Exodus 21:1–23:33

In this chapter we have various "judgments" or "fixed ordinances" recorded. The people had to keep them as the rule of their conduct in all their relationships with each other, and as fitting those who stood in covenant relationship with God. The penalties for breaking them clearly fit the character and principle of that relationship, which was law.

These verses (Ex. 21:1-7) are not strictly part of the covenant: "Now these are the judgments that you shall set before them." Psalm 19:7-11 mentions several distinct things: testimony, statutes, commandments, judgments. These last I take to be God's decision on particular points. "The rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether."

The chapter after the ten commandments opens with the "judgments," which Moses was to set before the people. If we turn to Malachi 4:4, we find both "statutes" and "judgments" mentioned as well as the "law." The three words clearly cover all the legislation that reached Israel through Moses. Note this as we begin: in the days of Malachi, nearly a thousand years after God first gave it, it was still as binding as at the beginning. It was for "all Israel," and valid all through that period.

On God's part, we find Him enacting laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice... He provided for everything, maintained every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. He weighed each man's claim in a balance set with divine accuracy, so no one had any ground to complain of a decision.

The fact that the LORD had to enact laws against certain crimes proves that man is capable of committing those crimes. If the capability and the tendency were not there, there would be no need of the enactments.

The study of this section of our book is well designed to impress the heart with a sense of God's unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness... Here, too, we may see the amazing condescension of Him who is the great God of heaven and earth. He can still stoop to judge between man and man over the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth.

This law about the Hebrew servant follows chapter 20, where God gives the ten commandments. Someone might ask, "What use was it for God to give a law that men did not want and could not keep?" Well, if God had not had the Lord Jesus Christ, the faithful Hebrew Servant, in reserve, it would not have been of much use. It could only have put Him in the place of a Judge. It would have brought out the justice of His throne, while His heart of love would never have been known.

The servant was perfectly free to go out, so far as he himself was concerned. But out of love for his master, his wife, and his children, he willingly bound himself to lifelong service, and was willing to bear its marks in his own body. The application of this to the Lord Jesus Christ is obvious. In Him we see the One who dwelt in the bosom of the Father before all worlds — the object of His eternal delight... But He loved the Father, whose purposes were involved, and the Church as a whole and every member of it, whose salvation was involved. So He came down to earth of His own will, emptied Himself, made Himself of no reputation, and took the form of a servant and the marks of perpetual service.

These verses are not really part of the covenant — "Now these are the judgments that you shall set before them." … The very first thing God decides here is a detail about service: "If you buy a Hebrew servant." A captive would be in the power of his master. But this judgment concerns one under the law, a Hebrew servant. … The Gentiles — the nations outside Israel — were never under the law, and I do not find this judgment brought into the New Testament. Paul only gives directions of complete submission to the master, whether the master is a believer or not.

Sin created disorder and misery. Yet Jehovah set merciful limits, above all for the people of His choice, until the day when all things are restored… An Israelite in sheer distress might be sold to one of his brothers. But it was never for life. As a rule the term was six years of servitude, and in the seventh he went out free for nothing.

He was to get his freedom for nothing after serving six years. Deuteronomy commands the master not to let him go empty-handed, but to give him from his flock, his threshing floor and his winepress. In this Israel was to remember their own rescue from the house of slavery (Deut. 15:12-18). If the servant chose to stay with his master for ever, his ear was to be bored through as the sign of lifelong servitude (Deut. 15:17).

At the beginning of Exodus 21 we find the picture, or type, of the servant. Christ is the constant object of the Holy Spirit, and nothing shows it more strikingly than this. Even in these temporary rules, God cannot help looking ahead to His Son. It is the condition of a slave; yet even there God has Christ before Him.

He was the "Hebrew servant," the faithful servant who had served His time to the One whose servant He had become; and He might have said, now I can "go out free"; I have served my time, and I can "go out free" (v. 2). And indeed He did say, "I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."

He took the form of a servant. He came to do God's will — not His own will, but the will of Him who sent Him. He served His full allotted time perfectly, and might therefore have gone out free. For His own part, He had no need to go to the cross. Nothing made Him go but the constraint of His own heart. He longed to bring about the glory of God and to win His bride, the pearl of great price. Why then did He let Himself be nailed to that shameful cross? Because He loved His Master, His wife, and His children, and would therefore become a servant for ever. He loved His wife — the Church — and gave Himself for her. The same unchanging affection bound Him to His children, His own considered one by one.

The servant was perfectly free to go out, as far as he himself was concerned. He had discharged every claim, and could therefore walk out in unquestioned freedom; but because of his love for his master, his wife, and his children, he voluntarily bound himself to perpetual servitude — and not only that, he was also willing to bear in his own person the marks of that servitude.

As long as God's saint has need, the Saviour serves… But what about the day when there is no need left to meet? If there is no need on our part, there is love on His part, and love will always serve even when there is no question of need.

What redemption shows us is that we are free, yet free to serve. This is the fruit of redemption — that we are free to be servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the saints, for His sake.

Straight after the awful terrors that went with the giving of the law came two laws. They set before us, in a beautiful and telling way, the person and work of the Lord Jesus, and God's grace by Him. It is like an evening rainbow after the thunder, lightning, and storm of a summer's day.

The very first thing God decides here is a detail about service: "If you buy a Hebrew servant." If he were a captive, he would be in the power of his master; but this judgment concerns one under the law, a Hebrew servant. The Gentiles were never under the law, and I do not find this judgment brought into the New Testament.

If he was alone in becoming a slave, he should be freed alone: if his wife was with him, then both should be freed (v. 3). However, if the master had given him a wife, then both the wife and any children she bore would still belong to the master, while he could be freed alone. This does not correspond to the grace of God today, but it illustrates the hardness of law alone.

At the start of Exodus 21 we find the picture of the servant. Nothing shows more strikingly that Christ is the one the Holy Spirit always has in view than this: even in these temporary rules, God cannot keep from looking ahead to His Son. No doubt the rule belonged to the earth, and to a condition that was in itself far from suitable to the mind of God. It is the condition of a slave; yet even there God has Christ before Him. If a Hebrew servant was bought, he was to serve six years, and in the seventh he was to go out free for nothing.

He "came in by himself," and He might have "gone out by himself" (v. 3). He was the only one who could ever have "entered into life" by keeping the commandments… He had a right to enter into life. The law knew nothing about saving a person. It promised life through obeying it: "the man who does these things shall live in them." The Lord Jesus Christ alone had earned life by obeying the law in every smallest detail, and He might have "gone out free."

He was the one grain of choice wheat. Had He not died, He would have remained alone — precious in Himself, but bearing no fruit. He might have "gone out free," but it would have been by Himself. He might have "entered into life," but it would have been alone. He would not do that. Instead He became obedient to death, so that He might see the fruit of the anguish of His soul, so that He might bring many sons to glory, so that He might have His wife and children. This was a voluntary act. Though free, He was free to serve; He is the One who came and had His ear bored so that He might serve for ever.

Everyone has felt how painful the thought of service is to the natural heart. Unless we see that service goes together with freedom, that is what we will always think. Redemption shows us that we are free, and yet free to serve… If we did not know that we were free, we would only be seeking to serve ourselves.

If he was alone in becoming a slave, he should be freed alone; if his wife was with him, then both should be freed (v. 3). But if the master had given him a wife, the wife and any children she bore would still belong to the master. He could go free only by himself. This does not correspond to the grace of God today, but it illustrates the hardness of law alone.

He was the one grain of choice wheat. Had He not died He would have remained alone, precious in Himself, but He would have borne no fruit. He might have "gone out free," but it would have been by Himself. He might have entered into life, but it would have been alone. He would not do that. Instead He became obedient to death, so that He might see the fruit of the anguish of His soul, so that He might "bring many sons to glory," and so that He might have His wife and children. This was a voluntary act — though free, He was free to serve.

The heart of Jesus could not be satisfied unless He had His Bride and children with Him where He was. So He had to carry His service down into the depths of death. "If his master gives him a wife." The bride is given to Jesus, just as God gave Adam a wife. In this I can never separate the Father's love from His gift of the Church to Jesus. Nor can I separate either from the love of Jesus for the Church in giving Himself for it. … If He loves His wife, He must serve for her.

We can only wonder whether any Hebrew servant ever said, "I love my master, my wife, and my children," putting his master before his wife and children. We can only say that the master would have to be a most wonderful person to be given such a place above them. But our blessed Lord did take the servant's place. He came first to do the will of God, devoted to His glory. He came second to build a bond with redeemed people that nothing will ever be allowed to break.

Such was the choice of Jesus — not to be merely a servant here on earth for a time. He has chosen of His own gracious will to be servant for ever. Of course He must be a divine person, the Son, and He is also the exalted Lord. Yet by His own grace He is still the servant for ever. Even in glory we shall know Him this way. What is He doing now? He gave a sample of it before He went up on high. When the time was come, He took a basin of water and a towel, and washed His disciples' feet.

In perfect grace He holds Himself responsible to receive all who come within the range of God's purposes. He is responsible not only to receive them, but to keep them through every difficulty and trial of their winding path down here — yes, even in death itself, should it come. And He is responsible to raise them all up in the last day. Oh, how secure is the feeblest member of the Church of God!

Here we have one of the shadows of good things to come. It is a shadow of the True Servant, the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved the Church and gave Himself for it. The Hebrew servant had served the legal time, so he was free to go out. But he loved his wife and his children. His love was so great that he gave up his own freedom for their sakes. He proved his love for them by sacrificing himself. He might have gone out and enjoyed his freedom, but what of them? How could he leave them behind? Impossible.

The Hebrew servant could go out free for nothing, after six years. So Christ had completely fulfilled every possible claim on Him. But it is added, "If the servant plainly says, I love my master." From here on it is no longer a question of law at all. He really had been under law. But now something else opens up.

We cannot help wondering whether any Hebrew servant ever said, "I love my master, my wife, and my children." Those words put his master before wife and children. We can only say that the master would have to be a most wonderful person to gain such a place. But our blessed Lord took the servant's place. He came first to do the will of God in devotion to His glory. He came second to establish a relationship with redeemed men that nothing will ever break.

In verse 5 we read, "If the servant plainly says, I love my master." How plainly He said it! He cried, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will!" The servant is one who does not do his own will.

The servant is the Lord Jesus, who willingly took this place in coming into the world. Now He has chosen to be a servant forever. He loves His Master (God the Father). He loves His wife (the church of God, the assembly). He loves His children (everyone who has been born again).

He served His full time perfectly, so He could have gone out free. As He said to Peter, "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" For His own part, He had no need to go to the cross. Nothing made Him go except the constraint of His own heart, and His desire to bring glory to God and to win His bride, the pearl of great price.

As long as there is need in the saint of God, there is service on the part of the Saviour. It is impossible that Jesus should not serve as long as there is a want to be met. But what about the day when there will be no need to be met? If there is no need on our part, there is love on His part, and love will always serve even when there is no question of need.

The great Antitype of the Hebrew servant, pictured in Exodus 21:2-6, is found here saying, "I love the Father" — the equivalent of "I love My Master … I will not go out free."

As far as he himself was concerned, the servant was completely free to go. He had met every claim, and could walk away in freedom no one could question. But because he loved his master, his wife, and his children, he chose to bind himself to service for life. And not only that: he was also willing to carry the marks of that service on his own body.

In Exodus 21:6 — and twice in chapter 22:9, and once in chapter 22:8 — the word for "judges" is "elohim," which means God. That is because the judge stands there for God, and God has established the authorities that exist. We are to submit to them.

The doorpost was the sign of personal limits; by it the family entered, and no one else had the right. So it was not something a stranger could claim. Above all, it belonged to the household. This is also why the blood of the Passover lamb was put on the doorpost. As far as that house was concerned, it held back the hand of God from the firstborn inside — but from no one else.

This is far from obedience forced by the threat of punishment. The slave chooses to suffer pain and shed his blood rather than stop serving. And there is no doubt that the right reading of this sees it as a picture of the divine Servant. Of His own will He binds Himself to service for ever, because He loves God and the spiritual Bride. In Psalm 40:6 He says, "You have opened My ears." The word translated "opened," kahhrah, is translated "pierced" in Psalm 22:16 (my hands and my feet).

The servant is the Lord Jesus, who willingly took this place when He came into the world (Philippians 2:7). He has willingly decided to be a servant forever, because He loves His Master (God the Father), He loves His wife (the church of God, the assembly), and He loves His children (every person who has been born again). The boring of the ear teaches us something too. A hearing ear is the main mark of a true servant. Here the boring of it reminds us of the death of the Lord Jesus in obedience to His Father's will. That death confirms that He is a servant forever.

The Hebrew servant of Exodus 21:2-6 pictured a greater Servant. Here that Servant is found saying, "I love the Father." It means the same as "I love My Master … I will not go out free." And in John 13:1 we already had the statement of His love for those pictured by the wife and children in Exodus.

So the Lord presented Himself in this wonderful way as taking the form of a servant, with His ear bored. This was not about His becoming a man. But when He had served the seven years, He says, I will not go out free. He remains a servant for ever. He might have had twelve legions of angels and gone out free; but that is not what He came for. He said, I will be a servant for ever.

Jesus loves the Father. The security of every member of the redeemed family matches the strength of that love. When a sinner believes on the name of the Son of God, his salvation is, in one sense, simply the expression of Christ's love to the Father.

The words ebed and doulos (the words most often used for "servant") mean bondmen or slaves. Some were bought with money and some were taken in war… A bought servant who was circumcised could eat the Passover among the Israelites, because as one who was bought he belonged to the family; a hired servant could not. (In the same way non-Jews, though outsiders, bought with the blood of Christ, have every privilege of grace.) This kind of servitude was a result of sin, yet the law of Moses recognised it and gave rules about it, including rules to protect the slaves.

Slavery had not yet been driven out of Israel. We must always remember that the Word itself says the law could not bring perfection. Yet the law guarded and limited slavery so far that it became a different thing from the total control over another person's will that every nation around them counted as lawful.

The law did not forbid the sale of one's daughter to another man as a female slave (v.7). She would not, however, go free in the year of jubilee, because by then she might be her buyer's wife, or the wife of his son (vv. 8-9). Yet the law did protect her. If the buyer was not pleased with her, he had to let her father or another relative buy her back. But he must not sell her to a foreigner.

Verses 7-11 deal with the case of the woman who becomes a bondservant. As the weaker party she might become the victim of wrongful treatment, so her rights are clearly defined.

Though she might "not go out as the male slaves do," God in His tenderness carefully guarded her rights in the place she held. People too often treat those who are completely under them and dependent on them according to their changing moods and whims. This was not to be… He must not degrade her in her service, and he could not sell her to a foreign nation. By his dishonest dealing he had lost rights he would otherwise have had. Whether she was promised in marriage to his son or to himself, her rights were carefully kept; and if he neglected them by taking another wife, she was to go completely free. So, in His compassionate love, the Lord surrounds His weak and defenceless ones with laws that secure fair and considerate treatment for them.

…the consideration of each would yield valuable instruction as witnessing to God's gracious care and protection of those who were weak and in a position of inferiority, and, as such, might be subject to oppression, and of being unjustly dealt with by those who were stronger and in a place of authority over them.

We may note that under the law some things were allowed that Christians today would not tolerate. The Lord's own words in Matthew 19:7-8 show this. Always keep in mind that "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19), since it set out the minimum of God's demands… Christ realizes and displays the full measure of all God's thoughts and desires.

At the start of Exodus 21 we find the picture of the servant. Nothing shows more strikingly that Christ is the constant object of the Holy Spirit than this: even in these temporary rules, God cannot help looking ahead to His Son. No doubt it was tied to the earth, and to a condition that was anything but suitable to the mind of God. It is the condition of a slave; yet even there God has Christ before Him.

These verses (Ex. 21:1-7) are not properly a part of the covenant: "Now these are the rules that you shall set before them." Psalm 19:7-11 mentions several distinct things — testimony, statutes, commandments, judgments. I take these last to be God's decision on certain points. "The rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether."

Considering each statute would yield valuable instruction, as they witness to God's gracious care and protection of those who were weak and in a lower position. Such people might face oppression and unjust dealing from those who were stronger and in a place of authority over them.

The law did not forbid the sale of one's daughter to another man as a female slave (v.7). She would not, however, go free in the year of jubilee. She might be her purchaser's wife before that time, or the wife of his son (vv. 8-9). Yet the law did protect her. If the buyer was not pleased with her, he should let her father or another relative redeem her. But he must not sell her to a foreigner.

The Jews saw this as being as binding as marriage. Only divorce could end it. The law gave certain rules about a betrothed woman: Ex. 21:8-9; Deut. 20:7; Deut. 28:30. The word is also used as a picture of the LORD's favour to His ancient people in a future day, when He will "betroth" them to Himself for ever (Hosea 2:19-20), and of the position in which the church stands to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2).

Though she might "not go out as the male servants do," God in His tenderness carefully guarded her rights in the position she held. Too often people treat those who are under them and fully dependent according to changing moods and whims. This was not to be. If her master changed his mind, and she became evil in his eyes (see margin), she should have the option of redemption. He must not degrade her in her service, nor could he sell her to a foreign nation. By his deceitful dealing he had forfeited rights he would otherwise have had... So, in His compassionate love, the Lord surrounds His weak and defenceless ones with laws. Those laws secure fair and considerate treatment for them.

Verses 7-11 deal with the case of the woman who becomes a bondservant. As the weaker party she might become the victim of wrongful treatment, so the law defines her rights. We may note that the law permitted things Christians today would not accept... We must always bear in mind that "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19). It set out the minimum of God's demands. So everyone who fell short of it, in any way or at any time, came under the sentence of death. Christ realises and sets out the maximum of all God's thoughts and desires.

Reading this section draws the heart out in adoration. Deep wisdom, well-balanced justice, and tender thoughtfulness breathe through the whole of it. We come away from studying it with one conviction pressed deep into the soul. The One who speaks here is "the only true," "the only wise," and the infinitely gracious God.

"The first of these sections," says Murphy, "refers to the duties of masters and servants, and is therefore a natural expansion of the fifth commandment, which relates to parents and children." This is true, and it teaches us a great deal. How instructive, and yet how simple, that the master is here seen in the place of the parent! The commandment is dealing with slavery — an evil that could not yet be removed, and that in the limited form allowed here often became a benefit. That was true above all if the slave became, as it were, the adopted child of his master, or the maidservant became the wife of her master or of his son!

The law did not forbid a man to sell his daughter to another man as a female slave (v.7). But she would not be set free in the year of jubilee. By then she might already be the wife of the man who bought her, or the wife of his son (vv. 8-9). Yet the law did protect her. If the buyer was not pleased with her, he had to let her father or another relative buy her back. But he must not sell her to a foreigner.

Though she might "not go out as the male slaves do," God in His tenderness carefully guarded her rights in the place she held. Far too often, people treat those who are completely under them and dependent on them according to their changing moods and whims. This was not to be… Whether she was promised in marriage to his son or to himself, her rights were fully protected. If he neglected them and took another wife, she was to go completely free. So, in His compassionate love, the Lord surrounds His weak and defenceless ones with laws that secure fair and considerate treatment for them.

Verses 7-11 deal with the case of the woman who becomes a bondservant. As the weaker party she might become the victim of wrongful treatment, so her rights are clearly defined. We should note that under the law God allowed things that Christians today would not tolerate. The Lord's own words in Matthew 19:7-8 show this. We must always remember that "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19), since it set out the minimum of God's demands… The full measure of all God's thoughts and desires is realized and set out in Christ.

The law given by Moses had done much to soften slavery in Israel… In this the law of Moses stands in contrast with other codes, and even with the selfish and proud Christian world… In view of Jewish, or simply human, hardness of heart, much was tolerated under the law that was far from God's mind, until He came Who is the truth in grace.

In this chapter we have various "judgments" or "fixed ordinances" recorded. God commands the people to keep them as the rule of their conduct in all their dealings with each other. Such conduct suits those who are in covenant relationship with God.

Verses 7-11 deal with the case of the woman who becomes a bondservant. As the weaker party she might become the victim of wrongful treatment, so the law defines her rights clearly.

She did not go out free as the male servants did, yet God in His tenderness carefully guarded her rights in the place she held. Too often you can see people treating those who are completely subject and dependent according to changing moods and whims. This was not to be. If her master changed his mind, and she became displeasing in his eyes, she was to have the option of being redeemed. He must not degrade her in her service, and he could not sell her to a foreign nation. By his dishonest dealing he had forfeited rights he would otherwise have had. Whether she was promised in marriage to his son or to himself, God carefully guarded her rights. If he neglected them when he took another wife, she was to go completely free. So the Lord, in His compassionate love, puts laws around His weak and defenceless ones. Those laws secure fair and considerate treatment for them.

It is not necessary for our purpose to look at each statute in detail; a few will be enough, though thinking through each one would give valuable instruction, since they all witness to God's gracious care and protection of those who were weak and in a position of inferiority, and who for that reason might be oppressed and unjustly treated by those who were stronger and in a place of authority over them.

We may note that the law permitted things Christians today would not tolerate. The Lord's own words in Matthew 19:7-8 show that this was so. We must always keep in mind that "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19), since it set out the minimum of God's demands, so that everyone who in any way or at any time fell short of it came under the sentence of death. The maximum of all God's thoughts and desires is realized and set out in Christ.

The law was good in itself, but it could not make anyone good. There were certain concessions in the law which did not express the divine mind at all. In them God was dealing with a people after the flesh. The law does not view a man as born of God; Christianity does. It spoke to all Israel, not to believers only, so it bore with certain things because their hearts were hard. The righteousness of the law stands as far as it goes. But it stops short of perfection, because in some cases it allows a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater one.

These statutes contain moral principles that do not change from one age to the next. The law is not the rule of the believer's life. Still, as the Apostle says in Romans 8:3-4, "God … condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

She did not go free as the male servants did, but God in His tenderness guarded her rights in the position she held. Far too often, people treat those who fully depend on them according to changing moods and whims. This was not to be. If her master changed his mind and she no longer pleased him, she had the option of being redeemed. He must not degrade her in her service, and he could not sell her to a foreign nation. By his dishonest dealing he had forfeited rights he would otherwise have had. Whether she was promised in marriage to his son or to himself, her rights stood. If he neglected them when he took another wife, she should go completely free. So, in His compassionate love, the Lord surrounds His weak and defenceless ones with laws. These laws secure fair and considerate treatment for them.

Verses 7-11 deal with the case of the woman who becomes a bondservant. As the weaker party she might become the victim of wrongful treatment, so her rights are clearly defined.

No one may take advantage of the weak or of those under authority. Violence cannot go unpunished, any more than dishonour where we owe respect... No one may trouble or afflict a stranger, a widow or an orphan. No one may burden the poor or insult the judges.

Studying this section of our book is well suited to impress the heart with God's unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness... Here, too, we see the amazing condescension of Him who is the great God of heaven and earth. He can still stoop to judge between man and man about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. ...He governs the universe, and yet He can take time to provide a covering for one of His creatures.

The Lord had to make laws against certain crimes. That proves man is capable of committing them. If man had no ability and no leaning towards them, such laws would not be needed... Those very statutes prove one thing beyond question. Even the most refined and cultured person carries in his heart the seeds of the darkest and most horrifying wrongs... Deep as man's ruin is, the love of God is deeper still. Black as his guilt is, the blood of Jesus can wash it all away. Wide as the gap is between man and God, the cross has bridged it.

The law allowed some things that Christians today would not tolerate. The Lord's own words in Matthew 19:7-8 show this. We must always remember that "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19). It set out the minimum of God's demands, so anyone who fell short of it in any way or at any time came under the sentence of death. The maximum of all God's thoughts and desires is realised and set out in Christ.

The consideration of each would yield valuable instruction, showing God's gracious care and protection of those who were weak and in a position of inferiority, and who, being such, might be oppressed and unjustly treated by those who were stronger and in a place of authority over them.

This is not a new law. To Noah God had said, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen. 9:6). God said He would require the life of man at the hand of every man's brother. So He made man his brother's keeper. He guarded the man He had made in His own image by the most solemn penalty He could impose. Life belongs to Him, and He could not let anyone else trespass on what is His alone.

The image of God expresses man's place and responsibility of representing God... The murderer does not only interfere with man and injure him to the last degree. By killing a man he also defaces God's image, and God sentences him to die. Murder is an unwarrantable seizing of what belongs to God. Only the death of the murderer upholds God's honour and maintains God's will.

God's command gave it being, so it can never stop carrying His authority, whether men listen or refuse to listen. One part of the charge stands out above the rest: man is responsible to put to death the one who sheds man's blood... So the idea that this is in any way a right belonging to man is cut off. It is a right of God. Ever since the flood He has been pleased to entrust it to human keeping. Those in authority are bound to enforce it in subjection to Him, and one day they must give account to Him for how they used it.

Life belongs to God. As the Giver of life He exercises His right: He demands the life of the one who has taken a life he cannot restore. The sentence cannot be reduced. Even if a murderer took hold of God's altar, it would do him no good. Joab's case shows this (1 Kings 2:28-34).

The New Testament reminds us that the earthly authority "does not bear the sword in vain" (Rom. 13:4). This shows that the coming of grace in Christ has not cancelled what God has established about government in the earth. Authorised government takes its course, but murder is strictly forbidden.

The word of God gives no support to the modern movement to abolish the death penalty. It substitutes human ideas in the place of God's original law. In fact, it exalts man over God. Our Lord's directions in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:38-48) apply only to relationships among fellow-subjects of His kingdom, not to those between man and man. So they in no way set aside the command given to Noah.

Apply these laws to what the Jewish nation did to Christ. They did "lie in wait," and in the end they used bribery and cunning to secure His arrest and condemnation. It might seem that no escape was possible for them. But our Lord Himself prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). So if they repent, God in grace will count it as ignorance on the ground of that prayer, and give them a city of refuge for escape and safety... Grace can relieve from the penalty of the law, on the ground of the atonement for sin that Christ worked out by His death.

To Noah God had said, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." He would demand the life of man from every man's brother. So man was made his brother's keeper. God protected the one He had made in His own image by the most solemn penalty He could exact. Life belongs to Him, and so He could not allow another to trespass on His prerogative.

There is, however, in Exodus 21:13 a notable exception made. Deuteronomy 19 and Numbers 35 deal with this provision in fuller detail, where they speak of the cities of refuge. How precious is the grace and the compassion of the heart of God, expressed in Deuteronomy 19:6! The avenger of blood, with his heart hot, must not overtake the manslayer and strike him down because the road is long — when he did not deserve to die, since he had not hated him beforehand.

How often had they sought to take Jesus! But this could not happen until God Himself delivered Him into their hands. So Jesus said to Pilate, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above." In grace their terrible deed is not regarded as wilful. It is attributed to God having delivered up Jesus by His determinate counsel and foreknowledge (Acts 2:23).

Apply these statutes to the action of the Jewish nation against Christ. Remember how they did "lie in wait," and how they at last succeeded by bribery and cunning in getting Him arrested and condemned. It might seem as if there were no possible escape for them. But our Lord Himself prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." So God in grace, if they repent, will count it ignorance in them on the ground of this intercession, and appoint them a city of refuge for escape and safety… Grace can relieve from the penalty of the law, on the ground of the atonement for sin that the death of Christ worked out.

God Himself provided the cities of refuge; He would not have the manslayer treated as a murderer; nor will He have you treated as guilty of the murder of His Son, if you flee to Christ, the refuge He has provided in the richness of His mercy. The manslayer's hope was liberty through the death of the High Priest; those God shelters now hope to enter His presence and glory at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here we have a very exact description of the man for whom God provided the city of refuge. If he did not answer to it, the city was not for him. But if he did, he might feel the most perfect assurance that a gracious God had thought of him. God had found a refuge for him, where he might be as safe as the hand of God could make him. Once the slayer found himself inside the city of refuge, he might breathe freely… No avenging sword could reach him there, not a hair of his head could be touched there.

Whoever was guilty of murder was himself to be put to death. Whatever people may say today against the death penalty in cases of proven murder, at least they cannot say it is unjust. But if the case was not deliberate murder but manslaughter, the law provided a city of refuge where the guilty man could flee for safety. On this, see Deuteronomy 19:1-3. But where the murder was premeditated, the penalty was death (v. 14).

To Noah God had said, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Genesis 9:6). He would demand the life of man from every man's brother. So man was made his brother's keeper. God guarded the one He had made in His own image with the most solemn penalty He could exact. Life belongs to Him, and He could not allow anyone else to take what is His alone... For wilful murder there was no release from the penalty, even if the murderer had fled for protection to God's altar.

Joab flees to the tabernacle and takes hold of the horns of the altar. That cannot save him. The Word of God is against him: "But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die" (Ex. 21:14). Solomon remembers this. Once Joab's judgment is settled, it is too late for the altar to shelter him.

In Scripture horns stand for strength... The horns of the altar suggest that everything the altar stood for came to a point here, focused and intensified... It also explains the significance of a guilty man coming here for refuge and laying hold of them. Adonijah sought safety there and found it (1 Kings 1:50). Joab, at the same place of asylum, met the just reward of his sins (1 Kings 2:28-34).

The horns of the altar became a place of refuge. No one could break into that sanctuary. It sheltered everyone who had a right to its protection on the ground of the sprinkled blood. Joab sought this protection when he fled from Solomon (1 Kings 2:28). But he had no claim on it, for he was a murderer, and Solomon had him killed. It is the same with a sinner in desperate trouble. He would gladly claim the benefits of the death of Christ to escape judgment, while his heart is still far from Him. But where someone truly trusts the value of that sacrifice, no power in earth or hell can touch the soul that rests under its shelter.

Apply these statutes to what the Jewish nation did against Christ. They did "lie in wait," and in the end they succeeded by bribery and trickery in having Him arrested and condemned. It might seem there was no escape for them. But our Lord Himself prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). So God in grace, if they repent, will count it as ignorance on the ground of that prayer. He will appoint them a city of refuge for escape and safety. So Peter, preaching to them, said, "I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers" (Acts 3:17). Grace can relieve from the penalty of the law, on the ground of the atonement for sin made by the death of Christ.

Exodus 21:12-17 lists certain offences that carry the death penalty, and murder is named among them. But this is no new law, as Genesis 9:5-6 plainly shows. God alone knows the heart of man, and He has called it "deceitful above all things and incurably wicked." When He gave Noah the government of the earth, He made provision for guarding man's life in the most solemn terms — terms no human laws can set aside.

The law is made for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who beat their fathers and those who beat their mothers… the fourth pair is violent contempt for parents, stopping short of killing. Compare Ex. 21:15.

Both striking and cursing father or mother (vv. 15, 17) carried the same penalty. In this way God set up parental authority under the holy sanctions of His law, and He required children to treat it with reverence. Disobedience to parents is given as one sign of the dangerous times of the last days (2 Tim. 3:2). That shows how highly God values the subjection of children to their parents. For it is God's authority that parents represent, and so that authority is absolute when it is used for God. It demands full and unconditional obedience. (See Deut. 21:18-21; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20.) So these sins are grave ones. But if striking and cursing earthly parents deserves death, how much worse is open rebellion against God.

Setting up one's own will against a parent's authority is akin, in a lower way, to renouncing the true God for a false one.

This is not only God's authority giving commands, nor even His statements about where actions lead. It is the order He has set up in the relationships He established among people, above all the place of parents. To be subject to them is really to own God in His order. It is the first commandment with promise.

We also see the severity of God on display in the law. It passes the death sentence on sins that people today do not count worthy of death — verses 15, 16 and 17, for instance. Yet we must remember that the wages of sin — of all sin — is death.

Believers in Christ are not under law but under grace. That does not free us from these obligations, because the great point to press is obedience to a God-given authority. Under grace, as Paul teaches in his letter to the Ephesians, we rise higher in keeping these things, since heavenly motives now move us.

This section holds the various "judgments" or statutes that God gave to govern His people in all their relationships… They give a striking view of God's care for everything that touched the walk and ways of His people. And if penalties are attached to breaking these laws, that only fits the arrangement He had now set up.

If in Exodus 21 we get judgments which give an extension to "You shall not murder," we find in Exodus 22 judgments giving an extension to "You shall not steal."

The law's demands were most stern, as verse 15 shows… A kidnapper also was to be put to death, whether he had sold his victim or whether he held him as a captive (v. 16).

Exodus 21:12-17 lists certain offences that carry the death penalty, and murder is named among them. But this is no new command, as Genesis 9:5-6 clearly shows. When God gave Noah the government of the earth, He provided for the preservation of man's life in the most solemn terms, which no human laws can set aside… Life belongs to God. As the Giver of life He requires the life of anyone who has taken a life he cannot restore, and the sentence cannot be softened.

Man-stealing and man-selling — slavery in fact, as still practised in many parts of the world — also carried the penalty of death (v. 16). A man may be a sinner. God has claims on him too, claims that must be met before he can be delivered. Even so, he is of such value in God's sight that his fellow man must treat his liberty as sacred. How astonishing that professed followers of Christ could defend slavery in its worst forms — stealing, selling, and holding men as mere property — with such a scripture in front of them, and within living memory!

A creditor might take a pledge from his poor neighbour, but not the hand-mill that ground his grain day by day. That would be taking a man's life as a pledge. And the greed that would go so far as to steal the man himself was to be punished with death.

Paul sent Onesimus, a runaway slave, back to his master, who was a Christian, and did not demand his release. Instead he beautifully puts it to Philemon that he should have Onesimus no longer as a slave, but as a beloved brother… Christianity taught equal treatment of slaves, as we see in several of the letters in which masters are addressed: "men-stealers" are condemned. 1 Timothy 1:10.

A murderer had to be put to death himself. People may argue against the death penalty today, but in a case of proven murder they cannot call it unjust. But if the case was not deliberate murder, only manslaughter, the guilty man could go to a city of refuge for protection.

Verses 18 and 19 deal with the question of a physical quarrel and one striking another with his fist or other weapon, so that he is injured. If the man did not die, there was no death penalty. Instead, the one who injured him had to pay for the time his victim lost, and for any medical costs, until the person was fully healed.

This part of the book shows what a kingdom looks like when God Himself gives its laws. Here, too, we see something amazing. The great God of heaven and earth still stoops to judge between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth.

God provided for everything, guarded every interest, and met every claim. He showed no favouritism and made no distinction between rich and poor. He weighed each man's claim on scales set with divine accuracy, so no one had a fair reason to complain about a ruling. Bribery, corruption and favouritism were never to stain the pure robe of justice.

The first is that all these commands show God's tenderness. He protects the bodies of His people, especially those who serve under others. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Our Lord Himself quotes these words to show how they contrast with grace. He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39). Under law an exact equivalent is required — no more and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle with one another.

The fact that the Lord had to make laws against certain crimes proves that man is able to commit them. If the ability and the tendency were not there, there would be no need for these laws. But man is capable.

Here, too, we may see the amazing condescension of God. He is the great God of heaven and earth. Yet He can still stoop to judge between one man and another over the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. "Who is like the Lord our God, who humbles Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and on earth?" He governs the universe. Yet He can still busy Himself with providing a covering for one of His creatures. He guides the angel's flight and takes notice of a crawling worm.

Verses 18 and 19 deal with a physical quarrel where one man strikes another with his fist or some other weapon, so that he is injured. If death did not follow, then there was no death penalty. But the one who caused the injury had to pay for the time the injured party lost. He also had to cover any medical costs that came from it, until the injured man had fully recovered.

First, on God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice... He provided for everything, maintained every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. He weighed each man's claim on scales set with divine accuracy, so no one could fairly complain of a decision.

All these laws reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially of those in a lower position. Here we also find the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.

We may note that under the law things were permitted that Christians today would not tolerate. The Lord's own words in Matthew 19:7-8 show that this was so. We must always remember that "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19). It set out the minimum of God's demands, so anyone who fell short of it, in any way or at any time, came under the sentence of death. Christ realises and sets out the maximum of all God's thoughts and desires.

Our blessed Lord specially quotes these provisions to point out their contrast with grace. He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:38-39). Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. But never forget that grace itself is built on righteousness, and so it reigns through righteousness (Rom. 5:21).

Special duties of masters are first considered. They may think they have full authority over their slaves, but they must first remember God's authority over themselves. God clearly limits their authority over slaves.

A man who struck his servant and caused his death would face the death penalty himself. But if the servant lived on for a day or two before dying, that penalty did not apply. The only explanation given for this is, "for he is his money" (v. 21).

All these laws reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially those who live under someone else's authority.

Here, too, we may see how amazingly God lowers Himself. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He can still stoop to judge between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. "Who is like the Lord our God, who humbles Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and on earth?"

God provided for everything, upheld every interest, and met every claim. He showed no partiality, and made no distinction between the rich and the poor. He weighed each man's claim in a balance set with divine accuracy, so that no one could fairly complain of a decision… The stroke of justice fell only on the head of the guilty, while God protected every obedient soul in the enjoyment of all his rights and privileges.

We find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Our blessed Lord especially quotes these provisions to point out their contrast with grace. He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can release every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and released our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle with one another.

The law allowed things that Christians today would not allow… We must always remember that "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19). It set out the minimum of God's demands, so that anyone who fell short of it in any way came under the sentence of death. Christ shows the maximum of all God's thoughts and desires.

The Lord had to enact laws against certain crimes. That proves man is capable of committing those crimes. If the capability and the tendency were not there, no such laws would be needed. These statutes prove beyond all question that even the most refined and cultivated member of the human family carries in his heart the seeds of the very darkest and most horrifying evils.

Anyone who struck his servant and caused his death would incur the death penalty himself. Yet if the servant lived even a day or two before dying, the penalty would not be carried out. The only explanation given for this is, "for he is his money" (v. 21).

Special duties of masters are considered first. They may think they have full authority over their slaves. But they must first remember God's authority over themselves. God limits what they may do.

The slave of those days was the property of his master. The law of Moses was merciful. It protected the Jewish servant from a cruel master. Among the other nations there was almost no legal check on a harsh master, and a slave there could suffer the most brutal treatment.

This commandment deals with slavery. It was an evil that could not be removed yet. In the limited form allowed here, it often became a benefit — above all when the slave became something like the adopted child of his master.

The law given by Moses had done much to reduce the harshness of slavery in Israel… Still, we freely admit that the law made nothing perfect, here as everywhere else. Because of human hardness of heart, the law tolerated much that was far from God's mind. That lasted until He came who is the truth in grace. Christ changed everything, and the bondman became His freedman.

The first is that all these rules show the tenderness of God. He protects the bodies of His people, above all those under someone else's power. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. Our blessed Lord quotes these rules to show how they differ from grace… Law demands an equal return — no more and no less. Grace can cancel every claim.

This chapter records various "judgments" or "fixed ordinances." The people were commanded to keep them. They were to shape their conduct in every dealing with each other, as fits those who are in covenant relationship with God. The penalties for any breach of them plainly match the character and principle of that relationship, which was law.

If men are fighting and a woman suffers a miscarriage, the person responsible must pay some compensation. The woman's husband demands it, or a judge decides it. But if the woman herself was harmed, the guilty party had to answer for that too. The judgment then matched the injury — "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (vv. 24-25). Of course, tearing out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured person. But that person is entitled to fair repayment.

The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that governed the daily life of the people. It is not a rule for one person's conscience. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, because both name the judges. The direction rested on the principle of complete fairness in repaying the deed. It was meant to warn the people and hold them back (Deut. 19:20).

All these laws reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people, and above all the bodies of those in a lower position.

Under the old order we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), and by that it restrained the anger of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, out of revenge.

Here the Lord goes beyond all Jewish, and indeed all human, thought. He tells His disciples to bear every kind of wrong done to them with patient grace. They must not resist it. He quotes the law's principle of retaliation, as it is called, to set it aside. That principle was wide open to abuse. Even when judges applied it with the strictest justice, it acted as a strong check on the desire for revenge. Yet it was still far from the mind of heaven which Christ was showing on earth.

Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. Never forget, though, that grace itself rests deep in righteousness, and so it reigns through righteousness (Rom. 5:21), on a foundation that never changes.

On God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice… That was the character of the laws, the statutes, and the judgments God used to govern His earthly kingdom of Israel… There was no partiality — no difference made between the rich and the poor. God weighed each man's claim on a balance set with divine accuracy, so no one could fairly complain of a decision. The stroke of justice fell only on the head of the guilty, while God protected every obedient person in the enjoyment of all his rights and privileges.

If a fight causes a woman to lose her child, the person responsible must pay compensation, as the woman's husband demands, or as a judge decides. But if the woman herself suffered harm, the guilty party answered for it, and the judgment matched the injury… Of course, taking out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he has a right to fair compensation.

The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that regulated the daily life of the people. It is not a principle for the conscience of a private individual. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since both name the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed, and it served as a warning and deterrent to the people.

"An eye for an eye" is fully righteous recompense, and it expresses the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If a man takes the law into his own hands, he will nearly always inflict worse treatment than he received.

If in their law they were to exact "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…" (Ex. 21:23-25), they did it as the executors of God's governmental righteousness… No thoughtful Christian can look at this trust given to Israel without seeing how completely it contrasts with the believer's position today. Some argue that this is because the world has been educated to a higher level. Let us ask one question — has God been educated?… The Israelite was the agent of God's righteous government on earth; the Christian displays God's grace on earth.

The first is that all these rules reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially those in a subject position. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent… Our Lord especially cites these provisions to show how they contrast with grace (Matthew 5:38-39). Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less; but grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another… Never forget, though, that grace itself rests on a deep foundation of righteousness.

It sets out an attitude of mind that is very foreign to the flesh, which cries, "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…" (Ex. 21:23-25). We can understand the law principle as men in the flesh… But grace — how slow we are to understand it, and slower still to practice it, though we owe everything to it!

If there were bad results for the woman, the guilty party had to answer for it. The judgment would match the injury — "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (vv. 24-25). Of course, plucking out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he has a right to fair compensation.

This law contained moral directions for the life of each Israelite. It contained ceremonial directions — the laws of the offerings — so that the children of Israel could serve God. It also contained legal directions to regulate the daily life of the people. The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the last group. It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual, but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. This is clear from Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18, where the text names the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and keep them from such deeds.

Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If a man takes the law into his own hands, he will almost always inflict worse treatment than he received.

Under the old arrangement we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), and by it restrained the anger of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in revenge.

The law provided for everything, upheld every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. God weighed each man's claim with divine accuracy, so no one had a just reason to complain of a decision. The pure robe of justice was not to be stained with bribery, corruption and favouritism.

The Lord had to make laws against certain crimes. That proves man is capable of committing them. If the capability and the tendency were not there, there would be no need of the enactments.

Here we find the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. Grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle toward one another. But never forget: grace itself rests on a foundation laid deep in righteousness.

He quotes the principle of retaliation from the law to set it aside. It was wide open to abuse. And even applied with the strictest justice, and acting as a powerful check on the desire for revenge, how far it was from the mind of heaven! That mind is what Christ was showing on earth, and laying down as the only conduct fitting for the sons of His Father.

The Christian must not avenge himself. That duty in no way clashes with the government of God carried out by magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.

First, on God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Such was the character of the laws, the statutes and the judgments by which God governed His earthly kingdom of Israel. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. The scales that weighed each man's claim were set with divine accuracy, so no one could justly complain of a decision.

Here, too, we see how amazingly low He stoops. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He judges between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. "Who is like the Lord our God, who humbles Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and on earth?"

The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that regulated the daily life of the people. It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual, but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since both name the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and hold them back from evil.

"An eye for an eye" is fully righteous repayment, expressing the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course the sentence must be passed by a judge, not by the offended party. If someone takes the law into his own hands, he will in practically every case inflict worse treatment than he received.

If in their law they were to exact "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth… stripe for stripe," it was as the executors of God's governmental righteousness… No intelligent Christian can look at this trust given to Israel without seeing how completely it contrasts with the believer's position now. Is this, as some have argued, because the world has been educated to a higher level? Let us ask one question — has God been educated?

The first is that all these enactments show the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially of those in a subject position. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent… Our Lord points to these very rules to show how they contrast with grace… Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. Yet never forget: the foundation of grace itself is laid deep in righteousness.

The law of Moses said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." With the Christian it is quite different. God has dealt with him in grace, so he must also act in grace towards others. The word to him is "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"… This duty not to avenge himself in no way clashes with God's government through magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.

Of course, to literally pluck out someone's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he is entitled to a fair recompense.

This is intimated in verse 26. If a man blinded the eye of his slave, he must let him go free for his eye's sake, and similarly, if he knocked out his tooth (v. 27).

The study of each statute would yield valuable instruction. They witness to God's gracious care and protection of those who were weak and in a lower position. Such people might suffer oppression and unjust treatment from those who were stronger and in authority over them.

What we see around us today is a sad and sobering testimony to how far man has departed from God, and to his refusal to be subject to these ordinances. As the Preacher says, "Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them" (Ecclesiastes 4:1).

One who struck his servant and caused death would incur the death penalty himself; yet if the servant lingered even a day or two before dying, the penalty would not take effect. The only explanation given for this is, "for he is his money" (v. 21).

All these enactments reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially of those in a subject position. We also find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Our blessed Lord quotes these provisions to point out their contrast with grace. He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39). Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can remit every claim.

It was not for them to avenge themselves. The words were instruction to the judges in their administration of justice. But we are called to more than righteousness. The Christian standard is vastly higher than the Jewish.

The law given by Moses had done much to lessen slavery in Israel... In this the law of Moses stands in contrast with other codes — yes, and with selfish and proud Christendom. Among other privileges, Jewish slaves had the right to circumcision. They expressly enjoyed the Sabbath rest — a benefit to none more than to them. They had their place at the solemn assemblies of the year... Still, the law made nothing perfect, here as everywhere else. Because of Jewish or human hardness of heart, the law tolerated much that was far from God's mind, until He came who is the truth in grace. Christ changed everything, and the bondman became His freedman.

Studying this section is well suited to impress the heart with God's unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness. It lets us form some idea of what a kingdom governed by laws of divine appointment is like. Here, too, we may see the amazing condescension of Him who is the great God of heaven and earth. He can still stoop to judge between man and man about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth.

The law takes up the special duties of masters first. They may think they have full authority over their slaves. But they must first remember God's authority over themselves. For God decidedly limits their authority over slaves.

Of course, literally plucking out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he has a right to a fair recompense.

They witness to God's gracious care and protection of those who were weak and lower in position. Such people could be oppressed and treated unjustly by those who were stronger and in authority over them.

The first is that all these rules reveal the tenderness of God. He protects the bodies of His people, and especially those in a subject position. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Our blessed Lord Himself quotes these provisions to show their contrast with grace. He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can cancel every claim.

The law given through Moses had done much to reduce the harshness of slavery in Israel... Still, we fully allow that the law made nothing perfect, here as everywhere else. Because of human hardheartedness, the law tolerated a good deal that was far from God's mind. This lasted until He came who is the truth in grace. Christ changed everything, and the slave became His freed man.

The rest of the chapter is taken up with judgments connected with the ownership of cattle, and the violent acts they may commit, or the violence they may suffer. Everything is to be settled on a strictly righteous basis.

Man's life has a value attached to it never before declared; and the more so because now for the first time it was for government, responsible to God, to uphold it. "And surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require." Even if a mere animal with no reasoning soul killed a human creature, that was no reason to pass it by. "At the hand of every animal will I require it; at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man" (Gen. 9:3-6).

If an ox gored a person to death, the people had to stone it to death, and no one was to eat its meat. The law did not hold the owner responsible unless someone had warned him that his ox was dangerous.

The law requires the death of the owner too, and not only of the ox, if he knew about the animal's dangerous habit and made no provision to guard against it (v. 29). How vividly this brings to our minds the truth our blessed Lord taught: even the hairs of our heads are all numbered. The law provides for everything. It fits every relationship, and every breach of it, into the righteous government God had now placed Israel under.

But when a beast kills a man, God says, "at the hand of every beast will I require it." We see here that God maintains His title to life, even a beast's life... We all know that many are seeking to do away with capital punishment; but what do they care about God? The whole order of God is broken up now. Even a beast that kills should die. Genesis 9:6 gives the reason: "In the image of God He made man"; so it holds true right to the end.

An ox that gored anyone to death had to be stoned, and no one could eat its meat. The owner was not responsible unless someone had warned him that his ox was dangerous. In this case, if he had not kept the ox penned in and the ox killed anyone, the owner as well as the ox was to be put to death (v. 29). But this penalty could be lifted if the victim's nearest relative agreed to accept ransom money instead.

The same principle of righteous equivalence applies in these cases too. The owner's death, as well as the ox's, is required if he had guilty knowledge of the animal's tendency and had made no provision to guard against it (v. 29). How vividly this brings before our minds the truth taught by our blessed Lord, that even the hairs of our heads are all numbered. Everything is provided for. Every relationship, and every break in it, is set in order in harmony with the righteous government Israel now lived under.

These laws give us some idea of what a kingdom governed by laws of God's own appointing is like. Here we may see the amazing humility of Him who is the great God of heaven and earth. He still stoops to judge between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. He governs the universe, and yet He can occupy Himself with providing a covering for one of His creatures. He guides the angel's flight and takes notice of a crawling worm.

On God's part, we find Him enacting laws which show strict, even-handed, perfect justice. God provided for everything, maintained every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. The scales that weighed each man's claim were set with divine accuracy, so no one could fairly complain about a decision. The stroke of justice fell only on the guilty, while every obedient person kept the safe enjoyment of all his rights and privileges.

God requires the most careful obedience to His demands here, just as He does in the laws about persons we have already looked at. Those laws display His tender and compassionate care for the lives and persons of His people. So every part of their lives is taken into account, with a fullness of detail that is remarkable and worthy of God.

Jehovah had to make laws against certain crimes, and that proves man is capable of committing them. If the capability and the tendency were not there, there would be no need for the laws... Those very laws prove, beyond all question, that the most refined and cultured person carries in his heart the seeds of the very darkest and most horrifying evils.

An ox that gored anyone to death was to be stoned to death, and the meat of the ox not eaten. The owner of the ox would not be held responsible unless he had been warned that his ox was dangerous. In this case, if he had not kept the ox penned in and the ox killed anyone, the owner as well as the ox was to be put to death (v. 29). This penalty could however be relaxed if the nearest relative of the victim would agree to accept ransom money instead (vv. 30-31).

The same principle of righteous equivalent also applies in these directions… Everything is provided for, and every relationship, with its various breaches, adjusted in harmony with the righteous government under which Israel was now placed.

The words "sum of money" are the translation of kopher, a form of kaphar, to cover, the word for atonement.

Expiation is the satisfaction itself: what takes the wrath, what is devoted and made the curse, standing in for the offender, so that he goes free. And here the noun kopher comes to let light in on the inquiry. It is translated "ransom, satisfaction," and in 1 Samuel 12:3 a "bribe." So in Exodus 21:30 a kopher (translated "sum of money") is laid on a man to save his life, where his ox had killed his neighbour. But in Numbers 35:31 no kopher was to be taken for the life of a murderer. The land cannot be cleansed, kaphar, except by the blood of the man who shed blood as a murderer (v. 33). This clearly shows the force of kopher and of kaphar. The satisfaction offered suits the eye and mind of Him who is displeased and who judges. Through it come purging of the offence, cleansing, forgiveness, and favour, according to Him who takes account of the evil.

No one can "ransom another, or give to God the price of his life" (Psalm 49:7). But God could say, "Deliver him from going down into the pit; I have found a ransom" (Job 33:24)… In the New Testament it is lytron, or antilytron, from "to loose, set free." Christ gave Himself, His life, a ransom for many: the precious blood of Christ witnesses that every claim of God against the believer has been answered (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6).

And what will lift the forfeit of death? This is the supreme question. The death sentence stands alone in its gravity and weight. We have never heard of the death sentence having any alternative equivalent. There is no alternative to it in the eyes of law, because it has no equivalent. Nothing but DEATH can meet the death sentence.

An ox that gored someone to death had to be stoned, and no one was to eat its meat. The owner of the ox was not responsible unless someone had warned him that his ox was dangerous. In this case, if he had not kept the ox penned in and the ox killed anyone, both the owner and the ox had to die (v. 29). However, the nearest relative of the victim could agree to accept ransom money instead of this penalty (vv. 30-31).

The same principle of righteous equivalent also holds good in these directions. Even the owner must die, along with the ox, if he knew the animal's tendency and had made no provision to guard against it (v. 29). This brings home to us the truth our blessed Lord taught: even the hairs of our heads are all numbered. The law provides for everything. It fits every relationship, and every way a relationship can be broken, into the righteous government God had now placed Israel under.

The words "sum of money" are the translation of kopher, a form of kaphar, to cover, the word for atonement.

We find here the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth… Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can remit every claim. We ourselves have been dealt with in grace, our whole debt remitted, so we must act on the same principle toward one another. But never forget this: the foundation of grace itself lies deep in righteousness. That is why it reigns through righteousness (Romans 5:21), on a basis that is everlasting and unchanging.

God alone knows the heart of man, and He has pronounced it "deceitful above all things and desperately sick." When He gave Noah the government of the earth, He provided for the preservation of man's life in the most solemn terms — terms no human law can set aside: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

The same principle of righteous equivalent also applies in these directions. If the owner knew the animal's habit and did nothing to guard against it, the law puts him to death as well as the ox. This brings home to us the truth our blessed Lord taught: even the hairs of our heads are all numbered. The law provides for everything. It settles every relationship, and every way a relationship can be broken, to match the righteous government God had now placed Israel under.

Notice again the mention of the servant in verse 32. The price of a servant was thirty shekels of silver. The redemption price of a free Israelite was fifty shekels (Lev. 27:3); that of a slave, thirty shekels.

Thirty pieces of silver was the price of a slave who had been killed. Oh, what unfathomable love! The Lord from heaven became like a slave. The love He looked for He did not find. It was refused to Him, and instead He was insulted, mocked, and treated like a miserable slave.

In Zechariah it is "I said to them," whereas in Matthew it is Judas who speaks to the chief priests (the representatives of the nation). This brings out a very interesting principle in the ways of God. It was Judas' sin that betrayed the Lord, but the Lord used the sin of Judas to test the chief priests as to their estimate of Christ, and so, passing by the intermediate instrument, He says, "I said to them, If it seems good to you, give me my wages." They did think it good. And what price did they set on Jesus, the Son of God, their Messiah? It was the value of a slave. That was the contemptuous price the Jewish leaders offered for the life of Him who was the Lord Himself, God with us. Who can fathom the grace beyond words that led the Father's only Son to submit Himself to such degradation? Here we see the heart of man, and the heart of God, and with them the need of redemption.

He was one of the privileged twelve and treasurer of the group. The Son of God washed his feet and handed him the morsel from the dish. Yet he sold his Master to His murderers for a few pieces of silver — the amount of compensation for a slave gored by a bull (Ex. 21:32). Love of money was his ruin. It hardened his heart so completely that the Saviour's most touching appeals could not reach him.

It was a sober business transaction, and in that lies its bitter contempt, its being unintended. They thought Him a wicked man, but even so, not worth more than a few shekels' reward. He felt this insult sharply, even among so many other terrible injuries. "And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver … Throw it to the potter — the lordly price at which I was valued by them!" (Zech. 11:12-13.) We often see twenty times as much offered for the capture of a common criminal. This was a long time ago. Yes, but there are millions of people around us who would not surrender even that much for the possession of Christ now.

From Exodus 21:33 onwards we can see a difference in the character of God's judgments. These deal mainly with the possessions or property of the children of Israel. God calls for the same exact obedience to His demands here as He did over their persons, which we have already looked at. There He showed His tender and compassionate care for the lives and persons of His people. So God takes every part of their lives into account, in a detail so complete that it is remarkable and worthy of Him. As the psalmist says, He is "the God of my mercy" (Psalm 59:17).

While one rightly has control over his own property, yet he is also responsible as to how he uses it. If one were to dig a pit, even on his own property, and leave it uncovered, he would be responsible for an animal falling into it. If the animal died, the owner of the pit must pay the value of the animal, and could therefore keep the dead beast (v. 34).

First, on God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice. This was the character of the laws, the statutes and the judgments by which God governed His earthly kingdom of Israel. He provided for everything, He upheld every interest, and He met every claim. There was no partiality — no difference made between the rich and the poor. The balance that weighed each man's claim was set with divine accuracy, so no one could fairly complain about a decision.

Here, too, we see how amazingly He stoops down. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He will still judge between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. "Who is like the Lord our God, who humbles Himself to look on the things that are in heaven and on earth?" He governs the universe, and yet He can take time to provide a covering for one of His creatures. He guides the angel's flight and takes notice of a crawling worm.

These statutes contain moral principles which are not affected by changes in God's dealings. The law is not the rule of the believer's life. Yet, as the Apostle says in Romans 8:3-4, "God … has condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit."

In a land of flat roofs, on which people commonly walked, the law required a low wall to protect anyone from falling (v. 8). This is proper concern for the safety of others. We should be concerned also that they be protected from spiritual dangers.

From Exodus 21:33 onwards, God's judgments have a different character. They deal mainly with the possessions or property of the children of Israel. God requires the most careful obedience here, just as He did in the laws about their persons... So every part of their lives is taken into account, with a fullness of detail that is truly remarkable and worthy of God.

Here, too, we can see the amazing condescension of God. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He can still stoop to judge between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth... He governs the universe, and yet He can occupy Himself with providing a covering for one of His creatures. He guides the angel's flight and takes notice of a crawling worm.

A man rightly has control over his own property, but he is still responsible for how he uses it. Suppose he digs a pit — even on his own land — and leaves it uncovered. He is responsible if an animal falls into it. If the animal died, the owner of the pit must pay the value of the animal, and could therefore keep the dead beast (v. 34).

Again, the same principle of righteous equivalent also holds in these laws... Everything is provided for. Every relationship, and every breach of it, is settled in line with the righteous government Israel now lived under.

There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. Each man's claim was weighed in a balance set with divine accuracy, so that no one had just grounds to complain about a decision.

In a land of flat roofs, where people often walked, the law required a low wall around the edge to protect anyone from falling. This is proper concern for the safety of others. We should be concerned also that they be protected from spiritual dangers.

These statutes contain moral principles which are unaffected by changes in God's dealings. While the law is not the rule of the believer's life, yet, as the Apostle says in Romans 8:3-4, "God... has condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

If one man's ox kills an ox belonging to someone else, half the value of the live ox belongs to each owner, and they divide the dead ox as well. But if an owner had been warned that his ox was dangerous and had not shut it in, he must hand his live ox to the other owner and take the dead one instead.

The responsibility of the owner for the acts of his cattle is then laid down.

In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal"… The first demand is for restitution. If that is not possible, then damages must be paid. No fairer form of penalty than this can be thought up.

It is enough to point out again that the same principle of righteous equivalent applies here too… How vividly this brings home to us the truth our blessed Lord taught: even the hairs of our heads are all numbered. God has provided for everything. He has settled every relationship, and every way it can be broken, in keeping with the righteous government Israel was now placed under.

God provided for everything. He upheld every interest and met every claim. There was no favouritism, and no difference between the rich and the poor. The scales that weighed each man's claim were set with divine accuracy, so no one could fairly complain about a decision. The clean robe of justice was not to be stained by bribery, corruption or favouritism… Justice struck only the guilty, while it guarded every obedient person in the full enjoyment of his rights and privileges.

Here, too, we see how amazingly He stoops down. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He will still judge between one man and another over the death of an ox, the loan of a coat, or the loss of a servant's tooth… He governs the universe, and yet He can busy Himself with providing a covering for one of His creatures. He guides the angel's flight and notices a crawling worm.

The LORD had to make laws against certain crimes. That proves man is able to commit them. If the ability and the leaning towards them were not there, the laws would not be needed.

The rest of the chapter deals with judgments about the ownership of cattle, the violent acts these animals may do, and the violence they may suffer. All of it is to be settled on a strictly righteous basis.

If one man's ox kills an ox belonging to another, each owner should take half the value of the live ox. They should divide the dead ox as well. But if an owner had been warned that his ox was dangerous and had not kept it in, he should trade his live ox to the other owner for the dead ox.

The law commands the death of the owner, as well as the ox, if he had guilty knowledge that the animal was dangerous and he had made no provision to guard against it. How clearly this brings to mind the truth our blessed Lord taught: even the hairs of our heads are all numbered.

Here, too, we see the amazing condescension of God. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He can still stoop to judge between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a coat, or the loss of a servant's tooth… He governs the universe, and yet He can take time to provide a covering for one of His creatures. He guides the angel's flight and takes notice of a crawling worm.

God provided for everything, upheld every interest, and met every claim. There was no favouritism — no difference made between the rich and the poor. Each man's claim was weighed in a balance adjusted with divine accuracy, so no one could rightly complain about a decision… The stroke of justice fell only on the guilty, while every obedient person kept the full enjoyment of his rights and privileges.

We find here the true character of law. Grace is absent… Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. Yet never forget this: the foundation of grace itself is laid deep in righteousness.

These statutes contain moral principles that do not change from one age to the next. The law is not the rule of the believer's life. Yet, as the Apostle says in Romans 8:3-4, "God … condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Exodus 21 gives us judgments that extend "You shall not murder." Exodus 22 gives us judgments that extend "You shall not steal." People may defraud each other in many ways, and this theme continues to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, the offender must pay damages. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

Exodus 22:1-15 brings restitution to our notice. It is a very necessary principle. No one who has to do with "the righteous LORD who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. Here God shows His care not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

On God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice... He provided for everything, maintained every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction between the rich and the poor. He weighed each man's claim in a balance set with divine accuracy, so that no one could rightly complain of a decision.

Verse 1 is plain, though we are not told why stealing an ox needed five oxen in return, while a sheep needed only four sheep.

If one had stolen an animal and had it in his possession, he must restore double — a much lesser penalty than verse 1.

Human laws only punish, brutalise and perpetuate offenders; they pay nothing back. A man cheats people out of their life savings; he is jailed, and the victims get nothing back. But by God's law a thief was not only punished, but compelled to work for wages to pay back the theft to his victims (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He was not jailed and kept at the expense of the taxpayers, nor did his victims suffer and starve.

Zacchaeus refers, without doubt, to this provision of the law (v. 1) when he said to the Lord, "If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold" (Luke 19:8)... But the question for our souls is this: if robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible. Left to ourselves, we must have remained under the consequences of our trespasses for ever.

It is utterly impossible for bankrupt sinners to make restitution to God. But Another has done so. He was the sin offering and the burnt offering, and also the true trespass offering (Leviticus 5)... The Lord Jesus is the true trespass offering in Isaiah 53:10-12 and also in Psalm 69, where He says in prophetic language, "What I did not steal must I now restore?"

In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not kill." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways… The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

If someone caught a thief breaking in and killed him, this was not murder if it happened in the dark of night. If it happened in daylight, the one who killed him was guilty of bloodshed (vv. 2-3).

It is a mark of righteousness under the law that a man breaking in at night might be killed, but not a man breaking in by day.

God alone knows the heart of man, and He has called it "deceitful above all things and incurably wicked." When He gave Noah the government of the earth, He provided for the preservation of man's life in the most solemn terms, which no human laws can set aside: "at the hand of Man, at the hand of each (the blood) of his brother, will I require the life of Man. Whoever sheds Man's blood, by Man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made Man."

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution to our notice. It is a very necessary principle, since no one who deals with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can evade responsibility. Here God shows not only His concern for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

Human laws only punish. They brutalise offenders and keep them offending, and they make no repayment. A man cheats people out of their life savings; he is jailed, and the victims get nothing back. But by God's law a thief was not only punished, but made to work for wages to pay back the theft to his victims (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He was not jailed and kept at the taxpayers' expense, nor did his victims suffer and starve.

But the question for our souls is this. If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible… But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution for all our trespasses — we can say so, if we believe. In His wonderful grace and mercy, He has repaired every breach that could be charged against us.

Exodus 21 gives judgments that extend "You shall not murder." Exodus 22 gives judgments that extend "You shall not steal." People can cheat each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for restitution. If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty.

If someone caught a thief breaking in and killed him, this was not murder if it happened in the dark of night. If it happened in daylight, the killer was guilty of bloodshed (vv. 2-3).

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle, for no one who deals with "the righteous LORD, who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility... Here God shows His concern not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

Human laws only punish offenders, harden them and keep them offending; they repay nothing. A man cheats people out of their life savings; he goes to jail, and the victims get nothing back. But by God's law a thief was not only punished, but compelled to work for wages to pay back the theft to his victims (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He did not sit in jail at the taxpayers' expense, and his victims did not suffer and starve.

The words usually translated "servant" mean bondmen or slaves. Some were bought with money and some were taken in war: compare also Exodus 22:3... The law of Moses recognised this form of servitude, though it was a result of sin, and gave rules about it and for the protection of the slaves.

If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible; and if left to ourselves we must for ever have remained under the consequences of our trespasses. But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4)... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. If there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He had not taken away, but which we had taken away — we must for ever have been answerable to His claims: for ever answerable, but with nothing to pay.

The thief is to become a labourer and even a giver, for grace transforms. The law required the thief to make restitution, but grace makes him actively generous.

In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may cheat each other in many ways, and this theme continues to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, then damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

If one had stolen an animal and had it in his possession, he must restore double — a much lesser penalty than verse 1.

Verse 1 is plain, though we are not told why stealing an ox called for five oxen in return, while stealing a sheep called for only four sheep.

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle. Anyone who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" cannot dodge responsibility. Here God shows not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also His concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him for his dealings with others.

The eighth commandment enforces the rights of personal property. For a short time many Christians in Jerusalem sold property and shared everything. But even then the rights of private property were not set aside, for Peter said to Ananias, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4). Yes, it belonged to Ananias, and no one had the right to grab it away from him.

Human laws merely punish, brutalise, and perpetuate offenders; they make no reparations. A man cheats people out of their life-savings; he goes to jail, and the victims get nothing back. But God's law did more than punish a thief. It made him work for wages and pay back to his victims what he had stolen (Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4). He did not sit in jail at the taxpayers' expense, and his victims did not suffer and starve.

The question for our souls is this: if robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). He has therefore made full and adequate restitution for all our trespasses (we can say this, if we believe). In His wondrous grace and mercy He has repaired every breach that could be charged against us... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. Had there been no substitute for us — no one to give back to God what He had never taken, but we had — we would have been answerable to His claims for ever, with nothing to pay.

The thief is to become a labourer and even a giver, for grace transforms. The law required the thief to make restitution, but grace makes him truly generous.

In Exodus 21 we get judgments which extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments which extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, then the offender must pay damages. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

Verse 5 shows that an owner had to keep his animal on his own property, or he suffered the consequences. If someone started a fire and it spread to a neighbour's property, that person had to make full restoration.

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle. Nobody escapes responsibility when dealing with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness." Here God shows not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, but also His concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

Isaiah 3:14, "You have eaten up the vineyard," is an allusion to Exodus 22:5... The Hebrew word for "eat" is unusual, and the same in both places, so as to leave no doubt of the allusion.

But the question for our souls is, if robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. Suppose there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He no longer had, because we had taken it away. Then we must have been for ever answerable to His claims: for ever answerable, but with nothing to pay.

Now, Christ is He who restores: "I restored that which I took not away" is what prophecy says of Him. He is the One who has overpaid God (if I may say so) for all the wrong that sin has done Him. He is the One also who has, to man — to as many as receive Him — more than restored all that sin had taken away.

There are sins both towards God and man which cannot be regarded as truly repented of by the wrongdoer unless restitution is made... The forgiveness of God produces practical fruits in our everyday life. Our first duty to our fellow men, as forgiven of God, is to make them honourable restitution for any specific wrong we may have caused them.

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle, because no one can escape responsibility when he deals with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness." Here God has shown His concern for guarding the life and persons of His people, as we already noted. But He has also shown a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may cheat each other in many ways... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, then damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

Verse 5 shows that an owner had to keep his animal on his own property, or he suffered the consequences. If someone lit a fire and it spread to other people's property, then the one who lit the fire was responsible to make full restoration.

What grace on Jehovah's part to regard wrongs against a neighbour as wrongs against Himself also, and to require a reparation and a like guilt offering!

If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can we deal with the sin of robbing God? How can people who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. So He has made full and adequate restitution... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. If there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He had not taken away, but we had — we would have been answerable to His claims forever. Forever answerable, with nothing to pay.

The tongue is a little part of the body. Yet it is an instrument of very great things, either for good or for evil... Small as it is, it boasts great things. It may be like a little spark of fire, but how many a ruinous blaze a little spark has started!

Exodus 22:1-15 brings restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle. No one who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteous deeds" can escape responsibility. Here God has shown His concern for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted. He has also shown a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in their dealings with one another.

In Exodus 21 we get judgments which extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments which extend "You shall not steal." Men may cheat each other in many ways... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, then damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

Suppose someone was trusted with his neighbor's goods, and they were stolen from him. He would not be held responsible — unless the inquiry found that he had stolen them himself. Judges would decide such matters. In all such cases the guilty party would have to pay double (vv. 7-9).

In the Pentateuch the parties are often directed to be brought to the Elohim (as in Ex. 21:6, 23; Ex. 22:8-9, twice), so called because in judging they were to act in God's place.

In Scripture the judges of Israel are sometimes given the name of God. This points more closely and strongly to the source of their authority as the guides and directors of His people. The word of God came to them. They sat to administer justice in the name of Jehovah, and according to His declared mind. The verdict they pronounced was not their own but His.

But we must carefully remember that our Lord in no way forbids an oath before the magistrate or judge. This is not evil, but good, being of divine authority. For men swear by a greater, and the oath ends all dispute by making matters sure. To refuse it is to deny God's authority in those who represent Him in earthly matters. That is why they are called by His name, which is translated "judges," as in Ex. 21:6, Ex. 22:8-9, 28.

One more thing marked these trespass offerings, where a man's rights had been violated. The trespasser not only had to bring his offering to God; he had to make amends to the one he had trespassed against... The original loss had to be repaid, with a fifth part added to it. Nothing more just than this can be found. Many a robber would not mind a bit of imprisonment if he were allowed to keep the gain he has made. But losing all he made plus a fifth beyond it takes all the glamour out of the wrongdoing.

If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "What I did not steal must I now restore?"... In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. Suppose there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He Himself had never taken away, but which we had taken away. Then we must have been answerable to His claims for ever.

Exodus 21 gives us judgments that extend "You shall not murder." Exodus 22 gives judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

Suppose a man was entrusted with his neighbour's goods, and they were stolen from him. He did not have to answer for them — unless an inquiry showed that he himself had stolen them. Judges would decide such matters. In all such cases, the guilty party would have to pay double (vv. 7-9).

Scripture sometimes gives the judges of Israel the name of God. This points more closely and strongly to the source of their authority as the guides and directors of His people (see Ex. 22:8-9, 28, in the original). The word of God came to them (John 10:35). They sat to administer justice in the name, and according to the declared mind, of Jehovah. The award they pronounced was not their own but His.

But we must remember that our Lord in no way forbids an oath before the magistrate or judge. This is not evil but good, since it carries divine authority. Men swear by a greater, and the oath ends all dispute by making matters sure. To refuse it is to deny God's authority in those who represent Him in earthly matters. That is why they are called by His name and translated "judges," as in Ex. 21:6, Ex. 22:8-9, 28.

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution to our notice. It is a very necessary principle. No one who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. Here God shows not only His concern for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him for his dealings with others.

Zacchaeus refers, without doubt, to this provision of the law when he said to the Lord, "If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." (Luke 19:8.)... But here is the question for our souls. If God condemns robbing a fellow-man like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "What I did not steal must I now restore?" (Psalm 69:4.) He was the trespass-offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution for all our trespasses... In the chapter the offender had himself to make restitution. We could not do this.

In Exodus 21 the judgments extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 they extend "You shall not steal." Men can cheat each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17... The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, the offender pays damages. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

Verses 10-13 deal with a different case: an animal left in a neighbour's care. If the animal died, was hurt, or had wandered away, the owner and the caretaker were to swear "an oath by the LORD." The caretaker swore he had not taken the animal for himself. But if the animal was stolen from him, then he would have to pay the owner for the animal (v. 12). Yet if the animal was mauled and killed by a beast, the owner would bear the loss.

The tenderness of the opening words shows how much more than the bare letter these commandments hold. To fulfil the commandment not to steal, you must not consent to the loss or destruction of anything that is your neighbour's. You must care for it, guard it, and keep it for him.

The first form of the guilt denounced here appears to be a failure in private trust. It might be any valuable item or document left with a friend. It might be only an animal, a borrowed book or axe, or money handed over, however small the sum. But Jehovah took notice, and bound up the trusting Israelite's rights with His own name.

What grace on Jehovah's part! He treats wrongs against a neighbour as wrongs against Himself, and He asks for both repayment and a Guilt offering, like the other case.

In Exodus 22:1-15 God has shown not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in their dealings with one another.

If God condemns robbing a fellow man like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But the Psalms speak of One who said that He restored what He never took away. He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. So He has made full and adequate restitution for all our trespasses — we can say this, if we believe. In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this.

Verses 10-13 treat differently the case of an animal left in a neighbour's care. If the animal died, was hurt, or had wandered away, there was to be "an oath by the LORD" between the owner and the caretaker. The oath declared that the caretaker had not taken it for himself. But if the animal was stolen from him, then he would have to pay the owner for the animal.

Exodus 22:1-15 brings restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle, because no one who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. In this God has shown His concern not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

A solemn statement with an appeal to God that what is said is true. The apostle said that among people an oath given as confirmation is the "end of all strife" or dispute. And God, wanting to show "the unchangeable character of His purpose, guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things [His word and His oath], in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong encouragement."

On several occasions the law called for an oath, and in such cases God required His people to swear by His name (Deuteronomy 6:13; compare Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 5:1; Numbers 5:19-21). The oath then did more than confirm the truth. It was also a solemn vow made in the knowledge that Jehovah was present — and He had Himself once taken an oath before Abraham.

The first form of the guilt condemned here appears to be a failure in private trust. It might be any valuable item or useful document left in the keeping of a friend. It might be only an animal, a book lent, an axe borrowed, or money entrusted, however small. But Jehovah took notice, and bound up the trusting Israelite's rights with His own name.

Though this trespass directly involves another person, it is still "against the Lord," for He is Creator and He cares how people treat His creatures. Someone may have lied to his neighbour about something entrusted to him to keep, or about a pledge he had made. He may also have cheated his neighbour outright. Or he may have found what was lost and, instead of returning it to its owner, sworn falsely about it. This was no sin of ignorance… Yet he must not cover the matter over. He must confess his sin and restore in full anything the neighbour had lost, adding one-fifth to its value.

If the law condemns robbing a fellow man like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible… But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution — we can say so, if we believe — for all our trespasses.

In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may cheat each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17. The first demand is for "restitution," and if that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty.

Verses 10-13 take up a different case: an animal left in the care of a neighbour. If the animal died, was hurt, or had wandered away, the owner and the caretaker settled it with "an oath of the Lord." The oath declared that the caretaker had not taken the animal for himself. But if the animal was stolen from him, then he would have to pay the owner for the animal (v. 12). Yet if the animal was mauled and killed by a beast, the owner would bear the loss.

Here God shows His care not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, as we have already seen, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with his neighbour.

To keep the commandment not to steal, you must not agree to the destruction or loss of anything that belongs to your neighbour. It must be cared for, guarded, and kept for him.

Here is the question for our souls. If God condemns robbing a fellow man in this way, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible... But Christ was the trespass offering, as well as the sin offering and the burnt offering. So He has made full and complete restitution for all our trespasses, and if we believe, we can say so. In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this. Suppose there had been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God what He did not have, because we had taken it away. Then we would have been answerable to His claims for ever: for ever answerable, with nothing to pay.

Some sins against God and against man cannot count as truly repented of unless the wrongdoer makes restitution. Take a man who robs God, or robs his neighbour. If he has genuine faith in the value of Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of that sin, restitution will follow. It is man's part alongside God's forgiveness... The forgiveness of God produces practical fruits in our everyday life. God has forgiven us, so our first duty to other people is to make honourable restitution for any specific wrong we have caused them.

If in Exodus 21 we get judgments which extend "You shall not kill," in Exodus 22 we find judgments extending "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in a variety of ways… The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, damages must be paid. No one could devise a fairer penalty.

Verses 10-13 show a difference in the case of an animal being left in the care of a neighbour. If the animal died or was hurt or had wandered away, there was to be "an oath of the Lord" between the owner and the caretaker that the caretaker had not taken it for himself. But if the animal was stolen from him, then he would have to pay the owner for the animal (v. 12). Yet if the animal was mauled and killed by a beast, the owner would bear the loss. If something was borrowed, then died or was injured in the hands of the borrower, the borrower must reimburse the lender for it (v. 15).

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution before us. It is a very necessary principle, because no one who deals with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. Here God has shown not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also His concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, since each man is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

The study of this section of our book is well suited to impress the heart with a sense of God's unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness… Here, too, we may see the amazing condescension of Him who is the great God of heaven and earth. He can still stoop to judge between man and man about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth… He governs the universe, and yet He can occupy Himself with providing a covering for one of His creatures.

If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible… But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." He was the trespass offering as well as the sin and burnt offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution — we can say so, if we believe — for all our trespasses. No one can charge us with a single breach that He, in His wonderful grace and mercy, has not repaired.

In chapter 22 we go on with the "judgments" that begin at chapter 21 and run to chapter 23. But God's judgments have a different character from Exodus 21:33 onwards, for these deal mainly with the possessions or property of the children of Israel.

Verses 10-13 show a difference in the case of an animal being left in the care of a neighbor. If the animal died or was hurt or had wandered away, there was to be "an oath of the Lord" between the owner and the caretaker that the caretaker had not taken it for himself… If someone borrowed something, and it died or was injured while in his hands, he must pay the lender back for it (v. 15). If however the owner was with the animal or other article, the owner must bear the loss of any damage.

The tenderness of the opening words makes it plain how much more than the bare letter we should read in the commandments. To fulfill the commandment not to steal, you must not consent to the destruction or loss of anything that is your neighbor's. It must be cared for, guarded, and kept for him.

Exodus 22:1-15 puts the thought of restitution before us. The principle is very necessary, for no one who deals with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can escape responsibility. Here God shows not only His concern to guard the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

The law demanded repayment, which showed that the rights of the person sinned against were not to be ignored. It also required a sacrifice, which showed that a trespass against your neighbour could not be hushed up or settled by compromise, with no admission of guilt before God… So the Lord would teach His people to see their acts of sin in the light of their responsibility to Him, and not only as those acts affected the person they had wronged on earth.

In the previous chapter we saw how God guarded the life and the persons of His people. In this chapter we see how He protected their property, and made everyone who ignored His law answerable to Himself. But here is the question for our souls. If robbing a fellow man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible… But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "What I did not steal must I now restore?" (Psalm 69:4)… There is not a single breach that could be charged against us which He, in His wonderful grace and mercy, has not repaired. In the chapter the offender had to make restitution himself. We could not do this.

In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not murder." In Exodus 22 we find judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways, and this theme continues to the end of verse 17. The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, the offender pays damages. No one could devise a fairer penalty.

If a borrower took something, and it died or was hurt in his hands, he must repay the lender for it (v. 15). But if the owner was with the animal or other article, the owner must bear the loss of any damage.

Exodus 22:1-15 brings the thought of restitution to our notice. It is a very necessary principle. No one who has to do with "the righteous Lord who loves righteousness" can evade responsibility. In this God has shown His concern not only for guarding the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also for their possessions. He demands restitution from the offender, who is accountable to Him in his dealings with others.

These "judgments" reveal the true character of the law: inflexible righteousness, with its inescapable demands of restitution and penalty. No one could evade responsibility. Yet the spirit in which the children of Israel dealt with each other, following these divine instructions, expressed the beautiful features of grace and compassion. They were not to mistreat a stranger, or afflict the widow and the fatherless. They were to charge no interest to a poor man who borrowed money. They were not to keep a neighbour's pledged garment overnight. To this last God adds this beautiful expression, "for I am gracious."

"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." The first sentence does not mean that it is wrong to borrow money. The question is about paying. If a debt is due, pay it right on time. Borrowing money in a reckless way, with no prospect of paying it back, is sinful. It has often brought great dishonour on the name of our Lord.

If robbing a fellow-man is condemned like this, how can the sin of robbing God be met? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible. Left to ourselves, we must have remained for ever under the consequences of our trespasses. But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." He has therefore made full and adequate restitution — we can say it, if we believe — for all our trespasses. In His wonderful grace and mercy, He has repaired every breach that could be charged against us. In this chapter the offender himself had to make restitution. We could not do this.

If in Exodus 21 we get judgments which extend "You shall not kill," in Exodus 22 we find judgments extending "You shall not steal." Men can defraud each other in many ways. This theme continues to the end of verse 17, because a girl may be defrauded of her virtue. A penalty stands against this as against all the rest. The first demand is for "restitution." If that is not possible, then he must pay damages. No one could devise a fairer penalty than this.

We now come to commands of a different kind. The first of these deals with sexual desire (v. 16). The guilt is supposed here to attach mainly to the man — though the woman is not excepted from her share. But a man cannot sin lightly and then act as if he had not sinned, especially in the way mentioned here. So he incurred the obligation of endowing her to be his wife.

The sum paid by a man to the relatives of the woman who becomes his wife (Gen. 34:12; Ex. 22:16-17; 1 Sam. 18:25; compare Hosea 3:2). Leah, on having her sixth son, devoutly said, "God has endowed me with a good endowment." Gen. 30:20. The dowry Jacob gave for his wives was seven years' service for each. Gen. 29:18, 27.

A man seducing a woman who was not engaged or married was responsible to marry her. If the father of the girl refused this, the guilty man had to pay money to the father (v. 17).

Suppose a man and woman who were neither married nor engaged were guilty of sexual intercourse. The man had to pay fifty shekels of silver to the woman's father and keep her as his wife. He could never divorce her (vv. 28-29). In all these things God shows the seriousness of having sexual relationships. He intended this only within the marriage bond. Those who violate that today can expect unpleasant consequences, as well as the displeasure of the Lord.

Paul lays down the principle. "Do you not know," he says, "that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh'" (1 Cor. 6:16). For the same reason our blessed Lord taught, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt. 19:9). What a comment this is on human laws that permit divorce on other grounds. Such laws ignore the wisdom of God completely, and betray total ignorance of the basic relationships between man and woman. We are bound to obey the governing authorities when they are not in conflict with the authority of God. Even so, the law of the land cannot be the guide for the conscience of the believer or of the church.

In Exodus 21 we get judgments that extend "You shall not kill." In Exodus 22 we get judgments that extend "You shall not steal." Men may defraud each other in many ways, and this theme runs to the end of verse 17. A young woman may be defrauded of her virtue, and a penalty stands against this as against all the rest. The first demand is for "restitution," and, if that is not possible, then damages must be paid. No fairer form of penalty than this can be devised.

This law deals with sexual desire (v. 16). The guilt here is treated as belonging mainly to the man — though the woman is not excused from her share. But a man cannot sin lightly and then act as if he had not sinned, especially in the way mentioned here. So he took on the obligation of paying her bride-price and having her as his wife. Paul states the principle. "Do you not know," he says, "that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh'" (1 Corinthians 6:16). For the same reason our Lord taught, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9). What a comment on human laws that allow divorce on other grounds. They ignore the wisdom of God, and they show complete ignorance of the basic relationships between man and woman.

The sum paid by a man to the relatives of the woman who becomes his wife. Genesis 34:12; Exodus 22:16-17; 1 Samuel 18:25; compare Hosea 3:2. Leah, on having her sixth son, said devoutly, "God has endowed me with a good endowment." Genesis 30:20. The dowry which Jacob gave for his wives was seven years' service for each. Genesis 29:18, 27.

A man seducing a woman who was not engaged or married was responsible to marry her. If the father of the girl refused this, the guilty man had to pay money to the father (v. 17).

After this follow the general institutions of the law, which mainly insist on retribution. No one may take advantage of the weak or the dependent. Violence cannot go unpunished, and neither can dishonour where we owe respect. Restitution must be made, and this double, fourfold, or even fivefold, according to the wrong.

It is not necessary for our purpose to consider each statute in detail; a few only will be enough, though the consideration of each would yield valuable instruction as witnessing to God's gracious care and protection of those who were weak and in a position of inferiority, and who, as such, might be subject to oppression and to being unjustly dealt with by those who were stronger and in a place of authority over them.

If a man and woman who were not married or engaged were guilty of sexual intercourse, the man had to pay fifty shekels of silver to the woman's father. He also had to keep her as his wife, and he was never allowed to divorce her. In all of these things God shows the seriousness of having sexual relationships. He intended it only within the marriage bond. Those who break that today can expect unpleasant consequences, and the displeasure of the Lord.

The word kashaph means "to use magical formulas or incantations," "to practise sorcery." The law did not allow a witch to live. Ex. 22:18; Deut. 18:10; 2 Kings 9:22; 2 Chr. 33:6; Micah 5:12; Nahum 3:4. In 1 Samuel 15:23 the word is qesem, divination. In Galatians 5:20 it is pharmakeia, sorcery.

The essential idea of a witch was dealing with spirits. The same thing has its counterpart in spiritualism today. So in Leviticus she is described as "a woman who has a familiar spirit" (Lev. 20:27). The witch of Endor is the clearest example of her kind. Saul went to her and said, "Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you" (1 Sam. 28:8). This is the very thing that spiritualists claim to do — to bring the inquirer into contact with departed spirits. It is in fact a turning from God to Satan.

From verse 18 to the end of the chapter we get various judgments. They may not seem closely connected, but they cover both the rights of God Himself and the rights of the poor among His people. The witch commits an outrage against God by trafficking with demons.

The solemn sentence, "You shall not permit a sorceress to live" (Ex. 22:18), arrests the mind because of its severity. By it God shows His hatred of what was, in its true character, a trafficking with evil spirits. Many people make mocking remarks about this repelling evil, either to soften its dreadful influence or to disprove that it exists at all. But God's word names it as one of the marks of the great falling away in the last days: "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1).

Saul had put down such people in line with this law by carrying out the judgment laid down here (1 Sam. 28:9), but he himself came under it… "Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance. He did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD put him to death" (1 Chron. 10:13-14). No one, not even the king, was exempt from the punishment threatened.

The true test of all spirit messages is Christ. What do they say of Him? Do they own Him as "Lord" and "God"? Do they speak with reverence of His atoning sacrifice? Do they acknowledge Him as Judge of living and dead? … Moses says to Israel: "Those nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners." These were what the nations fell back on as they searched for light about life beyond death. But what about God's people? "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers — it is to him you shall listen."

Are there any who take part in table-turning, spirit-rapping, mesmerism, or clairvoyance? We are certain that when people give themselves to the awful business of bringing up the spirits of the departed in any way, they are putting themselves into the hands of the devil, who deceives and deludes them with his lies. What do those who hold in their hands a perfect revelation from God want with table-turning and spirit-rapping?

It is important to see that this power is of Satan, because today far more people try to contact the spirits of the dead. Even Christians may be drawn in — and indeed have been drawn in — out of mere curiosity.

From verse 18 to the end of the chapter we get various judgments. They may not seem closely connected. But they clearly cover both the rights of God Himself and the rights of the poor among His people. The witch commits an outrage against God by trafficking with demons. The sinner of verse 18 outrages His order in creation. He who sacrifices to demon powers is to be destroyed.

Two sins are then named to which is attached the penalty of death. The first is that of the flesh — and of the flesh in its most horrible and revolting form. The second is idolatry. God could not allow the acknowledgement among His own people of any god beside Himself. It would be a denial of His own claims and authority, and the overturning of the very foundations of His relationship with His people.

The unnatural acts named here are plain enough. But few people know how shamelessly the heathen practised them, even the Greeks and the Romans. What an abomination! It is confusion, says the Lord. Israel were not to make themselves unclean in any of these things, as all the nations of Canaan did whom He drove out before them. How much guiltier, then, would Israel be! The very land was made unclean... It is by receiving the good that comes from God — His word and above all His Christ — that souls are kept from evil.

Among the efforts of Satan's power in idolatry, one was to destroy the order, affections, and beauty which God has established in nature. Christianity respects all such natural bonds, though it raises us above them. Satan degrades them in every way by what is unnatural. Anyone who knows even a little about the horrors of idolatry will remember how widespread and systematic such outrages were. All this the law forbade.

The fact that the Lord had to enact laws against certain crimes proves that man is capable of committing those crimes. If the capacity and the tendency were not there, the laws would not be needed. Many people, if you named to them the gross abominations forbidden in these chapters, might be inclined to answer like Hazael: "Is your servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" Such people have not yet travelled down into the deep abyss of their own hearts. Some crimes forbidden here would seem to put man, in his habits and tendencies, below the level of a dog. Yet those very laws prove beyond all question that the most refined and cultivated person carries in his heart the seeds of the very darkest and most horrifying abominations.

Deep as man's ruin is, the love of God is deeper still. Black as his guilt is, the blood of Jesus can wash it all away. Wide as the gulf is that separates man from God, the cross has bridged it. God has come down to the very lowest point of the sinner's condition, so that He might lift him up into a position of infinite favour... Nothing could fathom man's ruin but God's love, and nothing could equal man's guilt but the blood of Christ.

From verse 18 to the end of the chapter we get various judgments. They may not seem closely connected. But they clearly cover both the rights of God Himself and the rights of the poor among His people. The witch commits an outrage against God by trafficking with demons. The sinner of verse 18 outrages His order in creation. He who sacrifices to demon powers is to be destroyed.

God could not allow any god beside Himself to be acknowledged among His own people. It would deny His own claims and authority, and overthrow the very foundations of His relationship with His people. On their part it would deny His true character and reject His absolute rule. The worship of the true God and of false gods could not exist side by side... The acceptance of false gods amounts to a rejection of the true God. So, on the other side, Scripture says this of the Thessalonians after their conversion: "You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God."

The Corinthian believers knew that the idols themselves were nothing. They knew that meat offered to idols was no different from other meat. So they were in danger of arguing that they could attend a pagan temple and eat meat offered to idols. No, says the Apostle, you forget that what they sacrifice to idols they really sacrifice to demons. Demons are the ones stirring up this idol worship. The idol may indeed be a mere nothing, but the demons behind it were very real. In leading men to worship idols, they were leading men to worship demons, and so seizing the homage due to God alone.

The words of the covenant in Exodus open with the first commandment. It requires Israel to worship God and no one else. The same sanction appears among the words of the covenant, in Exodus 22:20: "Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to destruction." The covenant described in Deuteronomy 29 is just the same. They entered into covenant to have the LORD for their God, and to renounce all other gods.

God had chosen this nation out of all the nations of the earth, and had favoured and enriched it. Is it not a solemn reflection that so early in its history it should be guilty of the most flagrant idolatry?

We may not be guilty of bowing down to a god of our own making, "like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." But there are other idols always trying to steal our hearts away from Him... The greatest and most subtle idol is self. We badly need this warning. When the apostle describes the features of the last days, the first thing he mentions is this: "people will be lovers of self."

Verses 21 to 27 protect the rights of the weakest in the land — foreigners, widows, orphans and the poor. These people count for less and cannot defend themselves. Fallen mankind tends to take advantage of these, oppressing and defrauding them. Such conduct is hateful to God, and His kindness shines out even as He gives His law. He will be their Defender. As He thinks of them His word is, "I am gracious."

The foreigner comes first. The memory of what they had been in the land of Egypt was to govern how they treated such people. They had been in bitterness of soul through hard slavery under the iron yoke of Pharaoh. So they could enter into the feelings of those who were foreigners in a foreign land. The helpless are next commended to their hearts. Of all the helpless ones who appeal to our compassion, the widow and the orphan have the first claim. So God surrounds them here with the powerful defence of His own arm.

This cuts off in advance the narrow and base pride of later tradition. A foreigner who might live in their land was not only to be left in peace. He was to be loved as one born among them. "You shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God." How touching to remember their oppression in Egypt, not for resentment but for compassion!

God set no exact penalty for mistreating or oppressing a foreigner or widow or orphan, though He firmly forbade it (vv. 21-24). But God warns that if the oppressed cried to Him, He would step in Himself. He would kill the oppressor by means of an enemy with a sword, leaving their wives as widows and their children fatherless.

The ninth verse repeats the instruction given in Exodus 22:21. This shows how important it is in God's eyes. Here it comes with added emphasis: "You know the heart of a stranger." Their own experience qualified the children of Israel to sympathise with strangers. The memory of their own past sorrow was to shape how they treated people in the same position.

The nation should remember God's kindness to them. They had all been "strangers" and slaves in the land of Egypt (Ex. 22:21). So they ought to show kindness to any "strangers" among them. They were to let them glean in their fields and vineyards, making sure the reapers left something behind for the gleaners. The strangers were not of "the seed of Abraham according to the flesh," and they had taken no part in the ploughing or sowing or reaping. Even so, they were to have a full share of God's generous provision at harvest time.

He often quoted the words, "You know the heart of a stranger." He said them when he heard of anyone lonely, or of a stranger he might show kindness to. No difference of rank hindered the welcome he gave to any whom he believed to be followers of his Lord.

Next the law commends the helpless to their hearts. Of all the helpless ones who appeal to our compassion, the widow and the fatherless surely have the first claim. God here surrounds them with the powerful defence of His own arm. If anyone afflicts them, that man will be killed, and his wife and children will become a widow and orphans. All through Scripture these two groups are shown as the special object of God's care, and so they should be the objects of our compassionate concern.

Here Moses speaks not only of God's doings, dealings and ways, but of Himself — of what He is. He is high over all, the great, the mighty and the terrible. But He has a heart for the widow and the fatherless. They are helpless ones stripped of every earthly and natural support — the poor grieving, broken-hearted widow, and the lonely orphan. God thinks of such people and cares for them in a very special way; they have a claim on His loving heart and mighty hand. "Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation." "Leave your fatherless children; I will keep them alive; and let your widows trust in me."

The law set no exact penalty for mistreating or oppressing a stranger, a widow or a fatherless child, though it firmly forbade this (vv. 21-24). But God warns that if the oppressed cried out to Him, He would step in Himself. He would kill the oppressor by the hand of an enemy with a sword, leaving their wives as widows and their children fatherless.

Verses 21-27 safeguard the rights of the people who count for least and can defend themselves least — strangers, widows, the fatherless and the poor. Fallen mankind tends to take advantage of these people. It oppresses them and cheats them. God hates such conduct, and His kindness shines out even as He gives His law. He will be their Defender. As He thinks of them His word is, "I am gracious."

They knew God in the wonderful work He had done for them, and also in the commandments that displayed His character. God called them to imitate Him. If He cared for the fatherless and widows, and for the stranger, they too must care. And had they not known what it was to be strangers in Egypt? He had brought them out of that land with an outstretched arm, and He had multiplied them wonderfully through all their suffering.

In Exodus 22:22 we read, "You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child." In James 1:27 it says, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." Christ, as seen in the Gospels, is the perfect example of this verse. Think of the son of the widow of Nain as one instance.

The stranger comes first, and the memory of what they had been in the land of Egypt was to govern their conduct toward such people. They had known bitterness of soul under Pharaoh's hard slavery. So they could enter into the feelings of those who were strangers in a strange land. The helpless are next commended to their hearts. Of all the helpless who appeal to our compassion, surely the widow and the fatherless have the first claim. So God surrounds them here with the powerful defence of His own arm. All through Scripture these two groups are marked out as the special object of God's care. So they should be the objects of our compassionate concern. So James says, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

God set no precise penalty for mistreating or oppressing a stranger or widow or fatherless child, though He firmly forbade it (vv. 21-24). But God warns that if those who were oppressed cried to Him, He would step in Himself. He would kill the oppressor by means of an enemy with a sword, leaving their wives as widows and their children fatherless.

The verses in between (21-27) safeguard the rights of the less important and more defenceless folk — strangers, widows, fatherless and poor. The tendency of fallen mankind is to take advantage of these, oppressing and defrauding them. God hates such conduct. His kindness shines out even as He gives His law. He will be their Defender. As He thinks of them His word is, "I am gracious."

These "judgments" reveal the true character of the law: inflexible righteousness, with its inescapable demands of restitution and penalty. There could be no escape from their responsibility. Yet the spirit in which the children of Israel dealt with each other, following these divine instructions, expressed the beautiful features of grace and compassion. These words support what I am saying. They were not to mistreat a stranger, or afflict the widow and the fatherless (Ex. 22:21-22). They were not to charge interest to a poor man who borrowed money (Ex. 22:25). They were not to keep a neighbour's pledged garment overnight (Ex. 22:26-27). To this last God adds this beautiful expression, "for I am gracious."

If the unjust judge hears and acts for the defenceless, whatever his motive, will not God? But this is far from all. God has His affections — not only His character, but objects of His delight. "And will not God give justice to his elect?" The righteous God, who takes vengeance, can never make light of evil or let the wicked go unpunished. For then how would He judge the world? He notices the cry from the oppressed day and night, and it is the cry of His own elect. "I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily."

They knew God in His wonderful work for them, and in the commandments which displayed His character. God called them to imitate Him. If He cared for the fatherless and widows, and for the stranger, they too must care. And had they not known what it was to be strangers in that land? He had brought them out of it with an outstretched arm, a people wonderfully multiplied through all their suffering.

Next, the helpless are entrusted to their hearts. Of all the helpless people who appeal to our compassion, the widow and the fatherless have the first claim. So God surrounds them here with the powerful defence of His own arm. Anyone who harmed them would be killed, and his wife and children would become a widow and orphans.

The law set no exact penalty for mistreating or oppressing a stranger, a widow, or a fatherless child, though it firmly forbade this (vv. 21-24). But God warns that if the oppressed cried to Him, He would step in Himself. He would kill the oppressor by the sword of an enemy, leaving their wives as widows and their children fatherless.

He counts every wrong done to His people as done to Himself. Through them the same evils would come back in judgment on the nations that inflicted them.

The verses in between (21-27) protect the rights of the lowlier and more defenceless people — strangers, widows, the fatherless, and the poor. Fallen mankind tends to take advantage of them, oppressing and cheating them. God hates such conduct, and His kindness shines out even as He gives His law. He will be their Defender. As He thinks of them His word is, "I am gracious."

No one may take advantage of the weak or of those under authority. Violence cannot go unpunished, and neither can disrespect where we owe honour... No one may harass or mistreat a stranger, a widow, or an orphan. No one may weigh down the poor or insult judges.

Here (vv. 1-4) the sin is the injustice of the judges. They stood in the place of God Himself... yet they badly misrepresented His character and wronged His people, especially the defenceless... The highest will be brought lowest. Those will fare worst who least of all should have turned their high position and great power into greed that dishonours God, and into oppression of the weak and wretched.

The answer is that God, our Father, has a special care for the fatherless and the widow, and so He puts this call first. Could the reason also be that we are slow to care for the fatherless and the widow? In any case, this is a very powerful call — and we do well to take it to heart.

These laws, spite of the fact that the children of Israel were now governed from Sinai, permit us to see into the depths of the heart of God.

In Scripture this word does not mean, as it does now, excessive interest, but simply interest of any kind. The Israelites were forbidden to charge interest to their brothers. The law always assumed the borrower was poor; otherwise he would not need to borrow. To strangers, however, they could lend at interest. Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:35-38; Deuteronomy 23:19-20. When the Jews returned, Nehemiah sharply rebuked the nobles and rulers for taking interest from their poorer brothers. Nehemiah 5:3-13. Scripture strictly commands the rich to help the poor. The only time the New Testament mentions usury is in the parables of the talents and the pounds. There the master blamed the servant for not putting the gifts to use, so that he might have received his own back with interest, or increase. Matthew 25:27; Luke 19:23.

Exodus 22:25 explicitly warns Israelites against charging interest when lending money to the poor. Of course, it is only proper business to expect interest from a bank, as Luke 19:23 tells us. But if someone is poor and needs financial help, it is certainly cruelty to charge him interest. By faith a believer would gladly lend without such a condition. He may in fact gladly give without conditions (2 Corinthians 9:7), expecting nothing in return.

The two directions that follow concern the poor. The first saves him from extortion and stops the rich from making gain out of his poverty. The second keeps him from destitution and nakedness. The children of Israel were now governed from Sinai, yet these laws let us see into the depths of the heart of God.

Verses 21-27 safeguard the rights of the less important and more defenceless people: strangers, widows, the fatherless and the poor. Fallen mankind tends to take advantage of these, oppressing and defrauding them. Such conduct is detestable to God, and His kindness shines out even as He gives His law. He will be their Defender. As He thinks of them His word is, "I am gracious."

Now, who had taken advantage of them when, in their hunger, they needed bread? It was their brothers — and yet the law of Moses forbade them to do this. The Israelite could lend to the nations, but he could not charge his brother interest (Deuteronomy 23:19-20; Exodus 22:25). So the love of money led them into this great sin.

The Jews under law were forbidden to charge interest when lending to another poor Israelite. Now that we are under grace, should we ignore such instruction? Rather, under grace we might go much further, by giving instead of lending.

The other main garment was the simlah, a cloak or wide outer mantle. Men and women wore it, and they wrapped themselves in it at night. If a lender took this garment in pledge, he had to give it back in the evening, for without it 'what shall he sleep in?'

People took articles as security for loans very early on. The law set limits on this, so that no one could take unfair advantage.

If a borrower were to give his garment as security, the lender must not keep it even overnight. My righteous demands must in no way take precedence over proper compassion (vv. 26-27).

Here again the law limits the pledge. The creditor must not push into the debtor's house to get it. And if it is something the debtor can spare only for the day, the creditor must give it back by nightfall.

These "judgments" show the true character of the law: unbending righteousness, demanding repayment for loss and punishment for wrong. No one could escape that responsibility. Yet the way the children of Israel dealt with each other under these instructions from God showed the beautiful features of grace and compassion... They were not to charge interest to a poor man who borrowed money (Ex. 22:25), and they were not to keep a neighbour's pledged garment overnight (Ex. 22:26-27). To this last God adds these beautiful words, "for I am gracious."

The children of Israel were now governed from Sinai. Even so, these laws let us see into the depths of the heart of God. What deep tenderness there is in the rule that a pledged garment must be handed back "by the time the sun goes down: for that is his covering only, it is his clothing for his skin: what shall he sleep in? And when he cries to Me, I will hear; for I am gracious." His people must show the heart of God. And He is touched by the sight of a man who has nothing to cover his body when he lies down to sleep!

Touches of this kind go far to remind us of how detailed God's regard is, and of the depth of His gracious consideration for the details of our life.

They care nothing for the sufferings of the poor. Yet even at the altar — which is supposed to be the Lord's — they lie down on garments pledged because of poverty. And they make merry with the fines imposed for wrongdoing.

If a Jew had pawned his bedclothes, God in His mercy required them back before night. "For," He says, "that is his covering; what shall he sleep in?" (Ex. 22:27). Hope is the believer's covering. He wraps himself in it when he lays his body down to sleep in the grave: "My flesh," says David, "shall rest in hope" (Ps. 16:9). The man who has no hope of a resurrection to life goes sadly to the bed of the grave.

The other main garment was the simlah, a cloak or wide outer mantle, worn by men and women, and in which they wrapped themselves at night. This might be of any material according to the season, and according to the wearer's position in life. The peasants often wear such a garment, called an "abba," of camel's or goat's hair. If a lender took this garment as security, he had to return it in the evening, for without it "in what else shall he sleep?"

The sun has gone down; the chill of midnight creeps over his sleeping form. It disturbs the rest he needs and endangers his health. His skin needs a covering and warmth. Where can he find this if he has pledged his garment and the lender keeps it? Nowhere.

If a borrower were to give his garment as security, the lender must not keep it even overnight. My righteous demands must in no way take precedence over proper compassion.

These "judgments" reveal the true character of the law: inflexible righteousness, with its inescapable demands of restitution and penalty. There could be no evading that responsibility. Yet the children of Israel dealt with each other in a spirit that expressed the beautiful features of grace and compassion, following these divine instructions... no one was to keep a neighbour's pledged garment overnight. To this last God adds this beautiful expression, "for I am gracious."

Even though God now governed the children of Israel from Sinai, these laws let us see into the depths of the heart of God. What indescribable tenderness in the rule that a lender must hand back a pledged garment before the sun went down. His people must express the heart of God, and He is touched by the sight of a man who has nothing to cover his body when he lies down to sleep!

Verses 21-27 protect the rights of the less important and more defenceless people — strangers, widows, the fatherless and the poor. The tendency of fallen mankind is to take advantage of these, oppressing and defrauding them. Such conduct is hateful to God, and His kindness shines out even as He gives His law. He will be their Defender. As He thinks of them His word is, "I am gracious."

Touches of this kind go far to remind us how detailed God's regard is, and how deep His gracious consideration for the details of our life. He clothes the lily, He numbers the hairs of the head, and takes note of the falling sparrow. He tells us to be anxious for nothing. In everything we are to make our requests known to Him by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, and to cast all our care on Him, for He cares for us.

Respect for the authorities in place is also commanded: "You shall not revile the gods, nor curse a ruler of your people." Here the word "gods" means the authorities, or judges, as the margin shows. So, when it comes to kings, governors, and magistrates, the path of God's people is very simple. To all authority, of whatever form, they owe respect and obedience as long as it does not clash with what is due to God. The Lord Himself has put them in this place of subjection.

God commissioned them to represent Him — the judges of Israel. In this way they were identified with the One they represented. They carried the most solemn responsibility to show His character too, both in His righteousness and in His love to men.

They carry this name above all in the instructions given from Sinai. In cases brought before them, the parties were to settle the matter by the award of Elohim — God, or the judges. So the Lord says: "You admit that the Scriptures have authority no one can break. If they give the name of Elohim to men taught by the word, how can you call it blasphemy when I apply the title 'Son of God' to one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world?" The force of the argument shows their injustice, and that is the Lord's aim.

When they challenged him for speaking as he did to "God's high priest," he had to withdraw his words. He said he had not known the man was high priest, for the law had said, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people." In honesty, no one could really call Ananias God's high priest, since the Romans had appointed him. Yet Paul recognized his place of rule.

She knew the penalty for blasphemy against Jehovah was death. She would find helpers to prove Naboth guilty of this. In that way she could take revenge on the man who had dared to say No to the desire of power. But Jewish teachers said that a man found guilty of blasphemy alone kept his property for his heirs, just as if he had died a natural death. So, to secure the vineyard, they had to invent a further charge of treason against him. In such a case the estate of the condemned man went to the royal treasury. So they accused Naboth of blasphemy against both "God and the king."

Honour is not based at all on their personal character. So we have nothing to do with where they came from, how they got their power, or how they use it. All we have to do, as believers, is to own God and the magistrate. Perhaps the magistrate, or the king, does not own God himself. That is a serious thing for him, but it does not change our relation.

Other Scriptures clearly show that the only limit to our subjection to men is the fear of God. When men insist on direct disobedience to God, we must set God first. So here the order is, "Fear God. Honour the king."

From verse 18 to the end of the chapter we get various judgments. They may not seem very closely connected, but they clearly cover both the rights of God Himself and also of the poor among His people... Verse 28 demands respect for the "gods" — the judges who represented the one true God in matters of judgment. The verses after it demand a steady yielding of the firstfruits to God, as befitted holy people.

In Exodus 22:29 we have another word, dema. In the text it is translated "liquor," and in the margin "tear," which is its literal force. Here it pictures the new wine and oil dropping from the press, so our English version gives the sense.

The firstfruits and the firstborn are to be offered to God (vv. 29, 30; see Ex. 13:12-13). In this way they acknowledged both their dependence and the source of their blessing, and declared that they themselves belonged to the Lord. God would give the ripe fruits and the "liquors," and as a token of this He required an offering to Himself. He claimed the firstborn of their children too. But the ground of that claim, as explained in chapter 13, was the destruction of the firstborn of Egypt on the night of the Passover, and their own redemption through the blood of the Passover lamb.

Before that oppressed people had even left Egypt, He told Moses of the claim He had on all their firstborn males, and He would not give it up... He asserted that claim again and put it into the covenant made at Sinai between the people and God, as stated in Ex. 22:29. And to keep it from becoming obsolete or forgotten, He reminded them of it again in another covenant... So three times within one year God spoke of it to Moses, and through him to Israel.

In a special way God said of every firstborn, "It is MINE." This meant it had to be offered in sacrifice, and with every clean animal this was the case... They were to redeem unclean domestic animals: "The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb." And the same principle applies to man: "All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem." (Ex. 34:20.)

All through Scripture godliness makes one vital claim: God must have His portion first, before the believer can rightly take and enjoy his own. One feels how right it is to consider God first. It is due to Him, and true in everything; and if we do not render it, we must suffer the bitter consequence. Israel's statutes and ways impressed this so clearly that no godly person then would have touched his corn before the first sheaf was waved before Jehovah. How wonderfully this applies to Christ! Once Christ is the waved firstfruits, what blessing may not follow?

We see, therefore, that the consecration that flowed from redemption was entire and personal. As the sacrifice was wholly consumed on the altar, so the redeemed person is regarded as belonging wholly to the Lord, soul and body, and set apart in every respect for His service.

The firstfruits and the firstborn are to be offered to God (verses 29, 30; see Exodus 13:12-13). In this way they were to acknowledge two things: their dependence, and the source of their blessing. They were also to declare that they themselves belonged to the Lord. It was God who would give the ripe fruit and the juice of the presses, and as a token of this He required an offering to Himself. He claimed the firstborn of their children too. But the ground of that claim, as explained in chapter 13, was the destruction of the firstborn of Egypt on the night of the Passover, and their own redemption through the blood of the Passover lamb.

In a special way God said of every firstborn, "It is MINE." This meant it had to go to God as a sacrifice, and with every clean animal this was the case… The people had to redeem unclean farm animals: "The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb." The same principle applies to man: "All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem." (Exodus 34:20.)

As to age, the law of circumcision is the law of offering, and for a similar reason. In its first seven days the animal was unclean; the stamp of the old creation was on it… Here God sets the old creation aside. Yet the second command, not to kill the young and its mother on the same day, still recognises the natural links.

Here the animal, when born, had to be seven days with its mother. It was otherwise in nature. The Jews say a Sabbath must pass over it. The Lord says He will accept it from the eighth day on. The great point is not the test of creation or of the law, important as both are. It is the witness of the all-important resurrection day. On that day He rose who is the Beginning — not the first but the last Adam, Firstborn from among the dead — so that He might have the foremost place in everything. Is it not His due?

In Exodus 13 we meet the first command about the firstlings. The Lord claimed them as His for ever. He had the right to dispose of them as He would. In Exodus 22:30, Exodus 34:19 and Leviticus 27:26 He reminded the people of His claim. In Numbers 18:17-18 He gave them to the priests to eat. In Deuteronomy 12:6, 17-18; 14:23; 15:19-20 He told the people who brought them to share them with their families and the Levites within their gates. This was at the place where He would choose to put His name. Now it is clear that there is a change in the law. The principle, however, that God claimed the firstlings as His, to dispose of as He would, remains the same throughout.

So the consecration that flowed from redemption was complete and personal. The fire consumed the whole sacrifice on the altar. In the same way the redeemed person counts as belonging wholly to the Lord, soul and body, set apart in every respect for His service.

In short, they were to "be holy men to" the Lord, away from evil and set apart to God; for He who had made them His own was holy, and He wanted them suited to Himself. For this reason they were not to defile themselves with unclean food — flesh polluted by unclean animals, and fit only for dogs. A holy people must be holy in their ways, as suits a holy God.

The Lord is the living God. Death is sin's wages; not all of it, for judgment remains, as every Christian should know, since Christ revealed the whole truth. So the touch of death defiled anyone, and the priest much more. No Israelite was free even to eat what was torn by beasts of the field; he had to throw it to the dogs (Exodus 22:31).

Scripture constantly refers to the dog as an unclean and debased animal. So it compares the unclean Gentiles, the nations outside Israel, to dogs (Psalm 22:16; Psalm 59:6, 14). The law forbade putting the price of a dog into the Lord's treasury; it was an abomination (Deuteronomy 23:18)… They were, and are, the scavengers of Eastern cities. People throw all refuse into the streets, and the dogs eat it… In the New Testament it is the same: "Outside are the dogs," "Look out for the dogs" — used as symbols of those shut out and of the unclean.

In Exodus 22:31, in the covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, they were forbidden to eat the carcass of any animal that had been torn by beasts in the field… the law of Leviticus 17:15 may have concerned finding a carcass out in open country while hunting, while Leviticus 11:41 deals with death among their flocks or herds. If that is the case, they could eat what had died of itself or been torn by beasts in exceptional circumstances, as long as they carried out the purification required. But once they entered the land, they could not eat what died of itself (Deuteronomy 14:21), or what had been torn by beasts. A stranger, though, might eat what had died of itself.

The priests who came near to God were sanctified in a special way, for God said, "I will be sanctified in those who come near Me" (Exodus 29; Leviticus 8; 10:3). And the law summed it up like this: "You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy" (Exodus 22:31; Leviticus 19:2, and so on). This passage is quoted and applied to Christians (1 Peter 1:16).

Worldly people often think Christians are very self-righteous for keeping apart from others and refusing to share the pleasures and amusements of the world. But they do not really understand the question. In picture language, a Christian who takes part in the vanities and follies of a sinful world is like an Israelite eating something that had died of itself. The Christian, thank God, has something better to feed on than the poor dead things of this world. He has the living bread that came down from heaven, the true manna… It is not a question of the right or wrong of things looked at in themselves. No one could have known that eating something which had died of itself was wrong, if God's word had not settled it.

Advantage must not be taken of the weak or dependent; violence cannot go unpunished, any more than dishonour where we owe respect… False report and testimony are forbidden, even if a crowd were leading the way; and on the other hand there must be no partiality to the poor man's cause, no refusal to help an enemy, no falsehood, no bribery, no oppression.

It is worth noting that the first thing prohibited is "a false report." Against the word "raise," translators put the word "receive" in the margin as an alternative translation, and other versions rather support this. What great harm has been done among Christians by false reports! That it is wrong to start them we all admit. Do we all realise the wrong of receiving them?

The first verse of chapter 23 deserves careful consideration, since it makes the hearer of a report responsible to check that what he has heard is true before accepting it. The true rendering of the verse is, "You shall not accept a false report." The words of the Lord Jesus, "Pay attention to what you hear," were spoken about a completely different matter, but they are of the greatest relevance here. James, in his letter, warns us about the unruliness of the tongue. He uses extremely strong terms for its habits and its defiling, destructive results.

There are few who would not be horrified at the thought of starting a false report. Such a sin would be condemned by all upright minds; not even a man of the world would excuse it. But, as the margin indicates, the word has a wider meaning, and includes receiving a false report too. Many who would avoid the first sin fall into the trap of the second. Someone hears a report, it seems true, and he passes it on. Yet if anyone had taken the trouble to check it, he might have found it false. … If we remembered this, we would stop many a slander at the start, expose many a tale-bearer, and avoid many a broken friendship.

How easily one may pass on a false report without realising it is false, because he did not carefully check its source. May the Lord keep us from this. To circulate it is bad, and so is associating with others who do so. Both of these are seen in verse 1.

Then false testimony is condemned — a sin known today as perjury. This command, like the one in the next verse and those in verses 3 and 5, seems to be connected with the running of justice.

Notice how these rules leave no room for human feelings in matters of judgment. They forbid every unrighteous witness. They also forbid letting dislike for an enemy hold back help in a time of need, as we see in verses 4 and 5. And one's feelings about the poor must not sway the judgment, either for him (verse 3) or against him (verse 6).

But what if another believer comes to us with an evil report about a brother or sister? Ask that person to stop speaking this way. How much evil speaking would die on the spot if we did this. … We should remember that even where sins have been committed, there is no blessing in sharing the details with others when there is no need. The circle of information should be kept as small as possible — to those who can deal with it righteously.

Notice how these matters of judgment shut out human feelings. All dishonest testimony is forbidden. But more than that, dislike for an enemy must not hold back your help in his time of need, as we see in verses 4 and 5. And feelings about a poor man must not sway the judgment, either for him (verse 3) or against him (verse 6).

Wickedness of this kind loves company. A sympathetic crowd encourages bold sinning. Even the believer needs the warning, "You shall not fall in with the many to do evil." Evil can be greatly watered down in our minds by the many who share it with us. Wickedness is cowardly by nature. It loves to share its responsibility with others, even while it scoffs at the idea of responsibility. Faith, however, walks alone, even in the middle of a crowd. Conscience is individual too. It has a wide reputation for making people stiff and awkward, and unfit for much company.

All too often Christians have gone off on a wrong course. They assure themselves it must be right, because many of their friends are travelling that road. A crowd of real saints may follow a course that is wrong, but that does not make it right. Our responsibility is to let the Word of God govern us, even if that means parting from a crowd.

I see nothing in the Word that resembles the decision of a majority. If the church is in a bad state, the majority will probably decide wrong. And nothing can prove that the Holy Spirit is with the majority. It is only a human way of settling a matter. In practical arrangements you may well consider what suits the greater number. But in moral things, the number counts for nothing.

The voice of the people prevailed over the better judgment of Caesar's representative. In other words, on that occasion autocracy stepped aside in favour of democracy, and the popular vote decided it. An old Latin proverb says that the voice of the people is the voice of God. The facts of the crucifixion flatly deny that proverb. Here the voice of the people was the voice of the devil.

This is where a first element of democratic politics becomes visible: what matters is not the correct moral judgement of the issue in question, but the opinion and mood of the crowd... We do well to respect the old warning: "You shall not fall in with the many to do evil" (Ex. 23:2).

Suppose a faithful soul finds, in some place, not even one person willing to walk with him in the right ways of the Lord. Even then he must not "fall in with the many to do evil" (Ex. 23:2). He must be prepared to stand alone, sure that God will not forget him. But such a path calls for special grace. He must walk it with the deepest possible humility and self-denial, in case Elijah's "I, even I only, am left" grows in the soul. Nothing could be more spiritually disastrous.

I must follow the Master rather than all others. I must not make the disobedience of others an excuse for disobeying myself... And this, moreover, is true love. If you would help someone out of a muddy ditch, you must not put your own feet beside him in the mud. First look to your own footing. Plant yourself firmly on solid ground. Then you can reach out a hand and lift your neighbour out.

Moses says, "You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit" (Ex. 23:6). This means that men must not set aside justice because it favours a man who happens to be poor. But he also says, "nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit" (Ex. 23:3). This means that a man must not escape justice because he is poor.

Notice how these rules shut human feelings out of judgment. Every kind of unjust testimony is forbidden. Your dislike of an enemy must not hold back help in his time of need, as we see in verses 4 and 5. And feelings about the poor must not sway the judgment, either for him (verse 3) or against him (verse 6).

They must show Him also on His salvation side, in His regard for the poor, the weak, the defenceless, and the oppressed. "Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute." It must still be justice. Pity for the poor must never break that, and there was a special commandment about this (Ex. 23:3). Yet his poverty should still make him an object of special and tender care: "Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

It is difficult to stand alone against a multitude, though the cause may be just. With the Lord before the soul it becomes simple. On the other hand, a poor man must not be supported in his cause when it is unjust. And when his cause is just, his judgment must not be perverted (v. 6). Some feel the pull of the rich, and some the pull of the poor, especially in a day of democracy and contempt for lawful authority. But the heart must be free from both, and it will be free if it is obedient to the word of God.

The fear of God is of the highest importance here. The faithful heart always knows how to love the poor of the flock, because Christ loves them. Yet the ambitious flesh of man needs this command, "nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit" (Ex. 23:3). It needs it as much as it needs the one that forbids deferring "to the great" (Lev. 19:15). Those who serve Christ alone in everything will be blessed and rewarded by Him in glory at the last day.

How morally lovely, how pure, how refined and elevated were the divine instructions for Israel! They were not to pervert judgment. They were to let it flow in its own straight and even channel, with no regard for persons at all. The poor man in shabby clothing was to have the same impartial justice as the man with a gold ring and fine clothes. Partiality and prejudice were not to warp the decision of the judgment seat. Bribery was not to stain the robe of justice. What will it be for this oppressed and groaning earth to be governed by the admirable laws recorded in the first five books of the Bible, when a king reigns in righteousness and princes decree justice! No perverting of judgment, no bribery, no partial judgments then.

Notice how human feelings are shut out in these matters of judgment. Not only is all false witness forbidden; dislike for an enemy must not stop you from helping him in a time of need, as we see in verses 4 and 5. And your feelings about the poor must not sway the judgment either, for him (verse 3) or against him (verse 6).

Verse 4 is again intended to test our honesty. Even if someone is an enemy and we see his animal straying, the honest thing is to return it to him. Or suppose we know that another person hates us, and his donkey has too heavy a load. We are responsible to give what help we can (v. 5), even though the natural thing would be to ignore it. It is the same principle found in Romans 12:20: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."

But the Jews deliberately overlooked that God had also commanded them in the law to love their enemies (see Ex. 23:4-5; Lev. 19:33-34). The Lord Jesus then goes on: "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." In this He does not give His disciples new commandments. He judges the way people had narrowed the old commandment, and the addition they made to it. In God's thinking, every person we deal with is our neighbour, even if he or she turns out to be our personal enemy.

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Here was something the law never could teach — it is grace. In a thousand practical instances, the question is not whether the thing is right. We often hear Christians asking, Is such a thing wrong? But that is not the only question for a Christian. Suppose someone wrongs him. What should he feel then? If another person hates him, what should he cherish in his own heart?

A command like this must have startled an Israelite. It rises above nature, and above law, which deals with evil feeling and evil ways as they deserve. Here it is "the kindness of God," and His call to act on a goodness that is seen in Him and can only flow from Him. We see it actually done, and on a large scale, when God's power led a Syrian army, sent to arrest the prophet Elisha, blindfolded into the capital city of Israel. The king asked the prophet, "Shall I strike them?" But the man who spoke for God said, No; "set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master."

Heaping coals of fire on an enemy's head by kindness (Prov. 25:21-22; Rom. 12:20) puts him to the test, as fire tests metal. The kindness shown him will either bring him to repentance and friendship, or harden him even more.

Notice how human feelings are shut out in these matters of judgment. Not only is all unrighteous witness forbidden. Dislike for an enemy must also not hold back help in a time of need, as we see in verses 4 and 5. And further, one's feelings about the poor must not sway the judgment, either for him (verse 3) or against him (verse 6).

Verse 4 is again meant to test our honesty. Even if a man is an enemy and we see his animal straying, the honest thing is to return it to him. Or suppose we know that another person hates us, and his donkey has too heavy a load. Our natural inclination would be to ignore it. But we are responsible to give what help we can (v. 5). It is the same principle found in Romans 12:20: "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."

Here the two lessons we have spoken of are very clearly presented. What a deeply humbling picture of the human heart we have in that one sentence, "You may not hide yourself"! We are capable of a low and detestable selfishness. We hide ourselves from our brother's claims on our sympathy and help. We dodge the holy duty of looking after his interests. We pretend not to see his real need of our aid. Such is man! Such is the writer!

Men are tested by their treatment of the creation that God put under human authority. Indifference to one's animal is unworthy; cruelty is worse. So the righteous man cares for his animal's life. But even the tender mercies of the wicked are cruelty. The Lord's tender mercies are over all His works. The day is coming when everything that has breath will praise Him.

The wounded traveller lay in his blood, and two men passed by: one a priest, the other a Levite. Neither offered a helping hand. Yet the law taught that even the donkey of an enemy must be helped when you see it groaning under its burden (Ex. 23:5). But out of all classes and ranks of men, why did the Saviour pick the priest and the Levite as the ones who did nothing for the dying man? Surely to teach us that the system these men represent cannot meet the need of ruined man. The priest's business was with religious forms and ceremonies, and the Levite was responsible to teach the people the law of God. Yet God's own hand pictures both of them doing nothing for a man in his hour of deadly danger.

The first of these sayings must have startled an ordinary Israelite. It rises above nature, and above law. Law deals with evil feeling and evil ways as they deserve. Here it is "the kindness of God," and His call to act on a goodness which is seen in Him and can only flow from Him. We see it acted out literally and on a large scale when divine power drew a Syrian army, sent to arrest the prophet Elisha, blindfolded into the capital city of Israel. The king asked the prophet whether to strike them. But God's spokesman said no: "Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master." After that, Syrian raiders came no more into the land of Israel. It was God in Christ; it is God in the Christian. Is it obsolete in Christendom? May it not be so in Christians! It is too precious to lose.

Moses says, "You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit" (Ex. 23:6). This means that men must not set aside justice because it favours a man who happens to be poor. But he also says, "nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit" (Ex. 23:3). This means that a man must not escape justice because he is poor.

Notice how these matters of judgment shut human feelings out. The law forbids all unrighteous witness. It also says that dislike for an enemy must not stop you from helping him in a time of need, as we see in verses 4 and 5. And your feelings about the poor must not sway the judgment, either for him (verse 3) or against him (verse 6).

It may seem strange to say, "Do not rob the poor," and stranger still to add, "because he is poor." But we need this warning, for human nature is now so base, selfish, and cruel. The rich might look like the more inviting prey for men without conscience. Yet they can take care of themselves in ways the poor would not or could not try. So bad men flatter the rich for gain, while they also rob or oppress those who ought to be objects of pity. But the Lord has His eye on such villainy, at the very gate where justice should flow. He pleads the cause of the poor and the afflicted, and He repays heavily those who plunder them.

In the first place, on God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice... God provided for everything, upheld every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. God weighed each man's claim on scales set with divine accuracy, so no one could rightly complain of a decision. No one was to stain the pure robe of justice with bribery, corruption or partiality.

Verse 6 gives the other side of the matter raised in verse 3. We must not dare to take advantage of a poor person to make him suffer wrongly. This is a common evil, of which James speaks in the strongest terms (James 5:4)... Taking a bribe is just as dishonest, whatever the cause. If a righteous man does this, it will lead him to pervert his words (v. 8). Oppressing a stranger is dishonest too, for we were once strangers and God showed us kindness... All these things were written from the viewpoint of law. They still have real value: they challenge us as to how honest we really are.

They had perverted the judgment of the poor man. They had brought about the killing of the innocent and righteous One... Then the spiritual Man, God's King, His Anointed One, comes face to face with the man who held ruling power over the peoples of the earth in God's place... He stands there before His murderers and persecutors. He is not there to answer their spiteful, false accusations. He is there to state and prove His claims — by being just in the face of injustice, and by showing falsehood up with truth.

We must always be on guard to avoid the slightest involvement in a false matter or in condemning the innocent or righteous (v. 7). It is just as dishonest to accept a bribe, for whatever reason: if a righteous man does this, it will lead him to pervert his words (v. 8).

Verse 8 prohibits all forms of bribery, which is an appeal to the feelings of the one who is bribed. Where bribery is widespread, justice is almost unknown. "The bribe blinds those whose eyes are open" (another translation). Let us read this verse in its spirit as well as its letter. Self-interest can blind the eyes of a sincere Christian, who would never for a moment think of taking a bribe.

The word translated "justify" occurs in that precise form of the verb only in Exodus 23:7: "I will not justify the wicked." That is, God will not make a wicked man a just man, or declare him to be one. "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11, older translation).

On both sides the guilt is serious in Jehovah's eyes. It is not only sympathy with evil men and hardness towards the righteous, it is direct opposition to every principle of divine government.

Truth and righteousness are also required (v. 7). The ground given is most striking — "For I will not justify the wicked." God is righteous in all His ways of government, and He tells the guilty from the innocent without error. So the wicked can never escape His condemnation. But in grace He has revealed a way by which He can justify the ungodly (Rom. 5). Under law this was impossible.

But is God righteous in justifying the ungodly like this? Had He not declared under the law, "I will not justify the wicked" (Ex. 23:7)? On what ground, then, does God righteously credit righteousness to the believer? The apostle, answering such a question, points to the Person of the adorable Son of God. In Christ Jesus, God displayed His righteousness in justifying those who believe. Before this, God set His gracious dealings on a righteous basis in secret, not in the open. He could not reveal the foundations of His righteousness in grace until Christ came.

There was no excuse for Pilate, any more than for the leaders of Israel; all were guilty of condemning the innocent One. Pilate knew what he was doing. Three times over he declared Jesus to be guiltless. Yet he had the nerve to wash his hands in front of the mob and say, "I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man" (Matt. 27:24). How could he be innocent of His blood? He scourged Jesus and handed Him over to the will of those who cried for His blood.

A warning is added against the acceptance of gifts. The question, remember, is still one of judgment between one person and another, or of telling truth from falsehood. To receive a gift in such a case would blind the wise and pervert the words of the righteous. It might shut God out from the soul, and so stop a person from seeing with a single, undivided eye.

Verse 8 prohibits all forms of bribery, which is an appeal to the feelings of the one who is bribed. Where bribery is widespread, justice is practically unknown. "The bribe blinds those whose eyes are open" (an older translation). Let us read this verse in its spirit as well as its letter. Self-interest can blind the eyes of a sincere Christian, who would never think of accepting a bribe.

We learn what man's judgment is worth if he is left to himself. It cannot be trusted for a moment. Man is capable of twisting judgment, of showing favouritism, and of taking a gift. He can treat a person as important because of his position and wealth. We know he is capable of all this, because God tells him not to do it. If God commands a man not to steal, it is plain that man has theft in his nature.

He well knew the blinding power of presents, even when they are not given directly to corrupt the court. He knew how easily judges may be swayed by gifts from the hands of those bringing the case — almost without knowing it themselves. Even a small gift will do it. Nehemiah followed a similar course, "because of the fear of God," he says (Neh. 5:15). Paul, too, in his farewell word to the elders of the assembly at Ephesus, says, "I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel" (Acts 20:33-34).

Notice the special feature in the Lord's character that caught Jehoshaphat's attention: "There is no injustice with the Lord our God, or partiality or taking bribes." Now his own snare seems to have been Ahab's gift. Ahab killed sheep and oxen in abundance for him and for the people with him. Then he persuaded him to go up with him to Ramoth-gilead. He let his heart be warmed by Ahab's gift, and so was more easily swayed by Ahab's arguments... We can never weigh the world's arguments and suggestions calmly while we are breathing its air or accepting its compliments.

This great God of Israel shows no partiality and takes no bribe. Instead He does justice for the fatherless and the widow, and He shows love toward strangers. Most rulers in the world today are nothing like this! Law courts too often show a sad disregard for justice. The poor suffer gross injustice, while the wealthy use their money to bend court decisions in their own favour. Believers may well be deeply thankful for a God who is perfectly just and faithful.

We must not dare to take advantage of a poor person to make him suffer wrongly... It is just as dishonest to accept a bribe, whatever the reason. If a righteous man does this, it will lead him to pervert his words (v. 8). Finally, oppressing a stranger is also dishonesty, for we were once strangers, and God has shown us kindness. Honesty would therefore show similar kindness to strangers (v. 9).

The ninth verse repeats the command given in Ex. 22:21. This shows how important it is in God's eyes, and it comes with emphasis here: "You know the heart of a stranger." Their own experience qualified the children of Israel to sympathise with strangers (compare Heb. 4:15; also Heb. 2:18). The memory of their own past sorrow was to shape how they treated people in the same situation.

A stranger who might live in their land was not only to be left alone in peace, but to be loved as one born among them. "You shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God" (33, 34). How touching to remember their oppression in Egypt, not for resentment but for compassion!

They were not only to keep the divine model before their eyes. They were also to remember their own past history and experience, so that their hearts might go out in sympathy and compassion toward the poor homeless stranger. It was the binding duty and high privilege of the Israel of God to put themselves in other people's place and enter into their feelings. They were to be the moral representatives of that blessed One whose people they were, and whose Name they bore.

This first section ends by putting the protection of the law over anyone who might be a stranger in Israel. Such a person was likely to be treated differently. In this we see the compassionate interest of our God for those outside "the commonwealth of Israel" (Eph. 2:12).

I have also learnt that the children of God know what it is to be strangers (Exod. 23:9; Lev. 19:34), because God has made them strangers and pilgrims on the earth. The ties that unite them are not of this world. They will remain when everything that marked them out here below has ceased to exist.

He often quoted the words, "You know the heart of a stranger," when he heard of anyone lonely, or a stranger, to whom he might show kindness. No difference of rank hindered the welcome he gave to any whom he believed to be followers of his Lord.

In contrast to the negative laws of the first nine verses, verses 10-19 speak positively about the attitude Israel was to show toward God. God told people to work six days of the week. In the same way He tells them to sow their crops six years out of seven, and to let the land lie fallow in the seventh year. This was good for the land. It also showed consideration for the poor. They could come onto someone else's property and take any produce that came up on its own, even though no one had worked the land.

The land was to enjoy her sabbaths, as a lasting sign that it belonged to the Lord. So it, as well as man, must share God's rest. Here, however, the poor and the beasts of the field are prominent. Both had to be considered. However far apart they stand, both alike are creatures of God. This reminded the children of Israel that they were only tenants. They held their land, their vineyards and their olive groves from the Lord. So they had to consider even the poor and the beasts of the field, because these too were the objects of His care.

The second section — verses 10-13 — commands rest, not only for man and beast but even for the land. The natural tendency would no doubt be to ask: if we keep verse 11 about one year's rest in seven, how are we to live in the seventh year? The answer surely would have been: as to that, you must trust in God. That is why, we think, the section closes by telling them to be "circumspect," or "on their guard," and not to name other gods. No false god could give them any such assurance. They would only destroy the assurance that would enable them to obey.

Yet it becomes clear, as we look at what is before us here, how great a check to covetousness these ordinances would be. Every seventh day was a Sabbath of rest. Every seventh year was a sabbath year as well. Three times a year every male was to appear before the Lord, and never empty-handed. The firstfruits were to be for Him.

If Israel had held to this, they would have been greatly blessed. The six years they worked would have provided more than enough to keep them through the seventh year. All they needed was faith to believe God. But we know how selfish our own hearts are. Their crops were so abundant for six years that selfishness would say: why not get the same profit from the seventh year too? Israel would not rest and give God glory. They preferred their own works, and so lost instead of gained... Despite much experience, we are slow to learn that selfishness defeats its own ends.

It is striking to see the many ways the Jewish system held the millennial rest in view. Every seventh day was a sabbatical day. Every seventh year was a sabbatical year. Every seven times seven years there was a jubilee. Each of these solemn signs held before the eye of faith the blessed prospect of a time when labour and sorrow would cease.

As the jubilee drew near, the lease of the land dropped in value to the holder. In the same way, as the coming of Christ seems near to us, we value the earth and earthly things less.

The land was to enjoy her sabbaths, as a lasting sign that it belonged to the Lord. So the land, as well as man, had to share God's rest. Here, though, the poor and the beasts of the field stand out. God had thought for both alike, however great the distance between them, since both were His creatures. This reminded the children of Israel that they were only tenants. They held their land, their vineyards and their olive groves from the Lord. So they had to consider even the poor and the beasts of the field, because these were the objects of His care.

God did not allow them to use one seventh of their time for their own ends. He did not allow the occupier to keep one seventh of the ground's increase as his own. Jehovah had a right to do that, and this law showed strict righteousness. The farmer had full right to what his own work produced. But God claimed as His alone the growth of the land that had cost the occupier no labour. That year the barns and storehouses were not to fill up for the occupier's profit... This law was a test: it would show whether greed and disregard for others would mark the people the Lord had brought out of Egypt.

The seventh day was the day of rest. The seventh year was to give the land rest. That seventh year was meant for the poor above all. Whatever grew by itself belonged to them, and what they left the beasts of the field were to eat. What a gracious provision this was! How merciful and gracious our God is!

Compare Exodus 23:11, where the same word used here for "release" is applied to the land — letting it rest. That assures us plainly: this was not an absolute cancelling of all debt. It was a temporary one during the land-rest, which might prevent payment... God would have no poor among His people. Yet there would always be some, left to test and draw out the mercy of their brothers. Their care was to make poverty cease in practice. Nor did they need to fear loss through this freedom; they would be blessed in all they put their hand to.

Nowhere but in Israel was such a provision made, because it was not man's thought but God's. What a sight it must have been! In the sabbatical year the land lay fallow everywhere. No sound of farming. The plough and harrow laid aside, no seed sown, no field watered. The sixth year's crop had been so large that it provided enough for three years. So it met the people's needs in full, and nothing was lacking for man or beast. Who could promise this? Who could keep such a promise, but One?

It is interesting to notice the many ways the Jewish system held up the millennial rest to view. Every seventh day was a sabbath day. Every seventh year was a sabbatical year. And every seven times seven years there was a jubilee. Each of these held a blessed prospect before the eye of faith: a time when labour and sorrow would cease. Then no one would need the sweat of the brow to satisfy hunger.

So the word of God through Jeremiah came true. The land of Israel would lie desolate and enjoy the sabbaths it had not enjoyed for years. The people were greedy: they wanted crops in the seventh year as well as in the six years God had allotted them. That is why God had told them through Jeremiah that the land would stay desolate for 70 years — the length of Judah's captivity in Babylon.

In Exodus 23:12 and 13 the sabbath is a time of rest not only for the people, but also for the animals that served them. It was also given so that "the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed." The land was to enjoy its sabbaths as a constant sign that it belonged to the Lord, so that not only man, but the land itself, the poor and the beasts of the field were to share God's rest. All were the objects of God's tender compassion.

Again the law insists that they were to work for six days only and rest the seventh day — Saturday. This rest included their servants and their animals (v. 12). This was a gracious provision of God for their own benefit, not by any means a law that would oppress them. Yet obedience would show respect for God's authority, a matter insisted on in verse 13.

The sabbath was a day that involved yourself, your family, your servants, even your very cattle, your ox and your donkey. The God of Israel, the Creator, cared for them all, and brought them within the kind reach of the seventh day. No wonder: the day was the sign of the rest of creation, and man, with all the animals under him, was part of creation. It might be the lower part; but still it was a part which God did not forget in His law.

Next comes a test: how men treat the creation that God placed under the human race. Indifference to one's animal is unworthy; cruelty is worse. So the righteous is concerned for his animal's life, while even the wicked's tender mercies are cruelty. The Lord's tender mercies are over all His works.

God never gave the Sabbath to the nations in the same way He gave it to Israel. Among all the sins listed against the Gentile nations, we never find Sabbath-breaking. Still, it seems to be a principle of God's rule over the earth that man and beast should have one day in seven as a break from work. Both need it physically.

If one has entered into rest, he has done with works, just as Scripture says of God Himself (Hebrews 4:10). But the bright day when we shall rest has not yet arrived. He therefore urges the saints to be diligent in the meantime. Now is the time for work. Everyone who has the love of Christ must feel this in such a world, for the simple reason that sin and misery cover the world. Divine love, whether in God or in His people, refuses to rest in evil or in misery. After Christ comes, it will not be so. "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God."

The Lord is about to give a picture of all His dealings in grace with His people. Before He does so, He sets out the Sabbath as the meaningful expression of that rest which remains for the people of God. It was a real observance, to be kept by Israel; but it was also a picture of what is yet to be.

No one may take advantage of the weak or those under authority. Violence cannot go unpunished, and neither can insult where we owe respect... No one may trouble or mistreat a stranger, a widow or an orphan. No one may burden the poor or insult judges. God is to be honoured with the first of the fruits, of the sons, and of the cattle. Israel must show themselves to be holy men to God... The seventh year was the land's Sabbath, just as the seventh day was for each Israelite. Each Israelite must avoid naming false gods, and keep the appointed feasts three times a year to the true God.

The land was to enjoy its sabbaths, as a lasting sign that it belonged to the Lord. So the land, as well as man, must share God's rest. Here, though, the poor and the animals of the field stand out... In this way the children of Israel were reminded that they were only tenants.

The natural reaction would be to ask, "But if we keep verse 11 and rest the land one year in seven, how are we to live in the seventh year?" The answer would have been, "For that you must trust God." This explains, we think, why the section closes by telling them to be "circumspect," or "on their guard," and not to name other gods. No false god could give them any such assurance. False gods would only destroy the assurance that made obedience possible. In fact Israel did not obey this law, as 2 Chronicles 36:21 suggests.

This rest was a gracious provision of God for their own benefit, not a law to oppress them. Yet obedience would show respect for God's authority, a matter insisted on in verse 13. They were not even to speak the names of idols. Such easy speaking may lead to an easy recognition of these things.

There can be no alliance between the people of God and His enemies. "Friendship with the world is enmity with God."

Here was One who could say in all the energy of His holy soul, "The lines have fallen for Me in pleasant places; indeed I have a beautiful inheritance." In the same Psalm He said: "The sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply; their drink offerings of blood I will not pour out or take their names on My lips" (Ps. 16:4-6). How different all this was from Israel! God had commanded them: "make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips" (Ex. 23:13). Who for a moment would think of connecting the name of our Lord Jesus with the slightest act of disloyalty to His God and Father?

Israel has been an unfaithful wife to the Lord, playing with many lovers... In her blindness she did not know who it was that truly loved her. He gave her grain, wine and oil, and dressed her with jewels. But when grace works in her heart, she will turn to Him in sorrow and repentance, so that He may receive her to His heart once more... "And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call Me 'My Husband,' and no longer will you call Me 'My Baal.' For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more" (Hosea 2:14-17).

The obedience spoken of here called every male of Israel to go up and remember Jehovah at these three feasts. It gathered them to the place which Jehovah their God would choose... It is Jehovah gathering the people round Himself. In the delight of His people He delights. He would have them happy in Himself, and enjoying all He had given them to enjoy. So we have these three feasts, which show especially Jehovah providing to fill the heart of His people with peace and joy to overflowing.

Leviticus 23 gives the feasts in full, and there, as here, the sabbath comes first. But this chapter names only three besides the sabbath: the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of harvest, and the feast of ingathering. These are the passover, Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles... Unleavened bread is the first. Next comes the feast of firstfruits, a symbol of Christ in resurrection, as Leviticus shows more fully. Then comes the feast of ingathering, a picture of the harvest of souls. The resurrection of Christ was the pledge of that harvest, and Pentecost was its blessed beginning.

With this feast we come to "the end" of the year, after the crops are gathered in from the field. It carries our thoughts on, not only to the Millennium (the thousand years when Christ shall reign), but "The Eighth Day" (Lev. 23:36) takes us on to the eternal state.

It was imperative that Israel keep a feast to the Lord three times in the year. God ordered more feasts (or set times) for Israel than these (Lev. 23). But at three of them all the males in Israel had to appear before God (vv. 14-17): the feast of unleavened bread (or the Passover) in the spring, the feast of firstfruits in the summer, and the feast of ingathering in the autumn... Israel kept these feasts at Jerusalem, where God chose to place His name (Deut. 16:5-16).

"And none shall appear before me empty." Is that not striking? How am I to appear? With my hands full of Christ, the detail of which, I believe, we shall find given to us in Numbers 28, 29.

Nor were they to appear before the Lord empty-handed, but to bring what they were able to offer before Him. Exodus 23:14-19 gave this order before. It tells us that believers today should really care about attending Bible conferences whenever they can, with a desire to give the Lord what is fitting and right.

When Israel was in Canaan, Jehovah told them to keep three special feasts. Three times in the year they were to go up to Jerusalem for that purpose. That meant leaving their own portion and area, and it seemed to expose their land to danger while they were away. Then Jehovah assures His obedient people, saying, "Neither shall any man desire your land, when you go up to appear before Jehovah your God three times in the year."

As always happens with man under responsibility, they failed badly. They used their feasts to serve themselves, forgetting and despising Him Who appointed them. In the end they rejected the One to Whom everything pointed — Jesus, their promised King and willing Saviour. When He was presented to them, they refused Him. At last they crucified Him at the time of the very feast which should have taught them their deepest need of Him.

The fuller list of feasts comes in Leviticus 23, and there, as here, the sabbath comes first. This chapter names only three besides the sabbath: the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of harvest, and the feast of ingathering — that is, the passover, Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles… The sabbath takes first place, because the end and outcome of all God's ways with them (as also with believers today) is to bring them into the enjoyment of His rest.

Israel began their journey as a redeemed, blood-bought people. They had to take that character right at the start. Abib had been the seventh month, and it was the month when the passover blood sheltered them. So of that month we read, "This month shall be for you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year for you."

The feast of unleavened bread must follow next. It speaks of putting aside all that belongs to the flesh, in which God can find no pleasure. It may be the leaven of the Pharisees, which is religious pretence. It may be the leaven of the Sadducees, which is intellectualism and unbelief. It may be the old leaven that belongs to man after the flesh, whose end came in the cross. Or it may be the leaven of malice and wickedness, which is the fruit of the old nature (1 Cor. 5:6-8).

The moment we are redeemed God claims us, and He desires us to respond to His claims by holy lives — separation from evil, and separation to Himself. The feast lasted seven days; that is, a perfect period — typically, the period of our lives. So in the Old Testament as in the New, all God's claims on His people rest on redemption. "You are not your own, for you were bought with a price."

"None shall appear before me empty-handed." Is that not striking? How am I to appear? With my hands full of Christ. I believe we find the detail of that in Numbers 28 and 29. You will do well to study these chapters.

Three times in the year they were to keep a feast to the Lord, and on those occasions all their males were to appear before the Lord God. This was the central thought of the feast: the gathering of the people around Himself on the foundation which He Himself had established — the foundation, in fact, of redemption.

No one could appear in God's presence without something to present to God. Law always required man to present something to God. But law never provided the one sacrifice God can accept on man's behalf. The law proves man empty, without the righteousness the law required.

They were not to come empty into the Lord's presence. They were to come with the heart full of praise, and the hands full of the fruits of God's goodness, to gladden the hearts of the Lord's workmen and the Lord's poor… God would gather His people round Himself. He would fill them to overflowing with joy and praise, and make them His channels of blessing to others.

The Lord does not want us to appear before Him like Joseph's brothers, to fill our empty sacks. He wants us to empty our full hearts in worship before Him, and before the One who is His Father and our Father, His God and our God, while we feed on His death. Then He fills our hearts in return to the very brim — yes, overflowing with peace, joy, and praise.

The feast of the first fruits, also called the feast of weeks, because it came seven weeks after the feast of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:15-16; Deut. 16:9), and still another name is "the feast of the first fruits of the wheat harvest." It was now known by the name of Shavuoth. The third feast came on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Lev. 23:34), and is the feast of ingathering, known as Succoth, the feast of tabernacles.

Leviticus 23 describes these feasts in more detail. There the "sheaf of firstfruits," waved before the Lord, is a picture of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. He is the beginning of the true harvest. He is the "Firstborn from among the dead" — the beginning, in resurrection, of a new order of things. That new order has sprung up from the grain of wheat that fell into the ground and died.

With this feast we come to "the end" of the year. This feast carries our thoughts on to the Millennium, the thousand years when Christ will reign. And "The Eighth Day" (Lev. 23:36) takes us further still, on to the Eternal State.

There were three great feasts of the Jews. Every grown man had to go to Jerusalem to keep them: the Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. The Passover finds its fulfilment in the cross, and Pentecost in the coming of the Holy Spirit. But the fulfilment of the Feast of Tabernacles is still missing: no event answers to it... This feast was held after the harvest and after the grape harvest. Scripture uses both events everywhere as figures of judgment. The harvest stands for the judgment that separates the good and the bad on earth. The grape harvest stands for the full extent of vengeance on enemies, when Christ will tread the winepress.

Then comes the feast of ingathering. It is a picture of the harvest of souls. The resurrection of Christ was the pledge of that harvest, and Pentecost was its blessed start. So we read, "Christ the firstfruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ" (1 Cor. 15:23). This scripture applies first of all to Israel. But in its wider sense, the ingathering spoken of here will include the saints of this age as well as of the millennial age.

But in the other two feasts they were to go with an offering in their hands, and to rejoice before the Lord with their sons and their daughters, their male and female servants, the Levites, the foreigners, the fatherless, and the widows. They were to rejoice in their feast, and everyone else with them.

As always happens with man under responsibility, they failed completely. They used their feasts to serve themselves, and they forgot and despised Him Who appointed them. In the end they rejected the One to Whom everything pointed — Jesus, their promised King and willing Saviour. When He was presented to them, they refused Him. At last they crucified Him at the very feast that should have taught them their deepest need of Him.

It was essential that Israel keep a feast to the Lord three times in the year. God ordered more feasts (or set times) for Israel than these (Lev. 23). But three of them were the times when all the males in Israel had to appear before God (vv. 14-17): the feast of unleavened bread (or the Passover) in the spring, the feast of firstfruits in the summer, and the feast of ingathering in the autumn. Israel kept these feasts at Jerusalem, where God chose to place His name (Deut. 16:5-16).

This name, used for God, appears first in Exodus 23:17. It is the singular of Adonai, and it means lord, master. It appears 300 times in the Old Testament, as Lord or Master. Far more often it refers to human masters, kings, rulers and great men than to God Himself. You can tell from the context whether the name refers to God or to a human master.

Though this chapter gives only three, they are very significant. The first is unleavened bread. Next comes the feast of firstfruits, which pictures Christ risen from the dead, as Leviticus shows more fully. Then comes the feast of ingathering, a picture of the harvest of souls. Christ's resurrection was the pledge of that harvest, and Pentecost was its blessed beginning. So we read, "Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ" (1 Cor. 15:23). This scripture applies first of all to Israel. But taken more widely, the ingathering spoken of here will include the saints of this age as well as those of the millennial age.

The feast of tabernacles has not yet had its fulfilment. The Passover and Pentecost found their fulfilment in the precious death of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit. But the third great feast points forward to the time when God restores all things, which He has spoken of through all His holy prophets since the world began.

God would gather His beloved people around Himself, that they might feast together in His presence; that He might rejoice in them, and they in Him and in one another. All this could only be in the one special place of divine appointment. Self-will might say, "Can we not keep the feast at home with our families? What need is there of a long journey? If the heart is right, the place cannot matter much." Our answer is this: the clearest and best proof that the heart is right is a simple, earnest desire to do the will of God.

"None shall appear before me empty-handed." Is that not striking? How should I appear? With my hands full of Christ.

When Israel was in Canaan, the Lord commanded them to keep three special feasts. Three times a year they had to go up to Jerusalem for that purpose. That meant leaving their own portion and place, and it seemed to leave their land open to danger while they were away. It is then that the Lord assures His obedient people: "No one shall desire your land, when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year."

At the time of these three feasts, God required all the males in Israel to appear in Jerusalem before Him. They were not to come before the Lord empty-handed. They were to bring what they were able to offer Him. Exodus 23:14-19 already gave this order. It tells us that believers today should care about attending Bible conferences whenever possible, wanting to give the Lord what is fitting and right.

Leavened bread is again forbidden along with the blood of the sacrifice. The sacrifices pointed to Christ, and leaven is a picture of evil. So leaven would have falsified the picture they were meant to give. Christ cannot be linked with evil. That is why leaven was banned outright. The fat of the sacrifice was not to remain until the morning either... The fat, then, was God's portion. For this reason no one was to neglect it or leave it over until the morning. It had to be offered at once. God must have His part before His people had theirs. This is the secret of all blessing: give the Lord the highest place, think first of what is due to Him, and lose sight of everything else until you have given it.

There is no shadow of doubt about the symbolic force of leaven. It stands for corruption that spreads and infects, unless the context clearly gives it another sense. You see this plainly in the first and lasting picture of the Old Testament. Leaven was strictly shut out of the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread that went with it... In 1 Corinthians 5 the reference is direct, and the meaning it points to is certain. A little leaven taints the whole lump. In the same way, known sin, if tolerated, taints the Christian assembly. It is useless to plead the old nature. For was not Christ, our Passover, sacrificed? And is it not our duty now, since we are unleavened in Him, to clear out the old leaven, so that we may be a new lump?

The fat and the blood were not to be eaten. The fat was the expression of the spring of life, and all that was in Christ was offered to God.

Notice here that the LORD had His part first. That part was the inward worth and excellence of the sacrifice. He alone knew the real worth, inward energy and affection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and He alone could measure it. This is an important point. Those who walk in fellowship with the Father seek His glory and His things first; we may be sure of that. Some people make it their rule to attend to the things of God only after their own things are done. They know little of communion, even if they know something of peace.

All through Scripture, godliness makes one vital claim: God must have His portion first. Only then can the believer rightly take and enjoy his own. We feel how right it is to give God the first place. It is due to Him, and it holds true in everything. If we do not give it, we must suffer the bitter consequence.

It was a standing ordinance in the land. The spirit of the offering is also clear: a full profession before God that they now had the things He had promised to their fathers. Their father had been a Syrian ready to perish, and a slave in Egypt. Redemption had brought them out of there and into the good land, which they now enjoyed in full. So they came up to own the Giver by offering Him the firstfruits. They worshipped and rejoiced in every good thing the LORD had given them, and this in grace, with the Levite and the stranger.

One may wonder why it comes in here, and why it is repeated in Deuteronomy 14:21. Perhaps it is to show us this. God demands careful honour for His rights and the rights of His house. Yet He also wills that we act fittingly even toward the lowliest of His creatures. The goat gives her milk, as God ordained, to sustain the life of her kid. It is not fitting, therefore, to use what God has ordained for life as an instrument connected with its death. Let us all ponder whether the principle here may have some spiritual application for us today.

This command comes three times, in various connections. That is enough to mark it as one of special interest and practical importance. The question is, what does it mean? What are we to learn from it? We believe it teaches plainly that the Lord's people must avoid everything contrary to nature. It was clearly contrary to nature to boil a creature in what was meant to feed it.

The Creator planted certain feelings and instincts in nature, and we must never violate them. We may set this down as a fixed principle, an axiom in Christian ethics. No action can be of God if it does violence to the feelings proper to nature. The Spirit of God may, and often does, lead us beyond and above nature, but never against it.

The LORD cultivates what is fitting in His people... But He also wants tender feeling, even where a speechless or dead animal is concerned. He showed this when He forbade boiling a kid in its mother's milk. All Scripture is against the coarse brutality that was normal among the nations who did not know the true God.

As to boiling a kid in its mother's milk, I understand this. One mark of idolatry, of Satan's power, is to destroy the order, affections and fitting ways God has established in nature. Christianity raises above nature, but respects it all. Satan degrades in every way by what is unnatural... This was an example concerning tender and kindly affections... All this the law forbade.

God's rights come first. Then our attitude toward others follows at once, in the command not to boil a kid in its mother's milk... Mother's milk is intended to nourish the kid, not to boil it. So we should use the milk of the Word of God (1 Peter 2:2) to nourish young believers, not to boil or punish them. Let us be careful to use God's Word rightly, in kind concern for others, not as a whip for them.

The goodness of God is seen again in His promise in verse 20. He would send an angel before them, both to guard them and to guide them to the place He had appointed for them, the land of promise. For the Lord does not leave us to make our own way to heaven as best we can!

Who then was this angel? It is clear, both from this scripture and chapter 14, as well as from others, that divine attributes are given to Him. It says here, for example, "My name is in Him."... That He is divine is therefore clear. So it is fair to conclude — as godly students of the Word in every age have concluded — that in this angel we have none other than the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, Jehovah. And in His many appearances we may see foreshadowings of His incarnation. It is He who has always been the leader of His people.

God goes before them by angelic power, by what He calls (v. 23) "my Angel." That is, it was God Himself stepping in, only in the form of angelic power... So where God, as I AM, showed Himself in a flame of fire in the bush, He is called "the Angel" in the bush. At Peniel (that is, the face of God) Jacob declares that he had seen God face to face and lived. Of the same event Hosea says "he had power over the angel and prevailed."

Also we read of the Angel of the Lord who went before them, whom Isaiah calls "the Angel of His presence." In Malachi 3:1, the expression "Messenger of the covenant" is really "Angel of the covenant." That is a clear prediction of the coming of the Lord Jesus. So in this title too we may see a reference to Him.

He was holy. His people had put themselves under law, so He could not pardon their transgressions. "My name" — the expression of all that God was in His relationship with Israel — "is in Him." So He would act in righteousness, on the basis of the law God had given as the standard of their conduct.

But the unchanging favour of God does not lessen our responsibility... "But if you carefully obey his voice [that of the angel whom He sent] and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries." Israel's prosperity was therefore conditional — it depended on their obedience. The promised possession was theirs by divine sovereignty. Their prosperity depended on their behaviour. And so it is with the Christian.

The Lord's answer still assured Moses that He would act in forbearance toward the erring people. He would lead them on by His Angel, as He had promised earlier in chapter 23:20-23. Yet His governmental judgment would still come upon them.