Amen. All right, we're there in Deuteronomy chapter number 22. And like I announced this morning, this evening, I'm preaching a very specific sermon and dealing with a very specific subject. And it might seem to you very specific, but it's an issue that needs to be dealt with. And there is a teaching that's spreading among the new IFB. And it is a teaching that says that in the Old Testament, A married man could commit adultery with an unmarried woman and there wasn't a consequence for it. There was no penalty of death. And I'm going to speak on the subject this evening and really debunk this teaching. But let me start by just saying clearly that the Bible teaches in the Old Testament that God clearly placed the death penalty upon adultery. You're there in Deuteronomy 22, I'd like you to look down at verse number 22. Deuteronomy 22 and verse 22, the Bible says this, if a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall, both of them, die. Both the man that lay with the woman and the woman, so shalt thou put evil away from Israel. Now, obviously, let's be clear about the fact that we're looking at Old Testament law that was pertaining to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. Obviously, you and I do not live under Old Testament Israel. We don't live under these laws. If we lived in a righteous nation, then we would live under these laws. But these are not commands by which you and I live our lives today. We live in the United States of America and under the American government. And of course, this is not something that applies to us in our lives. But what we often can glean from this is that in the Old Testament when God established a nation and when God gave laws for these nations, he gave certain laws and it just gives us some insight into the mind of God. And here we see that God actually placed the death penalty, and I realize that that may sound very harsh to Americans tonight, but God placed a death penalty upon adultery because it is such a severe sin. It's such a terrible sin and such a destructive sin that God actually gave the punishment of death. And that's what we read there in Deuteronomy 22, 22, if a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman, so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." God wanted this evil to be put away, so he put the death penalty on it. And I'd like you to keep your place there in Deuteronomy 22. We're gonna come back to Deuteronomy here in a minute, but if you don't mind, go with me to Leviticus chapter number 20. If you go backwards in the Bible, you're gonna go past the book of Numbers, you're there in Deuteronomy, you're gonna go past Numbers into the book of Leviticus. Leviticus chapter number 20, Leviticus chapter 20. Let me show you. Deuteronomy 22, 22 is not the only place where the death penalty is placed upon adultery. It's also in Leviticus chapter number 20. And I realize that this might be a little heavy of a sermon, but these are the types of sermons that need to be preached from time to time. I felt like this morning sermon of the feeding of the 5,000 was a very encouraging, hopeful type sermon. And sometimes we just have to get into the Word of God and deal with some of these subjects that maybe are not nice to talk about. Leviticus chapter 20 and verse number 10, the Bible says this, and the man that committed adultery with another man's wife, even he that committed adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. So though there are lots of verses in the Bible, I mean many verses of scripture that talk about adultery, talk negatively about adultery, talk about the consequences of adultery. I'm showing you these two verses just to start out by saying that in the Old Testament, under the law that God gave the children of Israel, he places the death penalty on adultery. And again, we don't live under those Old Testament laws, but what it shows us is how severe this sin is and how dangerous it is and how God looks upon it. Now, to kind of set up the sermon for you and to help you understand why I'm preaching the sermon, like I said, there's a teaching that's been going around and it teaches that the Old Testament teaches or allows for a married man to commit adultery with an unmarried woman. And as long as he wasn't committing adultery with a married woman, if he was committing adultery with a married woman, they say, then God placed a death penalty upon it. But if he was committing adultery with an unmarried woman, then there's no death penalty placed upon that. They claim that the death penalty only applied if the woman was married to another man. And if she was unmarried, then they would say it's still adultery, but there's no consequence. There's no death penalty. There's no punishment for it. And again, let me just be clear by way of introduction tonight, that is a lie. That is a twisting of Scripture to justify sin. It is nothing more than a carnal doctrine that tries to dress up lust using theology. And this isn't just about winning a doctrinal argument because these types of teachings are actually being bought into and believed by people and being applied in their lives and destroying marriages as a result. This is about defending, of course, the purity of marriage. It's about defending the holiness of God as well. And it's about the integrity of Scripture. So tonight, we're going to talk about this very specific issue, straight from Scripture. Does the Old Testament, we have to answer the question. Does the Old Testament allow married men to commit adultery with unmarried women with no death penalty or consequences? Why would it matter? If we don't live under the Old Testament, we don't live under those laws, why would it matter? Well, here's why it matters. It's because men are using this to say, so therefore it's not that bad. As long as I commit adultery with someone that's not married, then it's not as big of a deal because God sees it as something different than that. So let's answer that question. And let me begin by, again, kind of explaining. You know, the interesting thing about sermons like these is that what the Bible teaches is not difficult to understand. The Bible is very plain and clear. What makes it difficult is when people begin to add all this garbage into their interpretation. Then you have to sit there and kind of pull out all their trash in order to make it clear. And unfortunately, that's something that we need to do tonight. But let me begin with this false teaching about married men committing adultery with unmarried women. And again, their claim, the people who promote this, their claim is that the death penalty only applied in adultery when a man committed adultery with another man's wife. If a married man, according to them, if a married man commits adultery with an unmarried woman, no consequence, no penalty. Only if he commits adultery with another man's wife would God place a death