Law of Moses: Property

Posted on January 23, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

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

1.  Property boundaries.  Landmarks or boundary marks were not to be moved (Deuteronomy 19:14; 27:17; Also, Proverbs 22:28;23:10).

Let’s clarify the meaning of a couple of words.  The word “landmark” (KJV, NKJV) refers to a “boundary mark” (NASB).  The word “remove” (KJV, NKJV) may be better rendered in our modern English “move” (NASB, ESV). 

The moving of boundary markers between you and your neighbor to enlarge your land was a means of theft.  The Torah recognized and protected private property (e.g. Deuteronomy 5:19; 19:14; 20:5; 23:25; 27:17).

2.  Property defense.  Property owners were allowed to defend their property (Exodus 22:1-4).

Why the distinction between night and day?  The E.S.V. Study Bible suggests, “This condition distinguishes between what is permissible retaliation when a thief is caught breaking in during the night (v. 2) vs. during the day (v. 3).  The stipulation protects both the one who is surprised by a thief at night (v. 2) and the thief himself, who could be identified during the day and should be brought to the judges for punishment (vv. 3b, 4).”  This seems to be a reasonable answer.

3.  Property responsibilities.  Ownership came with certain responsibilities (Exodus 21:28-32, 33-34, 35-36; Deuteronomy 22:8).

(a) One was to make a parapet on his roof for the safety of others (Deuteronomy 22:8).  Dennis Prager comments, “A parapet is a barrier along the perimeter of a roof.  In the ancient Near East roofs were generally flat, and people spent much time on them – resting, eating, sitting, and speaking with family and friends… The Talmud sees this verse as the basis for outlawing the keeping of dangerous items or animal in one’s house, such as a rickety ladder or a vicious dog” (The Rational Bible: Deuteronomy, p. 341). Negligent harm and negligent homicide were to be avoided. Life was considered precious.

(b) Ownership or animals come with responsibility.  (1) If one’s animal destroy or kill another’s property (e.g. servant, animal), then there was financial responsibility (Exodus 21:32, 35-36).  (2) If one’s animal killed someone, and if the animal had a known history of aggressive behavior, then the animal owner was to be held guilty.  He could be punished with death or have a redemption price placed on him for his life (Exodus 21:28-31). It was the owner’s responsibility to protect the public.

“Son” and “daughter” are mentioned (Exodus 21:31).  Why?  Dennis Prager comments, “Until about 1900, this verse caused quite a bit of confusion; it read like a non-sequitur… What does it matter if the victim of the attack was someone’s son or daughter?  However, with the discovery of related ancient semitic legal codes at the turn of the twentieth century, it became clear that this law was intended to distinguish the Torah law from contemporaneous codes, which ruled that if a man’s ox killed another man’s son or daughter, then the son or daughter of the ox owner would be killed.  The Torah, therefore, expressly forbids such reciprocal vicarious punishment (see also Deuteronomy 24:16).  No matter who is killed, it is the ox’s owner alone who is punished, and not his son or daughter” (Exodus, p. 308). Consider: The Hammurabi code of laws (18th century Babylon) says, “229. If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls and kills its owner, then the builder shall be put to death. 230. If it kills the son of the owner, the son of the builder shall be put to death.” (Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, adapted from the L.W. King translation, faculty.collin.edu).

(c) If one dug or uncovered a pit and left it open, then another’s animal fell into the pit and was killed, the owner of the pit was financially responsible for the loss (Exodus 21:33).  Dangerous hazards were not to be carelessly left.

4.  Property use.  One was not to let his animals graze on another’s land (Exodus 22:4). 

Dennis Prager comments, “Neighbors often make such arrangements in which they agree to allow their livestock to graze on one another’s property.  This verse is referring only to the land of those people who have not granted such permission” (Exodus, p. 313).  Once again property rights are maintained. 

                  

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

Law of Moses: Farming

Posted on January 18, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

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

1.  Let the land rest.  The land was to be left fallow each seventh year (Leviticus 25:3-5). 

Why?  This may have been to test their faith in the providence of God.  If so, Israel failed this test (Leviticus 26:33-35; 2 Chronicles 36:20-21). 

However, this, also, may have been given to Israel for their own physical well-being, and for the health and productivity of the land.  Overuse of the land can bring serious problems.    Consider the American “Dust Bowl.”  Kyle Butt writes, “The late 1920’s had seen a huge demand for wheat, and many farmers in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Kansas planted crops year after year.  What they failed to factor into their farming practices was the fact that the land could not sustain growth of the same crop repeatedly without a period of rejuvenation.  Nutrients and bacteria (specifically, nitrogen-fixing bacteria) that had been removed from the land as a result of the never-ending sowing and reaping cycles needed time to be replaced.  But the farmers did not allow the land that precious time, and as a result, the grasses that normally grew in the fields to protect the land from erosion were unable to do so. When matters were complicated by a severe drought and dangerous windstorms in the region, the ground was too weak, and too fragile, to sustain either itself or its crops.  Huge gusts of… winds… swept away millions of tons of valuable topsoil” (Kyle Butt, Let the Land Rest, apologeticspress.org).

2.  Yoking and muzzling.  The ox and the donkey were not to be yoked together (Deuteronomy 22:10).  The ox was not to be muzzled while it was treading out grain (Deuteronomy 25:4).

Why?  It is fairly easy to infer that this was out of compassion and mercy for the animal (cf. Proverbs 12:10).  (1) The ox and the donkey are different in size, strength, stamina, and even pace of walk.  (2) Not muzzling the ox may also be out of concern for the animal.  Dennis Prager comments, “Jewish law understands this prohibition as applying to any working animal, not only an ox. It is cruel to muzzle an animal and thereby prevent it from eating food it is seeing, smelling and hungering for” (Deuteronomy, p. 393). [Some suggest that the ox may be borrowed. One source comments, “Deuteronomy 25:4 in context is … a law about how to properly treat the property you are borrowing or renting from someone. Seen in this light, v. 4 fits the original context quite well. Otherwise, the verse is an anomaly which seems to stand out.” (Do Not Muzzle the Ox by Justin Taylor, thegospelcoalition.org). This is an interesting theory. The text does not specify this, and I do not know that the inference is correct. Although, the surrounding instructions do seem to concern relationships between people (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, 5,6,7,8-9,10-13,14-15,16,17,19-22; 25:1-3, 5-10, 11-12,13-16). This would also help explain the motive for the muzzling, i.e., someone wants the work without the cost of feeding an ox that does not belong to him].

However, the application is much greater than concern for animals.  (1) Christians are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14-ff). The reference, in context, has to do with being joined in idolatry. (2) A laborer is worthy of pay (1 Corinthians 9:8-12; 1 Timothy 5:17-18). 

3.  Mixing seed.  The seed of different kinds were not to be sowed together (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9).  One kind of livestock was not to be crossbred with another kind (Leviticus 19:19).  Note: Kind (kilayim) is not the same word which appears in Genesis one (min).

Why?  We are not told.  We do not know.  Though many suggestions have been offered.  (1) Some suggest this may have been in response to some idolatrous practice.  (2) Some suggest that this is amoral commandment given to test obedience.  (3) Some suggest that this was given to provide a visible distinction between Israel and other nations.  It would remind them of their uniqueness in the world.  (4) Still others have suggested that this may have been a visual aid to teach a spiritual lesson, i.e., things which God distinguishes should be distinguished.

Let’s make application for us.  The seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11).  When the church assembles to worship, or when we evangelize let us not mix seed.  God’s word should not be mixed with other seed, e.g. the commandments of man, the traditions of men, politics, jingoism, investments or medical advice (no matter how sound), human philosophies, or anything else.  Doing so creates confusion, unnecessary conflicts, and takes away from what we should be focused, and trying to accomplish.

4.  Remember the poor.  Leave something for those in need (Leviticus 19:9; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-21). Ruth gleaned from the fields of Boaz (Ruth 2).  Jesus’ disciples plucked grain (Matthew 12:1).

God cares about the poor.  So should we.  Jesus said that how we treat those in need is how we treat him (Matthew 25:31-46). 

5.  Remember the Sabbath.  Do so even when you are busy.  Do so “in plowing time and in harvest” (Exodus 34:21).

While emergency circumstances may come up (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:4; Matthew 12:11; Luke 14:5), ordinary work was not to keep them from observing the Sabbath.  This was true even in the busiest times of their year.

What about us?  Do we take time to assemble with the saints and worship even when we are busy?  We should (Acts 2:42; Hebrews 10:24-25).

                   

                 

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

Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Posted on January 15, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

   Here are some basic biographic facts.  (1) Early life.  He was born Michael King Jr. on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia.  His parents were Michael King Sr. and Alberta Williams King.  He grew up attending the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.  He father and his maternal grandfather served as “pastors” in this church.  His father changed their names to Martin Luther King after a visit to Germany.  (2) Education.  He graduated high school at the age of fifteen.  He received a B.A. in sociology from Morehouse College (Atlanta), a B. Div. from Crozer Theological Seminary (Upland, Pennsylvania), and a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Boston University.  (3) Work.  He served as the “pastor” of the Dexter Ave. Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama (1954-1959) and “co-pastor” of the Ebenezer Baptist Church Atlanta, Georgia (1960-1968).  (4) Civil Rights.  He led the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott.  He served as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).  The conference organized nonviolent protests for civil rights reform.  His house was bombed on January 30, 1956.  No one was injured.  He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.  He was assassinated on April 4, 1968, while standing on the second-floor balcony of the Lorrain Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. 

Martin Luther King Jr. is a controversial figure.  He is beloved by many and despised by others.  “King’s life had a seismic impact on race relations in the United States.  Years after his death, he is the most widely known African American leaders of his era. His life and work have been honored with a national holiday, streets, schools and public buildings are named after him, and a memorial… in Washington D.C..  But his life remains controversial as well.  In the 1970’s FBI files, released under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that he was under government surveillance, and suggested his involvement in adulterous relationships and communist influences.  Over the years, extensive archival studies have led to a more balanced and comprehensive assessment of his life, portraying him as a complex figure: flawed, fallible, and limited in his control over the mass movements with which he was associated, yet, a visionary leader who was deeply committed to achieving social justice through non-violent means.  In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill creating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a federal holiday honoring the legacy of the slain civil rights leader.  Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was first celebrated in 1986, and in all 50 states in 2000” (Martin Luther King Jr., biography.com, this is the way the quote read on Jan. 9, 2024).  Theologically, there are many differences that I have with the man.

However, I want to consider something he said with which all Christians should be able to agree.  He said in his “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered on August 28, 1963 from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial something very beautiful.  He said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  This agrees with Peter’s words, “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.  But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35).  May we so live.

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

Law of Moses: Sanitation

Posted on January 10, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

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

1.  Human waste.  Human waste was to be buried outside the camp (Deuteronomy 23:12-13).

Many diseases could be avoided by following this.  S.I. McMillen comments, “Up to the close of the eighteenth century, hygienic provisions, even in the great capitals were quite primitive.  It was the rule for excrement to be dumped into the streets which were unpaved and filthy.  It was a heyday for flies as they bred in the filth and spread intestinal diseases that killed millions.  Such waste of human lives that could have ben saved if people had only taken seriously God’s provision for freeing men of diseases… the deadly epidemics of typhoid, cholera, and dysentery” (S.I. McMillen, None of These Diseases, p. 13).  Nineteenth century cholera epidemics in London hit the poor especially hard.  “Why were the poor the first to feel the carnage of cholera?  (Edwin) Chadwick had the answer.  The poor lived in basements… The city of London had a serious problem with sewage: Its drainage systems were inadequate… The streets were filled with raw sewage that people indiscriminately cast out of second and third story windows.  When the rain washed the streets ‘clean’ the tainted water would naturally settle in the lowest places it could find – basements” (Defending the Faith Study Bible referring to S.I. McMillen and David Stern (2000) None of These Diseases, pp. 27-35). 

Even the Black Plague may have a link to poor sanitation.  Bert Thompson comments, “The common course of action in Moses’ day, and for centuries to follow, was to dump waste products in a convenient place… Europeans routinely dumped waste products of all kinds out their windows and into the public streets – where decomposition took place, allowing a variety of micro-organisms to flourish.  One of these micro-organisms – the one we know today as Yersinia Pestis – grow in the waste products and contaminated fleas associated with those waste products.  The fleas, using rats as their hosts, subsequently traveled into people’s houses.  Once inside a dwelling, the fleas jumped from the rates onto the humans, biting them and infecting them with the plague organism… Yet, if the people simply obeyed God’s injunction, as given by Moses to the Israelites, all of the death and horror of two separate epidemics could have been avoided” (Bert Thompson, Rock Solid Faith, Vol. 1, p. 237). 

2.  Washing.  Those who touch a dead body were to be put through a washing and purification process (Numbers 19).

The washing was to be done with the ashes of a red heifer, cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet (wool).  (1) The ashes are a source of lye.  (2) Hyssop contains the antiseptic thymol and has antibacterial qualities.  (3) Cedar oil is antiseptic, anti-fungal, and an insecticide.  (4) Scarlet wool (Hebrews 9:19) would provide fiber.  “The recipe is nothing less than a procedure to produce an antibacterial soap… Adding wool fibers to the concoction would have made the mixture the ancient equivalent of Lava® soap” (Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt, Reasons to Believe, p. 42-43; Also, The Defending The Faith Study Bible).

Proper cleaning can save lives.  “In 1847, an obstetrician named Ignaz Semmelweis was the director of a hospital ward in Vienna, Austria.  Many pregnant women checked into his ward, but 18% of those women never checked out… As he contemplated his dilemma, he watched young medical students perform their routine tasks.  Each day students would perform autopsies on the dead mothers.  Then they would rinse their hands in a bowl of bloody water, wipe them off on a common, shared towel, and immediately begin internal examinations of the still-living women… Semmelweis ordered everyone in his ward to thoroughly wash his or her hands in a chlorine solution after every examination.  In three months, the death rate fell from 18% to 1-3%” (Defending the Faith Study Bible; also, Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt, Reasons to Believe, pp. 40-42).   

Why red? Why a red heifer? Why scarlet wool? I believe that it points to the cleansing which comes through the blood of Christ (Revelation 1:5; 7:13-14).

3.  Earthen v. Wooden Vessels.  Contaminated vessels of earth were to be broken.  Vessels of wood could be cleansed with water (Leviticus 15:12). 

“Research conducted over a period of several years has consistently demonstrated the remarkable antibacterial properties of wood.  Tests have been done on five life-threatening bacteria (Escherichia Coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter Jejuni, Listeria Monocytogenes and Staphylococcus Aureus) on four plastic polymers and more than 10 species of hardwood, including Hard Maple, Birch, Beech, Black Cherry, Basswood, Butternut, and American Black Walnut.  Within three minutes of inoculating wooden boards with cultures of food poisoning agents, 99.9 percent of the bacteria were unrecoverable.  On the other hand, none of the bacteria tested under similar conditions on plastic died.  In fact, leaving microbe populations on the two surfaces overnight resulted in microbial growth on the plastic boards, while no live bacteria were recovered from the wood the next morning” (Defending The Faith Study Bible). 

4.  Quarantine.  The Bible teaches the principle of quarantine.  A leper was to dwell outside of the camp (Leviticus 13:45-46). 

Furthermore, “If and when a diseased individual got close to those who were not diseased he was instructed to ‘cover his mustache, and cry ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ (Leviticus 13:45).  It is interesting that the covering of one’s mustache (‘upper lip’ ASV) would prevent spit and spray from the mouth of an individual to pass freely through the air, much like covering one’s mouth during a cough’ (Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt, Reasons to Believe, p. 44; Also Defending The Faith Study Bible).  Note: A study of Leviticus 13 suggests that the Bible uses the term ‘leprosy’ more broadly than we do.    S.I. McMillen writes, “For hundreds of years the dreaded disease leprosy killed countless millions of people in Europe… Dr. George Rosen (1910-1977 B.H.) Columbia University professor of Public Health: ‘Leprosy cast the greatest blight that threw its shadow over the daily life of medieval humanity.  Fear of all other diseases taken together can hardly be compared to the terror spread by leprosy.  Not even the Black Death in the fourteenth century of the appearance of Syphilis toward the end of the fifteenth century produced a similar state of fright…’  What did the physicians offer to stop the ever-increasing ravages of leprosy?  Some taught that it was ‘brought on by eating hot food, pepper, garlic and meat of diseased hogs.’  Other physicians said it was caused by malign conjunction of the planets.  Naturally their suggestions for prevention were utterly worthless… ‘Leadership was taken by the church, as the physicians had nothing to offer.  The church took as its guiding principle the concept of contagion as embodied in the Old Testament… Once the condition of leprosy had been established, the patient was to be segregated and excluded from the community.  Following the precepts laid down in Leviticus the church undertook the tasks of combatting leprosy’… As soon as the European nations saw that the application of scriptural quarantine brought leprosy under control, they applied the same principles against the Black Death.  The results were equally spectacular, and millions of lives were saved” (S.I. McMillen, None of These Diseases, pp. 11-12).

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

Law of Moses: Animal Mistakes

Posted on January 2, 2024 by Bryan Hodge

Kosher (or Kashrut, meaning “fit” or “proper”) laws concerning clean and unclean food are set forth in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, and other passages.  These laws may be summed up this way: (1) Land animals must have cloven hooves and must chew the cud (Leviticus 11:3-8; Deuteronomy 14:3-8).  (2) Water animals must have fins and scales (Leviticus 11:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:9-10).  (3) Birds may be eaten.  However, forbidden are birds of prey, birds that live off of carrion, and bats (Leviticus 11:13-17; Deuteronomy 14:11-18).  (4) Flying insects and creeping things in general are forbidden.  The exception are certain leaping creatures with jointed legs.  These include locust, crickets, and the grasshopper (Leviticus 11:20-23, 41-45; Deuteronomy 14:19).  (5) No animal that dies of itself is to be eaten (Deuteronomy  14:21; Leviticus 11:39-40).  (6) Eating the blood is forbidden (Leviticus 7:26-27; 17:10-14, etc.).  (7) A young goat was not to be boiled in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21).

Bible critics have problems with how some of the animals are listed and described in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.  The believed that the Bible has made some mistakes. 

1.  Bats.  Bats are listed under the category of birds (Leviticus 11:13-19; Deuteronomy 14:11-18).  However, the are not birds, but mammals. 

It is unreasonable to force our current method of classification on the Bible.  Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) is considered the father of taxonomy.  Defending The Faith Study Bible explains that “(God) did not divide animals into mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.  In fact the “creeping things” mentioned later in Leviticus 11 (vss. 29-30 cf. Genesis 1:24-25) include both mammals (such as mice) and reptiles (lizards).  Clearly then, God divided animals according to their locomotion and environment rather than whether or not they have hair, lay eggs, or nurse their young.”  Moreover, “the term ‘bird’ in Leviticus 11:13 (as well as Genesis 1:20-30) is translated from the Hebrew word op, which literally means ‘flying creatures… that this word is not used solely for ‘birds’ is evident from Leviticus 11:20-23 where it is used with Sherets in reference to ‘winged creeping things’ (ASV) such as flying insects” (ibid).  Bats are categorized with birds because they are winged creatures. 

2.  Hares.  Hares are said to chew the cud (Leviticus 11:6; Deuteronomy 14:7).  However, they do not have multiple stomachs.  They are not ruminants like cows, goats, sheep and deer. 

No, but they do appear to chew the cud.  “First, critics must acknowledge the fact that we frequently describe things as they appear to take place and not necessarily as they actually happen” (ibid).  We speak of the sun rising and setting.  “Rabbits often look like they are chewing their cud.  In fact, so convincing is this appearance that, according to Walter Kaiser, Carolus Linnaeus… at first classified the coney and the hare as ruminants.  In short, it may be that rabbits were listed as ‘cud chewers’ based on simple observation” (ibid).

Hares and rabbits practice something called refection.  “Grass is extremely hard to digest due to its high cellulose content… unlike most hoofed ruminants, hares do not have four-chambered stomachs.  So, they eat their own droppings instead.  These soft, green pellets, known as cecotropes, retain many undigested nutrients, including important minerals and protein.  By eating their droppings as soon as they pass, the animals extract this vital sustenance… All lagomorphs (hares and rabbits) use this strategy, known as refection” (Why Do Hares Eat Their Own Droppings? By Polly Pullard, discoverywildlife.com).  Defending the Faith Study Bible comments, “So although rabbits do not regurgitate previously swallowed food, they do swallow their partially digested food a second time… it is entirely proper to conclude that Moses simply defined ‘cud chewers’ more broadly than modern scientists.” 

3.  Fowl.  “All fowl that creep going upon all fours, shall be an abomination unto you (Leviticus 11:20 KJV).  Since when do birds go on all fours?

The error is in the translation.  “The Hebrew sherets op is more accurately translated ‘winged creeping things’ (ASV), ‘winged insects’ (NASV, ESV, RSV), or ‘flying insects (NKJV, NIV).  Interestingly, in Deuteronomy 14:19, where these same creatures are discussed, the King James translators used the phrase ‘creeping things that flieth’… what’s more, both history and the fossil record reveal that extinct reptiles also had arms and claws attached to membranous wings.  Though scientists believe these flying reptiles mainly walked upright, at the very least their ‘hands’ would have been used for climbing trees and handling food so they would have used ‘all fours’” (ibid).

4.  Locust, crickets, and grasshoppers.  They do not go on four legs but six legs (Leviticus 11:20-23).

We sometimes use numbers which are not to be taken literally.  We speak of centipedes and millipedes.  We do not mean that these creatures have one hundred or one thousand feet.  Defending the Faith Study Bible provides the following illustration.  In George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm (1946) the pigs first gave the farm animals “Seven Commandments.”  Then they later simplified things with this maxim “four legs good, two legs bad.”  Four legs referred to the animals on the farm.  It did not exclude the birds.  Two legs referred to man. 

Granted.  But why does the Bible speak of insects going on all fours?  Here is a possible explanation.  “The phrase likely means that, in contrast to birds (listed just previously – Leviticus 11:13-19) which walk upright, ‘winged creeping things’ walk horizontally – they ‘go upon all fours’” (ibid).

Posted in Apologetics, law of moses, science, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Law of Moses: Food

Posted on November 22, 2023 by Bryan Hodge

In this series, we are examining some of the 613 Mitzvot (commandments) contained in the Torah (the law of Moses as revealed in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible).  It is our aim to understand them better and to be able to answer critics.  We are considering these topically.

1.  Clean and Unclean Food.  The law of Moses divided animals into two broad categories: clean and unclean (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14).  These animals are sub-divided into types of animals: (1) Land animals (Leviticus 11:3-8; Deuteronomy 14:3-8); (2) Water animals (Leviticus 11:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:9-10); (3) Birds (Leviticus 11:13-17; Deuteronomy 14:11-18); (4) Insects and creeping things (Leviticus 11:20-23; Deuteronomy 14:19).

Why are the animals divided into clean and unclean categories?

Health    Part of the reason may have been for physical wellness.  Consider some of the animals listed as unclean: (1) Swine (Leviticus 11:7-8; Deuteronomy 14:8).  “The ‘pig is a scavenger and therefore will eat almost anything.  In doing so, on occasion it ingests the parasite, Trichinella Spiralis, which is the cause of trichinosis in humans.  Left untreated this disease can be debilitating or even deadly. Pigs are also known carriers (as intermediate hosts) of the tapeworm Taenia Echinococcus Granulosis, which causes tumors in liver, lungs and other parts of the body.  Raw or undercooked pork can be quite dangerous when consumed by humans.  Pigs can provide safe meat if they are fed properly and if the muscle tissue is cooked correctly.  But such conditions often did not prevail in ancient times” (Bert Thompson, Rock-Solid Faith, Vol. 1, p. 236).

(2) Shellfish and fish without fins and scales (Leviticus 11:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:9-10).  “Although shellfish are edible today there are inherent dangers in eating ill-prepared types such as oysters… the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has produced a twelve-page tract warning people about the dangers of eating raw or partially cooked oysters [Carlos’ Tragic and Mysterious Illness: How Carlos Almost Died by Eating Contaminated Raw Oysters (2003)].  In the tract, the FDA warns that some raw oysters contain the bacteria Vibrio Vulnificus… Eating oysters if they are not cooked properly can be potentially fatal.  Thus the wisdom of the Mosaic prohibition is evident to the honest observer.  In a time when properly handling and preparation procedures were difficult to achieve, the best course of action simply would have been to avoid the risk of eating potentially contaminated foods, especially since the contamination cannot be detected by smell or sight” (Kyle Butt, Flawless Food Laws, apologeticspress.org).  However, it is not only shellfish.  The commandment would keep them from certain poisonous/venomous fish such as the blowfish and the lionfish.  All poisonous fish have no scales.  It would also keep them from toxic sea creatures such as jelly fish, sea anemones, and octopi (Kyle Butt, Science and the Bible, apologeticspress.org; Eric Lyons, God knew All Along, apologeticspress.org). 

(3) Bats (Leviticus 11:13-19; Deuteronomy 14:11-18).  “While it is true that many animals are susceptible to rabies, bats are especially so.  The American College of Emergency Physicians documented that between 1992 and 2002, rabies passed from bats caused 24 of 26 human deaths from rabies in the United States” (Kyle Butt, Flawless Food Laws, apologeticspress.org). 

(4) Reptiles (Leviticus 11:29-31).  “Interestingly, reptiles have a much higher rate of carrying salmonella bacteria than do most mammals, especially those listed as clean in the Old Law.  The Center for Disease Control has repeatedly warned people about the possibility of being infected with Salmonella passed through reptiles” (Kyle Butt, Flawless Food Laws, apologeticspress.org).

God’s Laws were meant for man’s good (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13).  There may be intended health benefits to some of these commandments. 

Other Reasons

There may have been other reasons for these commandments.  Some believe that these commandments were given to test Israel’s obedience.  Others believe that these commandments were given to separate Israel from other nations.  J.M. Fuller suggested, “The basis of the obligation to maintain the distinction was the call of the Hebrews to be a peculiar people of Jehovah.  It was to be something in their daily life to remind them of the covenant which distinguished them from the nations of the world” (ed. David Brown, The Southwest Lectures – The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, p. 94). 

Critics

Critics have problems with how some of these animals are listed, and how they are described.  We will consider these criticisms in another article.

2.  Milk and Meat.  They were not to boil a young goat in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21).

Why?  This may be given because of pagan worship practices.  James Burton Coffman comments, “For generations men could discern no reason whatever for such a prohibition… However, the mystery was unlocked in 1930, when the reason for this pagan practice was discovered in Ugarit literature.  The pagan used such a broth to increase fertility of their crops” (Coffman, Deuteronomy p. 160).  Wayne Jackson writes, “It is now known… that boiling a kid in milk to appease certain deities was a common Canaanite ritual… Some Jews, even today, misunderstanding the nature of this injunction, will not eat dairy and meat products at the same meal.  Actually, though, the original command was simply designed to inoculate Israel against mimicry of heathen religion” (Wayne Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology, p. 24). 

Were there other reasons?  Some think so.  Dennis Prager suggests, “It is wrong to boil an animal in the substance with which its mother gave it life… The purpose of the prohibition must… be to affect us – specifically to refine human character… there is something mocking and even cruel about boiling a kid in the milk of its mother… Philo wrote: ‘It is grossly improper that the substance which fed the living animal should be used to season or flavor it after its death’ And Milgram… ‘A substance that sustains the life of a creature (milk) should not be fused or confused with a process associated with its death (cooking)… Mother’s milk, the life sustaining food for the kid, should never become associated with its death” (Prager, Exodus, p. 345-347).

Posted in Apologetics, food, law of moses, Scientific Foreknowledge | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Law of Moses: Grooming

Posted on November 21, 2023 by Bryan Hodge

In this series, we are examining some of the 613 Mitzvot (commandments) contained in the Torah (the Law of Moses as revealed in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible).  It is our aim to better understand them and to be able to answer critics.  We are studying them topically.

1. Do not shave the head, nor disfigure the beard.

This commandment was given to the priests of Israel (Leviticus 21:5-6).  Why this commandment?   It has something to do with holiness to God (Leviticus 21:5-6).

But why?  God does not have to provide a reason.  However, many believe that this had to do with idolatrous practices.  Herodotus (5th century B.C.) said of the Arabians, “The only gods whose existence they acknowledge are Dionysus and Urania, they copy Dionysus, they say, in the way they cut their hair – that is, they cut it round in a circle, with their temples shaved” (Herodotus, The Histories Book 3, section 8).  This may be the reason.  Are we willing to follow God’s commandments even when we do not understand the reason, even when He does not give a reason?    Hugo McCord has pointed out that there are two kinds of commandments in the Bible.  He said, “The source of all wisdom, ‘the only wise God’ (Romans 16:27) put two kinds of laws in the Bible… Laws which relate to what is ‘good or right in conduct or character’ are called ‘moral’ (Webster).  Laws which have no connection ‘with moral standards’ … are called ‘amoral’ (Webster)” (Article: Amoral commandments).  Sometimes it makes sense to man to follow the first.  However, it takes real faith to follow the second (e.g. how to worship; plan of salvation).

Some follow only when it makes sense to them.  N.B. Hardeman used this illustration.  “A father bid his son to erect a house on a certain part of his farm.  He then says: ‘put up a barn one hundred and fifty feet to the north and dig a well twenty-five feet east of the house.’  The boy erects the home and builds the barn as indicated, but either refuses to dig the well at all or locates it other than commanded.  Now, I want to say that this boy had not obeyed his father in a single item.  He built the home at the appointed place, not because his father so ordered, but because it suited him.  So with the barn.  Why not dig the well?  Simply because it is not according to the boy’s own fancy.  He failed in one point and evidenced a spirit of disrespect and disregard” (Hardeman Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 1, p. 154).  True faith obeys even when the reason is not understood. 

2.  Do not shave head, disfigure the beard, nor cut the flesh. 

The children of Israel were not to do these things “for the dead” (Leviticus 19:27-28; Deuteronomy 14:1-2).  This commandment was given to the children of Israel as a whole, not specifically to the priests.  Why this commandment? It has something to do with them being a holy people to the LORD (Deuteronomy 14:1-2) James Burton Coffman comments, “The cuttings and the baldness mentioned here were ‘pagan acts of sacrifice, the blood and hair being offered up to the heathen deities or to the dead but deified ancestors.’  That such cuttings of the body with knives was a standard procedure in pagan worship is also noticeable in Elijah’s contest on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18:25-ff” (Coffman, Deuteronomy, p. 158).

Does this forbid one from being pierced or tattooed in our time?  No, this seems to concern idolatrous practices.  Moreover, we do not live under the Old Testament today.  It is not our standard (Ephesians 2:14-ff; Colossians 2:14-ff).  The right or wrong of piercings and tattoos must be determined for us from the teachings of the New Testament.  However, this is a study for another time. 

      

Posted in Faith, God's Sovereignty, law of moses | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Law of Moses: Clothing

Posted on November 15, 2023 by Bryan Hodge

Some of the laws of Moses seem odd to us.  For instance, why were fabrics not to be mixed in a garment?  (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11).

Bible critics are known to use some of the laws to suggest that the Bible is unjust.  For instance, doesn’t an eye for an eye lead to a world of blindness?

In this series, we will examine some of the 613 Mitzvot (commandments) contained in the Torah (the law of Moses as revealed in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible).  It is our aim to understand them better and to be able to answer critics.  We will divide these by topic.  Some will be odd or difficult to us.  Others will not be.

1.  Be Covered.    

God wanted His priest to be careful to be modest.  They were not to be naked before the people (Exodus 20:26; 28:42-43).  James Burton Coffman quotes Robert P. Gordon saying, “Ritual nakedness, especially for priests, was a feature of some ancient pagan religions; it was to be quite otherwise in Israel (Coffman, Exodus, p. 401).  Dennis Prager comments, “Ancient worship often involved cult prostitution and sexual displays.  The Torah, in its ongoing battle against pagan practices, insists nakedness has no place in worship…” (Prager, Exodus, p. 277).

It was not the priest alone.  God wanted His people covered.  He covered Adam and Eve in “tunics of skin” (Genesis 3:21).  Wilson’s Word Studies says, “a tunic, worn next to the skin… generally with sleeves, to the knees, but seldom to the ankles.”  To uncover the thigh was to be naked (Isaiah 47:1-3). 

2.  Blue Thread. 

The children of Israel were to make tassels with blue thread on the corners of their garments (Numbers 15:37-41).  These were to be visible reminders to keep the commandments of the LORD (Numbers 15:39-40).  Blue is the color of the sky above.  Perhaps, blue was intended to remind them of heaven, and God above.

This blue thread would also set apart Israelites from others in dress.  It would be easy to identify one as Israelite.  Every day they wore an outward sign that identified them with Jehovah.  They represented Him.

3.  Do Not Cross-Dress. 

The children of Israel were not to confuse their sex by how they dressed (Deuteronomy 22:5).  There was to be a distinction in the dress of males and females. Why this commandment? Dennis Prager commented, “Many scholars believe this prohibition is related to ancient transvestite religious rituals” (Prager, Deuteronomy, p. 339; see also, Wayne Jackson, Does the Bible Forbid Women to Wear Pants?, christiancourier.com).  Others have suggested that this may concern dress that accommodates homosexuality (Wayne Jackson, Does the Bible Forbid Women to Wear Pants?, christiancourier.com).  However, the reason for the command is not stated. 

Wayne Jackson made this observation, “We should recall, however, that in biblical times, clothing for males and females was different only in style and details, not in kind.  Men did not wear trousers and women did not adorn themselves with skirts and blouses.  While it undoubtedly is true that God wants some sexual distinction apparent in men’s and women’s garments, it is not legitimate to say that all women’s pants are wrong or, for that matter, that Scottish kilts are sinful for the men of that culture.  A woman can be feminine in a modest pant-suit (cf. 1 Timothy 2:9-10) and men can still be masculine in a robe-like garment as in some Near Eastern countries today” (ibid).

4.  Do Not Mix Fabrics. 

Israelites were not to mix the fabrics in the garments that they wore (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11).  Specifically mentioned is wool and linen (Deuteronomy 22:11).  Why?  We are not told.  Moreover, God does not have to tell us why.  James Burton Coffman commented, “We cannot be sure why some of these things were forbidden, but in all likelihood they were connected with pagan customs and superstitions in which God did not allow Israel to take part… one principle stands out, that is, things which God has separated should not be joined together” (Coffman, Leviticus, studylight.org).

However, there is an interesting theory that this has to do with holiness, separating the sacred from the profane.  The High Priest wore a garment which was composed of thread (thought to be wool) and linen (Exodus 28:6-8; 39:3-4).  It may be that God was distinguishing the sacred from the profane.  He did so with the holy anointing oil;  it was not to be duplicated for common use.  (Exodus 30:31-38).

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

Little Jimmy Shepherd

Posted on November 10, 2023 by Bryan Hodge

“The late B.C. Goodpasture used to tell of the time when James A. Harding held a meeting in Clark Co., Kentucky.  The year was 1877.  When an elder of the church was asked about it, he said it was ‘…not much of a meeting.  Oh, brother Harding did his usual powerful preaching, the attendance was fair, but the results were negligible.  Only little Jimmy Shepherd was baptized’” (History of the Restoration Movement: James Walter Shepherd 1861-1948, therestorationmovement.com; this is a reprint of Dennis Gulledge’s article: Can You Count the Apples in a Seed?). 

J.W. Shepherd (1861-1948) went on to do many good things in the Kingdom of God.  He graduated from Kentucky University’s College of Bible (1884).  He became a preacher.  He did foreign work in New Zealand (1888-1890) and Australia (1890-1892).  He served as  office editor for the Gospel Advocate (1905-1912).  He later did domestic work with churches in Detroit, Michigan, Washington D.C., Richmond, Virginia, and Birmingham, Alabama.  He wrote Handbook on Baptism.  He compiled, edited and contributed to several David Lipscomb books including: Queries and Answers; Salvation from Sin; and the Gospel Advocate Commentary series – Romans; 1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians and Galatians; Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians; Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Information gleaned from therestorationmovement.com and Voices Crying in the Wilderness: A History of the Lord’s Church with Special Emphasis on Australia by David Roper). 

One may not know the good that he is doing when he sows the seed (Mark 4:26-28).  However, we are told that when the seed comes in contact with a good heart it grows and bears fruit (Mark 4:8).  Let us sow the seed. 

Dennis Gulledge remarked, “Someone has said that you can count the number of seeds in an apple, but you cannot count the number of apples in a seed.  When applied to the preaching of the gospel that means that you can count the number of people who respond to gospel preaching to be baptized, but you cannot count the number of good things done in the life of one person who becomes a Christian, as in the case of James W. Shepherd” (ibid).  Never underestimate the value of one soul brought to Christ.

Posted in evangelism, Preaching, Restoration History, Soul Winning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Strange Shifts in Language

Posted on October 24, 2023 by Bryan Hodge

There are some strange and unexpected shifts in language found in the Hebrew Bible (i.e., our Old Testament).  These shifts occur not just in one or two places.  They occur throughout the Hebrew Bible.  Let’s consider a few…

1. “Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD out of the heavens?” (Genesis 19:24).

The wording is odd.  Why does it read, “from the LORD”?  Is this simply emphasizing that the LORD is doing this?  Or is something else being said?  Adam Clarke points out in his commentary that some believe two persons of the Godhead are being mentioned.  He admits that this is possible, but “does not appear to me to be plainly indicated here (Adam Clarke, Vol. 1, p. 125).

2. “God tested Abraham … then He said, ‘ Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love …and offer him as a burnt offering …’ … The Angel of the LORD… He said, ‘…now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son… from Me’” (Genesis 22:1-2, 11-12).

Why the shift from “God” (3rd person) to “Me” (1st person)?  Is this simply language of agency?  Or is more intended?  One source has remarked, “In every passage where the angel of the Lord appears, there is also an odd shift in pronouns.”  Then the source adds that this occurs “since the angel of the Lord is mysteriously identified separately from God and also as God Himself (Genesis 22:15-16; Exodus 3:2, 4, 6, 7, 11; Judges 6:11-16)” (One for Israel, The Pierced God, oneforisrael.org). 

3. “(Israel) blessed Joseph and said, ‘God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has feed me all my long life to this day, The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads…’” (Genesis 48:15-16).

The one petitioned or invoked is called two things.  He is twice called “God.”  He is also called “The Angel” (The Messenger).

The Angel of the LORD is a puzzling character to many Bible students.  He at times seems to be called God (Genesis 31:11 cf. 31:13; 49:15 cf. 49:16), and even receive worship (Joshua 5:14; Judges 6:11-12 cf. 6:19-20). However, he also seems to be distinct from the LORD (Exodus 23:20-ff; Judges 6:21-23).  [For more information see the following articles by B.H. – (1) Angels (Part 3); (2) Who Did It?].

4. “I overthrew some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a firebrand plucked from the burning; yet you have not returned to Me, says the LORD” (Amos 4:11).

Why the shift from “I” (1st person) to “God” (3rd person) back to “Me” (1st person)?  The NIV struggled with this, rendering it “I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah…”  However, it provides this footnote “Hebrew God.”  James Burton Coffman provided this possible explanation, “Some critics make a big thing out of God being referred to in this verse (Amos 4:11) in the third person, whereas the first person is otherwise prominent throughout; but this is not due to any interpolation, and only signifies that Amos… reverted to quotations from the Pentateuch in mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah” (studylight.org).  The Pulpit Commentaries says “The substitution of the name of God for the personal pronoun, when the Lord himself is speaking, is not uncommon in Hebrew.  Here it rather takes the form of a quotation (or reference B.H.) from Genesis” (studylight.org).  This seems to be the answer in this verse (Genesis 19:25 cf. Isaiah 13:19; Jeremiah 49:17-18; 50:40)

5. “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him.  And the LORD said to Satan, the LORD rebuke you Satan!  The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!” (Zechariah 3:1-2).    

This is odd.  Why did the LORD not simply say, “I rebuke you”?  The Angel seems to be identified with the LORD and yet distinguished from the LORD.  Coffman thought this was a witness to God’s “compound unity” which is more explicitly stated in the New Testament (studylight.org).        

6. “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced.  Yes, they will mourn for Him as one who mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn” (Zechariah 12:10).

The LORD is clearly the speaker in the first part of this verse, when it says, “I will pour out… the Spirit… then they will look upon Me whom they pierced” (Zechariah 12:10).  This says that the one pierced is the LORD.  When did anyone pierce the LORD?  John references this passage after Jesus was pierced with a spear (John 19:34, 36-37).  The implication is Jesus is the LORD, that is Jehovah.

In the latter part of the verse there is a shift in the language.  “They will mourn for Him… and grieve for Him” (Zechariah 12:10).  Why the shift?  Keil and Delitzsch suggested that “The transition from the first person to the third points to the fact that the person slain, although essentially one with Jehovah, is personally distinct from the Supreme God.  The lamentation for the only son (cf. Amos 8:10) and for the firstborn is the deepest and bitterest death-wail” (studylight.org).  The third person refers to the Messiah.

Conclusion

What is the point?  When you read and come across a shift in language, it is not a mistake or an accident (unless a copyist erred in transmission).  It is there for a reason.  It says slow down.  Think about the passage.  This shift might be important.  There may be something of value to learn.   

I am convinced that some of these shifts only make sense in light of the complex nature of the Godhead.  There is the unseen God.  Then, there is God interacting with man (e.g., The Angel of the LORD, Jesus, the Spirit). 

Posted in Angels, God, Godhead, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment