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

A Harbinger of the End of Time

Posted on April 4, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

What is an eclipse?  “An eclipse happens when a planet or a moon gets in the way of the sun’s light.  Here on Earth, we can experience two kinds of eclipses: Solar eclipse and lunar eclipses” (Lunar Eclipses and Solar Eclipses, spaceplace.nasa.gov).  A lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth blocks sunlight from reaching the moon.  A solar eclipse occurs when the moon blocks sunlight from reaching the earth. 

How frequently can one see a total eclipse?  A total lunar eclipse “can be seen from any given location – on average – once every 2.5 years” (What are Lunar Eclipses and How Often do They Occur by Daisy Dobrijevic, space.com).  A total solar eclipse is much more rare.  “On average, the same spot on Earth only sees a (total) solar eclipse for a few minutes about every 375 years!” (Lunar Eclipses and Solar Eclipses, spaceplace.nasa.gov).  More precisely, “On average for the whole Earth, the answer is 375 years… It actually depends on whether the spot is in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere.  If in the north, the answer is that a total solar eclipse occur in a place on average about once every 330 years.  In the south, however, it was once per 540 years.” (What Are Solar Eclipses and How Often do They Occur? By Michael E. Bakrich, astronomy.com).  The difference is explained to be due to each hemisphere’s distance in its summer to the Sun (perihelion v. aphelion).

   A total eclipse, whether lunar or solar, is an amazing phenomenon.  Let’s consider a couple of things in history.  (1) Christopher Columbus and crew became stranded in Jamaica due to shipworm damage.  They were stranded for about a year (June, 1503 – June, 1504).  At first the natives, the Arawak Indians, welcomed them, even providing food and shelter.  However, relationships became strained in time due to the conduct of his crew and a short supply of food.  Columbus, reading Regiomantus’ Almanac, realized that there would be a lunar eclipse on February 29, 1504.  He met with the Arawak Chief and informed him that the Christian God was angry with the Arawak for not supplying his men with food.  In three nights the moon would be made to appear “inflamed with wrath.”  When this happened they asked Columbus to intercede.  The moon returned to normal.  The food supply was restored.  (How a Total Lunar Eclipse Saved Christopher Columbus by Joe Rao, space.com). 

(2) Albert Einstein proposed the general theory of relativity in 1915.  He suggested that masses in the universe caused space to curve.  He predicted that light from a distant star should bend when near the sun.  this was tested by observation in a total eclipse on May 29, 1919.  English astronomers Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson organized two expeditions to observe the total eclipse.  One team set up in Sobral, Brazil.  The other team set up on the island of Principe off the west coast of Africa.  Photographs were taken.  Frank Dyson announced on November 6, 1919 to the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society “After careful study of the plates, I am prepared to say that there can be no doubt that they confirm Einstein’s predictions” (Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, p. 261). 

Is this eclipse of 2024 a message from God for America to repent?  I have heard many such claims.  There is no doubt that America, and many Christians, need to repent.  However, long ago, Peter wrote, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3).  Scripture equips man “for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Is the 2024 eclipse a harbinger of the end of time?  I have heard many such claims.  The Bible tells us that Jesus’ coming will be like a thief in the night (Matthew 24:42-44; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-2).  No one knows when He will come again (Matthew 24:36).  We are told to watch and be ready (Matthew 24:42, 44; 25:13).

What about the sun being darkened and the moon not giving light, and the stars falling from heaven? (Matthew 24:29).  This is prophetic language of the downfall of a nation (cf. Isaiah 13:1, 9-10).  It has nothing to do with literal eclipses.  In Matthew the reference is to the fall of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-2, 34).  My suggestion is this: Instead of looking for signs, let’s simply always be ready.

Posted in end times, Nature, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Law of Moses: Children

Posted on March 26, 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.  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). 

Posted in Apologetics, Family, law of moses, Parenting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Law of Moses: Women

Posted on March 21, 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.   Value of Life.  A woman was protected by law (Genesis 1:26-27 cf. Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:20; 21:26-27; 21:28-32).

Both male and female were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27 cf. 9:6).  Lex Talionis was for both he male and the female (e.g. Exodus 21:20, 26-27, 28-32). 

Another text worth consideration is Exodus 21:22-25. There is a question whether the harm which follows refers to: (1) harm to the mother; (2) harm to the child; or (3) harm to the mother and/or the child (we will consider children in this series).  I hold to the third position.  If either position one or position three is correct, then this is another passage which applies lex talionis to women. 

2.  Test of Virginity (Deuteronomy 21:13-21).    The situation set forth is as follows.  A man marries a woman.  He soon regrets doing so.  In order to get out without a lot of embarrassment and possibly expense, he claims that she misrepresented her virginity when she married him.  Dennis Prager comments, “In the time of the Torah, a man would pay a sum of money to a woman’s father in exchange for her hand in marriage.  If she was a virgin, the bride-price was substantially higher than if she was not… This husband, for whatever reason, has what today might be called ‘buyer’s remorse,’ and has publicly sullied his wife’s reputation with the made-up charge that she lied about her virginity… Why would a man resort to defamation rather than divorce?  Because as Wright points out, charging his wife with deceiving him about her virginity would enable him to ‘presumably reclaim the bridal gift he had paid to the father.’” (The Rational Bible: Deuteronomy, p. 345).

The wife’s parents were allowed to produce evidence of their daughter’s virginity.  Dennis Prager explains, “In ancient cultures (and in some to this day), it was customary for a newly married couple to consummate their union on a white cloth.  Given the bleeding that often accompanies a woman’s first intercourse, blood would appear on the white cloth.  This was then turned over to the parents as proof of their daughter’s virginity… such bleeding is not universal, however.  There are many reasons a hymen might be torn long before a young woman has ever had a sexual encounter (riding horseback, for example)… the primary reason for these laws was to protect the wife” (Deuteronomy, p. 346-347). 

There were consequences to lying.  (1) If the man’s accusation were found to be false, then he was to be flogged, fined, and never given the option of divorcing this woman.  (2) If the young woman could be found to have lied, then she could be stoned.  While blood is not a perfect medical test of virginity, it was the best available.  If she could not produce cloth evidence then it seems that further investigation would have occurred.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  No one was to be convicted without adequate evidence (cf. Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:15 Numbers 35:30).  There is no record of this ever being carried out in Israelite history. 

3.  Test of Unfaithful Wife (Numbers 5:11-31).  The situation set forth is as follows.  A jealous husband suspects that his wife has been unfaithful.  However, he has no evidence.  He could bring his wife to the priest.  The priest could administer a bitter water test.  It appears that the wife must agree to submit to such (cf. Numbers 5:16-22).  James Burton Coffman points out, “The vast difference between this ordeal and the countless ordeals of paganism is that this one is not in itself injurious but depends for its efficacy upon the direct interposition of God” (Studylight).     The result of the ordeal?  (1) If she were innocent, then she would not be harmed by the bitter water (Numbers 5:19, 28).  She may conceive children (Numbers 5:28).  (2) If she were guilty, then harm would come to her (Numbers 5:20-22, 27).  Her belly would swell and her thigh would rot.  Dub McClish comments, “God supernaturally made His knowledge of the respective innocence or guilt of those tried by acting on the ‘bitter water’ to produce the cursed effect in the case of the guilty… It is possible that ‘thigh’ is here to produce the cursed effect in the case of the guilty… It is possible that ‘thigh’ is here used as a euphemism for the reproductive organs, particularly the womb, due to their close proximity to the thigh” (The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, editor David Brown, The Eleventh Annual Southwest Lectures, p. 272). 

This law seems to be given to protect women against false accusations.  There is no record of this test (ordeal) ever being administered in the Bible. 

3.  Flow.  A woman was considered unclean during her menstruation (Leviticus 15:19-30; 18:19; Also Ezekiel 18:6; 22:10).

Why was a woman considered unclean during her menstrual flow?  God does not explain the reason.  However, consider these things.  (1) It should be kept in mind that “uncleanness” was not the same as sin.  (2) It was not the woman alone.  The man was also regarded as unclean if he had an emission of semen (Leviticus 15:16-18).  (3) Some have suggested that this had to do with the sanctity of blood (cf. Leviticus 17:11).  This is possible.  However, it would not explain the law concerning emission.  Admittedly, the reason for each may be different.

Why was there to be no sexual intercourse during this time?  The reason is not given.  However, some have speculated.  (1) Some believe that there may be health reasons.  Dave Miller writes, “There is some debate in the medical community over whether or not intercourse during menstruation increases the risk for exposure to Pelvic Inflammatory Disease… Blood, of course, can be a significant medium for bacteria and infectious disease.  As one medical authority noted: ‘Intercourse during menses and frequent intercourse may offer more opportunities for the admission of pathogenic organisms to the inside of the uterus’ [Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (2001), Joseph F. Smith Medical Library, chclibrary.org]” (Dave Miller, Sexual Anarchy, p. 72).  (2) Some have suggested that this was out of compassion for the woman.  Dave Miller writes, “the injunction could possibly have been intended to emphasize… the importance of the husband being thoughtful and considerate toward his wife during a difficult time of the month” (Miller, p. 72).  (3) While we may not know the reason, this is not sufficient evidence to deny the Bible’s claim of inspiration. 

4.  Men and women found in unlawful intercourse.  Different situations are considered in the law (Deuteronomy 22:22-29).     (1) Adultery was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:22).  This applied to both the man and the woman.  Adultery was considered a very serious crime.  It attacked the stability of the home.  There is no Biblical record of anyone ever being put to death for adultery.  Remember that there had to be witnesses (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:15). (2) Faithfulness was also expected in the case of the betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-27).  The death penalty applied to both the man and the woman.  However, wisdom was to be used to discern whether this was consensual sex or rape.  For example: could the woman alert others?  If she could not, then she was presumed innocent. (3)  Then there is the case of the unmarried and unbetrothed (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).  If they were discovered, the death penalty was not on the table.  The man was fined.  The woman could become his wife (Deuteronomy 22:29 cf. Exodus 22:16-17).  If she did, then he could never divorce her. 

This last case has troubled more than a few.  (1) Some think that rape, and not consensual sex, is in view. For instance, John MacArthur holds this position (The MacArthur Bible Commentary). Leeor Gottlieb defends this view saying, “This served as an important deterrent against rape (because if caught, the man would be forced to undertake a huge financial and personal obligation), and in the case rape occurred, it was a life insurance police for the woman. The need for this insurance policy is that public knowledge of her no longer being a virgin reduced her chances of finding a good marriage” (Dennis Prager, Deuteronomy, p.354).

HOWEVER, I am not convinced that this refers to rape.  Consider: (a) It does say, “he seizes her and lies with her” (Deuteronomy 22:28).  However, I am not convinced that “seizes” (tapas) implies rape.  The Defending The Faith Study Bible comments, “The Hebrew word in this case translated “seizes” (tapas) can mean many things.”  It means “take” or “lay hold on.”  However, it does not demand that this refers to rape.  Though, some translations have so rendered it (NIV, NLT).  (b) In an earlier situation, rape was in view (Deuteronomy 22:25-26). It says, “the man forces her and lies with her” (Deuteronomy 22:25).  The Hebrew word translated “forces” (chazag) is different.  Why change words (v. 25 cf. v. 28)?  (c) It says, “they were found out” (Deuteronomy 22:28).  The Defending the Faith Study Bible comments, “When verse 25 discusses the obvious case of rape the text mentions only the man when it says, “then only the man who lay with her,” and conspicuously leaves out an indication of ‘they’…”

(2) Some reading the text in Deuteronomy alone conclude that the woman had to marry the man. There was no option.

I do not believe this is the case, when more of the law is included.  It appears that the father had a choice in the matter (cf. Exodus 22:16-17), and probably the woman as well (cf. Genesis 24:58).

Why this law?  (1) Some think that this was designed to discourage rape and help provide the woman with some financial security.  (2) I believe that this refers to consensual pre-marital sex (cf. Exodus 22:16-17).  It was not to be taken lightly. It was designed to discourage premarital sex. The man could be required to marry the woman.

Posted in law of moses, Sex, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Law of Moses: Men

Posted on March 14, 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.  Circumcision.  Male Hebrew children were to be circumcised (Leviticus 12:1-8 cf. Genesis 17:9-14).

Why?  It was to be a sign of the covenant between the LORD and Abraham, and his descendants (Genesis 17:9-11).  It was a constant reminder of the blessings which God promised through Abraham (cf. Genesis 12:1-3; 17:1-8).  William Grasham comments, “God evidently commanded circumcision as a special sign for the benefit of the one who was circumcised.  Every time he had an awareness of his body, he was reminded that he was one of the covenant people of God” (Truth For Today Commentary: Genesis Vol. 1, p. 485).   

Circumcision was to be done on the 8th day of the child’s life.  Why the 8th day?  (1) Some have suggested that it implies human participation.  Dennis Prager comments, “By being performed on the eighth day, circumcision comes to symbolize man’s part in creation.  God created for six days and rested on the seventh; on the eighth day, we humans take over” (The Rational Bible: Exodus, p. 204).  That is: we now have a role to play. Perhaps, but this is not abundantly clear. (2) There seems to be medical reasons.  Bert Thompson and Wayne Jackson write, “Why the eighth day?  In 1935 Professor H. Dam proposed the name for ‘Vitamin K’ for the factor in foods with help prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks.  We now know that vitamin K is responsible for the production of prothrombin by the liver.  If vitamin K is deficient there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur, since both vitamin K and prothrombin are necessary for proper blood clotting.  Oddly enough, it is only on the 5th through 7th days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K begins to be produced (the vitamin is normally produced by bacteria action in the intestinal tract).  It is only on day eight that the percentage of prothrombin climbs above 100% of normal!  The only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is that high is day eight.  The best day for a surgical procedure like circumcision is therefore day eight.  Another lucky guess?” (A Study Course in Christian Evidence, p. 130). 

2.  Pilgrimage.  Males were to attend three great annual feasts (Exodus 23:14-17; 34:22-24; Deuteronomy 16:16-17). 

This was a real test of faith.  It would be a prime opportunity for enemies to invade.  However, God promised, “neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year” (Exodus 34:24).  Thomas Horne has said, “their most vigilant enemies never invaded them during the sacred season” (Wayne Jackson, A Study of the Providence of God, p. 10). 

3.  Provisions.  Marriage came with responsibilities.  At minimum the husband should provide food, clothing, and marriage (conjugal) rights (Exodus 21:7-11).

The woman in view was first bought as a slave (we will consider slavery in another article).  Then, she is betrothed to the master or his son.  (1) If the master decides not to marry her, then she may be redeemed.  (2) If she is betrothed to his son, then she is to be treated as a daughter.  (3) If marriage occurs, but then the man takes another wife, basic rights are not to be diminished.  If her basic rights were diminished, she had the right to go free without returning the purchase money.  James Burton Coffman comments, “The class of persons protected by these God-given rights was that of secondary wives or concubines” (studylight.org).  Polygamy and concubinage was never God’s ideal plan for marriage.  This and other laws were designed to protect the poor and women.

However, the rights of women are not what I want to focus on at this point.  Instead, I want to focus on male responsibility.  He is to provide for his wife. He owes her this.

4.  Low blow.  Grasping male genitals was not a lawful way to fight, even when one was defending another (Deuteronomy 25:11-12). 

Why?  Dennis Prager offers these suggestions: (1) “Many scholars note that this law relates to the preceding one because both deal with a man’s ability to father a child.”  (2) “It was regarded by the ancient rabbis – as well as by modern non-Jewish scholars – as an example of lex talionis.”  If the man had done this to another man something other than a hand would fit lex talionis. However, this is not an option with the woman.  (3) “Most scholars also believe this verse refers to a case in which the woman’s husband was not in mortal danger.  Had he been in mortal danger, and if what the wife did was necessary to save his life, the Talmud (not to mention common sense) exempts the woman from punishment.” This may seem like a lot of assumptions. However, we should remember that the use of force to defend oneself or others from serious harm or death seems permitted (Genesis 14:1-ff; Exodus 2:2:11-12 cf. Acts 7:23-25; Exodus 22:2-3; Acts 23:11-ff). (4) “Finally, most scholars agree that… the woman is described as having injured the man’s genitalia savagely enough to endanger his ability to reproduce.  As having children is a central value in the Torah, depriving someone of the ability to do so is a serious sin” (The Rational Bible: Deuteronomy, pp. 396-398).  Furthermore, I would add that there is no record of this being carried out anywhere in scripture. This may have been set forth as a deterrent and to protect men’s vulnerability.

5.  Eunuchs.  They were excluded from entering the assembly of the LORD (Deuteronomy 23:1).

Why?  James Burton Coffman comments, “the reasons are not clear to us.  It could be the widespread use of eunuchs in the pagan religions of the times lay behind this prohibition” (studylight.org).

Keep in mind that God’s offer for salvation is for all, even eunuchs (cf. Isaiah 56:3-8).  Remember the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-ff). 

Posted in Apologetics, law of moses, Scientific Foreknowledge | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

President’s Day

Posted on February 19, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

What is known popularly as President’s Day or Presidents’ Day started in the late 1800’s to honor George Washington.  It was observed on his birthday, February 22, after being signed into law by Rutherford B. Hays in 1879.  The holiday initially was only observed in the District of Columbia, but in 1885 it was expanded to the whole country.  The Uniform Monday Holiday Act of 1968 shifted the observance to the third Monday of February, effective in 1971.  This allowed for a consistent three-day weekend.  Ironically, this made it impossible for the holiday to ever fall on Washington’s actual birthday. 

What are we celebrating?  Many people believe that the holiday is designed to honor both George Washington’s birthday (February 22) and Abraham Lincoln’s birthday (February 12).  This may be true in some states.  However, the federal holiday officially celebrates Washington’s birthday.  Others believe that the holiday is designed to honor all who have served as President.  This may be true colloquially.  However, the federal holiday officially is a celebration of Washington’s birthday.

How do we spell the holiday?  Some spell it Presidents Day.  Others spell it President’s Day.  Still others spell it Presidents’ Day.  This may depend on the state in which you live.  However, the federal holiday is still officially Washington’s birthday (Holidays, commerce.gov).

George Washington set many precedents for future Presidents.  (1) He appointed a cabinet.  (2) He proposed legislation to Congress.  (3) He had people address him as “Mr. President.”  Some wanted to address the President with exalted titles such as “His Excellency” or “His Highness, the Protector of our Liberties.”  (4) He presented the annual State of the Union report,  required by the Constitution, as a personal speech delivered to Congress.  Thomas Jefferson would break this precedent by sending his report over to be read by clerks in each house of Congress.  Woodrow Wilson revived the precedent.  It has generally been delivered in person since then.  (5) He hosted dinner parties with invited guests.  (6) He had retreats to Mount Vernon.  (7) He retired after serving eight years.  Franklin D. Roosevelt is the only President to be elected more than two terms; he was elected four times.  The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution was ratified in 1951.  This limits the number of terms one can be elected to two terms (Presidential Precedents by Mary Stockwell, Ph.D, mountvernon.org).

[Historical Sources: Presidents’ Day 2024, history.com; What is Presidents Day? How One President’s Day Became Presidents’ Day by Remy Tumin, February 22, 2023, nytimes.com; George Washington’s Birthday, mountvernon.org; Holidays, commerce.gov; Presidential Precedents, mountvernon.org].

Christians should be good, obedient citizens.  Consider: (1) “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1); (2) “I exhort… that supplications, prayers, intercession, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for Kings and all who are in authority, that we may led a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Timothy 2:1); (3) “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak  evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle showing all humility to all men” (Titus 3:1-2).  (4) “Therefore submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to King as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do good.  For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:13-15).  So long as government is not standing in the way of our serving God, we are to live submissively (cf. Acts 4:19-20; 5:28-29; Daniel 3; Daniel 6).

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