penalty. According to them, if a married man committed adultery with an unmarried woman, then it's still adultery, but it's just not as bad, no death penalty. Now you say, well, where do they get this from? Where does this come? What's their reasoning? And what they argue is this. that the Old Testament law, the ones that we just looked at, that they are gender-specific, meaning that since the law is worded towards a man, it applies only to a man, and it's not universally applicable to both genders. I want you to look at it again. Leviticus 20, verse 10. And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, Even he that committed adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. So here's what their side would say. They would say, see, it says if a man commits adultery with another man's wife, if he commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, that's when the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. We're going to come right back to Leviticus. Keep your place there, but go back to Deuteronomy real quickly. Look at Deuteronomy 22, 22. Deuteronomy 22, 22. It says, if a man be found lying with a woman. And they'll say, see, marry two in husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman, so shalt thou put evil away from Israel. So here's their reasoning. Their reasoning, and if you don't mind, go back to Leviticus chapter 20. Their reasoning, their argument is this, that these laws that place the death penalty upon adultery, that they are gender specific. Meaning that the laws are worded towards men, they apply only to men, and they apply only when the woman is married, and they would say these are not universal laws that can be applied to both genders, they don't go in both directions, they're only stated in that one, the way they're stated is the only way that they can be applied. So the argument is this, when the law is written in a masculine form, like if a man or the man that, then it only applies in that one direction to the man with a married woman, with his neighbor's wife. They claim it cannot be applied in reverse or understood universally. So it can't be just applied to married people in general, and it can't be applied to women, all right? Now, let me just be clear about something. What I want you to notice and understand just as we begin is this, that there is no verse in the Bible that plainly or clearly states that a married man can commit adultery with an unmarried woman and God's fine with it. That verse does not exist. There is no verse that says if a married man commits adultery with an unmarried woman, it's still adultery, but I'm not going to put the death penalty on it. That verse doesn't exist. There's no such verse in the Bible. She said, well, then where are they coming up with this? The teaching is based on an assumption. And the assumption is that since it says a woman married to a husband or with another man's wife or with his neighbor's wife, then it can only apply that way. then it can only be applied to a man committing adultery with a married woman, and it can't be applied any other way. It can't be applied in reverse direction. It can't be applied to another gender. That's what they say. You say, well, what do you believe, pastor? What is our church? What's our stance? Well, our stance, and I believe it's the true stance, is that any sort of physical relationship by a married person outside of marriage is adultery. And according to the Bible, in the Old Testament, it would have been punishable by death. You say, well, how do you answer what they're saying? Here's what we believe. We believe that the Old Testament laws that were given, and specifically this law with regards to the death penalty on adultery, is universal. Meaning it applies to both genders. Meaning that God is saying if a man is committing adultery with another man's wife, but the understanding is that this can be reversed. It could be a woman committing adultery with another woman's husband. And it could be the directions can go in either direction. And the genders can go in the opposite way. And that the command is meant to be universal. Meaning it applies to all genders, it applies to everyone. It's not like God looks down and says, well men can get away with certain things but not women. Because they're lower level humans or whatever. That these things are meant to be applied and normal people can understand that they're just applied to married people. Married people having a physical relationship outside of their marriage is adultery. And adultery is such a severe sin that when God instituted nation, he gave it the death penalty. Now the point is this, that we believe that anyone who's married and having a physical relationship outside of their marriage is committing adultery and that God places a death penalty on it. Now again, and I'm taking some time to kind of develop this because I want to make sure you understand what we're saying. What we would say, what our side would say, the sane side, what we would say is that they're making an assumption that just because it says a woman married to a husband, Deuteronomy 22, 22, or with another man's wife, or with his neighbor's wife, Leviticus 20, 10, That doesn't mean that it only applies to a married woman in that direction towards that gender. That it's obviously just a universal law and we would say there's no command in the Bible that plainly says a married man can commit adultery with an unmarried woman and God's fine with it. That doesn't exist. So you're just assuming that because the command that puts the death penalty on it says a man with his neighbor's wife, a man with a married woman, then you're just assuming that that's the only way it can be applied. We would say you're making an assumption. Now, to be fair, they would say to us, no, you're the one making the assumption. You're assuming that if it says man with a woman married to a husband or man with another man's wife or his neighbor's wife, that that is universal and it can be applied in both directions and it can be applied universally. So we believe they're making an assumption. They believe we're making an assumption. So the question tonight is this, which one's right? And that's what we're going to spend the rest of our night answering from scripture. Let's answer tonight from the Word of God which one's right. I hope I've made it clear to you what the argument is. Because the argument is this. When God said that a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, both shall be put to death. Do we believe, or does the Bible teach that that's the only direction and gender-specific law that applies to the death penalty, or do we believe that it's a universal law, that it can be applied going both ways? Well, let me give you three thoughts this evening as to why I believe the latter. I believe that any married person engaging and that type of activity outside of the marriage is committing adultery. And this, I don't know if this is the type of sermon you want to take notes for or not, but if you want to jot something down, let me give you three thoughts, and I think it'll be clear tonight. Number one, let me say this. If other Old Testament laws that seem to also be gender-specific are clearly applied to both genders, then that confirms what we believe and undermines what they believe. Do you understand what I just said? Because the argument is these two passages can only be applied to a man and a married woman, those genders in that direction. And we're saying, no, it's anyone who's married. It can be applied in any direction. It can be applied to any gender. And we say, you're making an assumption. They say, no, you're making the assumption. So here's what I'm saying to you tonight. If there are other Old Testament laws that are similarly worded, meaning they're written in the same way, where they seem to be gender-specific, but they are clearly applied to both genders, then that confirms, because how do we answer the question? Look, we don't stand up and say, I'm right because I said I'm right. That's what other people do, but that's not what we do. We allow the Bible to be our boss. The Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. So the question is, if there are any other Old Testament laws that seem to be gender specific but are clearly applied to both genders, that confirms what we believe and undermines what they believe. So then the question is, are there any laws like that? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let me give you some examples. Leviticus chapter 20, are you there? Look down at verse number 13. Now, verse number 13 is only three verses below the adultery law that we're discussing. We're discussing Leviticus chapter 20 and verse number 10, but I'd like to give you an example of Leviticus chapter 20 and verse number 13. Now in Leviticus chapter 20 and verse 10 we saw a radical thing that our society would consider radical today, and it is this, that God in the Old Testament, in His nation, placed the death penalty upon adultery. Leviticus chapter 20 and verse 13 is also a radical verse for modern Americans that have never known this or been taught this. But here God places another death penalty on another sin. Let's look at it. Leviticus 20 verse 13. Notice what the Bible says. If a man also lie with mankind as he lies with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. You say, what is being spoken of here? Well, what we're reading in Leviticus 2013 is God placing, in the Old Testament, for the nation of Israel, placing the death penalty upon homosexuality. The Bible says, if a man also lie with mankind as he lies with a woman. Both of them have committed an abomination and here's the death penalty. They shall surely be put to death. Now here's the thing, there's lots of verses in the Bible, in the Old Testament and the New Testament, that speak negatively about homosexuality and condemn it as an abomination. But this verse is the verse that places the death penalty upon it. And I want you to understand the wording here. The way, obviously our King James Bible was written in 1611, and sometimes the way that we use words and the way they use words is a little different, so I want to make sure you understand this. When the Bible says, if a man also lie with mankind, those two words, man and mankind, are actually being used in the opposite way of the way you and I would use them today. For example, if you and I were talking about a male today, we would use the word man. And if we were talking about humanity, we would use the word mankind. But in 1611, when our King James Bible was written, the standard way of using those words was actually reversed. The word man there is actually the reference to man in general, and the word mankind is specific to a gender. The way that the verse would read if we would update that word mankind, which I'm not saying we should update it, but to help you understand, it would read this way. If a man also lie with a male, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them. Now I only make that point to say this, the way that Leviticus 20.13 is written is very gender specific. It is saying if a man has a physical relationship, lies with another male, they have committed abomination, they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them. That's how the verse is written. It's written in a way that's gender specific. The words man and mankind make it gender specific, referring to men. Nobody who's being honest can argue that. Now you say, well, where do we see then that this could be applied somewhere else to both genders? Well, keep your place there in Leviticus. We're going to come back in that direction. And go with me to the New Testament book of Romans, if you wouldn't mind. Romans chapter number one. Romans chapter number one, you've got Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and then the book of Romans. Romans chapter number one. And of course, Romans 1 is the great passage that teaches a lot of great things, but one of the things that it teaches is the reprobate doctrine. And I'm not going to take the time to go through the reprobate doctrine, but the great example given of a reprobate in Romans 1 is the example of homosexuality, of sodomy. In Romans chapter 1 and verse 26, the Bible says this, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections. For even their, I want you to see this, for even their women, did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meat. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient. I want to be clear about the fact that Romans 1 verses 26 and 27 are talking about the sin of sodomy, homosexuality, but the application is to both female and male. For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one towards another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meat. Now, just for sake of time, go down to verse number 32 in the chapter. The chapter is about men with men and women with women. Women that did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And by the way, homosexuality is unnatural. It's against nature. Romans 1 verse 32. Notice how Paul finishes this passage. I think what happens sometimes is we read these verses and we just kind of think this is like spiritual talk or Bible talk, so we don't really stop to think about what's being said. Notice what Paul is saying. Paul is saying, you know the judgment of God. So what judgment of God is Paul referring to that he thinks they should already know? He said, Well, we just read about it. And likewise also the men. leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly. Now notice what Paul says in verse 32. He says, knowing the judgment of God, he says we already know the judgment that God places upon this. That they which commit such things, the they there is both men and women, because he brought up both men and women, he said, notice these words, are worthy of death. Now why would Paul say that they are worthy of death? He's not just saying that for no reason. He's saying that because they already know the judgment of God. God already gave judgment for this sin. What judgment did God give for this sin? He placed the death penalty on it, which is why Paul says, you already know how God feels about this. You already know the judgment of God. God placed the death penalty. Well, question, where did God place the death penalty? upon homosexuality. Well, he did it in Leviticus 20, 13. But wait a minute. But Paul takes Leviticus 23, because look, if you're familiar with Paul's writings, you know that he's constantly referring back to the Old Testament. I mean, he's often quoting the Old Testament. He's saying, as it is written, and quoting the Old Testament. But even when he's not quoting it, he's referencing back to it. He's using it to teach us and applying it in the New Testament. And here's what I want you to understand. There is no verse in the Old Testament that says, if a woman lie with another woman, she's worthy of death. That verse doesn't exist. There's only one verse in the Old Testament and it's gender specific. If a man also lie with mankind as he lied with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them. But then the Apostle Paul in the New Testament takes that verse and applies it to both men and women. Why does he do that? Well, I'll tell you why he does that is because he understood that this is a universal law. It can be applied to both genders. It can go in either direction. God wasn't saying in Leviticus 20.13 only male homosexuals should be put to death. He was saying homosexuality should be put to death. He used gender specific wording, if a man also lie with mankind. But the Apostle Paul comes along and he says, no it applies to women too. even their women did change the natural youth. And people might say, but the new IFB doesn't teach... Well listen to me, if I have to choose between the Apostle Paul and the new IFB, I think I've said this recently, I'm going to choose the Apostle Paul. I'm going to go with the Apostle Paul every time. Here's what I'm saying to you. If other Old Testament laws that seem to be gender specific are clearly applied to both genders, then that confirms what we believe and it undermines what they believe. So we've already seen one example, the law written of homosexuality, death and homosexuality. It's written as male to male, but applied in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul to both male and female. It's worded only for men. Do you understand what I'm saying to you? Leviticus 20.13 is worded only for men, yet Paul explicitly applies the same sin and the same judgment, death penalty, worthy of death, to both men and women. So what does that mean? Here's what it means. It means that God's moral law is universal. God's written laws are universal. They're not gender locked. Just because he said man with mankind, it applies to women as well. So well, that's only one example. Well, look, that's all we need is one example. I mean, we could pray and be done. I'm not going to. I'm going to beat this horse. But let me give you another example. Go to Deuteronomy chapter 24. Did you keep replacing Deuteronomy? But here's what I'm saying to you. They say it says if a man with another man's wife, that's the only way it can be applied. But wait a minute, three verses later it said if a man with mankind and Paul applied it to both men and women. So I think I'm gonna go with the apostle Paul. I think Paul knows more than you. I don't think Paul has an agenda to teach something vile. So here's example 2, Deuteronomy 24. Deuteronomy 24, look at verse 1. Here's a command. When a man hath taken a wife, that's gender specific, is it not? A man with his wife, and married her, So Moses gives a command here and he says that if a man takes a wife And it comes to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her. And I'm not preaching on this subject. I've preached sermons in the past. But he says, let him write her a bill of divorcement. This is an Old Testament law stating the one time that Moses said, you can write a bill of divorcement. And again, this was before they had consummated the marriage. And that's a sermon for another day. But this was what Moses said, and it's written gender-specific. A man that hath taken a wife and married her. Now, keep your place in Deuteronomy, and let's go to the New Testament book of Mark, Mark chapter number 10. Mark chapter 10, you got Matthew and then Mark, Mark chapter number 10. This command of Moses comes up as a point of contention during the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. It's mentioned in multiple of the Gospels, but I want to highlight for you Mark chapter 10. Look at verse number 2. Mark chapter 10 and verse 2, the Bible says this, And the Pharisees came to him, they came to Jesus, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Now they weren't asking a question because they wanted an honest answer. The Bible says, tempting him. They were asking the question to tempt him. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife, tempting him? And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? Verse 4. And they said Moses suffered, the word suffered means allowed, notice the words here, to write a bill of divorcement. Isn't that exactly what we just read in Deuteronomy 24, 1? Moses said, let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand and send her out of his house. So they come to Jesus, they said, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? The word put away means to divorce his wife. Jesus says, what did Moses command you? They respond, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement and to put her away. They are referring to Deuteronomy 24.1. Is that clear? I mean, I think that's clear. Bill of Divorcement. Now skip down to verse number 11. And let me just say this, obviously for transparency, Jesus is now speaking to his disciples about this conversation he had with the Pharisees, but the context is still Deuteronomy 24, 1. Now why don't you notice what Jesus said? Mark 10 and verse 11. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marryeth another, committeth adultery against her. That is the same teaching that's being referred to, Deuteronomy 24, 1, and it's being said in the same gender and in the same direction as Moses said it. Because remember Moses said a man that had taken a wife and married her He said, let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand and send her out of his house. So Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 24, 1. And he says unto them, verse 11, Mark 10, 11. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. That matches Deuteronomy 24, 1 exactly. But then I want you to notice what the Lord Jesus Christ does in verse number 12. In Mark chapter 10, in verse 12, he says this, and He says, and here's an additional application. Now hold on a second. Where in the Old Testament is there a command that says if a woman puts away her husband and she's married to another, she commits adultery? I'm here to tell you something. That command in the Old Testament does not exist. So what is Jesus referring to? He's referring to Deuteronomy 24-1. And what Jesus is doing is He's referring to Deuteronomy 24-1 when it says that if a man takes a wife and marries her and then he wants to divorce her, he can write her a bill of divorcement and give her her hand and send her out of his house. He takes that command from the Old Testament. that's gender-specific and written in one direction. And here's what Jesus does. In Mark chapter 10 and verse 11, he applies it to a man. And in Mark chapter 10 and verse 12, he applies it to a woman. Why would he do that? Here's why he does that. Because the law of Deuteronomy 24 was written entirely from a man's perspective. Yet Jesus applies it to women as well. He removes the idea that the law only goes in one direction. proving again that God's law is universal in application. You can't look at a verse and say, well it only says a man and it only says a married woman, so therefore that's the only way that it can apply. Well wait a minute, there's a law where Moses said if a man writes a bill of divorce before his wife, but then Jesus comes along and says, no that applies to both men and women. Jesus applied it both to men and women. And again, if I have to choose between the Lord Jesus Christ and the new IFP, I'm gonna choose the Lord Jesus Christ every day and twice on Sunday. Because Jesus is our leader. Jesus is the one we look to. And look, here's what I'm saying to you. If there are Old Testament laws that seem to be gender specific, but then are applied to both genders, then that confirms what we believe and undermines what they believe. And I've already showed you there's a law in Leviticus about homosexuality that's written gender-specific man with mankind. But the apostle Paul applied it to both men and women. And there's a law in Deuteronomy where Moses speaks and he's speaking from the perspective of a man writing a bill of divorcement for his wife. But Jesus comes along and applies it to both men and women. So what does that tell us? It tells us that the Old Testament laws are universal. Just because they're written from the perspective of man doesn't mean that they don't apply to women. And it doesn't mean that they only move in one direction. Can I give you another example? Let me give you another example. Go to Numbers, chapter 27. Numbers, chapter 27. If you go backwards from Deuteronomy, if you get to a place in Deuteronomy, you've got the book of Numbers. Numbers, chapter 27. Numbers 27 and verse number one, the Bible says this, here we have a story of the daughters of Zelophehad. Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hefer, the son of Gilead, the son of Maker, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, and these are the names of his daughters, Mala, Noah, Hagla, Milcah, and Terzah. And they stood before Moses, and before Eliezer the priest, and before the princes, and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle, of the congregation sang. So here we have these four women, these four sisters, excuse me, five sisters, these five daughters of Zelophehad. They come to Moses, and here's what they said, verse three. Our father died in the wilderness. And he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves against the Lord in the company of Korah, but died in his own sin and hath no... Look at these words. Had no sons. Here you have a man that had five daughters and no sons. And now he's dead. And they're coming to their political leadership, to Moses and to Eliezer the priest, and they're saying, we have a problem, we have a complaint. They said, our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sins, and they said, here's the problem, he had no sons, male. Look at verse 4. This is what the five daughters of Zelophehad are saying to Moses. Now what are they referring to? What they are referring to is the fact that there is a command that the inheritance was to go from the fathers to the sons. And these five daughters of Zelophehad who have no brothers Their father dies and now there's no son to receive the inheritance. And they don't like the fact that the inheritance is going to be taken away from them. They said in verse four, why should the name of our father be done away from among his family because he had no sons? So here's the request. Give unto us, who's speaking here? Five females. Five daughters of Zlophar, five sisters, give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren, that's males, of our father. So here's what they said. They said, we know that the law and the way we do things is that when a man dies, the inheritance goes to his sons. And if we had a brother, we wouldn't have a problem with that because it was maintained within our family. But the problem we have is that our father didn't have any sons. He had five daughters and no sons. And he died and now there's not a son to be given the inheritance. And so we're asking, would you give it to us? Now the tradition and the command is to give it to sons. We're asking, would you give it to daughters? And Moses doesn't know the answer to the question. So in verse five, the Bible says, and Moses brought their cause before the Lord. And by the way, that's always where we should bring our cause when we don't know what to do. He brings the cause before the Lord because he doesn't even know, like, I don't know. We're supposed to give it to the sons. We're supposed to give it to men. I don't know that I can just give it to five women. Let me go ask God about it. Verse six, and the Lord spake unto Moses saying, don't miss this. Numbers 27, verse six. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right. Oh no, God sided with women. He must be a feminist. I mean, God says, hey, you know, they're right. The daughters of Zelophehad speak right. Thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren, and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their fathers to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die and have no sons male, then he shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughters. You say, what's going on here? Here's what's going on. Even when the application was worded for sons, when the inheritance was to go to sons, God himself clarified that no, the application is equal to daughters as well. If there's no sons, give it to the daughters. If there's no sons, give it to the daughters. This shows that the masculine phrasing was not an exclusion. It was the general form of speaking. He says, look, I know we've said the inheritance goes from the fathers to the sons, but if there's no sons, give it to the, it applies to the daughters. Here's what I'm saying to you, is that the people who want to teach that when the Bible says that a man commits adultery with another man's wife, that's the only instance in which the death penalty applies and it's gender specific and it's directing only in that direction and it cannot be applied in any other way. People who believe that are in a bad company because the Apostle Paul says no Old Testament laws that are gender specific can apply to both male and female. Jesus said No Old Testament laws that are gender-specific can be applied to both male and females. And Moses, asking the Lord Himself, said, I know we said sons, but it applies to daughters too. So here's what I'm saying to you. If other Old Testament laws that seem gender-specific are clearly applied to both genders, then that would confirm what we believe. and it undermines what they believe. That's point number one. I got three of these. Let's go to point number two. Can you go to Exodus chapter 20? The rest won't be as long. Exodus chapter 20. I said number one, if other Old Testament laws that seem gender specific are clearly applied to both genders, then that confirms what we believe and undermines what they believe. Here's point number two. If God's laws are written to one gender but clearly apply to both, I'm talking about where nobody would argue it. Then that confirms what we believe and undermines what they believe. Now we could spend a lot of time on this and I'm not going to do it, but let's just do it with the most famous, I mean the most famous commands in the Bible, the Ten Commandments. Are you there in Exodus chapter 20? In verse number three we find the first command where it says, thou shalt have no other gods before me. In verse number four we find the second command where it says, thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. In verse number seven, we have the third command where it says, thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. In verse number eight, we have the fourth command where it says, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. In verse number 12, we have the fifth command that says, honor thy father and thy mother. In verse 13, we have the sixth command that says, thou shalt not kill. In verse 14, we have the seventh command that says, thou shalt not commit adultery. In verse 15, we have the eighth command that says, thou shalt not steal. In verse 16, we have the ninth command that says, thou shalt not bear false witness. Now one thing that I want you to notice is up to this point, we've looked at nine out of the Ten Commandments, and they're all written generally, generically, not saying a man or a woman, it's just saying thou. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Thou shalt not make. So there's no gender specific here, it's just saying thou. But then we get to the Tenth Commandment. The 10th command found in Exodus chapter 20 and verse 17 reads this way, thou shalt not covet. That sounds like and begins like the other commandments, but then it gets specific. He says, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. Now when the Bible says here, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, That is clear that this is written from a male's perspective. Don't covet your neighbor's house, don't covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. Now here's what I'm saying to you. Is there anybody who wants to stand up and say, oh, nine out of the 10, Those apply to everyone, but number 10 is just for men. I mean, only men are not allowed to covet their neighbor's wife. Who wants to stand up and make the argument, but God is totally fine with a wife coveting her neighbor's husband. Who thinks that? No one thinks that. Nobody's insane enough to think that. Because it's obviously written to apply universally to everyone. The command is written entirely from a male's perspective, the 10th commandment. It assumes the hearer is a man, thy neighbor's wife, but no one in their right mind believes that therefore women are free to covet another man's husband, no problem. Look, again, it proves the point that commandments in the Bible, even if they're worded for a man, are applied to everyone, universally, both genders, in whatever direction. So I said number one, if other Old Testament laws seem gender specific and are clearly applied to both genders, which I've proven that, then that confirms what we believe and undermines what they believe. I said number two, that if God's laws are written to one gender but clearly apply to both, which we've seen that, I think one clear example of that, the 10th commandment, Exodus 2017, then that confirms what we believe and undermines what they believe. Here's number three. Can you make your way to the book of 1 Peter in the New Testament? 1 Peter chapter number three. If you start at the book of Revelation and go backwards, you've got Jude, third second and first, John second, and 1 Peter, 1 Peter chapter number three. Here's statement number three while you find 1 Peter. If the Bible makes a reference to men, in any case where it clearly applies to women, then that confirms what we believe and undermines what they believe. You understand what I just said? Because here's the point that I'm making to you. I'm saying when the Bible says, that if a man commits adultery with another man's wife, that that's not gender specific. God just generally speaks from the perspective of a man. By the way, that's just how the English language is too. I mean, I know that's being changed now with all these transvestites and whatever. But historically, if you were just speaking in general, you would speak from the perspective of a man. You would say man or man, whatever. That's why we even have turned the term mankind to just all humanity. So here's what I'm saying to you. I'm saying, when God says something applies to a man, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, that that's not just, well, that's gender specific. It's only a man coveting. No, that can be applied to a woman coveting her neighbor's husband. It's universal. The genders can be flipped back and forth. I mean, we've proven this, but let me just say this. If the Bible makes a reference to a man, when it's specifically speaking to a woman, then that would confirm what we believe and undermine what they believe. Is that not true? You say, well, does the Bible do that? Well, look at 1 Peter 3. Look at verse 1. Likewise ye, notice this word, wives. Is that gender specific? I mean, I know it's, you know, 2025 America, but it's still, wives are still female. Likewise ye, wives, Be in subjection to your own husbands. Very gender specific. Wives are to submit to their own husbands, that if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the, notice the word, wives. While they behold your chaste conversation and coupled with fear. Peter is speaking to wives. I mean, I think that's clear. He's speaking to women. He's speaking to wives specifically. He says you wives be in subjection to your own husbands. He said if any obey not the word that they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Verse 3, who's adorning? Let it not be that outward adorning of the plaiting of the hair and of wearing of gold and of putting on of apparel. I mean is it clear that verses 1, 2, and 3 are talking to women? He's saying to women, you're adorning, let it not be just that outward. Don't overly emphasize that outward adorning of the plating of the hair, of the wearing of the gold, of putting on of apparel. And then he says this in verse 4, he says, Notice this word. God just used the word man when he's talking about women. You say, oh no, maybe the context changed, maybe he switched gears, now he's talking to men. Well, let's keep reading. The context is still women. Adorn themselves being in subjection unto their own husbands, even as Sarah, that's a woman, obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord, whose daughters ye are. He's still talking to women. As long as ye do well and are not afraid with any amazement. You say, what is the point that you're making? Here's the point that I'm making. 1 Peter 3, verse 1, talking to women. Verse 2, talking to women. Verse 3, talking to women. Verse 5, talking to women. Verse 6, talking to women. Verse 4, still talking to women, but he uses this phrase, the hidden man of the heart. Why would he do that? If Peter's writing specifically and exclusively to wives in verse 4, Why does he use a masculine term, let it be the hidden man of the heart? And I would say to you that the phrase hidden man is a word while it is a masculine form, it is being used generically here, universally as a person, a human being. This shows that scripture routinely uses the masculine form to express universal truths that can be applied to both men and women. And you can't argue the fact that he's not talking to women, but yet uses the term hidden man of the heart. And I think that, to me, I've always thought that was interesting. Like, I get why God's, what God's doing. I've never had a problem understanding it, but I always thought like, why'd he do it? It just seems like, it seems like, like just kind of a confusing thing. Like, I think we all would have understood if he just said, let it be the hidden woman of the heart. But, but see, his ways are above our ways. And I think now I realize, no, God did this. Even for years I read this and I thought, I don't have a problem with this. I don't have a problem with the Word of God. I don't have a problem with the King James Bible. I love the Word of God just the way it is. But I sometimes would think to myself, I wonder why he didn't just say woman. It would make more sense. It kind of makes it awkward because he's talking to women. Then he's talking to a hidden man in the heart. But I think God just knew that there would be vile people who would try to teach that there are certain things that only apply to men. certain benefits, quote unquote, that only apply to men. And I think God's just trying to make it real clear, hey, when I'm talking about men, that can apply to women too. He's talking to women. And he says the hidden man of the heart. If someone insists that a biblical law can only apply to a gender specific, the gender specifically mentioned, then why does God call women the hidden man of the heart? Again, clearly masculine language in scripture often functions in a universal form. It's not gender locked. It can apply to both genders. So I said to you tonight, they have an assumption, we have an assumption. Their assumption is that if it says only a man with another man's wife, then that's the only way it can apply, that's the only, it's locked into those genders, it's locked in that direction, and as long as a man commits adultery, even if he's married with an unmarried woman, then there's no death penalty and it's not as bad. And I said to you, no, we believe that the Old Testament laws, even when they're gender-specific, apply to both male and females. They're universal laws that apply to both genders. And I said to you, if other Old Testament laws that have gender-specific locks, they're worded like they're gender-specific, but they're clearly applied by both genders, then that would confirm what we believe. And I showed that to you. Paul takes an Old Testament law, applies it to men and women. Jesus takes an Old Testament law, applies it to men and women. Moses takes an Old Testament law and God applies it to men and women. I said to you that if God's laws are written to one gender but clearly apply to both, then that confirms what we believe and undermines what they believe. And I showed that to you, one clear example, the 10th commandment. I don't think anybody's gonna stand up and say, no, women can covet, it's just men. And I said to you that if the Bible makes a reference to men in any case where it clearly is applied to women, then that would confirm what we believe and it undermines what they believe. And we clearly saw that in 1 Peter. We clearly saw the fact that he's talking to women and he uses the male term, hidden man of the heart. Now let me just say a few things as we finish this up. You're there in 1 Peter. Stay in 1 Peter. We're going to look at one more verse in 1 Peter. But let me just say this. The new IFB is teaching this. This is being taught privately. What I think is interesting, you know, these guys will stand up and they'll make these challenges. If you don't believe this, then make a video saying you don't believe it. And they act like everybody has to submit to them or something. But let me act like them for a second. Let me put out my own challenge. If I'm wrong, and the new IFB preachers aren't teaching this, then I challenge them, make a video. Upload it to the internet. Clearly say, I do not believe that the Old Testament teaches that married men can commit adultery with unmarried women with no consequence of the death penalty, and I've never taught this publicly or privately. I mean, we know you don't have any problems making videos, because every time I preach, you make a response video. And they get up and say, oh, we listen to two or three of his sermons a year. It seems like you're listening to all of my sermons. Because I can't get done preaching without a response video being done. So we know that a response video is not difficult to do, so why don't you go down to your basement and make a video and clearly say, I don't believe this, I've never taught this publicly or privately. And let me say to you church people out there, if your pastor doesn't say this, you should ask them why. You should never rebuke a pastor. The Bible says rebuke not an elder, but treat him as a father. You should always be polite, but you should ask, do you believe this? Have you ever believed this? Have you ever taught this publicly, privately? This is a dangerous doctrine. And if you get the wrong answer, then give me a call and I'll let you know what church I recommend in their area. Look, these are the same guys that want to stand up and talk about real world implications. I get up and I emphasize what the Bible emphasizes. I say, hey, the Bible says husbands love your wives. And they're like, you're a feminist. This has real world implications. Marriages are being destroyed because you're telling people to love their wives. No, listen to me. You know what has real world implications? The garbage that's being taught. They're teaching this stuff privately, and then idiots are believing it, and practicing it, literally hiring prostitutes and making sure. You're not married, right? Because if you're not married, then it's cool. God's not as mad about it. And then marriages get destroyed. And instead of taking responsibility and saying, wow, I messed up. Wow, I've taught garbage. Wow, I'm destroying family. No, their guilty conscience wants to project that onto me and say, well, it's your fault because you didn't throw them out of church. No, I think it's your fault for teaching garbage. Undermining marriage and the purity of marriage and the sanctity of marriage. If you had any integrity, you'd get up and apologize. Instead of insulting a woman whose marriage has been destroyed, you should call her and apologize for teaching this garbage. These guys want to talk about real-world implications. These are real-world implications. Let me tell you something. The new IFB is becoming vile and it's becoming trashy. I called them out because at their Fire Breathing Baptist Fellowship, they get up and they're mocking and laughing about women being beaten down to a bloody pulp, making jokes about it and laughing about it. And what's their response? Here's their response. Well, what woman? Which one? They're saying, we were just talking in general. We weren't talking about anybody specifically. And I'm thinking to myself, like, oh, OK. Oh, OK. So we can make fun of rape and laugh about rape as long as we're not talking about a specific woman that was raped. Is that what you're saying? That's what you want to go with? So we can make fun of child molestation and laugh about child molestation as long as we're not talking about a specific child. Is that what you're saying? This is vile. This is disgusting. I call these guys out for putting verses to techno music, and their response is, well, we don't do it at church. Really, because that's the standard of separation, as long as we don't do it at church. Listen to me. We should not minimize or justify sin. The Bible says that we should make sin exceeding sinful. We should stand up for marriages and tell men, hey, be faithful to your wives, and tell wives, be faithful to your husband, and love them, and care for them. Not well if you commit adultery as long as she wasn't married. I mean, it's still adultery, but it's not that big of a deal. It's ridiculous. And listen to me. Are you there in 1 Peter 3? These men that are teaching this, and look, I've got the proof. I've got the screenshots. The way they justify this in their heads is by, they'll say this, this is what they say. When God put the death penalty upon a man committing adultery with another man's wife, it wasn't about marriage. It wasn't about the vows. It wasn't about faithfulness. It's because God considers a woman the property of a man. That's what they literally teach. And so therefore, if you commit adultery with another man's wife, it's like you're sleeping with his property. I mean, think about how vile this is. How disgusting this is. And they'll say, it's because she's your property. That's why there's a death penalty. It wasn't just because of adultery. Okay, listen to me very carefully. We must place the emphasis where God places the emphasis. Again, I would say, show me a verse where the Bible says that your wife's your property. Doesn't exist. But I can show you this verse, 1 Peter 3. Are you there? Look at verse 7. 1 Peter 3, verse 7, God doesn't talk about women like they're your property. You know how God, if you're saved, if you're a saved man and you're married to a saved woman, you know how God sees her? He sees her as your sister in Christ. That's how he sees her. as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered. And look, this whole feminist thing, it's a smoke screen. It's because these guys are actually male chauvinists, not like the feminists, they're actually toxic! And then a man stands up and says, no, I don't think she's your property. I think you're supposed to lay down your life for her. I think you're supposed to love her like Christ loved the church and gave. You're a feminist. No, you're an idiot. And you're destroying marriages with this garbage. And again, if I'm wrong, get up. Make a video. Say, I never taught this. I'd love to see it. We must place the emphasis where God places the emphasis. You know where God places the emphasis? Husbands, love your wives. Even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it. And wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands. Why? Because he's going to hurt me? No, no, as unto the Lord. You know why you should submit to your husband? Because of God, that's why. You submit to him as a submission to God. We must place the emphasis where God places the emphasis, and we must get back to biblical Christianity. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered. You know, when the Bible talks about marriage, it always sounds like a sweet thing, not like chaos and anger and fighting. It sounds like two people that love the Lord and love each other, joint heirs together of the grace of life. That's why I had to enumerate a prayer. Heavenly Father, Lord, we love you. And Lord, I realize that these sermons are not nice, and sometimes people don't want to hear them and don't like to hear them, but these doctrines that are being taught, they're dangerous. I don't even understand why a Baptist preacher would ever even try to influence anyone to minimize adultery in their marriage. I don't understand why that would happen. It makes no sense to me. But these men are bullies, and someone needs to stand up and call out their garbage. Lord, I do pray that you strengthen the marriages of Verity Baptist Church. I pray, Lord, that there would be wives who would submit to their husbands, not because they are under threat, but because they love the Lord. And Lord, I pray that there would be husbands that would love their wives, as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it. We love you. We thank you for the clarity of Scripture. In the matchless name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen.