← Back to sermon library

Exodus chapter 23, remember the 
section chapters 21 to 24 are commonly referred to as the Book 
of the Covenant. The Ten Commandments are given 
in chapter 20, that's the moral law of God, and then chapters 
21 to 23 are applications of those general principles to concrete 
situations in civil life. 21.1 says, now these are the 
judgments which you shall set before them. And this particular 
section, along with Deuteronomy, contains what we typically refer 
to as the judicial law. Our confession says concerning 
the judicial law, To them, Old Covenant Israel, also he gave 
sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that 
people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution, 
their general equity only being of moral use." So we've worked 
our way through chapters 21 and 22. Tonight our focus will be 
on verses 1 to 9. But I'll read that section, and 
then we'll look at it in some detail. So beginning in verse 
1, you shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand 
with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. You shall not follow 
a crowd to do evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as 
to turn aside after many to pervert justice. You shall not show partiality 
to a poor man in his dispute. If you meet your enemy's ox or 
his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to 
him again. If you see the donkey of one 
who hates you lying under its burden, and you would refrain 
from helping it, you shall surely help him with it. You shall not 
pervert the judgment of your poor in his dispute. Keep yourself 
far from a false matter. Do not kill the innocent and 
righteous, for I will not justify the wicked. And you shall take 
no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the 
words of the righteous. Also you shall not oppress a 
stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger because you were 
strangers in the land of Egypt. Amen. Well, as we look at this 
particular section, the emphasis is on justice, justice for all. 
In other words, there is to be equal protection under the law 
for all of the people within the covenant community. That 
even includes strangers, those who have come in, those who are 
participating in life in the community but do not have access 
or do not rather have citizenship within the commonwealth. And 
specifically, when we look at this section, there's three particular 
subsections. First, the principles of justice 
for the people in verses 1 to 3. Secondly, an emphasis upon 
or on decency among the people in verses 4 and 5. And then finally, 
the warning to the judges of the people in verses 6 to 9. 
It doesn't say this is specific instruction for the judges, but 
I'll argue that that's specifically what we find. So in verses 1 
to 3, you have instructions for the people in general, verses 
4 and 5 certainly speaks to everybody in Israel, kindness, decency, 
common kindness and decency to one another, and then 6 to 9 
deals specifically with judges in Israel, those who make decisions 
concerning criminal justice. So notice in the first place, 
with reference to the principles of justice for the people, there's 
three specifics. You've got the false report in 
verse 1, the participation in evil in verse 2, and then the 
problem of partiality in verse 3. And again, all these things 
we see throughout Scripture. It's not simply confined here 
to the book of Exodus. When we move through the documents 
or the pages in the New Testament, you'll see oftentimes the sorts 
of things that are covered in passages like these are utilized 
by Paul or Peter that They're brought into service within the 
context of the church or the church and their conduct with 
reference to the world outside. So look at, first of all, the 
false report. Now, verse 1 says, you shall 
not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the 
wicked to be an unrighteous witness. It sounds like it deals with 
jurisprudence, but more likely, it's more general in nature. 
It's not specifically confined to the courtroom, though it would 
certainly apply in the courtroom. So there is a connection in a 
passage like this to the third and ninth commandments. In the 
third commandment we learn, 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. General statement concerning 
the necessity for honesty and to speak those things that do 
not impugn upon the good name of our blessed God. And then 
of course in verse 16, you shall not bear false witness against 
your neighbor. So here in 23.1, it's more of 
a general prohibition. Again, it's not confined to the 
law court. It's probably referring to the 
sins of gossip, slandering, backbiting, deceit, whispering, the kinds 
of things, as I said, are oftentimes found in New Testament vice lists 
where the Apostle tells us to not engage in such activity. 
So you shall not circulate a false report. In other words, if you 
hear information and you don't verify that information and then 
you spread that information, you are guilty of this particular 
crime. But if you receive information 
and you know it to be false information and then you go ahead and propagate 
that information, that is absolutely wicked. you shall not circulate 
a false report. Turn to the book of Romans for 
one sort of specimen sample of a citation of these kinds of 
sins or these kinds of offense. In Romans 1.29, he is indicating 
the sins of the Gentiles. These aren't confined, obviously, 
to Gentiles. Jews would be guilty of this 
as well. but being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, 
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, 
deceit, evil-mindedness. They are whisperers, backbiters, 
haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, 
disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, 
unmerciful." you see this emphasis on the sins of the tongue. It is absolutely wrong to circulate 
a false report. That's the nature of the prohibition 
in this particular section in Exodus chapter 23 at verse 1. And certainly the church would 
do well to meditate upon these things we as individuals would 
do well, to meditate upon these things, and to focus on those 
New Testament passages that call us to guard our tongues when 
it comes to these issues of gossip, slandering, backbiting, and whispering. And then if you notice this participation 
in false witness, verse 1b, so after the general prohibition 
you shall not circulate a false report, it then goes on to say 
do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Some of the commentators see 
the hand involvement in terms of swearing, but more likely 
it means do not participate with the wicked to be an unrighteous 
witness. We see that language and it immediately 
suggests to us a witness in a law court, but it's more general 
than that. Same sort of an emphasis in 1A. Don't circulate a false 
report. Don't gossip. Don't slander. 
Don't backbite. Don't engage in those sorts of 
things. The putting of the hand with 
the wicked means to side with them, to join with them. So obviously 
the prohibition means don't do that. If they've got big mouths, 
they engage in gossip, they engage in that sort of a conduct, stay 
away from them. You're not supposed to hang around 
with the kinds of people that engage in false report. Don't 
put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. 
In other words, don't engage in the things that are here described 
and don't participate in a friendship or companionship with persons 
so engaged. And as I said, the types of things 
condemned in scripture. The scripture condemns backbiting 
and slander, not just there in Romans, but you see it throughout 
the book of Proverbs, for instance. The scripture condemns gossiping 
and tailbearing, Leviticus 19, and then several places in the 
Proverbs as well. And then the scripture condemns 
the kinds of things wherein we give or we assault or attack 
or do damage to a person's reputation. Reputation matters according 
to the scripture. It's not the case that sticks 
and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. 
Names and false witness and slander and gossip oftentimes does more 
damage than physical pain and physical suffering and torment. 
The Lord Jesus tells us we're not to engage in character assassination 
when it comes in the Sermon on the Mount. So the law of God 
speaks not only to the court of law, but also to our general 
conversation and our conduct in the daily ebb and flow of 
life. We're not supposed to engage 
in speech that is calculated to destroy persons' reputations. And that's precisely what's in 
view here. Circulating a false report, do not put your hand 
with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. In other words, when 
somebody tells you something, if you don't have a right to 
that particular knowledge, if you don't rebuke them, then at 
least don't spread it further. Don't give it wheels so that 
it can cover more of Chilliwack or cover more of the lower mainland. 
Ideally, if somebody comes to us with gossip or tail bearing 
or some slander or whispering, we would say, you know what, 
brother? Know what, sister? That's really not for me to know, 
so I'd rather not hear it. That would probably be the better 
and more accurate way to deal with such things. But if it is 
the case that somebody drops that bomb on you, and you have 
that information, don't compound the particular situation by spreading 
gossip. That is ungodly behavior. It is condemned in the law of 
God. Now notice the next prohibition, 
or the next specific sin, participation in evil. Verse 2, you shall not 
follow a crowd to do evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute 
so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. Now, the 
general application, you shall not follow a crowd to do evil. 
The crowd is looting Walmart, don't follow them to do evil. If a crowd is robbing a bank 
because the alarm systems went down, don't follow them, don't 
participate in that particular act of evil. But as well, when 
we look at the specifics in terms of the context, it's most likely 
don't follow a crowd to do evil in terms of the way that you 
speak, in the way that you misrepresent, in the way that you call into 
question another person's reputation or you destroy it. Now, notice 
that this does require courage. Tonight, when we end, I'm going 
to suggest that we not only need God's grace to be good keepers 
of the law, but we need courage. What's the typical tendency when 
it comes to a crowd that's engaged in a particular practice? We 
call that peer pressure. And when that peer pressure gets 
somewhat overwhelming, a lot of people capitulate. A lot of 
people sort of bow down to that. I was just reading. the news 
recently where the Mormon church has now embraced same-sex marriage. Well, I don't think that comes 
from any of their documents. I don't think any of their documents 
condone the absolute perversion of the conjugal relationship. Most likely, they've kowtowed 
to pressure. They have bowed down to common 
sort of approach in our own generation. So you shall not follow a crowd 
to do evil. And then notice what it goes 
on to say. Nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside 
after many to pervert justice. Again, either formal or informal. And with reference to this, notice 
what happens. Nor shall you testify in a dispute 
so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. When there 
is peer pressure, and it does exercise a negative influence 
on us, and we join the ungodly crowd, then that ungodly crowd 
becomes more formidable, and it's kind of like a snowball 
rolling down the hill, and it will be able to crush anybody 
and everybody that gets in there in its particular way. So we 
don't do ourselves or anybody else any favor when we participate 
with an ungodly crowd. We make it more difficult for 
the next person that has to face that particular crowd. And then 
notice the problem of partiality in verse 3. This is not an isolated 
incident in our Bibles. You see it throughout the book 
of Deuteronomy. You see it as well. In the book 
of Proverbs, in many instances, probably the most famous expression 
of it in the New Testament is in James chapter 2, verse 1. Don't show partiality. The particular 
illustration of that is if a man comes dressed in finery into 
your church, sit up here in the front. We've got a special place 
for you. Go ahead and put your feet up. We'll get you a beverage. 
We want you to be comfortable and happy. And the guy comes 
walking in that's not dressed well, he perhaps smells of the 
street, and we tell him to sit in the back. That's partiality. 
Now in the particular context, notice in verse 3, you shall 
not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute. Now there's 
obviously a prohibition against showing partiality to the rich 
man. In fact, if you look down at 
verse 6, the instruction to the judges seems to deal with that 
particular situation. Notice in verse 6, you shall 
not pervert the judgment of your poor in his dispute. So perhaps 
it's more of a keen temptation for a judge to show partiality 
in favor of a rich man and to discriminate, perhaps, against 
a poor man, where the common folk probably want to side with 
the downtrodden, the underdog. Whatever the case may be, the 
specific sin is to go based on appearance, based on status, 
based on condition, versus based on fact, based on objectivity, 
based on the truth. So the problem of partiality 
toward the rich is a reality, but the problem of partiality 
with reference to the poor is a reality. We feel sorry for 
him. He got a bum deal. He's not had a good life. He's 
been, you know, the downtrodden poor. Yeah, but he robbed a bank. 
We're not supposed to judge the case based on his situation or 
what led him to that point. Now, in terms of sentencing, 
perhaps some of those things might come to play, but in terms 
of the act of judgment, we're to judge based on the facts, 
judge based on the data. Robert Alter says, the principle 
of equality before the law requires the avoidance of any juridical 
affirmative action. One must give no preferential 
treatment in court either to the poor man because of his afflictions 
or to the rich man because of his power. You're not supposed 
to do that. And so in verse 3 with reference to the general population 
with the people of Israel, you shall not show partiality to 
a poor man in his dispute. I mean, people have a whole lot 
of reasons why they sin or commit crimes, but we're supposed to 
judge based on the sin or the crime. Now, if there are those 
sort of circumstances, yeah, there's a sympathy involved if 
somebody was, you know, abused and rejected and treated poorly 
and all that sort of thing. led him to a life of crime, again, 
perhaps that comes into the sentencing phase, but in terms of the facts 
of the case, in terms of the investigation, and in terms of 
the application of the law and justice to a particular situation, 
this is in the general, or in the specific courtroom, but even 
in terms of general life, don't show partiality to a poor man 
in his dispute, don't take the side of the poor man because 
he's poor, he may be wrong in the dispute, he may be absolutely 
wrong, And it's required that you point that out if called 
upon to testify in this particular situation. So as I said, the 
New Testament classic case is the admonition by James in chapter 
2, verse 1. The NIV translates it, not partiality, 
but favoritism. We're showing favoritism. We're 
going based on something other than the facts or the data involved 
in the case. and that may include any kind 
of an external basis, appearance, rank, race, or social status. See, when we try to manipulate 
life and we try to give people breaks based on their race or 
ethnicity or their social or economic status, that's the misapplication. We're not supposed to do that. 
You're supposed to judge things based on objective data and there 
is a criteria specified. And then the main principle involved 
is simply that. The facts do not depend on a 
person's social status. If we judge that way, if we entertain 
that type of thinking, it necessarily creates a two-tier system of 
justice. which is a demoralizing prospect 
for any body politic. I mean it's not just demoralizing 
for the people that are always and constantly losing, but it's 
demoralizing for the stability of the body politic as a whole. 
There ought not to be, there ought to be equal application 
under the law for all men. Doesn't matter what their race, 
what their creed, what their color, what their you know, whatever 
their situation, we judge them based on the law. That's the 
emphasis that you find in God's law. Now moving from the principles 
of justice for the people in verses 1 to 3, notice the emphasis 
on decency among the people. There's two specific issues raised. The first is a wandering animal, 
the second is an injured animal. The wandering animal in verse 
4 and the injured animal in verse 5. I think Stuart is right when 
he says these requirements are neither about the legal system 
per se, nor about oxen or donkeys only. They are expressions of 
Yahweh's expectations for his people that concentrate on general 
social attitudes using situations involving lost or stumbling animals 
as paradigmatic examples. I think the fundamental principle 
here The underlying point is this, personal differences up 
to and including animosity, up to and including enmity, personal 
differences between men is never an excuse to neglect common decency 
among men. In other words, if there's going 
to be a dispute, if we're going to have issues, we need to do 
it in the orbit of Christian ethics. We need to do it in a 
way that honors God, even though it's a difficult situation. I 
think one of the best illustrations outside of the wandering animal 
and the injured animal is divorce. The Bible is anti-divorce. The Bible advocates for a permanent 
view of marriage, with two exceptions, porneia and desertion. And I would put abuse as a subset 
of desertion. So when it comes to those particular 
cases, if somebody has biblical warrant to divorce, my encouragement 
is to work it out as decently and as properly as you can. Even 
though you have odds or at odds with one another, there is a 
dissolution of this marriage coming, go about your business 
in a manner that shows some degree of mutual respect so that you 
don't degenerate to the level of beasts. So I think the underlying 
principle is that personal differences between men is never an excuse 
to neglect common decency among men. We have a problem in our 
society with a lack of common decency. Even if we don't agree, 
even if we don't like each other, there ought to be common decency. 
We ought not to engage in political violence because people disagree 
with our positions. If that's the level that we're 
gonna degenerate to, we're in bad shape as a body politic. Now look at the wandering animal 
in verse 4. If you meet, notice the language, 
your enemy's ox. This is somebody you don't like. 
He's your enemy. I mean, that's strong language, 
isn't it? Your enemy. Think about my life. Do I have enemies? I mean, there's 
probably people I'm not thrilled with. I mean, people in my realm, 
there's certainly some political people I might consider as my 
enemy. They consider me as their enemy. 
But really, think about the choice of language here. If you meet 
your enemy. So you really don't like this 
fellow. You've got odds with this fellow. You've got some 
serious issues with this particular man. If you meet your enemy's 
ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back 
to him again. Your enemy status, your enmity, 
your animosity, your personal offense at this particular individual 
does not validate you being an indecent wretch to him. If you 
see his animal wandering, you help him. Even if he is your 
enemy, you render that particular aid. Now, you can see why the 
law is written in this particular way. I mean, if it said, if you 
meet your friend's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall 
surely bring it back to him again. Well, of course, I love him. 
He's my friend. I want to help him. But it's 
your enemy's ox. If it wasn't your enemy's ox, 
there probably wouldn't need to be a law. Because if it was 
your friend's ox, you'd probably be happy to help your friend 
go after the ox. Or if you saw the friend's ox 
sort of meandering down the road, you'd throw a noose on him, not 
a noose, a lasso, lasso. I think you say lasso in Canada. 
I was brought up with lasso. And then you'd bring it back 
to your friend. But the point is, is that your personal animosities 
never validates indecency in the body politic. should be able 
to disagree with somebody even count somebody as your enemy 
and nevertheless not wish them the kind of harm that a lost 
animal would certainly bring upon them. The temptation is 
obvious and the text specifically addresses that. If you meet your 
enemy's ox, what would be the natural tendency? Hey, there's 
my enemy's ox, good for him, I'm glad he's going to leave 
my enemy, because I don't want my enemy to benefit, I don't 
want him to prosper. Now the pagans around Israel 
might have functioned that way, but the covenant community is 
not supposed to function that way. The covenant community is 
supposed to love one another. The covenant community is supposed 
to treat one another with respect. But built into that is the realization 
that even within the covenant community, where white hot love 
might not always burn equally for every single person in the 
body politic, one might even be your enemy. Nevertheless, 
you have a responsibility to your enemy to grab his ox and 
to take it back to him. The presence of personal differences, 
the loser of the animal in this instance is an enemy, does not 
negate common decency. Now notice the injured animal 
in verse 5. Flip it over, same sort of a situation, but it's 
an injury now, but notice the point. if you see the donkey 
of one who hates you. So in verse 4 it's someone you 
hate, and in verse 5 it's someone who hates you. The biblical law 
is comprehensive. The biblical law sort of envisages 
the possible sort of temptations built into life in community. 
So if you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its 
burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely 
help him with it. The him there is the guy who 
hates you. Wouldn't typically be the case 
that you'd have a burdened donkey sort of wandering around ownerless. The owner is going to be with 
the donkey that's loaded for bear. and so the point is if 
you see your neighbor the guy who hates you and you see that 
his animal is injured under a burden you help him with the animal 
you help him alleviate the problem you don't say well that guy hates 
me it's not gonna do any good to repair our relationship so 
I'm just gonna wander by and I'm gonna probably glance at 
him a few times just to see how much he's struggling No, you're 
not supposed to do that. Whatever problems you may have 
with that person or whatever problems that person may have 
with you, it does not invalidate your responsibility as a covenant 
citizen to engage in common decency. We can't save each other. We 
can't make everybody love us. We can't make ourselves love 
everybody, especially if they're an enemy, but we can engage in 
common decency. You see, some of this structurally 
is so that the body politic doesn't crumble, when we are in what 
appears at sometimes to be late stages in western civilization, 
it's just these sorts of things that are vanishing, it's just 
these sorts of things that are gone, it's the vindictive spirit, 
it's the vengeful spirit, it's the, oh this guy can't stand 
me so I'm not going to help him anyway, or I can't stand him 
so I'm not going to help him anyway. No, biblical law calls 
you to responsible behavior in spite of whatever differences 
you may have with that particular person. You do it because it's 
right. You do it because God commands 
it. You do it because it's just and 
it's decent. You shall surely help him with 
it. Now, if you go over there and 
he spits in your face and says, I hate you, get away from me, 
well, then I think that's a Romans 12 situation. As far as it depends 
on you, be at peace with all men. So if you're going to try 
to render aid to the guy who hates you and he, as I said, 
he spits on you or attacks you or says, get away from me and 
my injured donkey. But typically, I would suspect 
that even somebody who hated me would want me to help pull 
the burden off the donkey so he could get up. So common decency. That, you know, I guess as you 
get older perhaps you see it less and you appreciate it more. 
And this is a passage built into the law code to ensure that that 
kind of behavior was the standard, was the norm, was that which 
everybody operated accordingly, according to. Now as you move 
through the Bible you realize that the law is It doesn't have 
the power to convert, it doesn't have the power to change the 
heart, but it certainly does say who will be punished for 
violating these particular infractions. And then notice, the warning 
to the judges of the people, excuse me, in verses 6 to 9. 
The judges are in view in this section. they have the power 
to pervert judgment in verse 6, they have the power to implement 
the death penalty in verse 7, they are the ones at risk with 
reference to bribes in verse 8, and they can oppress the stranger 
in civil court. So there's that general prohibition 
in chapter 22, if you go back to verse 21, you shall neither 
mistreat a stranger nor oppress him for you were strangers in 
the land of Egypt. That's certainly appropriate 
for all the persons in the body politic, the general population. 
But it would certainly be appropriate for a judge, because what might 
a judge's temptation be? Well, he's not a citizen anyway. 
I mean, if we have to adjudicate this matter, certainly I'll rule 
in favor of the Israelite, because this guy is not a full citizen. 
He's not part of the Commonwealth. Well, that's prohibited. You're 
not supposed to judge that way. You're not supposed to defer 
righteous judgment based on the ethnicity or the status of the 
man standing in your courtroom. So notice, the perversion of 
justice in verse 6, you shall not pervert the judgment of your 
poor in his dispute. So again, the contrast with the 
perversion of justice in favor of the poor in verse 3. I'm not 
sure that it's always the case that the crowd will favor the 
underdog and the judge will always favor the rich, but it's certainly 
probably a potential. but the judge shouldn't as well 
pervert the judgment of your rich in his dispute either. A 
man might be rich, he might be arrogant, he might be irritating, 
he might be sanctimonious, he might be just a guy that everybody 
can't stand. He still deserves his day in 
court, and he still deserves the right application of justice. We don't say, well, he got what 
it was, maybe he didn't commit that crime, but he's so obnoxious 
he deserves it for something. That's not the way the law courts 
are supposed to operate, brethren. We may at some fundamental sinful 
level go, oh yeah, I'm all for that, until it's us on the other 
side of that bench. Then we want equal justice under 
the law irrespective of my personality, irrespective of my bank account 
or lack thereof, irrespective of anything other than the facts 
of the case. That's the emphasis in this law 
code. Notice secondly the punishment 
of the innocent in verse 7. Verse 7, keep yourself far from 
a false matter. Do not kill the innocent and 
righteous for I will not justify the wicked. The necessity to 
avoid a false matter. Now, how do you think you do 
that as a judge in a courtroom? You emphasize due process. You 
emphasize the role of witnesses. You emphasize evidence. You emphasize 
cross-examination. You emphasize all those things 
that are foundational to Western civilization that we pulled right 
out of the Bible. We didn't get this law code because 
somebody, you know, a couple hundred years ago was brilliant. We got this law code that underpins 
Western civilization from the Bible, from God. Now, people 
would argue and say, well, that's not true. It is true. That's 
where the foundation of Western jurisprudence is rooted in the 
scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. So the necessity 
to avoid a false matter. Stewart makes the observation, 
honesty must prevail throughout the legal system or the system 
cannot function fairly. I mean, that's a given, right? 
That's just absolutely, positively true. So what should happen if 
somebody perjures themselves? They should be punished. There 
should be harsh sanctions imposed upon anybody that would swear 
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
and then lie or perjure themselves on the stand. That is a perversion 
of justice. And then notice the prohibition 
relative to the execution of criminal offenders. The middle 
of verse 7, do not kill the innocent and righteous. That's something 
a judge would certainly have to know. That's something a judge 
would certainly have to be down with. Don't kill the innocent 
and righteous. It was necessary for two or three 
witnesses in a capital case. Don't be hasty. Don't rush. Don't get to the point. Don't 
neglect evidence. Don't do any of that. But be 
solemn and be responsible in the execution of justice, especially 
in a capital case, because you're not supposed to kill the innocent 
and righteous. That's a bad application of civil 
justice. And I think that last part, for 
I will not justify the wicked, I think it speaks specifically 
to the middle clause. For the judge who kills the innocent 
and righteous, God will not justify that wicked judge. In other words, 
if a judge violates his calling and his prerogative as sort of 
the mouthpiece of God, then God Most High will not justify that 
wicked. God Most High will destroy him. Now, obviously, this particular 
passage presents some degree of challenge in terms of our 
salvation. I will not justify the wicked. 
Precisely what God does with us, isn't it? We're wicked. In 
fact, Paul tells us in Romans 3 and 4, he justifies the ungodly. Proverbs 17, 15 says, He who 
justifies the wicked and who condemns the just, both of them 
alike are an abomination to the Lord. We ought to praise God 
for the gospel of our salvation. It's not just a thought, it's 
not just an emotion, it's not just a feeling, but it's a legal 
transaction. The just one takes the punishment 
for the unjust, and then we receive, by imputation, the righteousness 
of our blessed Savior. So this, I will not justify the 
wicked in the matter of civil jurisprudence, means that the 
judge who kills an innocent person is not going to be justified, 
he is going to be brought to judgment, ultimately at the bar 
of God's judgment. But in terms of soteriology, 
we ought to praise God for that great exchange, Christ in our 
stead. And then notice the problem of 
bribery, verse 8. It says, and you shall take no 
bribe. Again, this isn't the general 
population. This is the courtroom. You shall take no bribe. Why? Because a bribe blinds the discerning 
and perverts the words of the righteous. It's obvious, right? 
You bribe a judge so that he kind of winks or neglects or 
doesn't look at a particular piece of evidence. The judge 
makes sure that he bypasses a crucial component in terms of the defense. And then we find a guilty verdict 
rendered. You shall take no bribe if you're 
a judge. And this again is not isolated. 
You've got references in the book of Deuteronomy, three that 
I counted. You had it practically in 1 Samuel 
chapter 8. Samuel's sons were the kinds 
of men that took bribes. You see Samuel mentions himself 
that he didn't. And then Proverbs 15, 27, 17, 
23, 21, 14, 29, 4. All prohibitions against bribery. Now bribery is a horrific thing. 
It's basically paying for justice. Well, if we're paying for justice, 
it's injustice. It's not righteous behavior. And I think Stuart makes a good 
observation. He says that Paul reminds his 
readers that there is no action, no matter how evil, that people 
will resist doing if the financial reward is large enough. Where 
does he remind him of that? First Timothy chapter 6, the 
love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. So if you can 
pay enough, then you may just fly in terms of this particular 
case. So bribery is definitely condemned 
by God if a judge is found out to be taking bribes they ought 
to be prosecuted very, very harshly, because it is to prostitute, 
it is to pervert the actual act of justice and its application. And then finally, the oppression 
of the stranger. I mentioned the prohibition in 
terms of the general population, 22, 21, you're not supposed to 
mistreat the alien, you're not supposed to mistreat the stranger, 
the person that does not have citizen or the rights of citizenship. But with reference to the judge, 
you shall not oppress a stranger. for you know the heart of a stranger, 
because you were strangers in the land of Egypt." So it makes 
the same sort of an appeal. You know what it's like to be 
a stranger, you knew what it was like to live in Egypt, you knew 
what it was like to be treated sorely and harshly and in an 
oppressive manner. Don't do that likewise. See, 
biblical law is not about let's try to get back at everybody, 
let's be vindictive, let's try to make everybody feel the same 
sort of pain that we ourselves felt. You get that when people 
say, well I had a hard life, they should have a hard life 
too. Really? Does that balance out the universe? Is that kind 
of the way we're supposed to approach things? No, the people 
of God are supposed to live in light of God's law, not in light 
of our own wretched hearts or our own remaining corruption 
or what we think might be fitting and appropriate for somebody 
that we count an enemy or somebody that we know hates us. Now, in 
conclusion, there's two practical observations. First, the necessity 
for personal obedience. The necessity for personal obedience. 
When we read these sort of passages, yeah, we don't really get confronted 
with the whole, you know, wandering ox or the, you know, bird and 
donkey kind of a thing, but There is that principle where we do 
buttheads with people in civil society. Not everybody's our 
bestest buddy, not everybody's a BFF, so we have friction, we 
have some tensions with people. How do we treat that? With the 
decency and the respect that is afforded to them as image 
bearers of the living and true God. Now, with reference to personal 
obedience, as I mentioned earlier, we need grace from God on high. Because at times we have remaining 
corruption, we don't want to do the things that God calls 
us to do. We need grace so that we'll comply. But courage, the 
temptation to circulate a false report, demands courage to resist. Especially when everybody else 
is circulating that false report. Somebody's got to be man enough 
and courageous enough to say no more. I'm not going to participate 
in this gossip. I'm not going to spread slander. 
I'm not going to circulate a false report. As well, the temptation 
to follow a crowd demands courage to resist. I mean, face it, we 
don't typically like to go against the flow, do we? We want to be 
team players, even if the team happens to be, you know, messed 
up and bent and twisted. We don't want that kind of responsibility, 
but that's what the Bible calls us to. We need to be courageous 
men and women to uphold God's standards. The temptation to 
show partiality demands courage to resist. And I think this is 
a tough one in our present evil age. I think that, you know, 
the emphasis today is on, I don't want to get into it too much, 
but you've got to be very careful when it comes to these sorts 
of things. We cannot show partiality. You don't show partiality based 
on ethnicity. It's wrong to, you know, favor 
white people in the earlier part of the history of our country. 
But it's wrong to favor black people now. You can't do that. It is wrong. If it's racism then, 
it's racism now. We don't justify by, you know, 
practicing it equally. We need to resist that tendency. 
Wrong is wrong. Right is right. Law is to be 
applied equally, irrespective of person's colors. I've mentioned 
to you Isaiah 11. You know, he doesn't judge by 
the seeing of the eyes. He doesn't judge by the hearing 
of the ears. That messianic expectation that 
Messiah would be deaf and blind based on that passage. Well, 
the passage doesn't mean that he would be deaf and blind. It 
means he wouldn't go based on appearance. He wouldn't go based 
on, you know, half a story. He goes based on justice. And then the temptation to disregard 
common decency demands courage to resist. I may not necessarily 
like to help the guy that hates me. I might not necessarily like 
to help the guy that I'm not a big fan of, that's my enemy. But we have to overcome what 
we necessarily like or don't like. We have to do what's right 
in spite of the particular conditions that prevail. And then secondly, 
the stability of the civil order. The stability of the civil order 
demands individual integrity. Self-government is foundational. Self-government is absolutely 
crucial. If you don't have people governing 
themselves, you've got breakdown in society. Have you ever wondered 
why or how or mused upon or thought about or contemplated the fact 
that in Galatians chapter 5 a fruit of the Holy Spirit is self-control? A fruit of the Holy Spirit. Well, 
if I've got the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit's controlling 
me. Now, the Spirit works in such a way that you control yourself. There needs to be self-government, 
family government, church government, societal government, but none 
of that works if we don't watch our own hearts. As well, the 
need for individual honesty. If persons are dishonest, it's 
hard to build a body politic that will survive. I'm not talking 
about, you know, perfection here. I mean, the law code is not addressing 
a perfect people. God speaks or gives us laws with 
reference to things that, you know, are unimaginable to some 
people. I mean, the previous section 
or in chapter 22, those three capital offenses. I mean, you 
know, at least one of them there. Most people don't typically think 
about, they don't imagine that as a sin of choice. So God gives 
the law to an imperfect people to regulate their conduct, albeit 
imperfectly, so that they don't kill each other, so that they 
don't destroy civilization, and so that they can march forward 
to some degree in a manner that does reflect God's common grace 
in this civil order. We need as well righteous judges. 
And this is a disheartening thing, these rules applicable to judges, 
you know, with reference to bribery. It may not be a monetary bribe. 
It may be your job. It may be getting canceled. It 
may be, you know, if you go against us, then you're going to have 
a tough time. Judges need to resist that. They 
should be the most courageous people in the body politic. As 
well, the need for due process. All of this bespeaks a situation 
where persons have the right to give their defense, the right 
to have cross-examination, the right to present their evidence, 
the right to be heard in civil matters. And then finally, the 
need for equal protection under the law. Consider the people 
groups that are addressed in this brief section, chapters 
22 and 23. The law of God affords protection 
to all groups in society. The vulnerable virgin, 22, 16, 
and 17. The stranger, 22, 21. The widow and orphan, 22, 22, 
to 24. The poor, 22, 25, to 27. The poor in 23, 3 and 6, neither 
benefiting him because he is poor or penalizing him because 
he is poor. The man who is your enemy or 
who hates you, 23, 4 and 5, and then the stranger in the court. 
So in all of these things, you see this application, equal application 
of the law for all persons, irrespective of their status, their economic 
situation, their ethnicity, or whatever it may be. We need a 
return to that. And as I've mentioned before, 
it's not a bad thing to pray for judges, to pray for civil 
authority, that we would see some of these things returned. 
and that we could actually function in a way that's honoring to God. 
Well, let us pray. Our Father in heaven, we thank 
you for your word. We thank you that it is comprehensive, 
that it does speak to issues concerning everyday life and 
the various things we find ourselves in. We ask God for judges in 
our land that you would turn their hearts in the direction 
of righteousness, I pray that you would cause them to take 
seriously their responsibility. We pray for this commissioner, 
the person in charge of this hearing with reference to the 
Emergencies Act. We long to see justice played 
out there. We long to see vindication. We 
long to see God glorified in the handing down, not of a verdict, 
I know that's not what this is, but at least a realization that 
things were done in a hasty way. As well, God, we pray for those 
in political authority. We just commit them to you, to 
the word of your grace. We pray for your restraint to 
be upon them. And we just pray, God in heaven, that your will 
would be done on earth as it is in heaven. And as we see increasing 
abortion rates and euthanasia just about including everybody 
anymore, it grieves our hearts. And we know, God, that you are 
holy and righteous. and that the blood of righteous 
people cry out to you from the grave. So in wrath remember mercy 
and turn hearts for your glory.