Okay, you can turn in your Bibles to Deuteronomy chapter 22. As we move through various pieces of legislation applying to the community at large, civil, criminal matters. Tonight there are miscellaneous laws in the first half, verses 1 to 12, and then laws concerning sexual morality. or immorality in verses 13 to 30. So I'll read the chapter and then we'll look at it in some detail.
So beginning in chapter 22 at verse one, you shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep going astray and hide yourself from them. You shall certainly bring them back to your brother. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it. Then you shall restore it to him.
You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment, with any lost thing of your brother's, which he has lost and you have found. You shall do likewise. You must not hide yourself. You shall not see your brother's donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them. you shall surely help him lift them up again.
A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God. If a bird's nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. You shall surely let the mother go and take the young for yourself. that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days. When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.
You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled. You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together. You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.
If any man takes a wife and goes into her and detests her and charges her with shameful conduct and brings a bad name on her and says, I took this woman. When I came to her, I found she was not a virgin. Then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her.
Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, I found your daughter was not a virgin. And yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him.
And they shall fine him 100 shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He cannot divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house.
And the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you. If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die, the man that lay with the woman and the woman. So you shall put away the evil from Israel.
If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife. So you shall put away the evil from among you. But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman.
There is in the young woman no sin deserving of death. For just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father 50 shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her.
He shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. A man shall not take his father's wife nor uncover his father's bed. Amen.
Introduction
Well, obviously there's a lot of distance between us and the giving of this law on the plains of Moab for life in the land of Canaan. So there are some things that are perhaps a bit tentative tonight in the first half. I think the latter half is sufficiently clear. Some of it's a bit hardcore, a bit difficult to get our minds wrapped around. but I want us to appreciate that God's law is good, it's pure, as the scripture tells us.
And so with reference to the miscellaneous laws governing the covenant community in verses 1 to 12, we notice a summary of certain laws in verses 1 to 11, and then a reminder concerning the importance of God's law in verse 12.
Laws Concerning Property Rights
So in verses 1 to 4, we see law concerning property rights. Laws concerning property rights, and in a parallel, in Exodus 23, in verses 4 and 5, it's concerned with an enemy's property. In other words, if your enemy's property is going through these sorts of things, you're still to show love, benevolence, and kindness, and protect and provide for even your enemy. But here, brother refers to anyone in the covenant community.
A brother is even somebody you may possibly not know, according to verse 2. The idea is that the law calls us to respect the private property of our fellows, and that's the emphasis in verses 1 to 4. The Israelite was not to hide himself, according to verses 1, 3, and 4, or rather, ignore, neglect, pretend he doesn't see it. It's easier to just look away than to get involved and to provide safe haven and perhaps food for your brother's animal.
It's easier just to look away and pretend that it just doesn't happen. So the regulations in the section are pretty obvious and pretty simple. The necessity to return his animal if it went astray, verse one. That's a pretty obvious respect for the private property of another person.
You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep going astray and hide yourself or ignore it. You shall certainly bring them back to your brother. In other words, do the right thing. It shouldn't surprise us that sections that emphasize covenant relationships or relationships within the covenant community are oftentimes this simple.
In other words, don't make your brother a loser. If you see his animal, return the animal to him. Remember the overarching principle with reference to the covenant community in Leviticus chapter 19, verse 17. You shall not hate your brother in your heart.
You shall surely rebuke your neighbor and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." That's the overarching concern, is that you love your neighbor as yourself. So these property rights in verses 1 to 4, again, they're no-brainers.
If your brother loses his animal and you find it, give it back to him. You're a thief otherwise. Notice then secondly the necessity to take care of his animal until the brother seeks it in verse 2. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it.
Then you shall restore it to him. Again, it's not You know, rocket science here. You don't say, hey, great, now I get to keep his animal. No, you return it to him when he seeks it, and you do him the solid of housing it and making sure that nothing happens to it in terms of death or serious injury.
And so the necessity to return the animal when the brother seeks it. And then the necessity to treat all of his property in a similar manner. Notice in verse three, you shall do the same with his donkey. And so shall you do with his garment.
With any lost thing of your brother's, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise. You must not hide yourself. You must not ignore it. You must not pretend that you don't see, but rather you try to, you know, engage that love command in a concrete way with reference to the brother who has lost property.
You try to get it back to him. You try to assist him. And then there's a necessity to render assistance in the case of an emergency in verse four. You shall not see your brother's donkey or his ox fall down along the road and hide yourself from them or ignore them.
You shall surely help him lift them up again. And I doubt anybody's surprised at the legislation here. It is obviously the application of God's law in civil society, specifically the Eighth Commandment respecting private property under the overarching emphasis of loving your brother as yourself. If you lost property, you would want your brother to return it to you.
If your brother loses property, then you ought to return it unto him. And then notice then, secondly in verse 5, again, there's a long distance between us and the plains of Moab, so I'm going to give it the best kick at the can I can. Notice in verse 5, a woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God. Some suggest it has a military ring.
In other words, a woman shouldn't put on a soldier's uniform and go out into combat or battle. I think that's a good argument from the totality of scripture, but that's not the specific emphasis here in the verse. It's probably transvestitism. It's probably not that a woman can never wear anything that a man wears, because then she couldn't wear a shirt, she couldn't wear socks, she couldn't wear anything in which there was overlap.
I think the emphasis is when a woman wants to look like a man for sexually perverse reasons, or when a man wants to look like a woman for sexually perverse reasons. It's not just the wearing of a sock if you happen to be a woman and socks were originally intended to be worn by men. That's not the prohibition, again, in this very room. We wear the same sorts of things in terms of trousers and shirts and socks and undergarments.
I doubt that we are an abomination to the Lord our God with reference to what it says there in verse 5. It's probably transvestitism and it's probably, at least in a contemporary way, transgenderism, the attempt by a man to be a woman or the attempt by a woman to be a man. Craigie says, first, transvestitism tends to be associated with certain forms of homosexuality. Second, in the ancient world, it is probable that transvestite practices were associated with the cults of certain deities.
Christopher Wright says, almost certainly it is about perverted crossing of genders, either in orgiastic rights involving transvestitism, in some form of pagan worship or both. The final phrase of the law shows that some form of serious immorality or idolatry was involved. Again, notice at the end, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God. There's something more going on than a woman wearing men's socks like a man or a man wearing socks like a woman.
It is transvestitism. The application in our own generation would be that perversion of going against God's created order in Genesis chapter 1. He created them male and female. That's it.
Those are the options. That's what we're all stuck with. That's how God made it. And we need to embrace it and quit the folly and the pursuit of trying to undo what God Most High has done.
Law Concerning the Bird's Nest
The next is the law concerning a bird's nest. Again, I don't ever have this happened to me, so I'm going to give it a best shot here. Some suggest that we interpret it in sort of a humanitarian way, with an ecological sort of a consciousness and kindness to animals. I don't know how that works if you're the eggs or the babies.
Because you're going to get eaten. I doubt that that's what's going on in this particular section. I think it's probably akin to what we've already seen in Deuteronomy 20. Notice at verse 19, when you besiege a city for a long time while making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them.
If you can eat of them, do not cut them down to use in the siege, for this tree of the field is man's food. Only the trees which you know are not trees for food, you may destroy and cut down, to build siege works against the city that makes war with you until it is subdued. In other words, secure the food source for the future. Probably the same sort of an idea here in verses 6 and 7 relative to the sparing of the mother and the eating of the babies.
Again, I don't see the humanitarian edge if you're the babies or the mother bird. I don't see that that would be, you know, you're convinced that these people really treat animals very well. Again, I think the Bible does envisage that we treat animals well. A righteous man has regard for his beast, but I don't think that's the emphasis.
Securing future food sources in the promised land.
Law Concerning Safety Precautions
Then we've got the law concerning safety precautions in verse 8. When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it. So basically what you have is a flat space that was utilized for living, sleeping, relaxation, entertaining guests. Notice what's behind all of these is some form of, or one of the Ten Commandments.
In other words, what we find here in these laws, the civil or judicial laws of Moses, they are concrete applications of a specific law that was given in Deuteronomy 5. Here specifically, you shall not murder. Remember the Bible speaks concerning murder and accidental homicide. Well, here in the application of civil law, you want to make sure you avoid Possibly criminal negligence if you build a situation that can bring harm to another person.
I think of pools today. If you have a pool and your neighbor's got a kid that's two, you really should put a fence around your pool so that your neighbor's kid doesn't find its way into your pool and die. I mean, that's in essence what's going on here. You've got a house.
You've got a flat roof. You make a fence so that a guest doesn't haphazardly fall off of it and die. And so there is a responsibility in civil society to try, as you're able, to not jeopardize the lives of others. Remember the illustration with reference to the cities of refuge, the distinction between murder, I take my ax with malice aforethought and I bury it into somebody's head.
But if there's accidental homicide or a case of manslaughter, it was an accident. I didn't fasten my ax head properly, it flew off and found its way into my neighbor's head. I'm still gonna be inconvenienced. I still have to go to the city of refuge and I still have to live there until the death of the high priest.
What does that indicate? I should make sure that my axe head is fastened appropriately before I go out to chop wood. In other words, take precautions, not only that you don't directly jeopardize the lives of others, but indirectly. If you've got a roof and you've got neighbors over often, then put a fence around it so that they don't fall off.
You've got a swimming pool, put a fence around it so that children don't drown. You see, we need to be responsible agents when it comes to civil society. We're not our brother's keeper necessarily in that we watch and direct everything that he does. But man, we're not our brother's killer either.
If we can help it, we fasten our axe heads. We put up a fence around the swimming pool. We acknowledge that, you know, there's a big ditch in our front yard. We court on it off so that our neighbor's ox doesn't trip and fall in it.
We just do the right thing. So much of this reflects basic natural law that there's a right way that God's creatures are supposed to conduct themselves. not with selfishness, not with jeopardizing others, but with love and kindness and compassion and a diligence to try to promote and produce life, happiness, and the pursuit of liberty for all.
Laws Concerning Mixtures
Then notice the laws concerning mixtures. Again, difficult other than to say that most likely one of the emphases was to distinguish Israel from other nations. I don't think it's just the legislation. I mean, the legislation is given there in verses 9 to 11 with reference to seeds, with reference to plowing, with reference to garments and the differentiation and that sort of a thing.
But the book of Leviticus indicates that Israel was forbidden to do certain things, not because they were necessarily morally wrong, but because it distinguished them from the pagans that were around them. In other words, pork isn't, or the ingesting of pork isn't necessarily, it's not morally wrong. That functioned as positive law in old covenant Israel to set them apart. That's one among many, the shellfish, whatever it is, but that was to distinguish the Israelites.
They were a separate people. They were a holy nation. And so likely that's what's going on here in verses 9 to 11 in terms of distinction from other nations, and then a demonstration of purity. So I've mentioned before that it wasn't just their calendar, but their menu that was controlled by God.
It wasn't just their calendar and their menu, but it was also their farming, their use of animals, the wearing of their clothes, In other words, that law functioned as a tutor to bring them, the child, to Christ Jesus. And once Christ Jesus saves them, then there's no longer these ceremonies. There's no longer calendar observance. There's no longer the prohibitions against some of the things that we see littered throughout the Old Testament in terms of civil or ceremonial law or judicial law even.
And so probably to distinguish the people, as Wright says, even at everyday levels, Israel was to be reminded of the importance of not mixing with paganism. So good, you know, again, I'm not, I don't have a window of absolute brilliance, but based on what Leviticus says, I think that's commendable at least. And then
Tassels as Reminder of God's Law
notice in verse 12, you shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself. If you go back to Numbers chapter 15, I think it amplifies this a bit more such that when you would read Deuteronomy 22, And verse 12, you would know that what was going on was what was already specified in numbers 15. Notice in verse 37, again, the Lord spoke to Moses saying, speak to the children of Israel. Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners.
And you shall have the tassels that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them. And that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined. And that you may remember and do all my commandments and be holy for your God. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God.
I am the Lord your God. So in other words, remember the law. So in verse 12, you shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself. And the specificity of it is to remind them of God's law and the necessity to keep it.
Remember Deuteronomy chapter 6, same sort of emphasis. You need to put scripture all over the place because it's this law by which you are to regulate your life. What was the first order for the king in Israel? It was to write out a copy of God's law according to Deuteronomy 17.
So to remind them of the necessity to obey it, a reminder to resist harlotry, that's in Numbers 15 as well. In other words, you're going into a land that is very much populated with pagan deities, you need to make sure that you resist those things and engage in spiritual harlotry. As well, pursuing holiness and a reminder of God's redemptive power and grace. So it shouldn't surprise us that there's emphases along the way to remember the very laws that God is commanding through Moses on the plains of Moab such that when they get into the promised land, they have that ready body of legislation with which to draw from and to live and move and have their being in the land.
Laws Concerning Sexual Sins
All right, now the laws concerning sexual sins. I see several categories here, and the first is the case of premarital unchastity in verses 13 to 21. The second is the case of adultery in verse 22. The third is the seduction of a betrothed woman in verses 23 to 24.
The fourth is the rape of a betrothed woman in verses 25 to 27, and then the section ends with the seduction of a single woman in verses 28 to 29. It's all very straightforward. It's all exactly what you would expect, though the severity of the punishment for the woman in the first scenario, I think seems a bit, there's more going on than just her unchastity. But the specific situation in verses 25 to 29 has caused a bit of objection against God's words.
I think it's very important that we understand what's going on in verses 25 to 29, and we'll get there in a few moments. But
Case of Premarital Unchastity
note the case of premarital unchastity. The situation is given in verses 13 and 14. If any man takes a wife and goes into her and detests her and charges her with shameful conduct and brings a bad name on her and says, I took this woman and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin. So the man makes a formal charge.
The allegation of her unchastity is that she was not a virgin. to indicate she had said that she had been a virgin. That was the assumption in terms of the claimant that is made here. And then notice that the parents respond to this. And the reason the parents are responsible is because they had given their daughter to the man in marriage, and by that act had indicated that the girl was qualified for marriage, i.e., a virgin.
That's Craigie, and I think he's right. So the parents' involvement are seen there in verses 15 to 17. So the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. Most likely the cloth that showed blood, and that would be the evidence that would be presented to the elders.
Verse 17. And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, I found your daughter was not a virgin, and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
So if indeed she was as reported that she was a virgin, then the man gets punished for this false allegation. The man gets punished pretty severely according to verses 18 to 21. Notice, then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him. Most likely corporal punishment.
If you turn to chapter 25, you can see an instance of that. 25, 1, if there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, then it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. 40 blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight. So that's probably what's in view in terms of the man in chapter 22 who has made this false allegation that was able to be proven false. So the implementation of corporal punishment in verse 18, the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him. And then the imposition of a monetary fine, according to verse 19.
Notice they shall fine him 100 shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel and she shall be his wife. He cannot divorce her all his days. Now the permanent marriage there may seem a bit brutal. Like if you were her, would you want this champ as your permanent husband?
Probably not. But it probably was a protection for her. The threefold punishment announced would hopefully reduce the amount of false allegations. In other words, if you're the young man that's thinking about doing this, alleging falsely, because you no longer find her pleasing, that she was not a virgin, you're gonna get beat, you're gonna get, you know, a monetary fine, and then you're gonna get her as a bride for the rest of your life.
So, you know, the threefold, threat of legit punishment probably made this not as rampant as it could have been or probably is in a day and age kind of like ours where everybody alleges all kinds of things. Wright says the law takes the view that the security and provision of a household, so the provision of a permanent situation, he argues is actually a benefit for the woman. The law takes the view that the security and provision of a household, even in the home of such a man, Again, not, you know, husband of the year material. You're not buying him that cup.
But listen, it's preferable to the insecurity of a divorced woman that nobody else is likely to marry. She might be out of luck if there's not this sort of provision in the law. If there is not this thing that secures a marriage for her, she may find herself as a divorcee under some report of disreputable behavior, even though she's exonerated. Sometimes hard to unring bells that are out there.
I think news cycles work that way. It doesn't have to be true. Just get it out there for the week, and in a month everybody assumes that it actually happened. So the law is built to really protect her in ways that might not be as obvious with reference to our own situation.
Now, if the woman is found guilty in verses 20 and 21, Notice, if the thing is true and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you. So this idea of playing, or rather, doing something disgraceful, playing the harlot in her father's house, seems to underscore and show gravity to this particular sin. And then the fraud involved.
If she maintains that she's a virgin and she's not a virgin, it's not only a Seventh Commandment violation, but it's also an Eighth Commandment violation. You're lying and engaging in fraudulent behavior. So the penalty is imposed.
Case of Adultery
The next is the case of adultery. Again, very commonplace, very obvious, very much something that we're aware of in not only here but in Leviticus chapter 20. So the guilt and punishment of both the parties. Notice that the woman is not treated as property. but she is an image-bearer that is capable of committing sin and crimes against God.
And as a result, she is punished as an image-bearer that is capable of committing sins against God. So if a man is found lying with a woman, married to a husband, then both of them shall die, the man that lay with the woman and the woman, so you shall put away the evil from Israel. Dabney observes concerning adultery, were all to take the license of the adulterer, men would in due time be reduced precisely to the degradation of wild beasts. The sin of the adulterer, therefore, is scarcely less enormous than that of the murderer.
The latter, murdered, destroys man's temporal existence. The former, adultery, destroys all that makes existence a boon. In other words, it's a destructive tendency and that it goes on so much so in our own generation. And we come to passages like these and say, oh my, it's just horrific, the thought of executing.
Again, brethren, there'll be no thought of being executed as an adulterer if you don't commit adultery. It's a beautiful thing. If severe punishments and penalties for crime scare you, the remedy is so simple. Don't go commit those crimes.
Isn't it? It's just a pretty obvious take. Watson mentions that the adulterer not only wrongs his own soul, but does what in him lies to destroy the soul of another, and so kills two at once. He is worse than the thief, for suppose a thief robs a man, yea, takes away his life.
The man's soul may be happy. He may go to heaven as well as if he had died in his bed. But he who commits adultery endangers the soul of another and deprives her of salvation so far as in him lies. Now what a fearful thing is it to be an instrument to draw another to hell.
So the older boys didn't have any problems seeing and condemning this sin. Listen to Ersinus in his discussion concerning seventh commandment violations. The magistrate should punish these heinous sins and abominable transgressions with extraordinary punishments. Wow, maybe you'd cut down on the kinds of rampant sexual perversion that we see in our own generation if there had been any penalty appended to any transgression of the Seventh Commandment.
So again, it may seem hardcore to us, but the simple remedy is, is don't go commit adultery.
Seduction of a Betrothed Woman
Now the next instance is the seduction of a betrothed woman. Now notice the betrothed woman has a particular status as wife, right? She's betrothed, but it has a legal status appended such that she is considered his wife. So the woman is a virgin and she's betrothed to a husband.
Now in verses 23 to 24, she willingly complies. She consents to this. So note in verse 23, if a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, there's a difference there. Notice city and then countryside in the next scenario.
What you have in terms of city is that if you cry out, you'll be heard and helped. If you're in the countryside and you cry out, you're probably not going to be heard and therefore you're not going to be helped. So it's not so much as, oh, if anything ever like this happens, you better hope you're in a city or you better hope that you're in a countryside. No, it's speaking in terms of did the person seek redress when they were verged upon or led upon by a particular man.
So if a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall note, bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones. The young woman, note, because she did not cry out in the city." That means she consented. That means she was okay with it. Because if she wasn't consenting and she wasn't okay with it, what do you think she would have done?
She would have cried out, this man is attacking me. This man is trying to rape me. No, she did not cry out in the city and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
Rape of a Betrothed Woman
Notice the next section, the rape of a betrothed woman in verses 25 to 27. Again, she is betrothed and in a countryside, most likely away from help. Notice she cries out and that indicates that it wasn't consensual on her part. So verse 25, if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside and the man forces her and lies with her, forces the language of rape, Force is not mutual consent.
Force is not necessary if she says, yes, I'm willing to go to bed with you. Again, this is adult content. Good thing there's no children here. But it's stuff that happens in our own day and age.
So it's good for us to get our minds wrapped around what the Bible says concerning it. So if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman. Don't penalize her.
Don't blame her for what she was wearing. Don't blame her for being out there because she shouldn't have been. No, no, you don't do anything to her. She didn't deserve this.
Rape is horrific. It is a vile, wicked attack from a man to a woman, and notice how the scriptures underscores this. You shall do nothing to the young woman. There is in the young woman no sin deserving of death.
Now note, for just as It seems not to equate but kind of equate the severity of rape as being as severe as murder. This is one place I'd argue for the death penalty for rapists in our own generation. Well, that's theonomy of Christian nationalism. When it says it's just as the crime of murder, That seems to indicate to me that this has appended to it a lifelong application of death by civil magistrate for anybody that would victimize a woman like that.
That is a wretched crime. For just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the country and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.
Seduction of a Single Woman
Now, coming to the next one, the seduction of a single woman in verses 28 to 29. See, here's how the argument often goes. You know, the woman raped in verses 25 to 27 was betrothed, and so therefore the rapist is executed. The woman in verses 28 to 29 was raped, not betrothed, and it was just a monetary fine.
I'm going to tell you the woman in verses 28 to 29 was not raped, okay? That's a problematic translation of a verb that is different than what you have in verse 25. So notice in verse 28, if a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, does everybody get the nature of the argument? Oh, the Bible has a bias in favor of betrothed women, but it really doesn't matter if you happen to be a non-betrothed woman.
It doesn't really give you any legal status if you're, you know, just a virgin girl. You don't get the same protection. No, no, no, no, no. They're two different scenarios.
So if a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, then he seizes her. Again, seizes there is not the forcing of verse 25. They're separate verbs. But notice, he seizes her and lies with her.
Notice, and they are found out. I think this indicates or underscores consensual consent on her part. I think the parallel legislation to this is Exodus chapter 22, verses 16 and 17. You can turn there.
Exodus chapter 22, verses 16 and 17. If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride price for a virgin. That's what's happening in verses 28 to 29.
She's not being raped. This is not the same verb that she's forced. In fact, a couple of English translations actually use the word rape in verse 28, and I think they only add to the confusion about the passage itself. Verses 25 to 27 is the rape of a betrothed woman.
Verses 28 to 29 is the seduction of a single woman, and this single woman goes along with it, And then what is appended is consistent with what we see elsewhere in the Pentateuch. They are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father 50 shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her. He shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. Again, loading up the particular penalties would ensure, hopefully, that somebody would be, you know, not real, you know, willing to engage in this course, you know, willy-nilly.
So it's not that the Bible looks down upon a young single woman that gets raped by not punishing the rapist, but it does if you happen to be betrothed. No, no, two different scenarios. This is the seduction of a single woman that does comply and then this bride price is struck. That's, I think, the only way to understand that without getting down that back alley of, you know, there's two tiers of justice depending on whether you're married or betrothed or on your way to being married, which that's unacceptable.
You know, we can't have that. We can't say, well, yeah, the Bible, you know, it deals out a tough hand to the virgin. I mean, it's tough to be you. You should, you know, get married and get that protected status.
That's not what's happening.
Prohibition of Affinity in Marriage
And then the last statement prohibits affinity. A man shall not take his father's wife nor uncover his bed. As our confession says, marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity. Consanguinity is a relationship by blood.
You can't marry your brother. You can't marry your sister. That is consanguinity. You share the same blood and DNA.
You're not supposed to do that. But not by affinity either. Affinity is a relationship by marriage. So your father remarries, and he has a stepdaughter.
You're not supposed to marry her. That's affinity, and that is prohibited, which affinity ends, as far as I understand it, with the death of the one the relationship ultimately comes as a result of. or else there'd be no Leveret Law. Remember the Leveret Law? If your brother dies, then you go into his bride to bring seed into the land through her.
Which you couldn't do if there was still a binding relationship. You would be in violation. So the Leveret Law demands that bonds of affinity break when people die. So lots there, some of it tenuous, bird's nests, but not the rape of a betrothed woman and the seduction of a single woman.
I have heard this used, and I think that we need to make sure that we don't get backed into a corner having to say, well, yeah, it does seem like there's more protection for a woman if, in fact, she's betrothed. Well, I'll pray, and then if there's any comments, no questions, but if there's any comments.
Closing Prayer
Father in heaven, thank you for your word. Thank you for its clarity. Thank you for the fact that you speak to all matters of civil society. Certainly, sin has introduced chaos in many ways into this world.
We thank you that you have spoken law to redress these things, to help protect the innocent, to help promote standards in society. We pray for our own society, God, for this city, for this nation. We just pray that you would have mercy, that those in high places would govern in a way that is according to principles of justice and maintenance of peace and those things that you call them unto. Please give them wisdom, give them help, give them strength, restrain them from further evil doing.
Redeem those who you have purposed by your grace to redeem or remove those who are continuing in ways that are wretched against your law and against the good of the people here in this land. And we ask this through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.
Questions and Answers
I have a comment about last week, we talked about the lady that was being set free. We shall put the raiment off her captivity from off her, and we'll wail her father and mother. And after that, thou shalt know. It's the women captured?
Yeah. You know, she's set free, so she's a free woman, but who wants her? Yeah, she'd be better off. He said about the divorced woman, who wants her?
Yeah, it's a tougher day and age to be a divorcee or to be, yeah. But who knows? Yes, sir. Questions are fine, I'm just kidding.
Just a comment. Virginity's always referenced in the Bible Yeah. I don't think of, I don't know of any either. Good observation.
Yeah. Yes, sir. I have a question. In the law of central immorality, there's a command that if a man The penalty is corporal punishment and a fine.
If the woman is found to not be a virgin, there's no evidence of virginity, then she's stoned. there was a general principle that a false accuser bore the same punishment. Am I reading this, and I'm trying to reconcile those two, am I reading this that in this case, in chapter 22, this is maybe not the same malicious intent that the earlier chapter would... Yeah, that's a great observation. I'm just starting to think about it, too.
Yeah. Go ahead. I think because if he was put to death because of a false accusation, she would now be without a husband, and she would have been previously married to a man not kind, so she would be not someone that other men would look to as potentially a wife for themselves. So she would potentially become destitute.
So the punishment to him is the chastisement, the fee to her parents so that their shame is reduced, and then the prohibition of leaving her. And that way she's protected. Like Pastor Butler said, she probably isn't gonna be super excited about that, but at least she'll be provided for. her, like, if she's guilty, she committed sexual assault, which is punishable by death, right? And if he's guilty, he's just guilty of, like, a false accusation.
It's not as serious of a crime? Or no? Well, I think back to what Matt brings up, is if he alleges that she is falsely testifying of her virginity, which if she's found out as a false testifier of her virginity, she could be executed. So why wouldn't he get that?
It's a good melon-scratcher. I don't know that I have the answer there, but yeah. That makes sense, yeah. The punishment has to be sort of what the purpose of the law is.
Yeah. Go ahead. I was going to say, to my understanding, the reason why they track female virginity is because back in the day in most of human history, that's the only way you're going to know if your kid is yours. If she's a virgin, if she's not, then there's a chance that your kid is not yours.
So that's why, to my understanding, they track female virginity over male virginity. That's a good point. There's a lot of things about the way women were created in the Bible. Yeah, I think so.
But that's not unique to the Bible. That's pretty much the way it was everywhere up until I don't know. How long ago, really? 1960. Maybe a little before that, but yeah, 1960 certainly changed things a lot.
Yes? Well, I think that that's a huge objection to the threefold division of the law from from from without But the response is is that the Old Testament isn't a systematic theology. It's not written like Burkoff It's not written like a confession of faith. It's written in a way that was very prevalent amongst the mindset of the day so I do think Exodus is more clear, moral law, chapter 20, judicial law, 21-23, ceremonial law, 25-40.
It's pretty cut and dry. Deuteronomy, you're back and forth. But even within the ceremonial, especially judicial, you see a moral law behind it. In other words, why do we care if somebody falls off our roof and dies?
Because you're not supposed to kill people even if you can help it. So, you know, as I read it, I think about, you know, the moral laws behind it. If they're, you know, laws that are ceremonial, fulfilled in Jesus, and they seem, you know, particularly onerous, I'm thankful to God. that I can eat bacon now, you know what I mean? Like there's things that that Tudor phase in Old Covenant Israel, it was pretty heavy.
I mean, your menu, your calendar, your seeds, your farm, your everything, you know, jot and tittle. I think we talked about this a bit on the Saturday morning in theology. It was designed, you know, it's a child. And some of the Reformed authors say that Old Covenant Israel was hedged in because of a carnality and a sensuality and they needed to be treated like a child with all these rules and laws and legislations to keep them together and preserve them. until the fullness of the time came.
So that when Christ comes, and I think this is the point in Galatians 3, we're no longer under the law. The law was a tutor to lead us to Christ. And I think that means Ten Commandments. I think it means the Old Testament.
The Old Testament as a system preserved the seed, brought everybody where they should have been, Christ comes, and then in Christ there's no longer that minute control of every jot and tittle. This is the liberty that we have in Jesus Christ. We're freed from the yoke of the ceremonial law. The judicial law expires with the Commonwealth of Israel.
There are principles of wisdom and general equity, though, that we can certainly apply in civil society. I think we should. So yeah, it's not, you know, okay, Burkhoff's treatment of the three, it's just different, but it's not that it's not there. It is there.
It just requires, you know, a little bit of patience and tenacity just keeping an eye on it. Maybe Moses starts in Deuteronomy with referring to their wandering, and then the Ten Commandments, and then the laws of remembering God, and then he gets into all these incidentals. Maybe he just delivered the Ten Commandments again, and a few key points in morality, and then opened it to questions. Yeah, what do we do if we have a flat roof?
Yeah, you put a wall around it. What we have in that longest of exhortations is just a serious Q&A session.