Thinking About the Eclipse

Posted on June 20, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

Did you see the total solar eclipse (April 8, 2024)?  I hope that you did.  It was truly amazing.  If you missed it, the next one in the contiguous United States should occur in 2044 (When is the Next Solar Eclipse in the United States?, accuweather, YouTube).  The next one in central Texas should be in 2343 (Next Solar Eclipse in Austin, Texas, KXAN.com).

God created an interesting relationship between the Sun and the Moon.  The moon does not produce its own light.  It can reflect the light of the sun.  It can also block the light of the sun.  It can totally eclipse it (The sun is about 400 times the size of the moon.  It is also about 400 times farther away from the Earth). 

This relationship between the Sun and the Moon causes me to think about our relationship to God.  The word of God is compared to the light in the firmament (expanse) above (Romans 10:17-18 cf. Psalm 19:1-4).  Jesus is described as the light of the world (John 8:12). We may bear or reflect God’s light, but he cannot produce true light (cf. Isaiah 8:20). 

Are we shining as light in this world?  “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).  “Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life…” (Philippians 2:14-16).  “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims abstain from fleshly lusts… having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that… they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:11-12).

Are we hiding the light?  “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed?  Is it not to be set on a lampstand?” (Mark 4:21).  “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). 

God certainly wants His light to shine on Earth.  Paul wrote, “It is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).  This addresses why Paul preached.  Darrell Beard comments, “Verse 6… explains why Paul devoted himself to preaching Christ and serving others… As God brought light out of darkness in the material creation (Genesis 1:3-5), so He has illuminated our hearts with the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (Studies in 2 Corinthians  editor Dub McClish, 8th Annual Denton Lectures, p. 114).  J.W. McGarvey comments, “Paul… declares that it is his business to reflect the light of Christ which has shone in his heart; for God sent His son to be the light of earth’s darkness.  The apostle here alludes to the glorified face of Christ which appeared to him on the way to Damascus.  After such a vision it was impossible that Paul could look upon himself as any other that a reflector of the true light which was sent from God (McGarvey, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, p. 189).

Are we shining?

“This little light of mine, I’m going to let it shine.

Oh this little light of mine, I’m going to let it shine.

This little light of mine, I’m going to let it shine.

Let it shine, all the time, let it shine.

All around the neighborhood, I’m going to let it shine…

Hide it under a bushel? No!

I’m going to let it shine…

Posted in evangelism, Example, Nature, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Ox and the Donkey

Posted on June 20, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

“Hear, O heavens and give ear, O earth!  For the LORD has spoken!  ‘I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me” (Isaiah 1:2).

A relationship is described.  The LORD is the parent.  The people of Israel are his children (Isaiah 1:2 cf. 49:14-15; 63:16; 64:8; Also, see – Exodus 4:22-23; Deuteronomy 14:1-2; 32:6, 10-11).  This relationship had been damaged.  The LORD had been good to them.  He had provided for them and reared them.  However, they had rebelled against him.  Rebellion is a frequent subject in this book (e.g. Isaiah 1:2, 4, 23; 24:5, 20; 30:1, 9; 46:8; 48:8; 57:4; 65:2; 66:24).  This book begins and ends speaking against rebellion (Isaiah 1:2; 66:24).  A parent can rear children but he can’t make them do right.  Their rebellion no doubt made God sad.

The heavens and the earth are addressed.  They were witnesses to God’s covenant with Israel, and his warnings to Israel (Deuteronomy 4:25-26; 30:19; 31:24-28).  They are now called upon to bear witness to the sins of this people. 

“The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master’s crib; But Israel does not know, My people do not consider” (Isaiah 1:3).    There is a contrast between farm animals (ox and donkey) and the people of Israel.  The animals know to whom they belong, and who feeds and cares for them (Animals sometimes come running when they see their owner or their owner’s truck).  The people of Israel did not know or appreciate how much God had done and still was doing for them.  They were not thankful.                  

There are lessons in this for us.  (1) We should consider how much God has done for us.  “God, who made the world and everything in it… He gives to all life, breath and all things” (Acts 17:24-25).  “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17).  (2) We should be thankful.  “Serve the LORD with gladness, come before His presence with singing.  Know the LORD, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.  Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise.  Be thankful to Him, and bless His name.  For the LORD is good; His mercy is everlasting, and His truth endures to all generations (Psalm 100:2-5).  Let’s not let farm animals show more sense than us.

Posted in animals, prophets, Thanksgiving | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

As the Deer…

Posted on June 19, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

“As the deer pants for the water brooks so my soul for You, O God.  My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.  When shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalm 42:1-2).

Imagine a deer in a drought or in the heat of the summer.  It thirsts for water.  It pants (The Hebrew word taarog only occurs one other time in the Bible.  It occurs in Joel 1:20, where the beasts of the field cry out due to fire and drought). 

In context, the psalmist for some reason has been unable to assemble with God’s people for worship in the house of god (tabernacle/temple).  He deeply misses being able to do so (Psalm 42:4).  Evil men ridicule him for his trust in God (Psalm 42:3, 10).  However, he continues to place his hope in God (cf. Psalm 42:11).  The exact circumstances are unclear.  Some believe that this refers to some time in David’s life.  The exact circumstances are not essential to the basic lesson.  It is an example of one who maintains faith in God despite the difficult circumstances.     Applications for us:  (1) For what do we thirst (desire)?  All living beings thirst to some degree thirst for things necessary for life, for example – water.  We cannot live without certain things (e.g. air, water, food).  Some thirst for other things this world offers (e.g. wealth, material possessions, power or even sinful things).  However, the psalmist thirsted for God.  He desired to be in his presence.   

He desired to assemble and worship.  Do we?  Do we deeply desire to be in fellowship with God?  Jesus said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6).  He also said, “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4 cf. Deuteronomy 8:3).  Do we hunger for God’s word?  (cf. Job 23:12; Psalm 19:10).  Do we daily feed on it. 

(2) How intensely do we thirst for God?  Do we thirst for him as a deer does water on a hot, dry day?  (Psalm 42:1 cf. 63:1-2).  There is a story of a young man who came to Socrates in search of knowledge and wisdom.  The teacher took the young man to the water.  He dunked him and held him under for a period of time.  The young man was then let up gasping.  Socrates asked the man what he desired the most while under water.  The man answered, “air.”  Socrates then explained that the man needed to desire knowledge and wisdom as much as he desired air, if he would acquire knowledge and wisdom.  Let’s so desire God and spiritual things. 

(3) In whom do we place our trust?  The psalmist placed his hope in God (Psalm 42:11).  So should we.  “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, and whose hope is the LORD” (Jeremiah 17:7). 

“As a deer panteth for the water

So my soul longeth after Thee/

You alone are my heart’s desire

And I long to worship Thee/

You alone are my strength, my shield/

To you alone may my spirit yield/

You alone are my heart’s desire

And I long to worship Thee”

(Song: As the Deer by Martin J. Nystrom, 1984)

Posted in animals, Hope, psalms | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Hen and Her Chicks

Posted on June 19, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!  How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34).

Jesus compares himself with a mother hen.  A hen wants to protect her chicks.  A hen will shelter her chicks under her wings keeping them warm and dry, out of the cold and the rain, and away from other dangers. 

Jesus says that his desire was to protect the people who lived in the city of Jerusalem.  This is why prophets, in the past, had been sent to them (2 Chronicles 36:15-16; Jeremiah 7:13; 25:3-4; Ezekiel 33:11).  This is why Jesus spoke to them. 

However, they needed to listen to him.  They needed to come under his wing.  Some would listen to him and find safety (cf. Luke 21:20-21).  Many would not.  One source says, “All know of the frantic protection a mother hen provides as she scurries her chicks under her wings in the face of danger – danger such as a swooping eagle.  Jesus would have offered such protection from impending doom.  Soon the Roman eagle will descend on Israel.  In spite of Jesus’ warning, the Jews will not listen.  Their own refusal seals their doom” (Contending For The Faith, Matthew, studylight.org). 

There are lessons in this for us.  (1) Jesus (and God) care for us.  He left the glories of heaven for us (Philippians 2:4-8).  “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17).  His desire is for our salvation (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).  (2) We need to listen to Him.  The wise hear and do what He says (Matthew 7:24-25; James 1:22).

Posted in animals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Juneteenth – Freedom!

Posted on June 13, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

This history is as follows.  Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, It granted freedom to slaves in confederate states.  This was not very enforceable while the war continued.  Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant on April 9, 1865 at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.  The war east of the Mississippi was ending.  The war continued west of the Mississippi for almost two more months.  Kirby Smith surrendered to John Pope onboard the USS Fort Jackson in Galveston Bay on June 2, 1865.  General Gordon Granger issued General Order No. 3 on June 19, 1865 in Galveston, Texas.  It announced, “The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free.  This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor” (archives.org).  The order was read in four places when it was originally proclaimed: Ashton Villa, Reedy AME Chapel, U.S. Customs House and Courthouse, and the Osterman Building.  (Celebrating Juneteenth in Galveston June 6, 2023 by Taylor Bounds, Galveston.tamu.edu).  As a personal note, the U.S. Customs House is now owned by the Hodge Law Firm.  Shaun Hodge is my brother.  [The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be ratified Dec. 6, 1865, abolishing slavery.].  June 19th (shortened to Juneteenth) began to be celebrated by freed-slaves.  It became a Texas state holiday in 1979.  It became a federal holiday in 2021.

If I, or my family, had been a slave, Juneteenth would be life-changing.  News of emancipation came to the most westward confederate state.  Freedom!

How truly special the first day of the week should be to us.  Jesus “was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (Romans 4:25).  Jesus was raised for our justification.  “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.  You are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:21).  No wonder we read, “Now on the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7 cf. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

Consider what some early writers said.  Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.) “And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a city or a rural district we make our assembly in common on the day of the sun… For they crucified him on the day before Saturn’s day, and on the day after (which is the day of the sun) he appeared to his apostles (Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, pp. 67-68 quoting from Apology I, 67-1-3, 7).  Tertullian (c. 150-222 A.D.).  “Others… suppose that the sun is the god of the Christian, because it is well known that… we regard Sunday as a day of joy” ibid, quoting to the Nations 1:13).  The epistle of Barnabas (late first or early second century), “We keep the eighth day with joy, on which Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven” (ibid,  quoting 15:8).

May we never take our freedom from sin as a small thing.  Let us truly lift up our voices in praise to God every first day of the week. 

Posted in History, holiday, worship | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Law of Moses: Worship

Posted on May 29, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

We have been examining the Law of Moses, topically.  The series was requested by a teen in Bible class.  This will conclude the series (Though we may revisit it at some point).

1. Preparation.  At Mount Sinai, the Israelites were told to prepare to be in the presence of God (Exodus 19:10-14).

This was not to be taken lightly.  (1) They were to wash their clothes (Exodus 19:10).  Why?  No doubt this was to impress them with the specialness of the occasion.  This was not an everyday affair.  This was special.  (2) The men were to not come near their wives in preparation for the coming presence of the LORD (Exodus 19:15).  Why?  It is not because sexual intimacy between a properly married man and woman is sinful.  It is not (Hebrews 13:4).  H.D. Simmons provided this explanation “As fasting from lawful food was at times engaged in to devote one’s total energy and mind to God, there were occasions where sexual relations were temporarily prohibited.  This was the case here” (Studies in Exodus, editor Dub McClish, Second Annual Shertz Lectures, p. 201).  I believe that this is correct (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:5).  (3) Boundaries were to be set (Exodus 19:12).  Why?  This would remind them of the distance that still existed between God and man.

Application for us: (1) We should seek to be clean and properly clothed before God.  In the New Testament the emphasis is on being spiritually clean (James 4:7-8; 1 Timothy 2:8-10; Ephesians 5:25-26; 1 John 1:7; 1:9; Revelation 7:13-14), and spiritually clothed (Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 13:13-14; 1 Peter 5:5; Colossians 3:12-15, etc.).  What about physical cleanness and clothing?  God has not specified how we are to dress (other than modestly).  However, how one dresses may reflect, in some cases, the esteem one has for an event or an occasion.  I am not alone in this opinion.  James Burton Coffman comments, “What must we think of the slipshod, casual, disheveled, common or even torn and dirty clothes that one sees these days even waiting on the Lord’s table?  Why?  Has the conviction that worshippers are ‘in His presence’ weakened?  If that is not the reason, what is the reason?  Oh, but people cannot afford to clean up and dress up!  If one thinks so, let him attend a wedding of any of the sloppy dressers at church, and he will get his eyes opened, if not popped!  A profound reverence lies at the root of all true religious feelings” (studylight.org, Coffman on Exodus 19:10-14).  We are appearing in the presence of God.  Let us never take this lightly.  (2) Let us focus on Him before we come to worship.  Let us not stay out so late on Saturday night that we fail to give God our best on Sunday morning.  Let us not spend so much on the weekend playing that we have nothing to give on Sunday morning.  Johnny Ramsey once told a story of shame from his youth.  He said that he went out with friends to the movies on Saturday night.  On Sunday morning he was ashamed that he had little to give.  He has spent more on his entertainment than on supporting the work of the church.  He said that he determined that he never wanted to do that again. I have known some who did not want to read the newspaper or do anything which could distract their minds form worship. I believe that I read some where that this was Gus Nichols practice (though, I cannot document it. Please share it, if you have it.). I once attended with a member who did not want to engage in any small talk until after worship. He wanted his thoughts to be on things which prepared him for worship. Alexander Campbell once contrasted two individuals going to worship. He wrote, ” Suppose two persons, A and B … A, from the time he opened his eyes in the morning, was filled with the recollection of the Savior’s life, death, and resurrection. In his closet, in his family, along the way, he was meditating or conversing on the wonders of redemption, and renewing his recollections of the sayings and doings of the Messiah. B, on the other hand, arose as on other days … talks about the common affairs of everyday life, and allows his thoughts to roam over the business of the last week, or, perhaps, to project the business of the next. If he meet with a neighbor, friend, or brother, the news of the day is inquired after, expatiated upon, discussed; the crops, the markets, the public health, or the weather – the affairs of Europe, or the doings of Congress, or the prospects of some candidate for political honor – become the theme of conversation. As he rides or walks to church, he chats about any of these topics, till he enters the doors of the meeting house … can B by a single effort unburden his mind … from comtemplation of things on earth to things in heaven ? … Is it accordant to reason that B can delight in God, and rejoice in commemorating the wonders of his redemption, while his thoughts are dissipated upon the mountains of a thousand vanities?” (Alexander Campbell, The Christian System, p. 247). How much mental preparation do we make? (3) While we can draw near to God through Jesus (Hebrews 10:19-22), He is still to be feared (1 Peter 2:17, etc.).  Let us respect His boundaries.

Other passages in the Old Testament remind us that God wanted them to take worship seriously (Ecclesiastes 5:1-7; Psalm 89:7; Proverbs 15:8; 28:9; Isaiah 1:12-17).  Should we do any less?

2.  Participation.  No Israelite male was to appear before the LORD at a feast empty-handed (Deuteronomy 16:16-17).

They were expected to offer something to the LORD.  “Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you” (Deuteronomy 16:17).

Consider these words from the Psalms.  “What shall I render to the LORD for all of His benefits toward Me?  I will take up the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the LORD.  I will pay my vows to the LORD now in the presence of all His people… O LORD… I will offer to You the sacrifice of thanksgiving and will call upon the name of the LORD.  I will pay my vows to the LORD now in the presence of all His people, in the courts of the LORD’s house, in the midst of you, O Jerusalem” (Psalm 116:12-19).

 Application: What do we bring to Him in worship?  Do we offer Him our spirits (John 4:24 cf. Joshua 24:14)?  Do we offer Him the fruit of our lips (Hebrews 13:15 cf.. Hosea 14:2)?  Do we liberally give (1 Corinthians 16:1-2 cf. Deuteronomy 16:17; 2 Corinthians 8:1-7, 12; 9:7)?  Do we truly present ourselves as living sacrifices to Him (Romans 12:1-2)? 

3.  Presentation.  Their offering was to be without blemish or defect (Leviticus 22:17-24; Deuteronomy 15:21; 17:1).

Only the best was to be offered.  Anything less was not acceptable.  The LORD upbraided those of Malachi’s day, “When you offer the blind as a sacrifice, is it not evil?  And when you offer the lame and sick, is it not evil?  Offer it then to your governor!  Would he be pleased with you?  Would he accept you favorably?” (Malachi 1:7-8).

Application: Let us bring only our best to the Lord (Matthew 22:36-37; Luke 9:23-26; 14:26-33; Romans 12:1-2).  He doesn’t want our unsacrificial offerings, our scraps, our left-overs.

“All He wants is you.  No one else will do,

Not just a part, He wants all of your heart.

All He wants is all of you.  All He wants is you.

All He wants is me, unreservedly.

Not just a part, He wants All of my heart.

All He wants is all of me.  All He wants is me”

(Audrey Meier, song: All He Wants Is You)

Posted in Clothing, law of moses, worship | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Law of Moses: Slavery

Posted on May 29, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

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.  Kidnapping.  Kidnapping people to serve or to sell as slaves was forbidden (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7 cf. 1 Timothy 1:9-10).

Israel was not to hunt people down to be slaves.  There were ways one could become a slave (e.g. war, punishment, debt).  However, taking people to be slaves was forbidden. 

This is different from what some have done in the past and what some still do.  For example, kidnapping and child slavery is reported to be a common part of  West African cocoa (chocolate) farms (Child Labor and Slavery in the Chocolate Industry, foodispower.org).

2.  Permitted slavery.  There were ways one could become a slave under the Law of Moses (Exodus 22:2-3; Leviticus 25:39-47; Numbers 31:9-ff; Deuteronomy 15:12-18).    These ways included: (1) Debt.  One could sell himself into slavery (Leviticus 25:39-40, 47; Deuteronomy 15:12).   One could also sell his children into slavery (Leviticus 25:41, 45-47; Exodus 21:7-11; 2 Kings 4:1; Nehemiah 5:5).  (2) Criminal Punishment/restitution.  One could become a slave if he could not make restitution for theft (Exodus 22:1-4).  (3) War.  One could become a slave due to war (Numbers 31:9, 15-18; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Also, Joshua 9).

3.  Debts.  Slaves were released from their debts every seven years or on the year of Jubilee (Deuteronomy 15:1-2, 12-15; Leviticus 25:10, 39-40).

Slavery was, in general, limited in time.  War captives seem to be an exception (Leviticus 25:44-46).  Also, one could voluntarily choose to remain a slave for life (Exodus 21:5-6; Deuteronomy 15:16-17).  One who wanted to remain a slave for life was to have his ear pierced through to a door or a doorpost.  This is an odd ceremony.  Why do this?  It is probably symbolic.  James Burton Coffman comments, “The ear is the organ through which the master’s commands are communicated; and such a ceremony indicated that the servant was perpetually bound to heed his master’s commandments and obey them.  It also signified that the servant was permanently attached to the master’s house” (Deuteronomy, p. 170).

Do we have pierced ears?  That is, are we a willing slave of God?  There is a song which says, “Pierce my ear, O Lord, my God; Take me to Your door this day.  I will serve no other god; O Lord, I’m here to stay.  For love.  Ever bound by love” (Song: Pierce My Ear by Steve Croft, 1980).

Some believe that there may be a connection with Hammurabi (Code #282).  Under Babylonian law a rebellious slave could be punished by having his ears cut off.  In the Law of Moses a willing slave chose to have his ears pierced, willfully identifying him as a slave. 

4.  Abuse.  Slaves were not to be abused (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27; Leviticus 25:39-40).  Israelites were to remember certain things.  They were to remember that all Israelites had once been slaves (Deuteronomy 15:12-15).  They were to remember they had a God above them (Leviticus 25:43 cf. Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1; Job 31:13-15).

There were consequences to abuse.  (1) If a master injured a slave (e.g. destroying an eye, or knocking out a tooth), then the slave was to be set free (Exodus 21:26-27).  (3) If a master killed a slave (e.g. by beating him) he was to be punished (Exodus 21:20).  Dennis Prager comments, “Thus, like any murderer, a master who murders his slave is subject to the death penalty.  Sarna points out that of all the ancient Near Eastern law codes, the Torah is unique in protecting slaves from homicide and other forms of maltreatment by their masters” (Exodus, p.292).

What about Exodus 21:21?  Many have difficulty with this verse. Dennis Prager comments,  “The Hebrew does not say ‘survives,’ it says ‘stands.’  This literal reading may imply that if slave is not so injured as to be unable to get up, the master is not put to death if the slave dies sometime later… In other words, if the slave is strong enough to get up and stand for a day or two, the matter is not punished (with a death sentence)” (Exodus, pp. 292-293).  This may be provided to protect the master from the death penalty should the slave’s death not be clearly the result of the beating.  Another possibility is, “if a master beats his slave and the slave is unable to work for some time, the master has punished himself by losing the work he might have received from the slave.  The implication here is that it is in the master’s best interest to not be too severe” (Why Does the Bible Allow Slaveowners to Beat Their Slaves? Gotquestions.org).

Why did God allow the slave to be beaten?  (1) Many believe in the concept known as progressive revelation.  That is, God started with man where he was and progressively raised his morals over time.  God in the Old Testament tolerated many things which were less than is ideal (e.g. polygamy).  This is not a move from error to truth.  It is a move from some truth to more or clearer truth.  (2) It should be remembered that some of the slaves were criminals and war captives. 

5.  Days off.  Slaves (servants) were given the same time off for religious obligations as others (Exodus 20:8-10; 23:10-12; 12:43-44;Leviticus 25:1-6; Deuteronomy 12:10-12).

They were not worked without rest.  They were allowed to have time off on the Sabbath and other holy days.  They were also allowed time for worship. 

6.  Freedom.  When a slave was freed, he was not to go out empty-handed (Deuteronomy 15:13-14).

The freed slave was to be supplied liberally with provisions.  This was designed to help the man return to a life of freedom. 

7.  Runaway.  A runaway slave from another country could seek refuge in Israel (Deuteronomy 23:15-16).

He was not to be returned to his master.  This appears to have applied only to slaves from outside of Israel.  James Burton Coffman comments, “The presumption here was that Hebrew masters were superior in their treatment of slaves and servants” (Deuteronomy, p. 258).  Perhaps, this is part of the answer.  Also, many lands engaged in the slave trade (e.g. Genesis 37, 39; Ezekiel 27:13; Amos 2:6; 8:6; Joel 3:1-3; Revelation 18:11-13).

Posted in Apologetics, Ethics, law of moses | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Law of Moses: War

Posted on May 3, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

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. Extermination.  Bible critics and even many believers have difficulty with God’s instructions to Israel concerning the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 7:1-5; 20:16-18).

Here are some things to remember.  First, God is sovereign.  Life, itself is a gift from God (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7; Job 1:21). 

Second, this is not without precedent.  Remember the flood (Genesis 6-8).  God, at times, performs surgery, cutting away evil for the greater good.

Third, the Canaanites were an extremely wicked people (Genesis 15:16; Leviticus 18:20-30; Deuteronomy 7:2b-4; 9:4-5).  Zondervan’s Pictorial Dictionary says (under the heading “cornerstone”), “Among the Canaanites, before the conquest of the land of Joshua, the laying of the foundation stone was accompanied by the dreadful rite of human sacrifice.  Numerous skeletons have been unearthed, especially those of tiny babies in earthen jars.” This is God’s judgment on an extremely wicked people. This is not genocide (Rahab and her family were spared. Therefore, this is not about race). 

Objection #1: What about the children?  (1) Let’s make a distinction between guilt of sin and consequences of sin.  Children may suffer consequences for their parents’ sins (Numbers 14:32-33). They do not bear the guilt of their parents’ sins (Ezekiel 18:20; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:11-13).  (2) God, no doubt, had His reasons.  It may be that He considered it more merciful than leaving these children without their parents.  It may be that it was to spare Israel a future rebellion, or to prevent the seeds of Canaanite corrupts from continuing with Israel (no doubt some of the children had already been influenced by their parents and their culture). Drew Leonard writes, “Maybe, Giod’s omniscience allowed Him to know that ‘assimilation’ in Israel wouldn’t have worked…Maybe, God saw ‘termination’ of life (being the author of life) as a better alternative to any other route to take with the Canaanite/Amalekite youth…Maybe, God saw this ‘exceptional’ situation in the same way He saw the global flood…Maybe-of this I’m sure- the ‘reason’ is hardly of a genocidal maniac but rather the actions of a Being that is working within the mess to arrange things to bring redemption into a fallen world?” (Drew Leonard, God, Genocide, Other Atrocities and Etc., drewleonard.com). Kyle Butt asked: Could it be that they were infested with STDs or genetic disease? (Kyle Butt, A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism, p. 207). We may not know the full reason.  It is ironic that many who object to God’s instruction have no problem with the human decision to take life by abortion and euthanasia.

Objection #2: What about the animals?  (1) God is sovereign.  (2) God, no doubt, had His reasons.  It may be that He did not want Israel to profit by receiving these animals.

Fourth, God was longsuffering.  He waited four hundred years, until their sins were full, before giving these instructions (Genesis 15:13-16).

Fifth, it appears that the Canaanites did not have to die.  They could be removed from the land. They could be driven out, removed from the land (cf. Exodus 23:27-33; Leviticus 18:24-28, notice esp. v. 25 cf. v. 28; Leviticus 20:22-23; Numbers 33:50-56, Deuteronomy 4:38). Drew Leonard suggests this maybe like Jeremiah 38:2,17 (ibid).

Sixth, some have suggested that hyperbolic language maybe in use (Joshua 10:40-42; 11:16-23; 14:12-15; 15:13-19; Judges 1:21, 27-28, 2:3). Drew Lenoard writes, “It is possible that the texts, themselves, demonstrate this ‘rhetorical tension’ since commands like ‘utterly destroy’ (Deuteronomy 7:2) are placed alongside ‘don’t marry or covenant with them’ (Deuteronomy 7:2-3)” (ibid). While there may be some hyperbole in the record, this does not explain everything.

2.  Rules.  It may surprise some that there were rules to warfare (e.g. Deuteronomy 20).

Here are a few rules.  First, cities (with the exception of Canaanite cities of the conquest) were to be provided opportunity to surrender (Deuteronomy 20:10-18).  Second, only trees which were not for food could be cut down (Deuteronomy 20:19-20).  They were not to destroy fruit bearing trees.  They were not to engage in a scorched earth operation.  Third, certain ones were exempted from military service (Deuteronomy 20:5-9; 24:5).  This included one who was newly married.  He was exempted from service for one year (Deuteronomy 24:5). 

3.  Female captives.  Women (non-Canaanites) taken captive in war could be married on certain conditions (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

First, if a soldier wanted a woman, he had the option of marrying her.  Dennis Prager comments, “So the Torah, in effect, said to the Israelite soldier, ‘If you desire a captive woman, you may have sexual relations with her, only if you marry her and meet other highly restrictive conditions” (The Rational Bible: Deuteronomy, p. 323).     Second, he had to wait a full month.  This would allow her time to mourn her separation from her father and mother, i.e. her people (Deuteronomy 21:13).  This also allowed time for the soldier to consider things.  Dennis Prager comments, “This provision imposed ‘brakes’ on what would otherwise have been an impulsive act” (ibid, p. 324). Third, her head was to be shaved and her nails trimmed (Deuteronomy 21:12).  Dennis Prager comments, “She was to be rendered less attractive… it was to help diminish the soldier’s immediate, and perhaps even long-term, desire for her” (ibid). Fourth, her clothing was to be changed (Deuteronomy 21:13).  James Burton Coffman comments, “Part of this was based on the custom of women about to be captured.  They arrayed themselves in the most gorgeous garments they possessed in order to be more attractive to their captor” (Deuteronomy, pp. 237-238).  Dennis Prager has another understanding.  He says, “She must dress like an Israelite civilian, not a captive, further humanizing her and elevating her status” (Prager, p. 325). 

                 

                 

Posted in Apologetics, Ethics, God's Sovereignty, Judgment, law of moses | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Law of Moses: Marriage

Posted on April 23, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

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.  God’s Plan.  God created one man and one woman (Genesis 1:26-28).  This forms the pattern for future marriages (Genesis 2:24-25).

Approximately 4,000 years later, when Jesus was asked about marriage – divorce – and remarriage, he returned to the pattern of creation (Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-9).  One man and one woman joined together so closely that they are called “one flesh,” this was/is God’s plan and ideal.

2.  Incest.  Marriage and/or sexual relations between certain ones of close relation was prohibited (Leviticus 18:6-18; 20:11-21; Deuteronomy 27:20-23).  This list includes: (1) parent and child, including stepparent and child (Leviticus 18:7-8; 20:11; Deuteronomy 27:20).  (2) brothers and sisters, including half-brother and half-sister (Leviticus 18:9,11; 20:17; Deuteronomy 27:22).  (3) grandparent and grandchild, including by marriage relation (Leviticus 18:10, 17).  (4) uncle and niece or aunt and nephew (Leviticus 18:12-14; 20:19-20).  (6) father-in-law and daughter-in-law or mother-in-law and son-in-law (Leviticus 18:15); 20:12; Deuteronomy 27:23; (7) brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Leviticus 18:16), levirate marriage is an exception (Deuteronomy 27:23); (8) marriage to the sister of one’s wife, during the wife’s lifetime (Leviticus 18:18); (9) marriage to a woman and her daughter or a woman and her granddaughter (Leviticus 18:17).

Critics point out that some of the great Bible characters married relatives.  (1) Cain must have married a sister or niece (Genesis 3:20; 5:1-4).  Moreover, it would not just be Cain, but all descendants of Adam and Eve must have done so, early in Biblical history.  (2) Noah’s family must have done so, following the flood (Genesis 9:1 cf. 6:13-22).  (3) Abram married Sarai, his half-sister (Genesis 20:12).  (4) Jacob married Leah and Rachel; they were sisters and his cousins (Genesis 24:29 cf. 29:15-30).  (5) Amram married Jochebed his aunt (Exodus 6:20).

