← Back to sermon library

OK, you can turn to Deuteronomy chapter 5 as we continue our study in the Ten Commandments. Remember, there are a series of exhortations in the book of Deuteronomy. That's all it is, basically, exhortations by Moses, a historical review in chapters 1 to 4, the exhortation to pursue covenant loyalty in chapters 5 to 28. And of course, foundational to that is the Decalogue of the Ten Words here in chapter 5. And then there is a summary and conclusion in chapters 29 and 30, and then the death, or rather the succession of Joshua, and then the death of Moses. So as we continue our way through the Ten Commandments, we're spending a little bit of time on the latter table, the second table of the law tonight, part two of the Seventh Commandment, some unsavory things to be sure, but things Scripture says concerning that seventh word. So I'll read the section. And then we'll focus in on Deuteronomy 5.18. But beginning in verse 1, And Moses called all Israel and said to them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us. "'Those who are here today and all of us who are alive, "'the Lord talked with you face to face on the mountain "'from the midst of the fire. "'I stood between the Lord and you at that time "'to declare to you the word of the Lord, "'for you were afraid because of the fire, "'and you did not go up the mountain. "'He said, I am the Lord your God, "'who brought you out of the land of Egypt, "'out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love me and keep my commandments. 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. Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm. Therefore, the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you. "'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, "'you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness "'against your neighbor. "'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, "'and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, "'his field, his male servant, his female servant, "'his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's. "'These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly "'in the mountain from the midst of the fire, "'the cloud and the thick darkness, "'with a loud voice, and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me. Amen. Well, last week we looked at the basis for the commandment, and then we looked at some of the prohibitions in the commandment. We're gonna continue on in that vein tonight. But remember, in terms of our confession, it says marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue and the preventing of uncleanness. So the basis of the commandment is sanctity in marriage. God ordained marriage in the garden. We call it a creation ordinance. It's not something that the civil state came along and said it'd be good if people got married. It was rather instituted by God for the benefit of mankind, for mutual help or a covenant of companionship. for the increase of mankind in terms of procreation and the prevention of uncleanness through legitimate sexual intimacy. The Bible does not shy away from addressing that. The Bible and God are not anti-sex. It's anti-sex outside of the covenant boundaries of marriage. As long as it's within those covenant boundaries, as the apostle says in Hebrews 13, marriage is honorable among all and the bed undefiled for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. So the purpose of God in marriage serves as a basis of the commandment as well. The law of God, we have this, Deuteronomy 5.18, you shall not commit adultery. The New Testament application as well there in Hebrews 13. And then the sanction that we see built in to the violation of this particular commandment. The death penalty for certain crimes, the wrath of man in terms of the jealous husband in Proverbs chapter 6, and of course the wrath of God. But fornicators and adulterers God will judge. So the basis of the commandment is God's design for sanctity in marriage. As well, sin is disorder and chaos, and righteousness is order and cosmos. And when we introduce sin into the family at a basic level, it affects not just that family, but the entirety of society. You don't have a good society, you don't have good institutions in society, without the basic foundational level of family being consistent. And so it's very necessary, it certainly was here in Sinai, in Exodus chapter 20, and on the plains of Moab in Deuteronomy chapter 5, that the covenant people would express fidelity in those most basic relationships that they bore to one another. In other words, if a man's going to betray his wife, or if a wife is going to betray her husband, There's really not a lot of hope for such a society like that. If you're going to betray those closest to you, you're not going to build a righteous society. So it's foundational in the Decalogue that we have this protection with reference to marriage. Now when we look at the seventh commandment, you shall not commit adultery, we take all the sexual sins, that scripture speaks of and put them under that general category. That's how the Ten Commandments work. You've got the general principles stated here in the Decalogue, and then you have particular applications of those throughout the rest of the law of God. So last week we looked at the act of adultery. You see that condemned in the book of Leviticus, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and of course Deuteronomy 22, and all over the New Testament as well. Again, fornicators and adulterers God will judge. So the act of adultery specifically is the betrayal of one partner in a marriage by the other partner. Secondly, we looked at the act of fornication. So that's sexual relations outside of marriage. Again, God doesn't condemn sexual relations, but he certainly condemns it outside of the context of covenant. As well, we looked at the act of incest. The Bible prohibits marrying those that are related to us through consanguinity, or blood, or by affinity, which is by relationship. So the Bible prohibits a breach with reference to those particular categories. And then we ended on the act of rape. And again, these are not happy subjects, happy things, but the world is filled with sexual sin and perversion and crime. And it's good for us to know what the Bible says concerning that, especially as we navigated there in Deuteronomy chapter 29, because opponents of scripture often use that passage to teach some inconsistency or arbitrariness on the part of God. But as we saw last week, some translations just get it wrong. And what's going on is consistent there in Deuteronomy 29. So we're going to pick up then with the act of homosexuality. Again, this is a sexual sin. It is a perversion that the Bible forbids and condemns. We've got the instance in Genesis 18 and 19. We've got the sin of Sodom. We've got that wickedness that is expressed by those Sodomites in those cities on the plain. And then you can turn to Leviticus chapter 18. Several Bible texts indicate for us that this is not an alternate lifestyle. This is not something that as long as you're monogamous, God is okay with it. Sometimes people suggest that. The Bible doesn't frown on homosexuality. It frowns on sort of a lawless or licentious homosexuality. If you're monogamous within that homosexual relationship, then it's okay. No, that's not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches it's an abomination for a man to lay with a man or a woman to lay with a woman. Notice in Leviticus chapter 18 at verse 22. Leviticus 18 at verse 22, you shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. And we're going to see bestiality since we're there. Let's go ahead and read verse 23. Again, bestiality is a terrible thing to even think about on a Wednesday night. You probably had dinner. You probably had dessert. You've come to a Bible study. And the last thing that you want to think about is bestiality. As Andy Hamilton once said, we read a lot of updates from Mrs. Hamilton. Well, Andy Hamilton was a pastor, her husband. A lot of you do not know this. He had been a professional football player. He was on the Kansas City Chiefs. He became a Christian and then he pastored a church in Bossier City, Louisiana, for about 20 years. So he and his wife were older. when they went out to be missionaries, which he made a good argument for that being a good way to do it. Why would we take a guy who's got five little kids and throw them out on the mission field? Take a guy whose five little kids have grown up and he has served faithfully in a church and then throw him out in the mission field. So of course, that's where Andy and Rebecca have been. He got kicked out of China and now they're living and helping with reference to Myanmar. But Andy Hamilton made the observation that the Bible even has to address the sin of bestiality should cause us to hang our heads in shame. And it's not just here. And again, we'll get to that next. But notice in verse 23, nor shall you mate with any animal to defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. I think it's important for us to continue what we see here in Leviticus. Now, the previous section really is dealing with sexual sin. It is dealing with uncovering the nakedness of those closest to you, perhaps in an incestuous relationship. Obviously, adultery is condemned, homosexuality, bestiality. But then notice in verse 24, do not defile yourselves with any of these things, for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled, therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. So this idea that God capriciously or arbitrarily had the Israelites cast out those innocent, well-intentioned Canaanites from their land and then take their possessions is just vicious and barbaric. That's not what was happening at all. God raised up none too righteous Israel to function as an instrument of judgment upon the less righteous Canaanites. And of course when Israel functions like the Canaanites in the land that God had given them, then he raises up foreign enemies to get them out of the land. Assyria in 722 with the Northern Kingdom, and then Babylon in 586 with the Southern Kingdom of Israel. So it's not capriciousness or arbitrariness. Those weren't loving, peaceful, God-honoring Canaanites that were occupying the land. They were wretched, vile, adulterers, homosexuals, and persons that engaged in bestiality. And for this reason, God is casting them out. So then notice, continuing on with reference to homosexuality, Leviticus chapter 20, verse 13. Again, there's no qualification or nuance. Well, and so far, as they are faithful man to man or woman to woman, then it's okay. It's only when they're promiscuous. It's only when they multiply partners. That's not what the text specifies. The text is very clear. The act itself is wrong. The act itself is condemned. The act itself is an abomination. Then turn to the New Testament, the book of Romans, Romans chapter 1. Again, I think these texts are texts that are well known to you, but it's good for us to be reminded in a very perverse culture that is trying to water down any sort of sexual ethics in such a way that everything goes and everything is encouraged and everything is celebrated. Notice in Romans chapter 1, specifically at verse 26, for this reason God gave them up to vile passions, for even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. The fact that he mentions women first shows the degradation of society. Not that women are wholly harmless and undefiled. It's not that women are godly and upright. But typically, as men go, so goes society. The fact that a woman, the fact that women are mentioned first shows that this is indeed a pretty vile situation. He goes on in verse 27 to say, likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men, committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. So again, it's not nuanced, it's not qualified. As long as they're not promiscuous, as long as they're one man, one man, one woman, one woman, then everything's hunky-dory. No, it's the act itself that is condemned by God. Turn over to 1 Corinthians 6. 1 Corinthians 6, specifically at verse 9. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators. Now, we should always keep in mind, brethren, it's not just homosexuality that is condemned, but so is fornication, so is idolatry. so is thievery, so is covetousness, so is drunkenness, so is reviling, so is extortion. So it's not that there's only one sin, it's not that there's only one overarching sin, but it certainly is a sin, and Scripture does point us to consider what it is. So notice there, and I don't want to get crass, I don't want to get strange or weird here, but you need to appreciate what Paul is doing when he says what he says in this passage in verse 9. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, notice he says, nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites. Now you might say, well isn't a homosexual a sodomite? Isn't a sodomite a homosexual? What Paul is doing is he's using technical terminology for both parties in a homosexual act. One is typically effeminate and one is masculine. One is active and one is passive. Those words were available in Greek, and Paul uses those words specifically. So they're not strictly synonymous as they are in our language, homosexuals nor sodomites. They are certainly very much connected, but they have technical meanings. One is the passive partner, and one is the active partner. One is the effeminate, and one is the masculine. So he's appealing to technical terminology and the precision of the Greek language to condemn this particular act of homosexuality in a most comprehensive way by using these terms. And then over in 1 Timothy 1, 1 Timothy 1, specifically at verse 10. Verse 8, But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. So notice that, verse 10, for fornicators, for sodomites. And what one man has argued is that what Paul is doing here is he's using couplets to speak concerning each of the Ten Commandments. So what we have here is a summary statement of the Ten Commandments using this literary convention of couplets. So lawless and insubordinate, ungodly and sinners, unholy and profane, murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, manslayers, fornicators, forced sodomites, those would be the two for the Seventh Commandment, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. So again, it's not the case that the Bible is okay with certain forms of homosexuality. The Bible forbids it, and it does not underscore the idea that it's an alternate lifestyle. It is a sin against God. It is a violation and transgression of the Seventh Commandment. As I said, the next is bestiality. One commentator says, the degree of sexual perversion in Canaanite culture was such that bestiality was fairly commonplace. Hittite laws, for example, even permitted cohabitation with certain animals. Now, before you lose your mind, there was an article in the Vancouver Sun a couple of years ago to this effect. you know, the thought that, you know, oh, this is ancient barbaric sexual perversion that the Canaanites engaged in. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's not going to be probably too far down the road where you're going to see people marrying dogs and marrying cats and marrying horses and carrying on like that. I mean, we are at a very low ebb in terms of ethics with reference to sexuality in our culture. So I would, you know, not encourage you, but prepare you to just kind of keep your eyes out. Cause on the horizon, I don't think things are going to get a whole lot better with reference to sexual ethics. So again, the act of bestiality, we already saw Leviticus 18. You can turn to Exodus chapter 22, Exodus chapter 22. Not to celebrate this perversion, I'm not wanting to multiply text to sort of focus in on horrible things, but I really believe we need to know where the Bible speaks concerning these things. So in Exodus 22, 19, whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death. Now obviously the connotation is lie sexually. If you're freezing to death and you cozy up to your horse out in the snow, that's not what's in view here. But if you're lying with that horse in a sexual way, that is what is in view here. Also, Leviticus 20 verses 15 and 16. Leviticus 20 verses 15 and 16. And if you happen to be inclined to want these passages for further reference, let me know, I can send you the notes. But in Leviticus 20, 15, if a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon them. Now, when it comes to the New Testament, we don't have any specific prohibition concerning bestiality. which I think indicates that the totality of God's law is helpful when it comes to certain acts of perversion. In other words, do we need a New Testament text to forbid persons lying with horses the way they lie with women? No, we don't need New Testament texts. The Old Testament already informed us. When Paul comes to deal with incest in 1 Corinthians 5, he's got Leviticus and Deuteronomy in his head and mind when he deals with that specific sin. No doubt if one of the Corinthians was cohabiting with an animal, he would have come with the same sort of a framework, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, to condemn that particular practice. So not a happy subject, obviously. Deuteronomy 27 is one other passage that deals with this. It's in a covenant curse scenario with reference to the end of the book of Deuteronomy. Blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. 2721, cursed is the one who lies with any kind of an animal or any kind of animal. So again, if Canaanite culture was riddled with bestiality and Israelites are going in to Canaanite culture to dispossess the land and to take all their stuff, remember, they didn't dispossess the land of all their gods. They didn't dispossess the land of all their wicked practices. They didn't dispossess the land of bestiality either. So God prohibits this via his law. I would suggest next, if you're keeping score, we're on the seventh, and this would be unlawful divorce. The act of unlawful divorce. You can turn to Matthew's Gospel. Now, when I say unlawful divorce, that seems to indicate that I believe that there is lawful divorce, and I do believe that, and I know there are people that disagree with that. There are those who have what's called the permanent view of marriage, and all things being equal, I'm a permanent view of marriage guy, one man, one woman forever, praise God. But in the fall of man, when fairies and hobbits and dwarves and elves stopped roaming the earth with magic dust and pixies, there's sin and depravity, and God legislates and causes or gives ordinances to seek redress for innocent parties. And so you've got divorce permitted, in Deuteronomy chapter 24, and the New Covenant picks this up, and Jesus specifically here in Matthew chapter 19, and then Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. So my argument for divorce is that it's lawful for the innocent party in an adulterous or sexually immoral marriage to sue out for divorce. as well in the case of abandonment. And that's what Paul is dealing with in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. I would include spousal abuse with reference to abandonment. I think if a man beats his wife or if a woman beats her husband, that is a form of abandonment. So I would not suggest, as some who hold the permanence view of marriage, that if your husband slaps you, you need to go back into that home and work it out. I think that that is horrible teaching. I think the Bible provides redress for innocent parties in a horrible marriage. And so the two exceptions are sexual immorality. And it's not just adultery. The language of Jesus is not moikeia, which is adultery. The language of Jesus is porneia, which is much broader in terms of comprehension. And so, with reference to sexual sin in the marriage, the innocent party is legitimately able to sue out for divorce. In the case of an abandonment or an abuse situation, again, the innocent party is authorized by God to sue out for divorce. Now, I understand persons disagree with this. My argument here tonight is simply to show that if you do not get a biblical divorce, then you are guilty of engaging in adultery. So if you do not get divorced properly and then you remarry, well then you've got a bad situation on your hand. And I think that I could show, and I might do this if anybody's, if we think that this might be something to do next week, is to pursue this teaching because, again, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding. The permanence view people, you can't ever get divorced. And again, I'm not for no fault divorce or you overcooked a meal, the wife overcooks the roast, you just leave her. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. But in the case of sexual immorality or in the case of any kind of abuse or abandonment, to make that person continually a victim is to do something that God himself doesn't do. God gave Deuteronomy 24, and in my study, it is a faulty reading of Deuteronomy 24, and then what Jesus does in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 that leads to the permanence view of marriage. If you don't get Deuteronomy 24 right the way that Jesus does, then you're not gonna get the teaching on divorce and remarriage if divorce is lawful. If divorce has taken place, for those two reasons, sexual immorality or abandonment, and the innocent party has gotten a biblical divorce or lawfully authorized divorce, remarriage is authorized. And again, I think a lot of it has to do with Deuteronomy chapter 24. So when it comes to Matthew 19, It's a text or passage specifically where Jesus is queried by the Pharisees concerning marriage. But notice specifically in verse 9. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. So without getting into the detailed argument or exegesis for the lawfulness of divorce in certain circumstances, the argument tonight in terms of the prohibition of the seventh commandment is that unlawful divorce inevitably leads to adultery. So that's the issue. If you get divorced unlawfully and then you get remarried, whatever happens in that context is an unlawful situation. So that's the argument with reference to the prohibition of the commandment. The next is immodesty. Immodesty. Now, you may think, wow, that's really pushing it, but the scriptures speak to this. Turn to Proverbs 7. Proverbs chapter 7. It's important for us to understand, and we're gonna see this a bit later when we turn to Matthew five, that there is a lust problem. And you know, it's been said that men will lust over just about anything, yeah, but let's not make it easier for them. And if women are gonna lust over something, let's not make it easier for them. Notice in Proverbs chapter seven, he is cautioning his son about sexual immorality. So notice in 7.6, for at the window of my house, I looked through my lattice and saw among the simple, I perceived among the youths, a young man devoid of understanding, passing along the street near her corner. And he took the path to her house in the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night. Don't miss that, verse nine. People don't typically sexually sin out in broad daylight. Typically people hide. There is a shame involved. You know you are betraying somebody. You know that this is wrong, and so you choose the twilight, the evening, the black, the dark night. And you do so while her husband happens to be away on business. But my point is verse 10. And there a woman met him with the, note, attire of a harlot. the attire of a harlot. So whatever in that culture was identifiable as the attire of a harlot indicates that there was attire of non-harlots as well. And so this particular woman who's married is wearing these types of clothing to entice this particular young man. Notice as well in verse 11, she was loud and rebellious. Her feet would not stay at home. What's the implication? Her feet should have stayed at home. She shouldn't have wore the attire of Arlen. She should be respectful to her husband who's away on business and certainly not try to trip up this young man who's devoid of wisdom and devoid of understanding. So immodesty is a bad thing. Matthew Henry said, men sin, but devils tempt to sin. You can turn to 1 Timothy 2. 1 Timothy chapter 2. This in the context of public worship. First Timothy chapter two, specifically at verse eight. I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting, in like manner also that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. So notice, in the context of public worship, the apostle says in like manner also that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel with propriety and moderation. Don't draw attention to yourself. We're here to worship God. Don't try to draw attention to your form or your shape, but rather we want to worship God. And then of course in 1 Peter chapter 3, just in a more general sort of a sense. 1 Peter chapter 3, specifically at verse 3. Do not let your adornment be merely outward, arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel. Rather, let it be the hidden person of the heart, the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. Now, this cuts both ways as well. Men are supposed to be modest. Men aren't supposed to walk around naked or in a suggestive sort of a way. While the texts specifically are directed toward women to maintain a modest posture, it's certainly a man's responsibility as well to make sure he is not causing others to sin. The next would be polygamy. And polygamy is a bit of a difficulty because they were polygamous in the Old Testament. I mean, they had many wives. Well, sometimes, and I'm not justifying this, but sometimes it was for political alliances. Kings would let their sons marry daughters from other kingdoms, and it would forge political alliances. But there was times when it was just to multiply wives. So it was practiced in the Old Testament. And it was even legislated to protect innocent people, like I said with reference to divorce. In an unfallen, perfect world, there'd be no reason in the law to stipulate lawful divorce. In a perfect, unfallen world, there would need to be no law to regulate a polygamous relationship, but that there is legislation shows that it was practiced and shows that God has a heart and mind and the nature as such to tend to people that may be marginalized or victimized in an unlawful situation. So Deuteronomy 21, you can turn there. Again, we're going to eventually get to all these passages, probably stealing the thunder away now. hopefully if you're like me we won't remember what we're talking about tonight by the time we get to Deuteronomy 21 so there you go notice in Deuteronomy 21 15 if a man has two wives one loved and the other unloved and they have born him children notice again it's assumed a man may have two wives this is not permitting the act Rather, it is simply saying that since in the fall of man, man has multiplied wives, since that situation obtains in a post-fall world, how do we regulate or how do we protect it in such a way that one of the parties isn't caused undue suffering? So if a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have born him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, Okay? So the firstborn is of her that's unloved. What's the man's temptation? I don't really love her, so I'm not going to convey all my wealth upon her side. No, no, no, no, no, no. You can't do that. That's wrong. That would be a bad thing. Then it shall be on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has. For he is the beginning of his strength, the right of the firstborn is his. And you can turn back to Exodus chapter 21. Exodus chapter 21, probably in the context of slaves. And I know that when we hear slaves, we usually lose our minds. But the Bible speaks concerning slavery. Again, it's one of those post-fall things that happened. So the Bible legislates and provides laws to protect innocent parties within that particular sphere. And so slavery was very rampant in both the Old and the New Testaments. It was. And so there's laws regarding slavery. But notice in Exodus 21, 7. And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, notice the man sells his daughter. Why would he sell his daughter? Well, because he's broke. Indentured servitude was a reality. If you were a criminal and you got caught committing a crime and you didn't have the money to pay back that criminal activity, you became an indentured slave and then you paid it back. You didn't go sit and learn how to go to prison and lift weights and learn more criminal techniques and tactics and develop a network of criminal enterprise and get back out on the streets and commit more crime. No, you were a slave to the family until you paid the debt. Indentured servitude is a wonderful thing. Empty the prisons. Put these people in the places where they have victimized and cause them or make them work so they have to pay back what they've done. Let's just put them in prison so they become better criminals. Talk about barbarism. Don't get me started on indentured servitude. I'm a big fan. And honestly, I'd rather be an indentured servant. If I committed a crime, I would much rather work for the family that I wronged and learn a trade and be catechized and eat soup and learn things that obviously my parents didn't pass on to me versus go to prison and be victimized by a bunch of guys that are much bigger than me. I would definitely sign up for indentured servitude. I would take that over prison or life in prison or five years in prison over anything. If she does not please her master who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. Now notice this, if he takes another wife, So again, polygamy. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food or clothing and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free without paying money. So if he takes an additional wife, when he takes that additional wife, it cannot produce neglect on the part of his other wife with reference to her cupboards, with reference to her closet, or with reference to her bed. He needs to make sure he is being faithful in those three areas. Closet, cupboard, and bed. Those are the rights involved in a marriage relationship. She deserves food, she deserves clothing, and she deserves sexual intimacy. And if he does not do that, he is a wretch. So polygamy is practiced in the Old Testament. Legislation is given to protect people in the Old Testament. But as Stuart rightly says, monogamy is everywhere in Scripture assumed as the ideal as a creation ordinance, Genesis 2.24. Firmly reinforced by Jesus, Matthew 19, when he's queried about divorce, he says, But again, because of sin, because of the fall, Moses authorized divorce because of the hardness of your hearts. And as long as there was a bill of divorce and there was rationale for it, you could practice it because of the hardness of your hearts. Again, there's legislation that has come about because of the hardness of man's heart, so it's calculated and orchestrated to protect innocent parties. So Matthew 19, and then as well, Paul in Ephesians chapter five. So polygamy, tough one, but this is probably gonna be a bit tougher. The act of prostitution. Now, you're probably not gonna like what I'm about to say, but hey, I gotta go for it. It was not a crime in Old Covenant Israel. It was always a sin, it was always morally bad, it was wicked and evil, but it wasn't a crime. You didn't go to jail for being a prostitute. Again, I'm not suggesting go therefore and do likewise, but consider Genesis 38, Judah and Tamar. Tamar dressed as a prostitute so she could have relations with Judah. She wasn't thrown in jail for acting as a prostitute. Joshua 2, Rahab the harlot. The shady lady of Jericho is in the genealogy of Messiah. Again, it's not a favorable lifestyle, but it wasn't criminal. And then 1 Kings 3. Remember, God comes to Solomon and Vision, and he says, what do you want, Solomon? And Solomon says, I want wisdom. God's like, wow, that's fantastic that you would want wisdom. Most guys in your position would want cars, they'd want, you know, gold, they'd want, you know, all kinds of stuff. Solomon wanted wisdom. How does he express that wisdom? Two prostitutes come to him and they say, you know what? My baby died. and her baby died and she took my baby. Solomon says, well, bring the living baby here, I'll cut it in half and I'll give each of you a part. And the real mother said, well, no, no, no, don't cut it, let her have it. They were wretches. 2.12 in 1 Samuel tells us, they did not know Yahweh. Well how do we know they didn't know Yahweh? Because they stole sacrifice. You and I brought our meat and these two bozos would take our meat that we're offering up to God. But they also lay with temple prostitutes. So cultic prostitution was an abomination. As well, priests were told with great vehemence that they were not supposed to sell their daughters or let their daughters go into prostitution. So cultic prostitution was an abomination. All forms of prostitution is sin or was sinful. But in the Old Testament, it doesn't look like it was a crime that you would be caught and arrested and executed or put into prison for. And then the one we're gonna end on tonight is probably the one that most of us in sort of our situation, if we think of that hand prone to wander, prone to leave the God that we love, if we're looking at the commandments of God and we're looking at the seventh commandment, probably bestiality isn't at the top of the list for us. Probably prostitution isn't the temptation for us. Probably polygamy isn't the temptation for us. But I think Jesus deals with probably what is most likely a temptation for, if not all of us, most of us, Matthew chapter five, when he speaks concerning lust. So the use of pornography, The use of pornography. Notice in Matthew chapter 5 at verse 28. So I wanna look at the problem of the sin of lust, the mortification of the sin of lust, and the necessity of the gospel for the sin of lust. But note the problem of the sin of lust in 5, we'll look at 527. Remember the antitheses, that's what he does. You have heard that it was said to those of old, he gives the command, and then he says, but I say to you, The antithesis is not Jesus and Moses. Moses taught the same thing that Jesus is teaching. Jesus is teaching the same thing that Moses taught. The antithesis is those who misinterpreted Moses, those who only externalized Moses. Moses said, you shall not commit adultery. So the Pharisees and the scribes and the bad interpreters said, well, as long as you don't actually go into your neighbor's wife, then you're okay. You haven't violated the commandment. You haven't transgressed the seventh word. As long as you haven't engaged in the external act, then you're all right. Jesus says if you look upon a woman to lust, but so does Moses, and we'll see that in just a moment. So note the problem of the sin of lust in 528. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust, and again, we need to flip this in the sense of if you're a woman and you look upon a man to lust, You can't do that just because Jesus says it the other way around. You can't do that. And, you know, persons might do this in ways that aren't necessarily even sexual, for instance, emotional connections, getting something from somebody else's wife or husband that belongs to that person's wife or husband. emotional camaraderie or closeness or, you know, it's most obviously seen in sexuality, but there's a lot of probably violations of the seventh commandment that are sexless in nature. You're supposed to actually love and like and want to be with your own spouse. Not with everybody else's spouses. That's kind of a help with reference to fighting sexual sin is listening to Proverbs chapter 5 and rejoicing with the wife of your youth. But notice in 528, but I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Now again, the Old Testament condemned this as well. Job is asserting his righteousness. And when Job's asserting his righteousness, he's not doing it the way the Pharisee in Luke 18 is doing it. Thank you, Lord, that I'm not like other men. Job is at his wits end. I think he crosses a boundary, but I get why he does what he does. And one of the things he says is, I have made a covenant with my eyes. Why then should I look upon a young woman? For what is the allotment of God from above and the inheritance of the Almighty from on high? Is it not destruction for the wicked and disaster for the workers of iniquity? Does he not see my ways and count all my steps? That's curious language. I've made a covenant with my eyes. Why then should I look upon a young woman? Sounds like the sin of lust. It doesn't say, why should I not lie with a young woman? Obviously that's forbidden, but why should I look upon? Sinful lust was condemned by old covenant law. Or consider Proverbs 6. Solomon says, do not lust after her beauty in your heart, nor let her allure you with her eyelids. Jesus is teaching the same thing. There's consistency in scripture. Yeah, the external act is condemned. You're not supposed to go to your next door neighbor and have his wife, but you're not supposed to lust after either, because as Jesus says, you've already committed the sin. You've broken it within your own heart. Spurgeon says, if sin were not allowed in the mind, it would never be made manifest in the body. This, therefore, is a very effectual way of dealing with the evil. Thomas Watson says, as a man may die of an inward bleeding, so he may be damned for the inward boilings of lust if it be not mortified. So the problem of sin, or the problem of the sin of lust, Jesus condemns it in verse 28 in Matthew's gospel. I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Now brethren, the leap from there to pornography is not a big leap. I mean, that's the whole purpose behind the pornography industry. It's to promote and to make money on and to seize upon and capitalize on lust. That's the whole purpose for it. It's not there to get you to love mountain scenes more or landscapes. It's about lust. It's all predicated on that. Now notice the mortification of the sin of lust in verses 29 and 30. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Now, I'd suggest that the Lord is speaking metaphorically. There are those in the history of the church that took him seriously and cut off hands. I think Origen cut off his sexual organ because he struggled in this particular area. I think Spurgeon is probably closer to the teaching of Jesus. Yet, let no man plead this literally and therefore mutilate his body as some foolish fanatics have done. You're not supposed to engage in self-mutilation. Jesus is using metaphor here. And I would suggest if you don't get your heart right, you can cut your right hand off and still struggle. You don't get your heart right and cut both hands off and still struggle. If you don't get your heart right, you can cut both hands and both feet off and still struggle. You see, Jesus is teaching to deal radically with the sin of loss. That's the point in verses 29 and 30. Deal radically. Don't feed it, don't tend to it, don't coddle it, don't court it, don't get close to it. No, deal radically. If it means cutting off hands and gouging out eyes, then that's what you're supposed to do. The Lord highlights that need to deal radically. Spurgeon again says, better a blind saint than a quick-sighted sinner. Better a blind saint than a quick-sighted sinner. And again, he's speaking metaphorically. It doesn't mean actually, you know, poke out your eye. Again, if you poke out your eye and you don't deal with your heart, your other eye is going to lose. If you poke out both eyes and you don't deal with your heart, your mind is gonna image things or create images in your head. You gotta deal with the heart. But the Lord as well highlights eternal punishment for unrepentant sexual sin. Romans chapter one, 1 Corinthians chapter six, Galatians chapter five, Revelation 21a, who's in the lake of fire? Well, the sexually immoral are in the lake of fire. It's the reality. Again, I'm not suggesting it alone is the sin of all sins. The seventh commandment is one of 10, and all sin is transgression against God's holy nature and law, and we're supposed to guard our hearts and minds, but we just happen to be dealing with the seventh commandment tonight, and it certainly is a rampant one. I dare say most people, I mean, you've got a subsection of depraved humanity that actually want to murder people, but most people don't struggle with the Sixth Commandment. I mean, we've got that, you know, that guy's a rock. He's a fool. We got, you know, the unwarranted anger part, but not, you know, most well-adjusted, not even well-adjusted, just, you know, somewhat decent human beings don't want to murder people. It's not the way it is with the seventh commandment. The seventh is a bit more difficult because it's rooted in biology. God made us for that particular function and that activity. It's to propagate the species. I'm not saying a goodness about the sin, but a goodness about the act. It's natural. It's God wrought. It is biological in nature, it's what man is supposed to do in the right covenantal context. So while most people don't want to actually go out and murder people, probably most people do want to have relations because God made them in that way. But the idea is that you have relations in the way that God has defined. Find a wife, find a husband, get married, and then, as the Apostle says in Hebrews 13, marriage is honorable among all. The bed is undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. And then I want to end on a Lloyd-Jones quote. Think about the sexual sin aspect of, if you're in my, I don't want to say profession, I don't think of ministry as a profession, but for the sake of argument, a lot of my fellows fall for this very reason. Right? You know, if sin has killed its thousands, sexual sin has killed its tens of thousands when it comes to ministry. I mean, that just seems to be one of those ways that Christian pastors flee the ministry or get out of the ministry or end up out of the ministry. Lloyd-Jones, not a guy, you know, unfortunately, I could think of some pastors that might suggest, you know, this guy's got to watch it and all that. Lloyd-Jones commenting in his studies in Sermon on the Mount, he says, thou shalt not commit adultery. Of course not. But is it in our hearts? Is it in our imagination? Notice he's saying our, not you. Again, brethren, there's something about the seventh commandment that, you know, not the sin, not the transgression, not the lack of conformity unto, but the basic God wrought function of man and woman in terms of relations to propagate the species. to have that companionship, to have that intimacy. There is something about that that probably just about everybody wants, that same amount of everybody that doesn't want to murder people, that doesn't necessarily want to steal things, that doesn't want to lie and all that. So there's something about it. He goes on to say, is it in our imagination? Do we like it? God forbid that any of us should be able to look at this holy law of God and feel satisfied. If we do not feel unclean at this moment, God have mercy upon us. If we can conceivably be satisfied with our lives because we have never committed an act of adultery or of murder or any one of these things, I say that we do not know ourselves nor the blackness and the foulness of our own hearts. We must listen to the teaching of the blessed Son of God and examine ourselves, examine our thoughts, our desires, and our imagination. Then he says this, and I love this, I thank God that I have a gospel which tells me that another who is spotless and pure and utterly holy has taken my sin and my guilt upon himself. Brethren, if our study in the Ten Commandments doesn't bring us back to the cross so that we marvel at free and sovereign grace and blood atonement through our Lord and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, then we're not studying the law properly. And once we get a fresh view of that Savior and what he's done for us, I believe that produces the impetus for us to want to resist the sins of the seventh commandment. It produces in us the desire to not want to kill people, the desire to not want to be thieves, the desire to not want to be liars. It's with a proper view of the gospel of free and sovereign grace that the pathway of sanctification becomes something that we want to pursue. So the law, good, shows us our sin and misery. It is the gospel that shows us our forgiveness and our righteousness. And then Christ sends us back to that blessed law by the power of the Holy Spirit, enabling us to comply and to resist temptation, to cut off hands and to gouge out eyes. Well, let us pray. Our Father in Heaven, we thank You for Your Word. We thank You for its consistency in both the Old and New Testaments. And God, we pray that You would help us to guard our own hearts and our own minds with reference to the Seventh Commandment. And God, help this nation. Help the nations of the earth that are steeped in sexual perversion and abomination and wickedness. We just pray in your wrath, you would remember mercy and send forth your glorious gospel. May many sinners come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. And we pray in his name, amen. Well, any comments or questions on any of that material? I was looking at the statistics on pornography recently, and Helen and I, which is a great filter, by the way, a Christian filter. Marginally better, yeah. And what's the age? Like kids today now, they're like eight? Yeah, yeah. Can you imagine that? At five, you know, eight? Man, we're out playing hide and seek or whatever sport was on and that, you know what I mean? These phones, see, parents watch your kids. Yes, Charlotte, you had your hand up. Yeah, just on the prostitution, not being a crime, what would happen to the, let's say it was a man that had taken a prostitute, then what was his Yeah, it's a sinful act and it's always condemned in a sinful way. But not all sin is crime and not all crime is sin. And I think that's important to remember when we discuss the civil government. I've often said we don't want them policing us with reference to sin. You don't want the government punishing you for covetousness. That's a bad, bad, bad thing. So not all sin is crime. Not all sin should be crime. And not all crime is sin. If you're in Saudi Arabia with a Bible, you're a criminal. But you're not sinning, because you have a Bible. So those distinctions, I think, are helpful to navigate when it comes to how do we relate to civil government. Well, if they're outside of their purview, if they're not in the business of maintaining justice and peace, And they're hyper-regulating every part of your life. I think that it's good for us to kind of know how to navigate through that. Yes? So if a married man went to a prostitute, that would not be subject? Well, that would be adultery, because he's married to a woman. Yeah, that. Then he'd be subject to adultery law, and he'd be executed. or for the surviving spouse, because technically they would be killed to the commitment. It should be. You know, that's one of those things, though, that, yeah, the innocent party. So, yeah, if we went back to the Old Testament... Just because her husband sinned... That doesn't mean she's... That's right, that's right. In fact, you were permitted, the specifications for a priest, they were forbidden from marrying a divorced woman. But what does that imply? If you weren't a priest, you could marry a divorced woman. You know, the permanence view people say, well, there's no instances of divorce in scripture. Really? Cause I, I see a lot of them the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, they, they mandate divorce cause they were marrying with pagans and they said, put away those pagan wives. They didn't want to jeopardize the seed of Messiah. But in that instance, when a priest is prohibited from marrying a divorced woman, the implication is clear. A non-priest is not forbidden from marrying a divorced woman. And in a culture like that, divorced woman was just about dead woman. It was very much a necessity that a woman find a man. It wasn't girl power, she's going to go be a woman exec, wear the power suits and command men at her behest. No, it was very important. Much of world history, it was very important for women to remarry right away after a divorce or after the death of a husband or else they'd die. That's just, you know, we haven't always lived in the age of the power suit for women. It's been tough. You know, the Puritans would propose at grave sites to the widow. Because they knew, right? What's she going to do? Go home and die? You know, put a ring on her finger and marry her.