In this series, we are examining some of the many commandments which are contained in the Law of Moses.  It is our aim to understand them better, build faith, and answer critics.  We are considering them topically.

1.  Firstborn.  Firstborn males were to be consecrated to the LORD (Exodus 13:1-2, 11-16; 22:29-30).  This included man and beast (Exodus 13:1-2).

Firstborn animals were consecrated.  If they were clean animals, without blemish, they were to be sacrificed to the LORD (Deuteronomy 15:19-23).  If they were unclean animals, they were to be redeemed (Exodus 13:13; Leviticus 27:26-27). 

Firstborn Israelite males were consecrated.  These seem to have functioned much like the Levites.  In fact, the Levites would later replace the firstborn (Numbers 3:11-12; 8:14-19).  The firstborn were to be redeemed (Numbers 18:15-18).  Dennis Prager comments, “The ceremony of redeeming the firstborn is still practiced among observant Jews; it is known in Hebrew as pidyon ha-ben, redemption of the [firstborn] son” (The Rational Bible: Exodus, p. 151).

2.  Postpartum impurity.  If a woman gave birth to a daughter, she was regarded as unclean twice as long as she would be if she had given birth to a son (Leviticus 12:1-8).

This has raised a few questions.  First, why would she be regarded as unclean?  Various explanations had been set forth.  (a) Some believe that this may have been in part to provide rest for the mother and the child.  James Rochford suggests, “By being called unclean, she would not be required to work around the home or to travel to the sanctuary to make an offering” (Lev. 12:1-8: Why Was a Mother Unclean…, evidenceunseen.com).  She would have also have a break from her husband’s sexual desires.  (b) Some have suggested that there may have been health considerations.  R.L. Harris writes, “It is possible that such a provision would help prevent the spread of childhood fever, which in former days took so many lives.  If the mother was unclean, presumably any midwife would have to wash in water and be unclean until the evening which might help prevent the direct transmission of the disease” (Lev. 12:1-8, evidenceunseen.com).

Second, why was she regarded as unclean twice as long if a girl was born?  Various explanations have been set forth.  (a) Some have suggested both the mother, and the daughter may have bleeding.  James Rochford writes, “During birth, an infant girl will often have vaginal bleeding (v. 5).  Therefore, there are two sources of bleeding – not one.” (Leviticus 12:1-8, evidenceunseen.com).   Another source says, “There is a proportion of baby girls that may have a discharge of blood as a result of the hormonal withdrawal at birth from the mother’s pregnant state.  If this is the case, the baby girl is considered as subject to the laws around abnormal bleeding which is regulated by Leviticus 15:25.  This might explain the additional time – 7 days impurity from her postpartum state, plus 7 days impurity from the mother being in contact with someone (the baby girl) who has abnormal bleeding.  By this understanding, it all comes down to this discharge of blood and how long it might be expected to occur” (In the Bible, Why is a Woman Unclean for Twice as Long…, whereiam.blog).  (b) Some have connected it to males needing to be circumcised.  Males had to be circumcised.  Females had to be regarded as unclean longer.  (c) Some believe that it was a reminder of created order. Adam was formed first, then Eve. The male enters the world first. (d) I do not claim to know the answer with certainty. 

Third, why was a sacrifice of a burnt offering and a sin offering made at the end of this period (Leviticus 12:6-8)?  (a) Perhaps, this was, in part, to focus the mind upon God.  It is He who makes reproduction possible (Psalm 127:3).  However, what about the “sin offering”?  (b) It may be a reminder that humanity, as a whole, needs atonement.  (c) It may be for sins the woman has personally committed (without implying that childbirth is sinful).  (d) There is a Jewish tradition recorded in the Babylonian Talmud that the mother in childbirth swears that she will never do this again, and that the sin offering is to cover this rash oath (Why Does The Bible Require New Mothers to Atone After Childbirth? By Sarah Rindner/ April 27, 2017 mosaicmagazine.com).  Of course, this is lacking any Biblical support. (e) It does not mean that children are born with the guilt of sin (Ezekiel 18:20; Matthew 19:14). (f) It does not mean that the act of reproduction is sinful (Genesis 1:28; Hebrews 13:4).

3.  Religious training.  Parents were responsible for teaching their children (Deuteronomy 4:9; 6:4-9; 6:20; 11:18-21; Exodus 12:25-27; 13:11-16).

This is so important.  God’s laws cannot be learned by simply looking within one’s self.  The children of Israel had to be taught.  (Christianity is also a taught religion). 

This teaching was to be ongoing in the family.  Adam Clarke commenting on Deuteronomy 6:7 says, “Thou shalt have a religion at home, as well as in the temple and tabernacle… Thou shalt be religious abroad as well at home, and not be ashamed to own God wheresoever thou art… Thou shalt begin and end the day with God, and thus religion will be the great business of thy life.” 

4.  Respect.  Children were to honor their father and their mother (Exodus 20:12; Leviticus 19:3; Deuteronomy 5:16). 

Both father and mother are included.  This implies that both the father (male) and the mother (female) are to be respected.  God values the woman.

It says honor, not love.  While a case can be made for loving one’s parents (e.g. we are to love even our enemies Matthew 5:43-45), it says honor.  Dennis Prager gave this thought, “An analogy might help here.  It would be nice if everyone in society loved their city’s police and their country’s president.  But that is utopian.  What matters much more to a functioning society is that citizen’s honor the police and their president.  And just as people who did not vote for or even vigorously oppose a president stand when he enters a room, so, too children who do not love a parent must still honor their parent” (Exodus, p. 255).

It comes with a promise of endurance in the land.  Dennis Prager comments, “The breakdown of the family is a guarantor of the breakdown of civilization” (ibid, p. 258). 

5.  Stoning.  Rebellious children could be put to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21; Leviticus 20:9).

This is one of the teachings in the law that trouble many.  Let’s take a look.

First, the evidence suggests that this is not a small (young) child.  “He is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:20).    Second, the parents could not put the child to death themselves (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).  Dennis Prager comments, “This law concerning the rebellious son seems primitive, but it was profoundly progressive in its time.  It forbade parents from ever killing their children, as was the parental prerogative in much of the ancient world and remains so in parts of the world today… No longer could parents kill their children; rather, they had to bring their antisocial son before a court of elders to be publicly judged and, if found guilty executed” (Deuteronomy, p. 329-330).  Moreover, notice the plural language of the parents: “his father and his mother… they shall say (v. 19-20).  “The Talmud legislated that both parents had to voice the same accusation in order for the son to be executed” (ibid, p, 331). Third, there is no record of this ever occurring.  This never occurs in the Bible.  Furthermore, there is no evidence of this ever occurring in Jewish history.  Dennis Prager suggests, “The law effectively outlawed killing children” (ibid, p. 330).