Here are a few thoughts.  First, these marriage occurred before the Law of Moses was given.  There is no indication that these same marriages restrictions were in place at that time. 

Second, it may be that marrying close relation was not a great health risk early in Biblical history.  The Defending The Faith Study Bible comments on Cain’s wife saying, “It is generally assumed that the reason God outlawed incest… was due to the state of the human genome by the time of Moses, Incestuous relations significantly increased the likelihood of birth defects, as well as deleterious psychological problems… When God created Adam and Eve, however, their genomes were pristine – without defect… ultraviolet radiation (especially radiation from the flood) as well as other mutagens and DNA replication errors have increased the accumulation of mutations in the genome.  After over two millennia of genetic entropy, by the time of Moses the number of mutations within the human genome would have begin to make incest a dangerous practice… God stepped forward at the right time and prohibited the dangerous practice.” 

Third, we should understand that when the Bible records history, it does not always mean approval. However, In the marriages mentioned may well have been fully approved.  Again, they occurred long before there are any restrictions mentioned on marrying relatives. 

3.  Polygamy.  The Law of Moses regulated the practice (Exodus 21:10; Leviticus 18:17-18; Deuteronomy 17:14-17; 21:15-17).

This was not God’s ideal arrangement for the home.  He created one man and one woman (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:24-25).      However, it appears that God allowed polygamy under the Law of Moses, and before.  He, at times, seems to sanction it, or at least tolerate it (e.g. Genesis 30:1, 22; 2 Samuel 12:1-3, 7-8).  Kerry Duke has written, “Though some Old Testament marriages were composed of one man and several wives, they were marriages nonetheless.  Concubines were not adulteresses, but half-wives in terms of their right to be supported by their husbands.  That they were actually married is evident from the fact that the Levite’s concubine played the harlot against… her husband” (Leviticus 19:2-3).  Unless they were married, she could not have committed adultery against him, and he could not have been her husband” (Kerry Duke, Ox in The Ditch, p. 74).  Note: New Testament authority is lacking.

It is worth pointing out that polygamy has resulted in certain problems.  It has brought unrest into the family.  It did so in Abraham’s house (Genesis 16, 21; Galatians 4).  It did so in Jacob’s house (Genesis 29, 30, 37).  It did so in Gideon’s house (Judges 8-9).  It may have been a source of problems in David’s house (2 Samuel 13; 1 Kings 1-2). Furthermore, while a shortage of men, at times, may encourage polygamy (Isaiah 4:1), men who had many wives, like Solomon, must create a situation where many men cannot find a wife (1 Kings 11:1-3).

4.  Religion.  Mixed religious marriages were forbidden (Exodus 34:11-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-4).

This was not about race.  It was about faith.  Rahab, a Canaanite, and Ruth, a Moabite, are listed in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-6).  Both exhibited faith in the one true God (Joshua 1:8-ff; Ruth 4:16-17). 

5.  Levirate law.  This concerns the duty of a husband’s brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).  “Levirate” is from the Latin “levir,” meaning “husband’s brother.”

If a man died without having produced a son, then the next brother (who lived contemporaneous) was in line to marry her.  This practice predates the Law of Moses (Genesis 38:6-11).

The purpose?  (1) The firstborn son would carry on the lineage of the deceased husband.  This included inheritance and property rights.  (2) This provided a way for the widow to stay in the family, and receive economic support. 

The husband’s brother could refuse to marry her (Deuteronomy 25:7-10).  If he refused, she could bring him before the elders of the city.  If after they spoke to him he still refused, then she could publicly shame him.  (1) She would remove his sandal from his foot.  This seems to signify that he had forfeited marriage rights (Albert Barnes cf. Ruth 4:7-8; Psalm 60:8; 108:9).  (2) She would spit in his face.  This was designed to publicly shame him (cf. Numbers 12:14).  She then would be free to marry another (Ruth 4:1-10). 

Could the woman refuse to marry the brother-in-law?  This is not explicitly stated.  However, it seems that a woman had a choice whether or not to accept (cf. Genesis 24:58).

6.  Divorce.  If a divorce took place, then a certificate of divorce was to be given (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). 

There has been much controversy over what is meant by “he has found some uncleanness in her.’ (1) Some in Jesus’ day thought that one could divorce over anything found to be unpleasing to him in his mate.  The word “unclean” (ervah) may refer to things other than sexual sin.  It may refer to something unpleasing (Deuteronomy 23:12-14).  (2) Others thought that one could only divorce for some sexual sin, perhaps only for fornication.  Forms of the word are applied to unlawful sexual activity (Leviticus 18:6-ff); 20:18-19).

A certificate of divorce was to be given.  This did a couple of things.  (1) It slowed things down.  Dennis Prager comments, “It… served to prevent a man from banishing his wife on the spur of the moment: forcing him to go through a legal process meant he would have time to calmly reconsider his decision” (The Rational Bible, Deuteronomy, p. 380).  (2) It made public the divorce. 

If the divorced woman remarried, then the previous husband could never take her back.  Verse 4 is really the major point.  Verses 1-3 form the protasis, which specifies the conditions.  Verse 4 forms the apodosis, the consequence.  Why could he not take her back?  Perhaps, it is designed to cause a man to think twice before divorcing. 

7.  Adultery.  It is expressly forbidden (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18).

Fidelity in marriage is expected.  Adultery was grounds for divorce (Jeremiah 3:8 cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  It could also result in the death penalty under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 22:22).

                           

Posted in Apologetics, law of moses, Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Law of Moses: Children (Continued)

Posted on April 9, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

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.

6.  Value of life.  The unborn appears to be valued, and even counted as life (Exodus 21:22-25).

This passage is fiercely debated in the abortion controversy.  There are two major questions concerning this passage.  (1) What does yahtzah mean?  Does it refer to premature birth or miscarriage?  It is translated “her fruit depart” (KJV, ASV); “she gives birth prematurely” (NKJV, NASB, NIV); “her children come” (ESV); “there is a miscarriage” (Douay-Rheims, RSV, NRSV); “her child is born imperfectly formed” (LXX).  (2) To whom does harm refer?  Does it refer to harm to the mother, harm to the child, or harm to the mother and/or the child?

The following positions emerge from how one answers these questions.  (1) Some believe that this refers to miscarriage.  A fine is to be paid.  Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, stripe for stripe refers to harm which occurs to the woman.  There are difficulties with this view.  First, the word yahtzah (or yatsa) means, “go out, forth” (BDBG).  “It is used in the Old Testament for everything from soldiers going forth to war (1 Samuel 8:20), or the sun going forth in its rising (Genesis 19:23), to a flower blossoming (Job 14:2), or the birth of a child (Job 1:21)” (Dave Miller, Abortion and Exodus 21, apologeticspress.org).  There is nothing in the word which demands that this refers to a miscarriage.  Second, there are other words in Hebrew which would more clearly suggest miscarriage (e.g. shakal, or sakal, Genesis 31:38; Job 21:10; Hosea 9:14; nehphel Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Ecclesiastes 6:3).  These words were not used.  Third, the word “fruit” (KJV, Hebrew yehled or yeled) is the ordinary word for a child born.  “There is nothing in the word itself that indicate the physical condition of the child/children whether dead or alive” (Dave Miller).

Kerry Duke points out that even if this refers to a miscarriage it in no way proves an unborn child is less than human.  He writes, “the mere fact that the offender was not capitally punished… fails to establish that a fetus was subhuman in value because the death portrayed was unintentional.  But if the mother’s death was also accidental, why did her death occasion a more severe penalty?… In terms of family roles, the death of the mother would be a greater loss than the death of the unborn infant.  If the fetus dies, the family will grieve; but if the mother dies, the husband and other children who may have been born into the family suffer the loss of inestimable needs provided by her” (Kerry Duke, Ox in the Ditch, p. 130).  This may be true.  However, on what basis should this be understood to refer to “life for life” to the mother alone? 

(2) Some believe that this is a premature birth.  A fine is to be paid.  However “life for a life” refers to harm to the mother.  There are problems with this view.  First, there is nothing grammatically or textually which restricts “life for life” to the mother alone.  Second, if this is the meaning, then there is nothing in the text which addresses any harm which follows the child that is born. 

(3) Some believe that this refers to the child.  “Life for life…” is understood to refer to the child alone.  There are difficulties with this view.  First, there is no good reason grammatically or textually to restrict these words to the child.  Second, if this is the meaning then there is nothing in the text which addresses any harm which follows the mother. 

Philo Judaeus (20 B.C. – 40 A.D.) understood this to refer to miscarriage.  He suggested that the fine was for the child still unformed and unfashioned.  The “life for life…” was for the child that had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts (The Special Laws Vol. 3, Chp. 19, #108).  There certainly is nothing in the text which supports this distinction between the unformed and formed child. 

(4) It seems to me that this is best understood to refer to harm which follows the mother and/or the child.  I agree with the comments of Dennis Prager.  He says, “It seems clear that the verses are saying: If the mother gives birth and there is no harm to either her or to the children, the husband goes to court, which fines the man who induced premature birth.  But if there is harm (ason) – whether injury or death – to either the children or the mother, then punishment is life for life, eye for eye, etc.” (The Rational Bible: Exodus, p. 297).   [For a review of each position, see Christian Ethics: Options and Issues by Norman L. Geisler, Chapter 8].

It is clear from ancient Jewish and Christian writings that it was believed that God valued unborn life.  Josephus (37-100 A.D.), “The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten or destroy it afterward; and if a woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child” (Against Apion Book 2, Section 25).  Tertullian (c. 150 – 220 A.D.), “But Christians now are so far from homicide, that with them it is utterly unlawful to take away a child in the womb… to kill a child before it is born is to commit murder by way of advance; and there is no difference whether you destroy a child in its formation, or after it is formed and delivered” (Apology, Chapter 9).  Many other examples could be provided. Even Maimonides (1138-1204) said, “A son of Noah who killed a person, even a fetus in its womb, is capitally liable” (Prager, Exodus, p. 298 quoting Hilkhot Melakkim 9:4; 10:11). 

Posted in Abortion, Ethics, law of moses, life, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment