Deuteronomy chapter 22 We'll just read the first four verses again for now. Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them. Thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, Then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again. In like manner shalt thou do with his ass, and so shalt thou do with his raiment, and with all lost thing of thy brother's which he hath lost, and thou hast found. Thou shalt do likewise. Thou mayst not hide thyself. Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and hide thyself from them. Thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again. Amen. Thus far we read the Word of God in Deuteronomy 22. Our theme this evening can be summed up as some specifics of loving our neighbour. some specifics of loving our neighbour. It is a feature of Pharisaism to make specific rules where scripture does not and sadly many who would be classed as fundamentalists have fallen into that trap and ended up with holiness being defined as a set of external prohibitions only, some of them biblical and some of them not biblical. No doubt by that method the idea that we can be perfectly sanctified in this life is given an opening because if holiness simply consists in certain external regulations and perhaps some of them not even biblical anyway, then it is attainable. But if holiness consists of loving God with all our heart, in our thoughts and our words and our actions, in any and every situation, then of course we realize that we still fall short. On the other hand, we may not so internalize the law of God as if it does not come to concrete application in specific circumstances. And this passage deals with some of the specifics of our duty to God. not because we can earn salvation through trying to keep God's law, but because those who are redeemed by Christ have within them a desire to honour the Lord in the whole of their lives. And so this is giving some specifics, specifics to do with the internal life of Israel. We've had many many commandments already, many of them dealing with God's worship or with the people, peoples around them, their dealings with the pagan nations and so on. But these are dealing with loving our neighbour and especially those who belong to the Church of God, because this relates to life within Israel, the Church of God, in the Old Testament. First of all then, sins of omission toward our neighbor. Sins of omission toward our neighbor. In these first four verses. First of all, we're not to turn a blind eye. Verse 1, Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray and hide thyself from them. Thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. We're not to behave as if we hadn't noticed. Here the brother's ox or sheep has gone astray and pretends that it's nothing to do with him and pretends as if he hasn't noticed. We're not to make excuses, verse 2, and if thy brother be not nigh unto thee Or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again. Don't say, well, he's a long way away. Keep it until he comes seeking it. Or don't say, well, I don't know who it belongs to, so it's nothing to do with me. Keep it, and then it will become apparent, and you can give it to the rightful owner. And we mustn't say it doesn't apply to the particular item in view. If we see verse 3, In like manner shalt thou do with his ass, and so shalt thou do with his raiment, and with all lost thing of thy brothers which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise, thou mayst not hide thyself. Whatever we find that belongs to somebody else, we're not to say, well, it's not a sheep, it's not an ass, therefore we'll do what we like with it. We're to keep it and return it if we know who it belongs to, or keep it till the owner finds us. And then, don't say it's getting too complicated. Verse 4, Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them. Thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again. Here, perhaps the owner's there, but the ass or ox falls down by the way, or falls into a ditch. He's struggling to get it out. Well, don't say, I don't want to get involved. You have to help. the other person. In Exodus 23, we'll see how far this extends. Exodus 23 and verse 4 and 5. If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that aided thee lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. So loving our enemies is not something that only occurs in the New Testament, as if the law of God were somehow imperfect in the Old Testament and the New Testament changes it. Certainly the New Testament opens up the law of God, but it was there already that we are to love our enemies. So when our neighbor is our enemy, we're still to love our neighbor. Loving our neighbor as ourselves means helping them as we would like to be helped by them. It won't do just to say, I haven't done them any harm. If they are in need, we are obliged to help them. Otherwise we sin against God. when we do not do what it is in our power to do for them. Secondly, gender distinctiveness in dress. Gender distinctiveness in dress. Verse 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment. For all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. Gender distinctiveness in dress. We live in a society that is seeking to obliterate all divinely appointed gender distinctiveness. Not in the sense that anyone is yet denying that there is a distinction between man and woman, but denying all that is distinctive of the one over against the other. In society, in the home, And even large sections of the professing church have conceded to this tendency. Even in the sexual realm, with the open defense and propagation of homosexuality, and that such homosexual couples should even adopt children, there is this determination to obliterate all distinctiveness between male and female in practice. In practice. Yes, it's acknowledged there are men and there are women, but in practice the attempt is to level out the two and under the heading of equality blot out all distinctiveness of role and function. Now the realm of dress has not escaped this tendency to refuse any fixed distinction and so we ought therefore to be on the alert. We're living in a society that is trying to undermine distinctive male, female, anything that is distinctively male or distinctively female. So we ought, therefore, to be alert. What is specifically condemned here is cross-dressing or transvestitism. That is an abomination to the Lord and should be held in abhorrence by the Lord's people. Transvestiteism, a man dressing as a woman or a woman dressing as a man ought to be something that is abhorrent to the people of God. A question often discussed among Christians in relation to this verse is whether a woman wearing trousers is a violation of this commandment. Perhaps that's the one issue that is often discussed in relation to this particular verse or else this particular verse is brought into discussion on that subject. We give our judgment as follows. Firstly, we are not here dealing with modesty. Skin tight jeans are indecent and that's a separate issue, but skin tight jeans are indecent. There's no question about that. Secondly, historically, trousers have always been a male garment, no doubt because they concede more visibly to the outward form of the body than a decent length of skirt. And for that reason, because man is more affected by the visual than woman is as a general rule than trousers when they did come into general usage they were a male garment. Nevertheless, thirdly, it has to be acknowledged that what constitutes that which pertaineth to a man or what constitutes a woman's clothing is subject to change according to time and place. Psalm 133 speaks of the skirts of Aaron's garments and of course in biblical times men did wear flowing garments whereas a skirt of any kind is generally regarded as a female garment by us today. We cannot therefore simply say that this text condemns women wearing trousers, as if it were a moral absolute that no woman could ever wear trousers without being guilty of transvestiteism. And of course, in some Eastern countries, women have long worn trousers, albeit under a tunic. So there is cultural variation. Sometimes people use the argument from culture to undermine things in scripture that are permanent and are based on the created order. But in this case, scripture does not tell us specifically what is a male garment and what is a female garment. Fourthly, it is also true that in certain particular circumstances women wearing loose trousers can be more modest in particular circumstances and in other circumstances it is certainly safer for a woman to wear trousers around machinery and so on. In fact, I think it was in the munitions factory during the war that the practice became more common. So in that case it is safer. Preserving our own life is required in the 6th commandment. Modesty is required in the 7th commandment. These are fixed moral requirements and they take priority over what is variable. such as what constitutes male or female dress in a particular time and place. We judge, therefore, that except where safety or modesty are better served by wearing trousers, that where that is not the case, then better to keep the gender distinctiveness clear and men wear trousers women wear a dress or skirt. So where there is no safety or modesty element then keep male-female dress as distinctive as possible. So this verse impacts on the question of women wearing trousers only indirectly It condemns deliberate cross-dressing, but it implies that, where moral factors do not require otherwise, we should keep male and female distinctiveness as clear as possible, even in dress. Thirdly, animal cruelty condemned. Animal cruelty condemned. Verse 6. If a bird's nest chanced to be before thee in the way, in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young, but thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. They could take the eggs but not the mother at the same time. It's not always easy to exactly work out the reason for some of these commandments but it seems here that there is first of all a restraint on cruelty even to animals and secondly to ensure the continuing bird population necessary to keep what we call the balance of nature correct to keep the bird population in reasonable numbers which in turn would keep in check the population of snakes and so on. So the avoidance of cruelty and the maintaining of natural balance. But animal cruelty is condemned in scripture. We live in a society, of course, which tends to overstate this. And the reason for that is because of a tendency to see man as simply an advanced animal. And once the theory of evolution turns toward that conclusion and So if man is simply an advanced form of animal, then the standard for treatment of animals becomes as big an issue as how man treats his fellow man. And we've seen that come about in various ways. But nevertheless, even though the distinction in the word of God between man and the animals is clear. Man is made in the image of God. Man has a soul. Man will never cease to exist. None of that is true of the animals, yet nonetheless, because they are creatures of God, though they are to be employed to serve man's interests, yet wanton and purposeless cruelty is A wise man is kind unto his beast. 4 Legitimate health and safety. Legitimate health and safety. Verse 8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. The Israelites were to live in dependence on God, on the providence of God. But they were not to be careless about danger. And therefore, they were to have a wall or railings round the flat roofs of their houses. Their roofs could be walked on, they were flat. But there was to be something around the outside. They were responsible We cannot, because we depend upon God and acknowledge His providence over all things, it is an abuse of that truth, that glorious truth, to therefore abdicate our responsibility. Exodus 21 and verse 28 If an ox gore a man or a woman that they die, then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wound to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman, The ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. So if an ox was known to be dangerous, and a man did nothing about it, and the ox gored someone and killed them, he was held accountable for that. Neglect of obvious safety precautions is a breach of the Sixth Commandment. True in these days of the nanny state as it's called, there is a tendency to have a great welter of regulations that go far beyond the obvious and it becomes a burden as if to put man in the place of God as if he can so regulate and regulate and regulate that all danger will be taken away and man is not dependent anymore on the providence of God. Well of course man isn't that clever and there is no way that men can remove all risk There is no such thing as a risk-free life, taking risk from our point of view. We do have to depend upon the good pleasure of God. Nevertheless, willfully exposing to obvious danger is sinful. Fifthly, distinctiveness maintained. Distinctiveness maintained, verse 9. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds, lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woolen and linen together. Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself. The avoidance of certain mixtures was a ceremonial reminder of the fact that God distinguishes between sin and righteousness. You remember with the dietary laws that as the church passed into the New Testament, Peter when he saw the vision in Acts 10 of the of the animals lowered and was told, arise, slay and eat. Not so, Lord, for I have not eaten that which is common or unclean. And then he was told not to call it common or unclean. And that was showing that the Gentiles were now to be brought into the church. But in the Old Testament, the temporary ceremonial laws were to impress upon the people the distinction that God always makes between sin and righteousness, and that the people of God were to be holy and separate from the world. Now they still are, but Neither the ceremonial picture of their separateness continues, nor the national boundary of the church continues. But the church of God is still to be a holy people to the Lord. But these were to be reminders, these different ways in which they were not to mix things, showing them that sin and holiness are distinct and that they were to be a holy people, that they were not to merge in and to fit in with the pagan world. And the fringes were most likely to act as a reminder of who they were and that their lives at every turn were to be kept holy to the Lord. In Numbers 15, And verse 38, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribbon of blue. And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them, and that ye seek not after your own heart, and your own eyes, after which you used to go a-whoring, that ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God." So the fringe was to act as a constant reminder, they were the Lords, they must be holy unto the Lord. Sixthly, the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of marriage, and this from verse 13 right on to the end of the chapter. First of all in verse 13 to 21, exposure of the immoral and defense of the chaste. Here the situation is that the man has taken a wife and he claims that when he seeks to consummate the marriage that it transpires that the girl was not a virgin. Now it must be remembered throughout this passage that betrothal was taken and treated as legally binding and therefore for someone who was betrothed to behave immorally with someone other than the person they were betrothed to was treated as adultery. We must keep that in mind. So if the new husband accuses his wife of not having kept herself pure morally until she was married, the matter was to be resolved. Either it was true or it was false. If it turned out to be false, and perhaps was just an excuse to try and dissolve the marriage, then the man had to be chastised, that is beaten, he had to pay the father 100 shekels, and he had to keep his new wife as his wife for life. On the other hand, if she is guilty, then she is to be treated as an adulteress and cut off from the Church of God by death. We've said many times that whereas the death penalty for murder is a standing civil sanction that some of the capital offences in the Old Testament are not punishable by death on a purely civil basis. Israel was the church as well as the state and therefore the purity of the church was maintained by an irreversible excommunication that is by death in the Old Testament. So that not everything punishable by death automatically carries over into the New Testament and is the duty of a Christian government. But, nevertheless, this does teach us that adultery must be disciplined. It must be a matter of discipline in the Church of God. It cannot be overlooked. It cannot ever be ignored. Verse 22 simply deals with the matter of adultery. If a man be found lying with a woman, married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman. So shalt thou put away evil from Israel." And fornication is likewise, if of a betrothed person, is likewise a capital offense. But where rape takes place, then the guilty man is to be put to death. but the victim is blameless. Verse 23, If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her, then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die. The damsel because she cried not being in the city, and the man because he had humbled his neighbor's wife. So thou shalt put away evil from among you. So in the city it is assumed that the girl, if she were being violated, could cry out and summon help. Whereas in the field, as you see from the verses which follow, it is assumed that she could not make herself heard. The point is that they were to consider whether it was a case of joint adultery or of rape. If it was joint adultery, that is by betrothed people, then both were to be punished. If it was rape, then the man was to be punished and not the woman. And it's giving the example of in the city and in the field to illustrate the point that in the one case there is evident guilt on the part of both in the other there is not. Then dealing with fornication outside of marriage verse 28 if a man find a damsel that is a virgin which is not betrothed and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. This is talking about a man and a woman who are not married and not betrothed, so they are neither legally nor actually married, and in that case the man must offer to marry the woman. In Exodus 23 it becomes clear that the woman, or rather her father, can refuse to give her in marriage. Exodus 23 and verse 16. So Exodus 22 and verse 16. And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. But the man must offer to marry the girl. Then incest in verse 30, a man shall not take his father's wife nor discover his father's skirt. This particular form of incest heads the list in Leviticus 18 where various other prohibited degrees of affinity, marriage and those degrees is prohibited. Leviticus 18 verse 6, None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness. I am the Lord. The nakedness of thy father or the nakedness of thy mother shalt thou not uncover. She is thy mother. Thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover it is thy father's nakedness. And then it goes on to various other instances of incest. No doubt this one is put here as a reminder of all the others that the Lord is reminding in this exhortation to conform to his word. He's giving the first example in order to remind them of all the rest. So a man was not to take his father's wife and that's true even if his father was dead. So in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 1, this particular form of immorality is a scandal in the church. 1 Corinthians 5 and verse 1. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles that one should have his father's wealth. And the apostle admonishes the church to exercise discipline in that case. Well now, these are not easy verses. And were we not committed to expounding the whole Bible, probably there are verses that we would be tempted to avoid. But they're part of the Word of God and therefore we must not be ashamed of them. The whole Word of God is given for our benefit. What can we learn overall? We learn the specifics. And there are moral principles here. Yes, there are some ceremonial, temporary regulations, the mixture of cloths and so on. But there are moral principles. Is that it? Well, that's important because so many situations arise where we need to know what the Word of God teaches. So we do need specific instruction as to what the law of God requires in the array of situations with which we are confronted. So that's important. But the overall thing that is taught here is that of God's rights over man. God's rights over man in relation to property, in relation to gender, in relation to dress in relation to safety, in relation to marriage. God has the right to tell us, to tell us what to do with our property, how to dress, how to look after ourselves, how to safeguard marriage. what marriage is defined by God everything under God only the unregenerate rebellious heart will find such a concept stifling the unregenerate will find this stifling that God tells us what to do with what we own. That God tells us what marriage is and how it's to be safeguarded. That God tells us how we should dress. But those who are redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ are bought with a price. and to them his commandments are not grievous. Don't we want to know what we should do with our property? Don't we want to know what constitutes valid or invalid marriage? Don't we want to know what to do with those things which God gives us? Don't we want to have our lives in submission to the kingship of the Lord Jesus Christ. We love him, don't we? And so we want to know how to live to his glory and praise. We live in a generation that is so wise in its own eyes that it can make up a mass of regulation that God's word never requires, it can redefine marriage, obliterate gender role distinctions and can build a utopia in this world without God. This of course is a complete delusion. And in certain respects it's becoming rather obviously so at the present time. We depend upon God. Those who are his people want to be told by God. How shall we then live? How shall we show forth the praises? of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvellous light. To the ungodly this is bondage. To those who've been made free, sin is bondage. You see, the ungodly have never been where we are. We may remember a time when we were where they are, but they have never been where we are. They've never loved God. Until someone is born of the Spirit, they haven't the slightest ounce of love to God in them. But those who have tasted and seen that the Lord is good, as newborn babes they desire the sincere milk of the Word, that they may grow thereby.