neighbor's care, somebody steals it from him. Well, if somebody that stole it from him is found out, then it's a straightforward double payment for the thing that had been stolen. Now, verses 8 and 9 deal with the dispute concerning stolen property. Again, it gets a little bit trickier when the thief is not found. When the thief is not found, then we've got a bit of a difficulty, because the guy who was entrusted with the stuff Could have made this up. Well, yeah, your stuff was stolen and it really wasn't and it's actually stolen by him. So those are the kinds of things, again, God knows the heart of man and he regulates at the level or at the point where men are typically, you know, prone to wander and prone to leave the God they're supposed to fear. And so the law speaks to those particularities with clarity, again, to aid and assist the body politic so they're able to deal with the various things that affect them in a day-to-day basis. So notice, with reference to verses 8 and 9, Still we have this, if a man, verse seven, delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and then in verse eight, if the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor's goods. So, at that point, again, it's no witnesses, it's one man's testimony against another, you entrust your stuff to your friend or your neighbor, and he says, oh, your stuff was stolen. Now, in a normal world where there wasn't sin and there wasn't a fallen character, you'd believe that. But probably, you know, 8 out of 10, 7 out of 10 times we'd say, really? My stuff was stolen? You sure? And so the judges need to be involved at this particular place. Now if you turn to 1 Kings 8, at the dedication of the temple, Solomon makes these Godward petitions, and one of the things that he says with reference to God and the body politic is that God will be present in the midst of the children of Israel at the level of jurisprudence. So in 1 Kings 8 at verse 31, when anyone sins against his neighbor and is forced to take an oath, and comes and takes an oath before your altar in this temple, then hear in heaven, and act, and judge your servants, condemning the wicked, bringing his way on his head, and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness. Again, as we move our way through the Old Testament, you'll see an emphasis on justice. You'll see an emphasis on righteousness. You'll see an emphasis on equity. And not equity the way the commies are using it today, equity the way that God uses it. An equal justice under the law for all persons, whatever their situation, whatever their station is. And it really is conspicuous, as you move through the Old Testament, the emphasis on justice, matters of righteousness, matters of things or matters of details with reference to civil society that in many ways we've lost sight of. I mean, we don't even expect the punishment of criminals. We don't even expect the sanction of criminals. We're surprised anymore. I was surprised today that that man that ran the people over in that Christmas parade in Wisconsin, he was found guilty on all charges. I mean, I rejoice. Praise God. And that's Solomon's pride to God. is that when there is a criminal or a civil case, may God render judgment through the instrumentality of those earthly judges. God is present. God is with us. God does concern himself with the widow, with the orphan, with the downtrodden, with the poor. God really is about those things in society. So going back to our passage in Exodus 22, verse 8, Now, with reference to the judge, this would probably be a difficulty in and of itself, right? I mean, if I'm going to entrust to my neighbor my high-valued items, it's probably gonna be a neighbor I like. It's probably a neighbor that's my friend. It's probably a neighbor that I'm close to. So Stewart makes the observation, one of the most difficult challenges for any judge or arbiter is deciding between claims and counterclaims made by people who are supposed to be friends. So when it comes to these things, it was real concrete situations. And this does not deal with every potential situation, but it gives the judges a frame of reference. It gives the people a frame of reference to be able to sort out how they deal with their various issues in civil society. Now notice in verse 9, you have the intervention of judges in property disputes. For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges, and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. So when we get later on in the Pentateuchal sort of legislation, Deuteronomy 19, I pointed out before, law concerning witnesses, if I say you did something wrong and we both go appear before the judge and it turns out I'm a false witness, then I'm liable to the punishment that you would have received. So when we look through these laws, we see wisdom inculcated, we see safeguards implemented, again, not foolproof, there's always an exception to the rule, there's always the odd occasion, there's always the thing where, you know, we don't really have any concrete explicit information or data, but for the most part, there is enough information given to be able to cover the garden variety things that we'll obtain in civil society. Now, dropping down to verses 10 to 13, we have the loss of an animal. The loss of an animal. So in verses 10 to 13, we have the same sort of a situation where one man, the owner of an animal, entrusts his animal to the care of his neighbor. And verses 10 to 13 deal with any issues or problems that may arise in that particular transaction. Now remember that there's responsibility inculcated not only on the part of the owner who's entrusting his neighbor with that property, but there's responsibility on the part of the neighbor to receive that property. The neighbor had the wherewithal to be able to say, you know what, I'm not up to the task. I personally don't like to borrow stuff. Typically, when I borrow stuff, it breaks. And so therefore, I don't want to borrow it because it breaks. I remember one time I borrowed a lawnmower from a deacon way back when and it broke. And under God, I managed to fix a lawnmower. I doubt my beloved even remembers that. It was an amazing thing. It was like God gave me wisdom and grace to fix a mower. That was my claim to fame. But for the most part, As a person who understands these sorts of things, I'm not typically inclined to borrow stuff because of that very reason. So it's not a matter of responsibility simply for one wanting to, you know, have somebody borrow his or watch over his goods. It's also a responsibility on the part of the person receiving those goods as well. And if they're not up to the task, they can say no. They can decline. There's no law saying, thou must receive and safeguard any property that is your neighbor's. You're free to choose whether or not to do this. So the assumption is that an owner has property, or an animal specifically, and he wants his neighbor to look after it. Notice the various ways that that animal could be lost. Verse 10. It says, "...if a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep..." Notice the three potential problems that can occur. It dies, is hurt, or driven away. Now, the driven away, typically persons would think, well, that means it was stolen. Well, verse 7 already kind of deals with stolen property. It could be that it was driven away by a predator. It could be that it was driven away by an animal that came to kill it, eat it, and take it away. So, one of three ways for this animal to be lost. So again, you're a person, you're a neighbor, you've heard the law, and you know that if this animal dies, if this animal is injured, or if this animal is driven away, and I don't have a witness, then I can be on the hook to replace that animal. Now, in an affluent society like ours, where even poor people are, you know, portly, we don't really understand some of these things, because when it comes to this, these people were a lot more limited in terms of resources. I'll just fetch one of my many cows out of my flock. No, you just didn't have that. So there had to be responsible ownership and responsible stewardship on the part of the body politic. So three potential ways for this to go sideways. So it dies, it's hurt, or it's driven away, and then no one seeing it. That just complicates the matter. That compounds the difficulty. If there's a witness, well then certainly we pony up the witness and we've got testimony and we can deal with it that way. So we've got this particular situation, the loss of an animal. Notice the recourse, so the redress. That's verse 11. Then an oath of the Lord shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor's goods, and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good. Now brethren, that underscores something about this oath of the Lord. Now coming out of the Decalogue, it should resonate with us because there's two commandments that speak specifically to this. Notice in chapter 20 at verse 7. Chapter 20 at verse 7, you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. And then over at verse 16, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. So this whole idea of swearing before Yahweh in Old Covenant Israel was a matter of great importance. And so you are not to take this lightly. The fact that the legislation will address blasphemy under this old covenant setting or, you know, capital punishment for the crime of blasphemy would have certainly given more seriousness to this oath swearing in terms of this particular dispute. So, again, Stuart says, persons must simply accept that the person taking the oath was telling the truth and leave the matter at that. Now, that would take grace, it would take commitment to God, it would take commitment to the goodness or to the well-being of the body politic, ultimately, at least at the surface level, but fundamentally or foundationally, it would underscore that you don't swear before Yahweh unless you mean it. And so that's a pretty powerful statement there. Now in verse 12, notice that there was in fact theft. But if in fact it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. Now there's a bit of a difference. In verse 7, remember the animal is stolen, the thief is found, and then the thief has to pay back double. Verse 8, there's no way to really know, so the judges render verdict in this particular episode. But in verse 12, if in fact it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. If you look at verse 13, if the animal is destroyed or it's gotten by a predator, the guy who's holding the animal isn't on the hook. So what's the difference with verse 8 and verse 13? Again, I'm going to lean on Stuart here. He says, verse 12, on the other hand, applies a standard that goes beyond the simple question of the innocence of the neighbor. Taking in an animal for safekeeping imposed a solemn responsibility on a person that required the person to preserve the animal from unobserved theft or pay restitution. Again, you knew this going into the situation. One who agreed to keep an animal for another person for a time implicitly accepted this risk. The question might well be asked, but since verse 13 exonerates the safekeeper from penalty if the animal could be proved to have been killed by a predator, why should the safekeeper be required to pay compensation for an animal that was stolen? The theft was no more his fault than the killing by the predator. I think what he says here is bang on. He says, the answer lies in the provability. Only if the thief was caught was the safekeeper innocent, verse 7. Otherwise, he could not prove that a theft had occurred and thus presumptively was considered personally responsible for the loss of the animal. Claiming that it must have been stolen was no defense under the law. I think that's pretty perceptive, and I think that makes good sense out of what we find, what on the one