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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Law of Moses: Justice

Posted on February 12, 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.   No partiality.  Judges and witnesses were not to favor the poor or the rich and mighty (Exodus 23:1-3; Leviticus 19:15-16; Deuteronomy 1:16-18; 16:18-19; 27:19; Also – 2 Chronicles 19:5-7).  Moreover, even the stranger was to be treated without partiality (Deuteronomy 1:16-18). 

Each case should be judged fairly.  Both the small and the great should have a fair hearing (Deuteronomy 1:16-17).  Dennis Prager comments, “The role of a judge is not to undo society’s ills, but to render justice in any particular case before the court… The Torah is warning judges not to see the judge’s role as repairing society.  The judge’s primary role is to render justice in the courtroom.  That is how he will help repair society.  When judges forsake that role, they actually harm society, not repair it, because a good society rests first and foremost on justice” (The Rational Bible: Exodus, p. 335). 

2.  No bribes.  Bribes were forbidden (Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 27:25; Also – 1 Samuel 8:3; Psalm 15:5; 26:9-10; Proverbs 17:23; 29:4; Ecclesiastes 7:7; Isaiah 1:23; 5:23; 33:14-16; Ezekiel 13:19; 22:12; Amos 5:12; Micah 3:11; 7:3).

Bribery perverts justice (Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:18-20; Proverbs 17:23).  It can overthrow a society (Proverbs 29:4).  It is a very serious matter. 

3.  No false witness.  Israel was warned not to bear false witness (Exodus 20:16; 23:1; Leviticus 19:11; Deuteronomy 5:20; 19:18-19; Also – Proverbs 6:16-19; 19:5; 24:28). 

The punishment for false testimony was serious.  The guilty one was to be punished with the punishment the one testified against would have received if he had been convicted on that testimony (Deuteronomy 19:16-21).  Perjury is a serious matter and is not to be tolerated.  Dennis Prager comments, “Aside from rendering justice, the purpose of punishment is to serve as a deterrent.  People are less likely to give false testimony when they know what punishment awaits them if they are caught lying” (Deuteronomy, p. 306).

4.  Adequate evidence.  One was not to be convicted on the testimony of one (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:15; Also – Matthew 18:15-16; 1 Timothy 5:19-22).

What if there is not at least two eyewitnesses?  It appears that evidence can serve as a witness (John 5:31-36; 1 John 5:9; 2 Peter 1:18-19).  No one should be convicted without adequate evidence. 

5.  Punishment.  The penalty for various crimes are specified (e.g. Exodus 21:12-14; 21:24; 22:1).

a.  Restitution (Exodus 22:1, 9; Leviticus 6:1-6; Numbers 5:5-6; Also – 2 Samuel 12:6; Proverbs 6:30-31).  Dennis Prager comments, “If all the thief was required to do was restore what he stole, he would have no reason not to steal again, since the worse that could happen would be he had to return what he took.  As regards the reason for the higher than normal fines imposed on the thief for stealing an ox, oxen were more essential to one’s livelihood on ancient Israelite society, since they could perform hard labor.  Therefore, the penalty for stealing an ox was greater than the penalty for stealing a sheep” (Exodus, p. 310). 

b.  An eye for an eye (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21).  This is commonly referred to as lex talionis (law of retaliation).  Many see this as an excuse for personal retaliation.  This is not how this should be understood.  This concerns legal judgments (Exodus 21:22-25; Deuteronomy 19:15-23).  This law did a couple of things.  (1) It kept the punishment in line with the crime.  (2) It showed value to each human being.  One person’s eye is not regarded as more important than another person’s eye.   

c.  Flogging.  This was considered a legitimate method of punishment (Deuteronomy 25:1-3; Also – Proverbs 19:29; 26:3). The number of blows were not to exceed forty (Deuteronomy 25:3 cf. 2 Corinthians 11:24).  Dennis Prager comments, “Most modern men and women reject corporal punishment as inherently immoral and favor imprisonment as far more humane form of punishment.  Yet why is imprisonment necessarily and always more civilized?  Depending on the amount of flogging and the amount of time in prison (not to mention prison conditions, including the omnipresent threat in many prisons of violence at the hands of other prisoners or guards), I suspect that many healthy-bodied people, given the choice between flogging and imprisonment, would opt for flogging” (Deuteronomy, p. 391). In some cases, prison is a crime school. In the movie Blow, George Jung (played by Johnny Depp) says “Danbury wasn’t a prison; it was a crime school. I went in with a Bachelor of marijuana, came out with a Doctorate of cocaine.” (note: This is not a movie recommendation. It is a thought-provoking quote).

d.  Death penalty.  The law of Moses contained the death penalty for certain crimes, such as: murder, rape, kidnapping, adultery and other things [for a full list see, Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 3) by B.H.].  The death penalty is viewed as a deterrent to crime (Deuteronomy 13:11; 17:13; 21:21).  There were some crimes for which the punishment could be reduced to a lesser punishment, such as a fine (Exodus 21:29-30 cf. 1 Kings 20:39; Proverbs 6:32-35; 13:7-8).  Murder could not be reduced to a lesser punishment (Numbers 35:21).

The law of Moses punished crime.  Law without penalty is impotent.

 

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

Law of Moses: Business

Posted on February 7, 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.   Honest trade.  They were to use honest measurements in business transactions.  They were to do no injustice in the measurement of length, weight, or volume.  The scales, the weights, the ephah (dry measure), and the hin (liquid measure) were to be honest (Leviticus 19:35-36; Deuteronomy 25:13-16; See also – Proverbs 11:1; 16:11; 20:10, 23; Hosea 12:7; Amos 8:5; Micah 6:10-11). 

Some dishonest individuals had two sets of measurements.  One was used when buying and another was used when selling (Deuteronomy 25:13-16 cf. Amos 8:5; Micah 6:10-11).  This was an abomination to the LORD (Deuteronomy 25:16; Proverbs 11:1; 20:10, 13; Micah 6:10).

2.  Honest pay.  Workers were not to be cheated in their pay (Leviticus 19:13).  They were to be paid and in a timely manner (Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14-15; See also – Jeremiah 22:13; Malachi 3:5; 1 Timothy 5:18; James 5:4).

The poor who worked for daily wages were to be paid daily (Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14-15).  If one agreed to pay the worker each day, then one should pay the workers each day.  The poor depended on receiving their daily wages.  The employer had the responsibility to meet payroll.  Dennis Prager comments, “The law demands that employers pay wages on time, no matter how frequently they are paid.  In addition to the financial impropriety of not paying on time, withholding wages robs workers of their dignity, because it forces them to gravel for the money they have rightly earned” (Deuteronomy, p. 387). 

3.  Security for loans.  There were commandments designed to protect the poor (Exodus 22:25-27; Leviticus 25:35-37; Deuteronomy 23:19-20; 24:6, 10-13).

a.  There were restrictions on what could be kept in pledge as security or collateral.  (1) Garments which were needed to stay warm at night could not be kept overnight (Exodus 22:26-27; Deuteronomy 24:12-13).  (2) Things essential for one’s work could not be held as security (Deuteronomy 24:6 cf. Job 24:3). 

b.  Dignity was to be maintained and property rights respected.  The lender was not to enter into the house of the borrower to take the pledge of security.  Instead, the borrower was to bring it to the lender (Deuteronomy 24:10-11).  Dennis Prager comments, “As the Scottish Bible scholar Adam C. Welch (1864-1943) wrote: ‘Every Israelite, however poor, has the right to invite into or exclude from the four walls of the cabin he calls his home.’  Three thousand years ago, the Torah essentially established, as the well-known saying goes, that ‘a man’s home is his castle’ – even the home of a man in debt” (Deuteronomy, p. 386). 

c.  No interest was to be charged (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:35-37; Deuteronomy 23:19-20; See also – Psalm 15:5; Ezekiel 18:8; Nehemiah 5:1-13).  This seems strange to modern ears.  Dennis Prager explains, “This law is just another way of enjoining us to act charitably to the poor, who borrow money to pay for necessities… on the other hand, if someone wants to borrow money to expand his business, for example, there is no moral reason why one should be prohibited from taking interest, since the borrower intends to use the money to make more money” (Exodus, p. 228).     Why were Israelites allowed to charge interest to foreigners? (Deuteronomy 23:19-20).  Dennis Prager offers this explanation, “Since foreigners charged interest in loans to Israelites (and to everyone else), Israelites were permitted to charge interest on loans made to foreigners.  Furthermore, the non-Israelite in Israel was likely there because he was conducting business there.” (Deuteronomy, p. 371).     

4.  Dirty money.  God did not want His people to give to Him money earned from harlotry or being a dog (Deuteronomy 23:17-18). 

James Burton Coffman comments, “prostitutes… sodomites… (v. 17).  The words here in Hebrew are kedeshah (feminine) and kedesh (masculine).  These were the so-called sacred prostitutes attached to all ancient pagan temples, which alleged houses of worship were nothing more than legally commissioned brothels… Dog is here an opprobrious name for a male sacred prostitute’ (Deuteronomy, pp. 259-260). 

This seems to refer to temple prostitution.  However, all prostitution is forbidden in the Torah (Leviticus 19:29).  God cared about more than their giving; He cared about how they earned their money.  God cared about more than raising money; He cared about how they raised the money.

      

Posted in Honesty, law of moses, Work | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment