BIBLE STUDY SERIES #134, 135 and 136

12 June, 1994


By Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A.

In the present series of Bible Studies, we have been tracing the developing Great Plan of Almighty God for the restitution of all things corrupted by the Adamic Fall. This Plan, established from the foundation of the world, and put into operation in Genesis 3, required the selection of one line of descent from Adam, the selection and call of Abraham, the formation of a nation of tribes through Abraham's seed, Isaac and Jacob (Israel), and the establishment of that nation of Israel as the foundation of God's Kingdom upon the Earth by the receipt of God's Law at Mount Sinai. Into this people Jesus Christ, God incarnate, was to be born, and offer Himself as the substitute bearer of Sin's punishment, in place of repentant humanity. It is to this people that Jesus will return, in His second Advent, to implement the fullness of God's Kingdom. British-Israel holds that the majority of Israel's descendants are today found in the Anglo-Celto-Saxon and kindred peoples and it is primarily to these that God's Laws apply and the penalties for non-observance thereof.

We have recently been studying the amplifying details of the Law in the Judgments recorded in Exodus 22, and it is to this Book that we now turn to find today's reading. Exodus 22 outlines applications of the law against theft, and we had just examined verses 5-6, wherein injury done to another man's field or corn was to be made good by compensation for the injury done. If any one should consume a field or a vineyard, and let loose his beast so that it fed in another man's field, he was to give the best of his field and vineyard as restitution. These words, as Keil and Delitzsch point out "do not refer to wilful injury,... they refer to injury done from carelessness, when any one neglected to take proper care of a beast that was feeding in his field, and it strayed in consequence, and began grazing in another man's. Hence simple compensation was all that was demanded; though this was to be made 'from the best of his field'."

We have now reached verse 7, and the focus, as Keil and Delitzsch further show us, now relates to "cases of dishonesty, or the loss of property entrusted." I shall insert comments as we read.

7. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.
8. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.
9. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

Of this passage, and under the summary title "For all manner of trespass" the New Bible Commentary says "This is in connection with deposits, as in the preceding verses. If a man claimed to identify an article in another's possession as his own, if the judges allowed his claim the accused was to restore it plus another equivalent article; if the judges refused his claim he was to give double as a penalty for false accusation."

In a more detailed comment, Keil and Delitzsch state "...the following was to be the recognised right: If money or articles (...not merely tools and furniture, but clothes and ornaments, cf. Deut. xxii.5; Isa. lxi.10) given to a neighbour to keep should be stolen out of his house, the thief was to restore double if he could be found; but if he could not be discovered, the master of the house was to go before the judicial court... to see 'whether he has not stretched out his hand to his neighbour's goods.'... Before the judicial court he was to cleanse himself of the suspicion of having fraudulently appropriated what had been entrusted to him; and in most cases this could probably be only done by an oath of purification... If the man could free himself before the court from the suspicion of unfaithfulness, he would of course not have to make compensation for what was lost, but the owner would have to bear the damage."

The payment was only double, in verse 9, as in verses 4 and 7, "not four or fivefold as in ver. 1, because the object in dispute had not been consumed."

10. If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:
11. Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.
12. And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.

In connection with this passage, under the heading "If it be stolen", The New Bible commentary says: "The trustee could not prevent the animal being 'driven away' (10) by marauding bands, but he should take care to prevent its being stolen by an individual, and was therefore responsible to make it good."

Keil and Delitzsch put it thus: "If an animal entrusted to a neighbour to take care of had either died or hurt itself (...broken a limb), or been driven away by robbers when out at grass... without anyone (else) seeing it, an oath was to be taken before Jehovah between both (the owner and the keeper of it), 'whether he had not stretched out his hand to his neighbour's property,' i.e. either killed, or mutilated, or disposed of the animal. This case differs from the previous one, not only in the fact that the animal had either become useless to the owner or was altogether lost, but also in the fact that the keeper, if his statement were true, had not been at all to blame in the matter. The only way in which this could be decided, if there was other eye-witness present than the keeper himself at the time when the fact occurred, was by the keeper taking an oath before Jehovah, that is to say, before the judicial court. And if he took the oath, the master (owner) of it (the animal that had perished, or been lost or injured) was to accept (...the oath), and he (the accused) was not to make reparation, 'But if it had been stolen... from with him (i.e. from his house or stable), he was to make it good,' because he might have prevented this with proper care... On the other hand, if it had been torn in pieces (viz. by a beast of prey, while it was out at grass), he was not to make any compensation, but only to furnish a proof that he had not been wanting in proper care." a piece of the animal would offer evidence that he had chased the wild beast to recover its prey.

13. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.

The Companion Bible notes "i.e. bring one of the pieces. Cp. Gen. 31.39; and Amos 3.12." The Genesis reference is that of Jacob, speaking to his uncle Laban, and protesting "This twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten. That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night." The Amos account, almost a thousand years later, reads "Thus saith the LORD; As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear; so shall the children of Israel be taken out that dwell in Samaria in the corner of a bed, and in Damascus in a couch." So we see from these references that the practice of establishing such evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of an animal was of long-established tradition in Israel.

14. And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.
15. But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

With reference to these verses, The New Bible Commentary says: "A man would borrow a thing for his own benefit, and was therefore responsible to return it whatever happened, unless the owner was in charge of it and able to guard it... The risk of losing (an hired thing) was included in the price of the hire. No restitution was therefore necessary."

While the words pertain directly to the ancient pastoral and agrarian society of the Near East, we can see how such rules conveyed the essence of underlying justice for the neighbourhood. There are, in many Israel nations today, neighbourhoods wherein we might well consider these attitudes of jurisprudence at the grassroots level, and in the essence of their justice avoid much that arouses contentious bickering among ourselves.

We may think of the many times that we have heard of neighbours disputing matters of aggravation, oft-times to the point of drunken outbreaks of violence concerning such things as an injury to a neighbour's family pet, borrowed tools and equipment not being returned, the dumping of refuse or tossing of litter on a neighbour's land, negligence in a failure to call the police to investigate a suspected break-in of an absent neighbour's home, and many other un-neighbourly attitudes.

As with other such Judgments, the matters raised herein are very beautifully summarised in the attitude of heart which Our Lord outlined in those comprehensive words, found in Matthew 19:19: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." With such an attitude of heart, a truly Christian community should find no contentious difficulty in applying the spirit of these Laws to the resolution of many inter-personal frictions and problems. May we do our share in solving such by reflecting the gracious attitude of Our Father.

We shall continue our studies on our next programme.

19 June, 1994


By Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A.

As those who have been following our weekly programmes will know, we are examining, through this series of Bible Studies, the Great Plan of The Almighty God and Creator of the Universe for the restoration of His Creation, in consequence of the Fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden, recorded in Genesis, the first Book of The Bible.

That course of study has led us to examine the Call of Abram, and the Promised Seed to Abraham, Isaac, and the Family of Isaac's son, Jacob (Israel). The Children of Israel were followed, first into Egypt under Joseph's protection, and then, as we continued, later as Tribes through the Exodus, wherein Moses becomes God's means of contact between the Tribes of the Children of Israel and The Almighty God at Mount Sinai, Who, as Yahweh, (Jehovah), is, in the latest of our series of studies, becoming their National "Husband" and Law-giver by covenant.

We have given our attention, in turn, to each of the Ten Commandments, and now we are proceeding, in our imagination, to stand among those Israelites on the plain at the foot of Mount Sinai as they hear from Moses the sundry explanatory Judgments which will form practical applications of those Commandments for their use as a nation. We must keep in mind that these are being given amidst the context of Near Eastern laws of their day and experience, and they often modify the brutality of the practices to which they had previously become accustomed in the years of Egyptian bondage.

On our last programme, we were discussing the Judgments which can be summarised as "laws of restitution", and today we continue to examine more of these regulations in the passage of Scripture found in Exodus 22, beginning with verse 16. As is my custom, I shall insert appropriate comments as we read the words of today's study.

16. And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

The New Bible Commentary notes of the word "entice" in this passage "i.e. win her consent to the crime. Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of a moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry. If her father would not give her to this particular man, then he was to pay the equivalent of a dowry (fifty shekels of silver, Dt. xxii. 29), to give her more opportunity of marriage to another man." The Companion Bible note confirms the same evaluation based upon the same reference.

The New Bible Dictionary contains an entry over four pages in length under the heading "Marriage." It is one which might be read with advantage by any who wish to make the subject a matter of wider study. At this time, I might just quote a few portions which might prove useful in advancing our understanding of the matter at hand.

The entry begins with the words: "Marriage is the state in which men and women can live together in sexual relationship with the approval of their social group. Adultery and fornication are sexual relationships that society does not recognize as constituting marriage. This definition is necessary to show that in the Old Testament polygamy is not sexually immoral, since it constitutes a recognized married state; though it is generally shown to be inexpedient."

The entry continues: "Marriage is regarded as normal, and there is no word for 'bachelor' in the Old Testament." Explaining that "It would seem that God left it to man to discover by experience that His original institution of monogamy was the proper relationship", the entry says "It is shown that polygamy brings trouble and often results in sin." Explaining matters concerning concubines, and permissible choices for mates, the entry then proceeds to describe marriage customs, and first among these, the betrothal, which it describes in the words "almost as binding as marriage itself."

Under the sub-heading "Choice of a spouse", it shows us that "Usually the parents of a young man chose his wife and arranged for the marriage, as Hagar did for Ishmael (Gn.xxi. 21) and Judah for Er (Gn.xxxviii. 6). Sometimes the young man did the choosing, and his parents the negotiating, as in the case of Shechem (Gn.xxxiv. 4,8) and Samson (Jdg.xiv. 2). Rarely did a man marry against the wish of his parents, as did Esau (Gn.xxvi. 34,35). The girl was sometimes asked whether she consented, as in the case of Rebekah (Gn.xxiv. 58). Occasionally the girl's parents chose a likely man to be her husband, as did Naome (Ru.iii. 1,2) and Saul (I Sa.xviii. 21)."

Under the sub-heading "Exchange of gifts", three types are noted. One was the mohar, marriage present or dowry, which was a compensation gift from the bridegroom to the family of the bride, and which sealed the covenant. It was not a "bride price" as a wife was not bought like a slave. Jacob's seven years of service for Rachel, and Moses' keeping of the sheep of his father-in-law might be considered to fall into this category.

A second was the dowry, a gift to the bride or the groom from her father, sometimes consisting of servants, land or other property. Third was the bridegroom's gift to the bride, which might consist of jewellery and clothing. The dowry given for a seduced maiden, in Exodus 22:17 would fall under the first category of these three.

Other sundry laws follow with verse 18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Regarding the condemnation of a witch, we should make some comment. The Companion Bible notes the meaning of "witch" as "spiritist", "medium", from a root meaning "to mutter, as to some demon." Those who have received a modern education may require some assistance in evaluating this commandment. We, who were brought up amid the general traditions of what might be termed a "North American culture", are all too familiar with the light-hearted practice, promoted and perpetuated by commercial interests as a take-off from more superstitious or serious times, of dressing children in Hallowe'en costumes of many types, including that of "witches" with black pointed hats and black capes, for their annual childish rounds of the neighbourhood to "trick or treat". This has tended to make the theme of witchcraft a somewhat less than serious topic to the vast majority of folk today.

On the other hand, if we read our history books, we know how the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690's, were imposed by pious but apparently ignorant, credulous or superstitious authorities who were persuaded by hysterical accusations. These mis-guided attempts through vicious inquisitorial methods sought to apply this law but made victims of those we would in all probability regard as obviously innocent people.

We have to remember that, as with all of God's laws, the underlying theme of this law is to insure spiritual and material care and benefit to all of God's people as they seek to implement the requirements of the Kingdom of God within the nation. Witchcraft, by definition, is the attempt to acquire what may be regarded as supernatural or magical powers and knowledge through compact with the devil or some evil spirit. The New Bible Commentary says of verse 18, regarding a witch: "'Sorceress' (RV). This law also applied to sorcerers (Lv. xx. 27). This verse does not prove the reality of the evil spirits, with which they professed to consort, but the very profession, real or false, was a denial of the supreme authority of God, and as grave a crime as rebellion or idolatry. The reality of demons we learn from the New Testament." The New Bible Commentary (Revised) advises that reference be made to the item "Magic and Sorcery" in the New Bible Dictionary, and there we find an illuminating article of approximately six pages, which is too long to quote, but which might be consulted with profit by one desiring to learn more of the topic.

As Satan is the leader of a rebellion against The Almighty God, witchcraft is a conscious alliance of oneself with the Satanic spirits in that rebellion, and as such must be totally rejected by those who serve Our Lord, both as individuals, and as a nation of God's people. God cannot permit such rebellion to exist among His people. It was apparently a general assumption that the work of a witch was designed to injure one's neighbour, and as such, it was, as Keil and Delitzsch point out, "a practical denial of the divine vocation of Israel, as well as of Jehovah the Holy One of Israel."

If an accused is definitely proven guilty, the seriousness of the crime in God's sight is underscored by the assigned penalty. Keil and Delitzsch mention that from the Hebrew, it would be those witches who persisted in the practice when it was forbidden that would come under this law. If a person sought to pursue such a course, the death penalty might make emigration to a nation other than God's developing Kingdom an advisable alternative, but anyone so minded would have to keep in mind that Satan's kingdom is doomed by the prophetic word!

Of verse 19, "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.", The New Bible Commentary (Revised) says: "Such debasement of man needed to be judged drastically and purged away."

Verse 20 reads: "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed", to which Keil and Delitzsch add from the Hebrew the explanation "he shall be banned, put under the ban (cherem), i.e. put to death, and by death devoted to the Lord, to whom he would not devote himself in life..." It would be another form of outright rebellion from the command of The God of Israel to do such a thing, and would not be tolerated under God's Law.

Discussion of the remaining laws in this chapter we shall have to leave for our next Bible Study.

26 June, 1994


By Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A.

As those of you who have been listening to our programme week by week will know, we have recently been working our way through a study of the Law Code of The Almighty God of Israel, which He is in the process of transmitting to Moses for the benefit of the people of the Tribes of Israel gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai, and recorded in the Book of Exodus as part of God's Great Plan for the restoration of His Creation. In this pursuit, we have come to Exodus 22:21, and as usual, I shall read the Scripture portion for today's study, with the insertion of comments as we go.

21. Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Of the phrase "Vex a stranger", The New Bible Commentary states "What is stated here negatively concerning the 'stranger' (Heb. ger) receives positive emphasis in Deuteronomy. See Dt. i. 16n. The Israelites were a chosen race, but they did not thereby hold an exclusive right to God's protection." The verse in Deuteronomy 1:16, a part of Moses' review of God's Law before the succeeding generation of Israelites who were about to enter the Promised Land, reads "And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him."

It is interesting that, even today, the generally Anglo-Celto-Saxon and kindred peoples, descendants of those Israelites, are those to whom the strangers flee when seeking asylum from oppression. It has been, for better or worse, a fact of history that many strangers have sought out the lands dominated by these folk, the descendants of ancient Israel, in order to escape the oppressor. The generous nature of these people has roots in this ancient God-given injunction.

I must point out however, that, as I perceive it, there is arising a new danger to the whole protective concept. It is, I believe, brought about by those who come seeking safety, but who insist upon carting in with them an alien cultural baggage, which immediately conflicts with the essentially Christian nature of our traditions and heritage.

As I see it, those who flee to our lands should never seek to impose an alien ideology in place of the ethic of God's laws of Sinai, preserved in spirit by Christendom, for should they succeed in doing so this will immediately place in jeopardy the whole system of Godly law which is the formative basis of our own blessings of prosperity and also that protective nature so appreciated by those who come. We are presently in danger, I believe, of allowing those who like the taste of the fruit of the Anglo-Celto-Saxon tree to eat of it, but then to cut the tree down for space to plant their own. Had their own cultural tree borne fruit to their liking in the lands from which they have come, they should not have needed to seek our protection in the first place.

Curiously, this passage concerning the stranger has a most interesting sequel, which is mentioned by the late Dr. Courtenay James, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., in his "Hebrew and English." When King Alfred the Great of the Saxons in what is now England was moved to translate this law code, adapting it to the use of his subjects, he did not remove that last qualifier "...for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Why did he leave that explanatory extension on this law, do you suppose? Surely, it would seem at first glance that it was very inappropriate for him to have left the trailing words in his code of laws as we have just read them. The only logical explanation would be that he, and his subjects knew that they were, in fact, the actual descendants of these same Israelites, "Sons of Isaac" or "Saxons", to whom Moses relayed this law at Mount Sinai, and so that termination to the sentence would be entirely appropriate when applied to themselves!

It is with such evidence that we must work when we, of the British-Israel-World Federation seek the historic clues which would support our contention regarding our own identity, for in the times of deportation of the ancient Northern Tribes of Israel, God had spoken through the Prophet Hosea saying, in Hosea 2:6 "Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths", and in verses 14-15, "Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her. And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope..."

(Incidentally, mention of "Achor" refers to the taking of national action to demonstrate national repentance. Achor, you might remember, was the valley wherein a transgressor called Achan and his family were stoned to death and burned with fire together with all the wealth they had secreted, and buried by Joshua, and all Israel with him, after it was discovered that Achan had taken some of the spoils from Jericho, - which had been strictly forbidden by God - and by thus causing God to withold his protection, thus caused the deaths of some thirty soldiers at the small village of Ai which they next attacked (Joshua 7). It was the act of the people under Joshua in removing this sinful element from among them which allowed God's favour to return.)

Let us return to consider the implications of this law regarding the stranger (Hebrew "Ger"), which, according to Young's Concordance, means a sojourner. A dictionary definition of the word "sojourn" is "to stay for a day: to dwell for a time." Thus a "Ger" might be a person who came from another place to stay for a day, or for a while, among these Israelites. It might be an Israelite from another area, as distinct from a foreigner of another race or an alien, for which the other Hebrew words, Nokri and Zar, were used.

Let us now read the next law, which bears close parallel in nature to the last.

22. Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
23. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
24. And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

As Keil and Delitzsch explain: "Whilst the foreigner, as having no rights, is thus commended to the kindness of the people through their rememberance of what they themselves had experienced in Egypt, those members of the nation itself who were most in need of protection (viz. widows and orphans) are secured from humiliation by an assurance of the special care and watchfulness of Jehovah, under which such forsaken ones stand, inasmuch as Jehovah Himself would take their troubles upon Himself, and punish their oppressors with just retribution... Killing with the sword points to wars, in which men and fathers of families perish, and their wives and children are made widows and orphans."

We can find an outstanding continuation of the same promise in the New Testament from the lips of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is in Matthew 5-7 and is generally called "The Sermon on the Mount." Consider this sampling of words found in Matthew 5:3-12:

3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for their's is the kingdom of heaven.
4. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for their's is the kingdom of heaven.
11. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Now we return to our Old Testament passage at verse 25:

25. If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
26. If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:
27. For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.

The New Bible Commentary (Revised) states "The poor were not to be at the mercy of the rich, and no essential article was to be kept as a pledge, such as a mantle which served as a cloak by day and a blanket by night." Incidentally, as many will know, the poor among the Scottish people of a much later time used such a garment, called the belted plaid; a blanket by night which, by day, was belted at the waist, forming the kilt, with the top portion pinned at the left shoulder.

We have spoken in previous Bible Studies about the curse of usury being exacted for the loan of money and we shall, no doubt, have cause to explain in even greater detail on future Studies the absolutely disastrous outcome to any society which permits such unlawful practice to continue.

28. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

On the word "gods" in this verse, The New Bible Commentary says: "Heb. 'elohim. Three translations are possible: 'the gods' (AV), 'God' (RV), or 'the mighty' or 'judges' (RV mg.). Of these the second is best. The ruler is associated with God as deriving his authority from Him." We continue:

29. Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
30. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
31. And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.

Of the words "...ripe fruits, and of thy liquors", the Companion Bible notes the meaning as "thy corn and wine and oil." The New Bible Commentary reminds us, regarding "the firstborn" of "thy sons", and likewise of "thine oxen", and "thy sheep", of a previous reference to this matter found in Exodus 13:2, 13, and it also refers us onward to Exodus 34:19-20 for parallel reinforcements of this command. The flesh which is "torn of beasts in the field" would not have been properly slain and quickly bled of the blood within it. As The New Bible Commentary explains, it "is unclean both because it has not been killed in the prescribed manner, and because the beast which killed it was unclean." The beast which killed it might, for example, have had rabies. A strict command, given to God's people who are to keep themselves holy, and which no doubt relates in part to the subsequent health of one who eats of the meat, excludes blood from the diet of those who are called to be "holy men unto me." Keil and Delitzsch refer us to Leviticus 17:15 for amplification in that regard, and if someone wishes to look up that verse, I would suggest that they study the whole passage in Leviticus 17, from verse 10 to verse 16.

With these words, we come to the end of Exodus 22 but we shall continue with these studies on our next programme.