DEUTERONOMY 22
This section of the book brings out principles which are very important in relation to the “labour of love” which is to go on in the land. The first feature of it is care that our brother shall not lose anything that belongs to him. It is very noticeable throughout this book how often the thought of caring for the good of others is brought in. How often we find a large circle of beneficiaries brought in to share the good of the land — the Levite, the poor, the stranger, the widow and the fatherless. Spiritual blessings are to be enjoyed in such a way that others get the benefit of them. If I am thinking of myself, I am not serving in love. It was very sad when Paul had to say, “All seek their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ”.
The opening verses of this chapter suggest that we are to think of what pertains to our brother, and have a care that he shall not lose the gain and enjoyment of it. The care and service of Christ is with a view to our getting the good of all that belongs to us through the all-blessing grace and love of our God, and we are to have a like care for our brother. In Exodus it is our enemy’s ox or ass that we are to bring back to him, as having come under a teaching of grace which leads us to seek the good even of one who hates us. But in Deuteronomy it is our brother’s ass we are to look after, or anything else that belongs to him. Our brother has [p. 279] lost it, and it becomes our concern that he should have it back so as to have the good of it.
There is a constant working of the enemy to deprive the people of God of what belongs to them, and their own carelessness and want of watchfulness greatly contributes to the success of his efforts, But we are to care for our brother so that anything which has strayed or been lost shall be restored to him if it comes into our possession. Our brother’s ox, or sheep, or ass, etc., would represent apprehensions of Christ and spiritual qualities by means of which the inheritance can be cultivated or enjoyed. We are not to be satisfied to have these things for ourselves; we are to be concerned about our brother. As we look around on our brethren we can see many who have lost spiritual property that really belongs to them by the gift and calling of God. If certain things which are essential to the enjoyment of the land have come into our possession we should bear in mind that they belong also to our brethren, and it should be a matter of active concern to us that they should have the good of them. We are not to hold spiritual blessings as if they were exclusively our own; they belong to the brotherhood; and as loving the brotherhood we desire and labour that they should have what is truly their own. Much spiritual good is practically at the present time lost to its rightful owners, and if any of that good comes into our hand it is well to recognise that it is our brother’s, and to be concerned that he should possess and enjoy it. The joy of being able to say that a spiritual blessing is mine is enhanced by recognising that it is also my brother’s. When I recognise this I come under obligation to serve him as far as possible that he may have the good of that which perhaps his own carelessness may have allowed to go astray from him.
If we made the impression on our brethren that we had got something of great value that belonged to them,
[p. 280] and that we were holding it with intense desire that they should have it, it would have the effect of drawing them to us. They would surely come to “seek after it”. If our brother is near, and we know him, we are to bring back to him that which he has lost. That supposes there might be brethren within our reach who have lost the good of things; our service is to bring back to them what they have lost. The brother not near, and unknown, would represent brethren that are out of our reach, as alas! so many are at the present time. Many of our brethren are not near to us; it is very difficult to find them out; but it is well to hold any spiritual good that we have as their property, and with the sense in our hearts that it belongs to them. How far do we hold the precious things of God with a deep sense that they are the property of all saints? Many of the people of God have lost valuable property at the present, time. If a little bit of it has come into our possession, there should be the feeling that we hold it on trust for those to whom it belongs; it is our brother’s. Service amongst the brethren has this as a prominent feature. Certain things are discerned as belonging to our brother, but which he has lost the good of — perhaps through his own carelessness — and it becomes our concern that they should be secured to him by all possible means that he may have the benefit of them. It is just the opposite to self-consideration; it is active care for the good of the brethren. Paul in writing to the Philippians had to lament that the spirit of service had almost universally gone out. “All seek their own things”.
The effort of the enemy is to deprive the people of God of their portion as in the land, or of what would contribute to their enjoyment of it, and I am afraid our own unwatchfulness often leads to things being lost. Whether it is an ox or a sheep or an ass or raiment, it pertains to the people as in the land; they are things [p. 281] which are essential for the enjoyment of the land. It suggests a large scope of service, whether for brethren near to us or for those far off. Those we can walk with are near to us; we can get at them more directly; but there are many not near and unknown. It is good to be in that spirit of care and service that would desire that they all should have full enjoyment of what pertains to them. It is a question of the brotherly spirit towards all saints.
“It shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it” (verse 2), would imply that there would be some exercise on his part about what he has lost. If that which has been lost is with us there must be the consciousness on our part that we hold it as upon trust, but on the part of those who have lost things there must be a seeking after them. I think we might say that in some measure things are in the “house” at the present time if our brother will come and fetch them. If the brethren saw that we held something of value which they have lost, and that we held it with brotherly care that they might have it back, they ought surely to be moved to seek it. The Lord would have us to entertain a hopeful spirit about the brethren, and to look for them to come and get their lost property.
The practical difficulty is largely that the brethren often do not realise that they have lost any property. There must be divine awakening as to this, and we can pray for it to come about. The Lord can bring home to His saints that they have lost something valuable, but that it is available if they will only seek it. They will find it in the house of their brother. One feels sure that if we held things with brotherly care that all to whom they belong should enjoy them, there would be something attractive that would encourage the brethren to seek their property. We do not appropriate to ourselves exclusively any of the precious things;
we hold them as our brother’s property as well as our own.
The ox would represent strength for labour (Proverbs 14: 4); the sheep ability to suffer uncomplainingly (Isaiah 53: 7). Both would be suitable for offering to God, so that for our brother to lose them would diminish his ability for sacrificial service Godward. The thought of being ransomed is connected with the ass as well as with man (Exodus 13: 13). As ransomed it is fitting that we should be lowly and unpretentious, and thus have features suited to carry the testimony of God at the present time (Zechariah 9: 9). Presently the Lord will ride on a white horse (Revelation 19: 11) to judge and make war, but His riding on the lowly ass characterises the present period. To lose such features is a serious loss indeed. Our brother’s “clothing” would represent all that in which he is to appear at the present time as invested with righteousness and salvation; it would include the beautiful features of Christ as seen in Colossians 3: 12 - 14. It is not a question here of apprehending these things as our own, but of apprehending them as pertaining to our brother, but at the moment lost by him. It is to be our jealous care that he should have them again, for only thus can he be adorned becomingly, or have the true privilege of the inheritance. What a “labour of love” does this entail!
“There shall not be a man’s apparel on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God” (verse 5). Divine order is ever to be observed, and it is most important to have regard to this in a day when every feature of that order is being so largely set aside. In Christianity the man and the woman each have their distinctive clothing, and are only suitably adorned as they appear in it. The whole tendency of things today is to subvert divine order, but that order is to be maintained in God’s assembly. Nature itself teaches a woman to be retiring and modest. Her glory is her long hair which is “given to her in lieu of a veil”. Her distinctive glory according to nature suggests what is her true moral glory. Her “clothing” would represent her whole deportment and appearance, not excluding her actual dress. It is to be suitable to the place which she has of expressing in her own person how the assembly is subjected to the Christ. So Paul, representing the authority of the Lord, says, “Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness” (1 Timothy 2: 11, 12). He also says, “Let, your woman be silent in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak; but to be in subjection, as the law also says ... it is a shame for a woman to speak in assembly” (1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35). There might, be cases where sisters were more spiritually intelligent, than brothers, but they are not to teach. It, is sure that in such cases the saints would be more edified by the observance of divine order than they could possibly be by the superior intelligence of the woman.
I have no doubt that the disordered state of the church is reflected in the uncomely behaviour of women at the present time, one feature of which is the hideous fashion of cutting their hair short. It is a, reproach to see women preaching, or putting themselves into prominence; it is a setting aside of their true glory — a putting on of man’s apparel.
But then, on the other hand, “neither shall a man put on a woman’s clothing”. The men are not to retire from the place accorded to them; they are to “pray in every place (that is, not only in the assembly, but at home, or wherever occasion arises), lifting up pious hands, without wrath or reasoning” (1 Timothy 2: 8). The public expression of praise or prayer, the setting forth of things [p. 284] in ministry, and the responsibility for order and edification in the assembly, rests with the men, and it is well for all believing men to see that they do not retire from the responsible service of the house of God. It might be as uncomely for a brother to be silent in the assembly as for a sister to speak there. It is well to reflect upon this, and to see to it that we appear in the habiliments which are suitable.
It is a day in which women are taking a prominent place in public religious activities, but it seems to me that this is a reproach upon the men. If the men had been wearing their proper apparel, and filling up their responsibility according to divine order, there would not have been occasion or room for the women to take the place which they have taken. But to violate divine order in regard to these things is serious; it has the character of “abomination to Jehovah”.
The question might arise in some minds, Why should there be a divine enactment with reference to such a small thing as a bird’s nest? I think it indicates that when we come into the land the smallest detail embodies great and divine principles. The smallest things teach valuable spiritual lessons. For example, in chapter 25: 4 we read, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn”. And with reference to that very scripture Paul says, “Is God occupied about the oxen, or does he say it altogether for our sakes”? (1 Corinthians 9: 10). He shews what a lesson there is in it for us. This enactment as to the bird’s nest (Chapter 22: 6, 7) is evidently of special import, for a definite promise is connected with it — “That it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days”. It is not a casual matter, but one which has an important effect on spiritual prosperity. The “dam” represents an element amongst God’s people which is to be “let ... go”; it is to remain active and free, and not to be brought [p. 285] under restraint. God would teach His people to regard the maternal instinct, even in a bird, as something to be respected. He would teach us, even by a bird’s nest, what He would have to be preserved amongst His people, viewed as in the inheritance. We are familiar with the fact that a bird’s care for its young is one of the most touching figures that Scripture presents of God’s care for His people. (See Exodus 19: 4; Deuteronomy 32: 11; Ruth 2: 12; Psalm 17: 8; Psalm 36: 7; Psalm 57: 1; Psalm 61: 4; Psalm 63: 7; Psalm 91: 4; Matthew 23: 37.)
I think “the dam” represents the kind of spirit that was seen in Paul amongst the Thessalonians. “We ... have been gentle in the midst of you, as a nurse would cherish her own children. Thus, yearning over you, we had found our delight in having imparted to you not only the glad tidings of God, but our own lives also, because ye had become beloved of us” (1 Thessalonians 2: 7, 8). It was seen also in Timothy of whom Paul says that he had “no one likeminded who will care with genuine feeling how ye get on” (Philippians 2: 20). It is suggestive that we read in another place, “Our brother Timotheus is set at liberty” (Hebrews 13: 23). God would have the spirit represented in Timothy to be free amongst His saints. “Thou shalt in any case let the dam go”.
“The dam” sets forth the spirit of Him who would have gathered the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings. The devotion of a bird to its young is very great; it will untiringly care for them. I saw a young bird picked up which had fallen out of its nest, and it was carried into a house, and the mother bird followed it in a self devotion that did not regard any personal danger, but was set on caring for her off-spring. God would not have that spirit brought under restraint. “That it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days” depends on the injunction being carried out, shewing that it is a matter [p. 286] of great spiritual importance. I take it that if maternal interest and care are not free and active amongst the people of God it will not be well with us, nor will our days be prolonged. Our prosperity depends on that spirit being at liberty.
The young being taken would suggest, I think, that the product of maternal care becomes available for the advantage of those who leave that care at liberty. The assembly benefits by the product, and fresh broods come along.
Then in building a new house there must be a parapet for the roof (verse 8). Building is an important aspect of service, but we must build with care. See 1 Corinthians 3: 10 - 15. We must not forget to safeguard what we build so that there may not be a point of danger, and one would gather from this verse that it is the high parts of the building which most need safeguarding! It is possible for true building in the land not to be sufficiently safeguarded, so that there may be a point of danger from which unwary persons may fall. I think it will be found that if there is such a point of danger the Spirit of God will provide “a parapet”. He will bring something out that will give security at that point. But each individual builder is called upon to regard this regulation.
We have been warned against being “ecclesiastical”, but those who have so warned us have been the very ones who have most strongly insisted on the maintenance of assembly truth and principles. They have made “a parapet” which would preserve us from thinking that they meant we were to disregard the truth of the assembly. If such statements were used to weaken assembly truth, or to bring in laxity as to assembly principles, it would be an entirely wrong use of them.
A great object of service in the land is to preserve an unmixed and uncontaminated character of things, so [p. 287] that personally, and in their associations and affections, the people of God may be marked by “uncorruptedness”. There is a strong warning in the next section of the chapter (verses 9 - 11) against unsuitable mixtures. All that is in the world is corrupting, and it is very largely so now because there is a certain admixture of good with it. In Christendom, at any rate, it would be hard to find unmixed evil, and that adds to the difficulty of the present time. God would have His people preserved from that which has a mixed character. The New Testament warns us not to be carried away with “various and strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13: 9) — things that are mixed. The most damaging things in christendom are a mixture of grace and law and human philosophy; and the little in them that is of God only makes them more dangerous, for it is deceptive.
The first injunction here is that the vineyard is not to be sown with two sorts of seed. That is, we are to look well to the kind of seed from which we expect to derive joy. The vineyard has in view that which makes glad the heart of man, and it is important to look for a joy that is unmixed in character. In Leviticus 19: 19, “thy field” is not to be sown with seed of two sorts. That would refer to service in general. There is an immense amount of sowing with two sorts of seed in service generally. I once heard a man speaking beautifully of Christ in the open air; he was evidently a true believer; but the next week I heard him again, and he was preaching temperance! To preach Christ, and to be labouring for the improvement of the man after the flesh, is to sow with seed of two sorts. The religious world is full of that kind of thing, and the power of Satan is behind it. Whatever may be of God in it is neutralised by mixture with what is of man.
In sowing our vineyard we have to be careful that we do not look to “seed of two sorts” for a yield of [p. 288] happiness. It is not to be a little of what is spiritual and then a little of what is fleshly or merely natural; not a little of Christ and then something of the world; not a little of what is heavenly and then something that is altogether of the earth. To sow on that principle is to forfeit all. That is a serious consideration. “Lest the whole of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the produce of thy vineyard, be forfeited”. One might almost say that if we go in for what is spiritual we get something, and if we go in for what is natural we get something, but if we go in for both we get nothing.
The result of mixture is an entire breakdown of testimony, because true testimony depends on light being kept separate from darkness. There needs to be more distinctiveness. There is some good about all true believers — something of Christ — but Satan works by mixture to take away its distinctive character, and to bring in elements that are not of Christ and not spiritual, that there may be no pure fruit for God or unalloyed joy for His people.
We see great distinctiveness in Paul’s life and service; he was an absolutely separated man — he was “separated to God’s glad tidings” (Romans 1: 1). In going to Corinth he determined to know nothing among them but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. He warned the Galatians against what he calls “a different gospel”; he warns them against “two sorts”. Christ crucified is the complete public rejection of man after the flesh, and that man having been convicted and publicly rejected it is impossible to make anything of him for God; he cannot be taken account of as having any spiritual value.
Believers are looked at here as in the land, and as in the land having a vineyard, having that to which they look for joy, and they have to be careful that they do not sow it with “seed of two sorts”. The recognition of the Spirit is most important; if we sow to the Spirit [p. 289] we reap eternal life. That is a fine vintage-wine on the lees, well refined. It is open to us all to be as happy as John was. He wrote his Gospel and epistle for that purpose. Paul too, had not been sowing his vineyard with “seed of two sorts”; he had been looking for his joy entirely in the spiritual direction.
Our vineyard has to do with securing our own joy, but ploughing raises the question of fellowship in service, and an unequal yoke is to be avoided. We are not to plough with an ox and an ass together. Some might think that if one had not two oxen an ass was better than nothing! No! They are not to plough together. An ox and an ass, however excellent the ass might be in itself, could never pull evenly together. I think it was on this principle that Paul would not take Mark with him on his missionary journey. It was not that Mark was not a Christian, but he had proved himself to be one who could not pull evenly with Paul. It is utterly impossible to work together with even true believers unless they are governed by the same principles so that they can pull evenly. It is often assumed now that one can join in Christian work with any true believer. People who differ as much one from the other as the ass does from the ox suppose that they can plough together. But it is not of God. I think it would be very difficult for an ox and an ass together to plough an even furrow. And if we take up associations in service with those who cannot pull evenly with us the work will be spoilt.
Was it not wonderful that Paul could address some brother in Philippi as a “true yoke-fellow”? Perhaps it was the jailor! But, whoever he was, he was one who could pull evenly with Paul. He must, indeed, have been an ox! Paul might have been the bigger and the stronger of the two, but whoever the “true yoke-fellow” was, he would not have been so spoken of if he had [p. 290] not been capable of ploughing with Paul. Paul delighted to have yoke-fellows, and though it does not follow that they all had the same degree of spiritual strength, they could pull evenly with him. He speaks of Timothy as one who had served with him as a son with a father — they had pulled beautifully together.
Then “Thou shalt not wear a garment of mixed material, woven of wool and linen together”, would suggest how we are to be clothed for the pleasure and service of God as in the land. “Wool” would speak of natural warmth and energy, while “linen” would set forth a spiritual restraint upon nature. We gather this from Ezekiel 44: 17, 18. “And it shall come to pass when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, when they minister in the gates of the inner court, and towards the house. They shall have linen tires upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird on anything that causeth sweat”. The warmth of nature has its proper sphere in natural affections, and the like, but it is not to be “mixed” with that which in its character should be wholly spiritual. The priestly garments being of linen suggests a character of deportment that is free from elements which take their rise in the warmth of mere nature, and which would excite, or minister to, what is fleshly or merely of nature. How necessary it is to see that there is no mixture in regard to how we are clothed for service! The natural characteristics of the vessel remain, but they are all to be subordinated to what is spiritual. Almost the last word of the risen Lord was, “And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but do ye remain in the city till ye be clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24: 49). It is right to be fervent; the more fervent a man is in his spirit the better, but it is to be spiritual [p. 291] fervour, and not merely the warmth or eloquence that may be natural to the man. The “wool” and “linen” each have their place, but they are not to be mixed. All service should have a purely spiritual character. The “linen” suggests the fine texture of what is spiritual, a character of things which does not minister to what is natural, either in the one who speaks or in those to whom he speaks.
“Tassels shalt thou make thee on the four corners of thy clothing, wherewith thou coverest thyself” (verse 12). The “tassels” would imply something distinctive as marking the people of God from every point of view, for they are to be on “the four corners of thy clothing”. Believers may be viewed either personally, or as in business life, or as in household relations, or as of the assembly. These might answer to the “four corners”, and each is to be marked by spiritual ornamentation. I understand that the word translated “tassels” has a reference to flower buds, and if this is so it would have something to say of the energy of spiritual life coming into manifestation. There is no mention here, as in Numbers 15 of the “lace of blue”, for this book regards the people of God as being wholly on heavenly ground, but they are to be invested with this distinctive ornamentation. It is good for us to be exercised that our “clothing” should not only be without spot, but that it should have ornaments which evidence the energy of divine life in our souls. Outward correctness can be imitated, but the spontaneity of life cannot. We gather from 1 Peter 3: 3, 4 that ornamentation in a spiritual sense lies in the way our spirits are adorned, so that not only are right things done, but the spirit in which they are done gives them a grace and comeliness that is to God’s glory and praise. All that is uncomely should stand rebuked by the excellency and divine adornment seen upon the people of God. The “tassels”
[p. 292] speak, surely, of this, and of how God would have His people to be distinguished from all others as having spiritual adornments.
From verse 13 is obviously a new section, and it concerns the “virgin” character amongst the people of God. It is of the utmost importance that this character should be preserved without reproach. A “chaste virgin” might be charged with “things for scandalous talk”, and be given an evil name in Israel. This is what the enemy has been seeking to do all through the history of the church. He would, if possible, bring in reproach on the fair name of that which is espoused to Christ, and he can only be silenced by the maintenance of true “virgin” character, and by the undeniable evidence of it. The true tokens of virginity are hearts uncorrupted from simplicity as to the Christ. Paul was anxious as the father of the Corinthians that the tokens of virginity should be forthcoming. “For I am jealous as to you with a jealousy which is of God; for I have espoused you unto one man, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craft, so your thoughts should be corrupted from simplicity as to the Christ” (2 Corinthians 11: 2, 3). The whole of Paul’s two epistles to them had in view that the enemy, who was seeking to fasten an evil name on them, should be silenced and condemned, and that they might be truly presented as a chaste virgin. Otherwise they could only be condemned as having yielded to the world’s corrupting influence. If we yield to the corrupting influence of that which has no title to us it really means spiritual death. The enemy is at work to bring reproach on our virginity, but we see the energy of divine love in Paul, and his faithful labour that we may be clear of that reproach, and that it may become manifest that we have chaste virgin character as maintained in true-hearted devotedness to the One [p. 293] to whom we belong. The saints at Corinth had, to some extent, yielded to the corrupting influences of the serpent and his world. But Paul laboured to free them from all those influences by presenting Christ to their affections as the One who alone was entitled to those affections.
This is how the Spirit works to secure the tokens of virginity in the saints. The Lord said of the Spirit, “ye know him”. How do we know Him? By the way in which He presents Christ to us, and glorifies Christ in our affections. If we yield ourselves to His precious ministry we shall be preserved in true virgin character. Christ will, ere long, present the assembly to Himself “glorious, having no spot, or wrinkle, or any of such things”. She will be presented without a mark of decline or decay. That is viewed in Ephesians 5: as brought about by Christ sanctifying the assembly, purifying it by the washing of water by the word, that it may answer to all that it is according to divine purpose. All His service of love has that in view. One can understand how incessantly the adversary would work to bring in elements of unfaithfulness, so that “an evil name” may attach to that which bears the name of Christ. He will do this either by subtle craft or by violence; he is as intent upon corrupting the affections of the saints as Christ and the Spirit are intent upon preserving their simplicity and integrity.
I have heard of a father compelling his converted child to go to the theatre that Christ might be driven out of her mind, but he did not succeed in his object. Under pressure of this kind it is our privilege to cry and be delivered. “The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of trial”. But woe be to us if we do not “cry” under such circumstances. The latter part of the chapter would suggest that there is a security in the “city” which may not be found in the “field”. To keep near to our “fellow-citizens” is a great safe-guard; the companionship of the saints is full of preservative influence. To get away from it often leads to falling an easy prey to what is corrupting.