hand, verse 12, he's on the hook for this stolen animal. Verse 13, he's not on the hook for the destroyed animal. Well again, provability. And when we look at verse 13, there is provability in terms of an animal that was struck by, or that was got by a predator. If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn. So again, when you look at verses 10 to 13, we might be inclined to say, well, that doesn't seem fair. It is fair. It's law. It's published. Persons know. And if you are a safekeeper that agrees to the terms involved, well then, by all means, you are liable should that animal be stolen. You can't prove, and therefore, you're on the hook. So with verse 13, typically the evidence would be the remains, whatever the predator might have left behind in terms of the animal. But if there was no remains left behind, probably a witness in the area that said, oh yeah, I saw an animal. I just saw recently Washington State is being overrun by bears. The lefties don't want you to hunt, they don't want you to bait bears, they don't want you to kill bears. And so guess where the bears are going to eat? They're going into people's houses. It's a bad situation going on there. So if a witness, there was no remains left, which there typically would be in terms of that, but if there wasn't, a witness said, yeah, there was a predator, there was this, there was that, there would be evidence to support your claim that yes, the animal was torn to pieces. So the man's not on the hook. for that, like he is on the hook, like he is on the hook for verse 12. And then the passage ends with the responsibility for borrowed property. Verses 14 and 15. If a man borrows anything from his neighbor and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. Again, that makes perfect sense. I borrow something from you, I break it, I destroy it, it gets stolen, I'm on the hook in terms of responsibility. You shouldn't be out anything. Now verse 15, if its owner was with it, he shall not make it good. If it was hired, it came for its hire. The assumption being is that the owner being present knows what happens. If I borrow your animal and it drops dead in the field and you're not there, well, I'm on the hook. But if I'm borrowing your animal and it drops dead in the field and you're right there to witness it, I'm not on the hook. There's no possibility that there was foul play. There's no possibility that I killed it and then said, oh, it just happened to drop dead in the field. So those are, you know, again, very straightforward in terms of the principle at play. If you are responsible or if you are negligent, then you are either blessed or you are sanctioned. necessarily criminal in nature, just like today we have fines or we have penalties applied that aren't necessarily for criminal activity, but it's to dissuade persons from engaging in irresponsible behavior. If more persons were punished for the sorts of things that they do in an irresponsible manner, that would dissuade them, and then if that information got out to the body politic at large, then perhaps others would try and be a bit more responsible in the way that they conduct themselves. You can turn to Ecclesiastes 8, a passage that I have pointed us to before, and one of the things that I think is symptomatic of our present age, Ecclesiastes 8.11, because the sentence against an evil work, now this is a criminal, you know, a crime for sure, but I think the principle carries over, because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. If there are no consequences, then people typically do the same things again. When people do things and they are never dealt with for those things, then we can expect that behavior. We're mostly all parents here. You've seen this principle fleshed out in the lives of your children. If you don't try to curb their rebellious attitudes, if you don't try to stop them or sanction them in their sinful behavior, do they get better? Do they get good? Do they grow in their holiness and happiness? Not usually. They go the opposite way or they get hardened in that particular rebellion. And so when it comes to the law of God, the modern claim is that, oh, this Old Testament is so barbaric. No, I would suggest the way we conduct ourselves is barbaric versus the application of law that applies to all men equally, and that there is that reality that if you get out of line, Again, if it's criminal, you should be punished by the civil state. But if it's negligence, you should have to pay. You should be dissuaded. You should be taught by the pocketbook, by whatever penalty, that you ought not to be an irresponsible person in society. So in conclusion, neglect costs. Neglect should cost. If you are a neglectful person, then you're going to have to pay. As well, we see in the body politic the necessity for responsibility. And I think as parents, as grandparents, we try to inculcate these principles in our children. If they have this, versus what we see in the world around us, they're going to own every company. They should be in every political office. If they show up at work on time, if they can chew gum and walk, they're probably going to do a whole lot better than most of the people or a lot of the people that we're seeing today. So teach your children that neglect is costly, that responsibility is a necessity, and as well that there is potential risk in life. So if you are the borrower, you're making a risk analysis. You know, it may die, it may get stolen, it may break, and I may be on the hook for that, but I'm willing to take that risk in order to utilize that piece of equipment. Risk is a necessary part of life, and we have to be able to assess it. We need to be able to make sure that we can handle, if we do go south, or we do end up wrong, or we do end up compromised, we need to be able to pay for it or deal with it in a responsible manner. And then finally, I would suggest, with reference to the use of the judges here, when you look at the book of Deuteronomy, you see the appointment of local judges. You can turn to Deuteronomy chapter 16. And just so we can see that this was a vital part of life in Old Covenant Israel. Deuteronomy 16, 18, you shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the Lord your God gives you according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just. that you may live and inherit the land which the Lord your God is giving you." Again, the law itself does not ensure or make sure that every single judge effectively does his job. But there needs to be this emphasis in the body politic that we are to have sober persons, wise persons, persons that aren't bought off, persons that can't be bought off, and persons that will render just judgment. If you turn to Deuteronomy chapter 17, you see the function of a higher court. So that would be local court level, Deuteronomy 16. But if you notice Deuteronomy 17 at verse 8, if a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another. See, all this stuff is there. We talk about murder in the first degree, second degree murder, we have voluntary, involuntary manslaughter. Do you think the Western world just made that stuff up? They're working in the context of this biblical revelation. So if a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, there are degrees of guilt for bloodshed. If I accidentally run you over with my car, that's a different situation than me seeing you, flooring it, and trying to run you over because I hate you. Those are two different scenarios, degrees of guilt for bloodshed. Between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days and inquire of them. They shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the Lord chooses, and you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you. Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel and all the people shall hear and fear and no longer act presumptuously. And then one more passage, Psalm 82. As you're turning there, I hope you'll see that judges and the justice system is never to be weaponized by one political party and sicced upon their opponents. That is simply an affront to justice in terms of God and in terms of men. They're supposed to render judgment. They're supposed to be as blind men. They're supposed to hear the facts and give a verdict based on the facts. They're not supposed to let money buy them off. They're not supposed to let poverty on the part of the accused or the victim or whoever cause them to say, well, we're going to rule in his favor. No. You go based according to the facts. Psalm 82 is Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of the mighty. He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Defend the poor and fatherless. Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy. Free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know, nor do they understand. They walk about in darkness. All the foundations of the earth are unstable. I said, you are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High, but you shall die like men and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for you shall inherit all nations." Gil says, he gives the various views on the passage, and there's a view that I'm not sure he mentions where the gods are, you know, sort of almost like an angelic being, these watchers. There's some passages in the book of Daniel. I don't take it that way. I know that some good men do. I differ with them. I find myself agreeing with Gil. He says, it seems best of all to understand the words of rulers and civil magistrates, of the cabinet councils, of princes, of benches, of judges, and courts of judicature. And then he comments on verse 2, how long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Or, I'm sorry, when it says he judges among the gods at the end of verse 1. He judgeth among the gods, which the Syriac version renders angels again, and so Rabbi renders it that way, who are so-called in Psalm 8 5. But then he says, but rather civil magistrates are meant, the rulers and judges of the people. who go by the name of Elohim, or gods, and are so called because they are the powers ordained of God, are representatives of Him, are His vicegerents and deputies under Him, should act in His name according to His law and for His glory, and are clothed with great power and authority from and under Him, and therefore are before styled the mighty. So I hope that underscores for us the gravity and the nature of judging in terms of the body politic. We obviously have judges in B.C., we have judges throughout the country. I would suspect that it's probably not the case that Christians are praying on a regular basis for judges, that they would be what God calls them to be, that they would do what they're called or told to do in terms of a psalm like Psalm 82, property disputes, criminal matters, the function of the lower courts and the higher courts should be in a manner that is consistent with what we have in the will of God. Well, let us close in a word of prayer. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you for the fact that it speaks to us in this fallen condition. We know that you don't treat the world or men as if they're innocent. You legislate where we need legislation. and we rejoice in that. I pray that you would help us to see the problem of negligence, to see the necessity for responsibility in the body politic, and we do pray for judges, God. We know they wield great power, and we know very often they wield it in one particular direction, and it is a grief to us And we pray that you would be merciful, that you would move their hearts in a manner that is consistent with what you reveal in the light of nature and what's revealed in the Holy Scriptures as well. We ask now that you would go with us, help us to glorify you in the remainder of this week. Bless all of our brothers and sisters in this local church, and we pray.