When witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses we often try to object to their particular Bible translation, known as the New World translation, or the NWT. While there are serious problems with this particular translation, the fact is, the deity of Christ still bleeds from the pages of Scripture, even theirs.
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
The Deity of Christ in the New World Translation
When witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses we often try to object to their particular Bible translation, known as the New World translation, or the NWT. While there are serious problems with this particular translation, the fact is, the deity of Christ still bleeds from the pages of Scripture, even theirs.
3 Early Christian Artifacts for Apologetics
In the field of Textual Criticism, there are various discoveries that go largely unnoticed by the outside Christian community. Three of these discoveries contain valuable influence regarding the earliest Christian communities. In this video, I briefly address all three of these artifacts and their apologetic impact for today.
The Importance of Church History in Apologetics
I was recently asked to be on Ratio Christi TV's "Truth Matters" program to discuss the importance of knowning church history in apologetics. It was a blessing as always and I hope it will be an encouragement to you as well.
About Clark
My Calling
The American church is seeing its sharpest decline in influence, effectiveness, and presence in history. While there are many factors that contribute to this, I believe firmly that the biblical illiteracy becoming increasingly prevalent in the pews has been at its core. The body of Christ cannot function as the answer to the human dilemma if it doesn't first understand its message and mission. The Lord has called me to seek to fill this gap. I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Christian Scriptures, as well as their textual reliability and efficacy to answer all of life's questions.My Background
I came to Christ as a teenager but walked away from the faith for the better part of a decade after enlisting in the United States Coast Guard. Having lived my life as I saw fit and nearly destroying my marriage in the process, my wife suggested we seek counsel with a local pastor. It was through him and the local church that my faith was renewed and my marriage healed. From that time onward I have sought to grow in my knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and share that knowledge with all who would hear it.I hold a Bachelors of Science in Religion from Liberty University, having graduated Magna Cum Laude, and a Masters of Divinity degree in Pastoral Studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. I am currently studying for a second Master's degree in Theology with Phoenix Seminary, serving as a Fellow with the Text and Canon Institute, and intend on pursuing my PhD immediately after. For roughly a decade I have served in the local church as teaching elder, interim pastor and guest lecturer. I have spoken at numerous churches and gatherings along the Oregon coast, California, Michigan, Missouri and Illinois, emphasizing the reliability of the Christian Scriptures, the Christian worldview in science and philosophy, and the person of Jesus Christ.
I believe that every Christian should be confident in the faith that they hold and, following the directive of the apostle Peter, be willing and able to give a reason for the hope that dwells within them, with grace and compassion. My desire is to see unbelievers find the saving grace of Jesus Christ and fellow believers to rise up and seek to change the world for the kingdom of God, but neither can happen if the church is not willing to listen and empathize with those we engage with. Apologetics begins with a compassionate ear and a willingness to learn from those we wish to reach.
What Does the Title Mean?
I named the website Exe-Jesus as a play on words of the term below. After all, if Jesus is the central message of Scripture all meaning we draw from it will point to Him.
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
For Everything There is a Season
Posted by Clark Bates
January 18, 2020
I was asked last year how I got involved in apologetics, and to be honest, I hadn’t reflected on that for quite some time. In one form or another, I have been engaged in apologetic ministry for roughly a decade, and in all that time of reading, studying, speaking and writing, it becomes easy to lose sight of how everything began. One day you’re just an apologist. You don’t know when you went from studying to be an apologist to being one, but at some point, everything shifted.
I was able to dial in one Christian radio station, but it only came in if I laid on my bed in my cell, pushed right next to the window. On Sunday afternoons, there was a program that broadcasted in San Diego right around lunch, for 1 hour. That radio program was called Stand to Reason. Yes, this is the same Stand to Reason operated by Greg Koukl, Amy Hall, and Alan Shlemon. For one hour, every Sunday Greg answered calls and dealt with the evidence for the Christian faith. In the darkest corner of my world, his voice was a beacon of light, reminding me that my faith was not vain. It strengthened me in ways that I can never express or repay.
After my release, I returned to my life, began working, and returned to serving my local church as I was able. I bought Josh McDowell’s book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and read it cover to cover. Before long, I was sharing in the adult Sunday Schools what I was learning. I read vociferously, digesting all four volumes of Norm Geisler’s Systematic Theology, Frank Turek’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, and everything from Ravi Zacharias. It wasn’t long before I was teaching regularly in the church and fighting a pull on my heart to serve the Lord in some form of teaching ministry. The effectual calling upon me was confirmed by the elders of my church and I approached the pastor to share what was on my heart. To be honest, I thought I was crazy, because there was no way a felon could serve the church (at least that’s what I thought). But my pastor encouraged me to pursue the calling and begin the degree process to receive an MDiv. Not having had any education prior, this meant 7 years of schooling, but I signed up and my journey began.
As the years, and my training progressed I grew in wisdom and stature (metaphorically) with the Lord and others. I began to preach and teach in my church and others. I visited gatherings that were
But now we come to where I am at today. As I sit at my keyboard, I am in the final stages of a Master’s Thesis for my second Master’s degree. I took on this second degree as I felt the call of God on my heart with more clarity and a call to academic study. To attain a PhD, I must have a Master’s of Theology, so here I am, at the end of that road. To reach this destination I was given the inexpressible gift of a Fellowship at Phoenix Seminary to work under the intellectual giants, Dr. Peter Gurry and Dr. John Meade. I have been blessed beyond measure to travel to Oxford, England and learn paleography; to work with the Museum of the Bible and the University of Birmingham as a transcriber of Greek manuscripts; I have held the oldest fragment of the Gospel of Matthew in my hands, and I have humbly sat under the teaching of great and godly men and women. The baby Christian in that San Diego prison cell could never have fathomed where his life was headed.
All of that to say this, Lord willing, I will be working toward a PhD next year, and it will demand all of my focus and time for several years. Assuming anyone regularly reads this blog, it has probably been noticeable that I have posted less and less in the last year. This is because the sheer demand on my time is already very heavy and as much as I love apologetics, I simply cannot keep up. I have taken a great deal of time delaying this decision. I have prayed about it. I have sought counsel about it. And I believe that it is the right thing to do. At the end of this month, I will shut down this website and close the social media platforms for ExeJesus ministries. If asked, I will gladly speak at any gathering that would have me, but my time as an apologist has come to an end. I will always be thankful for everyone who encouraged me, supported me, and challenged me along this journey. And I will always defend the faith with love and compassion whenever I am asked about the hope that rests within me.
If I may pass on some parting words from ten years of observation, it is this: the best apologetic is the one that listens to the other person before speaking. It is the one that cares about the skeptic in the same way that it cares about the Christian. Apologetics is a part of evangelism, but it is not evangelism. Evangelism shares the beauty of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a lost and dying world. You can be an excellent apologist and have answers for every question, but never share the Gospel. My parting plea to the numerous young apologists out there is simply this: love your enemy, because they will know we are Christians by our love. There is no other way.
May the Lord Bless You
May He Keep You
May He Make His Face to Shine Upon You
And be Gracious to You
May the Lord lift up His Countenance Upon You
And Give You Peace.
Book Review: Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism
Posted by Clark Bates
November 30, 2019
Disclaimer
For the sake of full disclosure, I must state that many of the contributors to this book are acquaintances and/or friends. Two of whom I work directly for. While this might lead readers to believe I cannot review this work objectively, I hope that they will not still believe this at the end. For those who have read the articles here regularly, it should also be understood that much of the material in this text corresponds to the same ideals expressed here.Review
Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 2019.I was speaking to a church group, expected to be an expert in all things apologetics, feeling the pressure to be both a low-budget Bible Answer Man, and encourage the congregation that they have good reasons to be Christians and to trust their Bible. When the time came for me to martial the evidence for the reliability of Scripture, I told them confidently, “Even if we didn’t have the New Testament, the quotations from the Church Fathers are so plenteous that we could recreate the entire New Testament and even close to the whole Bible, just from those!” I went on to say that even though many skeptics like to make a big deal out of “errors” or “variants” in the manuscripts, if you compiled them all, “The New Testament is still 99% accurate in every detail”, and “none of these variants, even make a difference to the Christian faith.”.
That was many years ago, and today I’ve come to learn that even though my intentions were good, my information was not. I still see these factual errors made in print and in conversation from fellow apologists, which tells me that bad information, because it is often sensational, circulates widely. It’s for this reason that Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixson’s book is so well timed. Both editors being junior academics themselves, have compiled some of the brightest young minds in textual studies today, to help inform the church and apologists about the actual data and its ramifications for the text of the Bible. This is not done in a condescending manner but with a genuine desire to see these ministries flourish through the use of accurate weights and measures. The authors introduce their work by citing several common errors made in defense of the faith and do not shy away from naming some of the more prominent figures who have done so. The chapters are then divided into 15 “Myths” that have been believed by Christians for many years.
Timothy Mitchell, a PhD student at the University of Birmingham, addresses the myth of “autographs”, taking to task claims of extended longevity made by a recent popularly acclaimed film, as well as the challenge of defining early publication in the 1st century. Jacob Peterson, PhD student at the University of Edinburgh, tackles the ever inflating “math myths” regarding how many New Testament manuscripts actually exist. Addressing the difficulty of actually cataloguing these texts and identifying those manuscripts that exist in multiple fragments, each with their own shelf number though being one actual manuscript, Peterson provides a more accurate count and a more balanced understanding of what this data actually means for the Christian. In one of the most enlightening chapters, James Prothro, graduate of the University of Cambridge, explains the different methodology used by scholars of classical literature when recognizing manuscript evidence and that used by apologists. In doing so, he provides a rarely afforded glimpse into this academic community with an appeal for Christians to avoid the extreme counts on either side of the argument and focus on more realistic numbers. The mid way point of the book is reached by addressing the “myth of dating” in 2 chapters. The first, written by University of Edinburgh graduate Elijah Hixson, tackles the overlooked difficulties of paleographic dating methods. By citing examples from both the extremely conservative dates often preferred in Christian apologetics and the preference for late-dating by those like Brent Nongbri, the chapter serves both as a crash course in paleography and manuscript awareness. For most Christians, an early date is to be preferred while a late date to be rejected. Others, opt for the middle of the road, selecting a date between the two extremes. The power of this chapter is in the author’s explanation that none of the three options is an accurate use of the data. The second chapter, authored by University of Cambridge graduate Gregory Lanier, tackles the adage of “earlier manuscripts are always better”, by guiding readers through a primer on the later Greek manuscripts of the Bible. In so doing, the author provides evidence for the consistency of these texts and their potential for containing earlier readings. In tandem with the preceding chapter, Lanier’s work serves as an exceptionally measured response to the doubts of scribal accuracy.
The latter half of the text begins with University of Edinburgh graduate, Zachary Cole and a discussion on the actual habits of scribes and copyists who handled the New Testament texts. This chapter follows effectively after the last and serves as a more academic response to the skeptical claims made in popular work such as Misquoting Jesus. By analyzing various, observable tendencies in Manuscripts, Cole builds a macrostructure of behaviors that reveal a tendency for accuracy over error. Having discussed the actual copyists of manuscripts, University of Cambridge graduate, Peter Malik, uses his chapter to address the actual mistakes and corrections they made. As he states that, “the scribe’s main goal was not to innovate, and when they did, it was often accidental.” Additionally, helpful here is the author’s discussion on how to weigh a “correction”, especially if it is corrected by the original scribe. Moving into the “myth of transmission”, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary graduate S. Matthew Solomon distills his PhD dissertation on the manuscripts of Philemon into a digestible discussion on the accuracy of the transmission of the text. This chapter addresses the type of variation most often seen and its lack of impact in Christian doctrine, and lays the foundation for the following chapter by University of Cambridge graduate Peter Gurry. In this chapter, Gurry accesses the claim that no variants are significant for the Christian faith and points out several that do. In so doing, he seeks to adjust the argument away from oversimplification and require readers to face difficult variants head-on.
In perhaps the most direct chapter addressing a specific skeptical challenge, Robert Marcello, PhD student at Dallas Theological Seminary, speaks to the “myth of orthodox corruption”. Refining the subject of the previous chapter to focus on “why” scribes might change the text, Marcello explains the difficulty of identifying a theological motivation in most cases, and addresses those instances where it is clearly the case. Addressing one of my own errors stated above, University of Edinburgh graduate Andrew Blaski takes on the myth of patristics and the claim that we can recreate the NT text from quotations. This chapter excellently establishes the difficulty with even identifying a direct quotation in the writings of the early church and reveals to readers the source of this oft made fallacious claim. John Meade, graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, draws from his expertise as a Canon scholar to address the “Myths of Canon”. This chapter reviews various approaches to defending the NT canon, and the areas where they fall short, concluding with an assessment of canonical lists of the early church and their value for apologetic methodology. PhD student at the University of Notre Dame, Jeremiah Coogan, uses his chapter to expose readers to the world of manuscript versions (i.e. non-Greek translations of the New Testament) and their role in textual studies. Citing both their value and limitations, Coogan deflates the notion that an “earlier” text might somehow be recreated from a version and reminds readers of their value in revealing how the New Testament was received in other cultures. The book ends with a first-of-its-kind chapter, wherein Bible translator and graduate of the University of Birmingham, Edgar Obojo discusses how textual criticism effects the translation of the New Testament and how both enterprises share some concerns, but differ in others.
There is much to be commended in this book. The effort on the part of each author reveals both a strong academic affinity as well as a commitment to the faith and life of the church. At times the discussions may delve into such technical depths that the lay reader becomes lost, therefore, having a basic understanding of the terminology employed by textual critics can be very helpful before reading. That being said, every reader that becomes lost will be saved through the immensely helpful “Key Takeaways” section at the close of each chapter. These sections provide easily memorable bullet points of the overall discussion that readers can return to at will. As an apologist, I must admit that there were moments in which my ego was slightly bruised when reading, and others where my initial thought was the criticism was little more than tilting at windmills, given the specificity which the authors were trying to attain. But, I digress, that egos can and should recover, and what might appear to be unnecessary criticism to some is actually warranted if the integrity of our defense is at the forefront of our minds.
It is rightly said that there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient classical text, but if we apply numbers to this claim, we must ensure that those numbers are true. Likewise, it is rightly stated that the doctrines of the church are not affected by any single variant in scripture, but this is not because those variants don’t matter; it is because no doctrine of the church rest exclusively on one verse. It is true that the church fathers reference scripture throughout their writings, but they do not do so in such a way as to accurately apply chapter and verse, nor could we know that they are citing Scripture, if we did not have the New Testament to compare them to. And perhaps the hardest truth for some to hold to is that we do not need a first century copy of Mark, or any other New Testament text, to defend the reliability of the message of Scripture. Therefore, always choosing the earliest date for the manuscripts in our possession is neither necessary nor recommended when engaging with lay people in the body of Christ.
This book accomplishes its goal in speaking the truth with love, and prods the apologetics community to walk with greater integrity than we have done in the past. It is also helpful for any person interested in the world of textual criticism and serves as an excellent primer into the various facets of this academic field. It is helpful for the minister seeking to educate their congregation, the apologist looking to mature in their knowledge and the student considering where they would like to take their studies in the future. It’s initial success in sales is testament to the felt need in the broader community and I hope that the desire for it continues to grow, as it is my core conviction that apologists, as soldiers on the frontline of the spiritual battle, must, above all others, walk in truth and integrity. I have made the mistakes listed in this book. I have believed many of the myths. I am certain that you have too. I choose to learn from those mistakes and not repeat them. I pray you will choose the same, and make this book the turning point for you future engagements.
Let's Talk About Preservation
Posted by Clark Bates
November 1, 2019
Let’s talk about preservation. Preservation is one of those Christian doctrines that is largely presumed in a discussion rather than explained or thought through. Essentially, the doctrine of preservation is the belief that since God has promised that His word will never pass away, the word of God found in the books of the Bible must be preserved for all time. The reason this doctrine isn’t often addressed on its own, is because it usually gets enveloped into an argument for the reliability of the text. Discussions focus on manuscripts, variants, text categories and the like.
For critics like Dr. Bart Ehrman, the existence of variants in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament patently demonstrate that there has been no preservation of God’s Word. For others, the need to maintain the doctrine of preservation leads to adopting a particular translation of the Bible as the “only inspired and inerrant word of God” or to prefer the text that is found in the majority of manuscripts. And others choose to adopt a particular form of the text adopted by the Reformed creeds. In general, these slightly extreme approaches are bound up in a generally honorable desire, to defend the doctrine of preservation.
The doctrine of preservation is entirely biblical (Ps. 12:6-7; Is. 40:8; Lk. 21:33) and if one believes that God must work miraculously through time to preserve every single word, the desire to adopt a specific form of the text makes perfect sense. I believe in the doctrine of preservation even though I do not hold to any of the positions above, but this post isn’t about breaking down the details of the doctrine, it’s about sharing what I believe to be an excellent example of God’s actions in history, through completely natural processes, to preserve his word for the next generations.
It's all Greek
The direction of my academic work rarely intersects with content that I would consider applicable to
The majuscule Greek dominated all literary works for hundreds of years, until the 9th century when a new book-hand abruptly appears on the scene. Nothing like the refined beauty of the all-capital majuscule style, this form of writing was lowercase. Not only this, but it was written in a cursive style of interconnected letters in random places and marked with several combination forms of letters, called ligatures. This new hand would later be called “minuscule” for its lowercase approach to the text and becomes the predominate style of writing until the time of the printing press in the 16th century. So influential was the minuscule that the earliest Greek typefaces used in printing were designed after the minuscule writing style, so much so that ligatures are even found in the earliest printed Greek New Testaments.
The question that puzzles many (okay not many, but a select few that have nothing better to do) is why did the style of writing change as it did, and when did this actually begin? It’s impossible to believe that our oldest example of the Greek minuscule book-hand is the first time it appeared. Many of these studies are very technical, but most paleographers are in agreement on two features:
- The minuscule book-hand must go back to at least the 8th century
- All evidence suggests that this book-hand originated in the Stoudium monastery in Constantinople
A Brief Byzantine History
In the 4th century a Roman diplomat of high social status named Flavius Stoudios founded a monastery in Constantinople. Very little is known of the monastery in the following centuries, but the surrounding Empire experienced immense difficulty. As various Emperors rose and fell, the wealth of the empire grew, but suffered under excessive expansion of territories. The plague decimated people and grain storages and people-groups living on the outskirts of the Empire began to revolt. Persia began to encroach into the northern boundary, Avars invaded in the West. By the 7th century, the Byzantine Empire was a shadow of its once great glory. At this same time, a new religion was rising in the East led by a man named Muhammed Ibn Abdullah: Islam. The Islamic faith spread rapidly in the 7th century, conquering Egypt and the Persian Empire, threatening the existence of the
Byzantine Empire and Constantinople.
The Islamic invasion was suppressed for a time, but their conquering of Egypt cut off the supply of papyrus to the Empire resulting in a shortage of writing materials. The alternative material, vellum, made from animal skins was costly and not producible in mass quantities in a financially diminished Byzantium. Within Christianity, this was the era of the Chalcedonian Council and the Christological battles against Nestorianism and the nature(s) of Christ. By the 7th century, a new conflict had arisen called the Iconoclasm. This dispute in the church revolved around the use of icons (images of Christ and Mary) in worship or in churches. The iconoclasts argued that they should be destroyed, while the iconodules argued for their necessity. It is here that the monks of the Stoudite monastery reappear in history.
The Stoudite monks opposed the iconoclastic emperors and churchmen, arguing fervently and writing
In the obituaries written of Theodore and Plato, it is said that they possessed a style of writing that is difficult to translate into English. The use od the Greek word is strange, but when combined with its context, the suggestion is that they wrote with a sweeping motion and with great speed. It is presumed that Plato taught this style to Theodore, who, in turn, taught it to his monks. This is believed by some to be the beginning of the minuscule Greek hand. Why? Because the earliest dated example of this book-hand is a Gospel text referred to as the Uspenski Gospels and it is signed by a monk. Nicholas the Stoudite, servant of Theodore.
Over time, the church returned to the use of icons and the monks were allowed to return, yet their monastery had become so influential in its operations that the Empress Irene asked that they send monks to other monasteries and train them. In effect, these monks took the minuscule book-hand they had learned from Theodore and spread it to the rest of the Christian world, where it was then recopied, taking on regional features of its own, and eclipsing the previously used majuscule hand. Within a few centuries, the demand for book making increased to such a level that it rocked even the archaeological evidence left behind. In the 8th century a scant 58 New Testament papyri remain, many of which are fragmentary. By the 9th century, and the beginning of the minuscule book-hand, there are 208, by the 11th century there are 836 and it grows astronomically from there.
Allow me to take this one step further by going one step backward. If you examine the non-literary papyri of the 5th – 7th centuries, it is possible to trace the expansion of a sloppy minuscule writing style, very useful for writing deeds, receipts, and the like. These all come from Egypt of course, and are nowhere near the Stoudite monastery in Turkey. However, the monastery was founded by a Roman diplomat, who would have been familiar with these non-literary styles of texts and was likely exposed to this very early form of the minuscule Greek. To populate the monastery, monks were brought in from the Ivory Coast of Africa on a trade route that would have taken them through Egypt, exactly where we find these papyri, exposing the monks to this style as well. What this may suggest is that the Greek minuscule writing style can be pushed back farther than originally thought, possibly back to at least the 6th century.
Conclusion
I call that divine preservation. I call that providence. In all times, for all people, God has provided His word and He has ensured that it will last even through the most unlikely of times.
What's a Christian to do With Leviticus?
Posted by Clark Bates
September 5, 2019
The book of Leviticus. The mere mention of it brings images of a barren desert to the mind of most Christians. It is the book that shall not be named. It is the place “read my Bible in a year” plans go to die. Fewer books cause the amount of struggle than the book of Leviticus. Not because it’s convicting to the reader, or because its deep theology requires contemplation (although both could be true in some cases). No, it causes struggle because it’s…. just….so…. boring.
What is a sheaf offering anyway? Or a wave offering? Why do they have to kill so many animals?
Some Basics
The book of Leviticus is named from the Latin Vulgate meaning “pertaining to the Levites”. In Hebrew it’s called וַיִּקְרָא (vō·kä·rä, “and he called”) based on the first word in the Hebrew text. Various Rabbinic traditions also referred to it as the “law of the priests” or the “law-book of sacrificial offerings”. It is counted as one of the five books of Moses, also known as the Torah or the Pentateuch, and is among the most valuable and oldest books of the Jewish tradition.
Leviticus is essentially a rule book for the Levitical priesthood, but ore than that it is the guidebook for the relationship between the nation of Israel and God. It can be summed up with the repeated phrase, “Be holy, because I (God) am holy”. It’s filled with very specific instructions regarding sacrifices and offerings, lists of unacceptable sins and the punishments that attach to them.
Leviticus is blunt and bloody, and it flies in the face of most modern, Western sensibilities. But, it is the source for the character of the nation that was chosen by God and the manner in which they were to carry themselves as a nation set apart from those around them. As Christians, it is difficult to determine where we stand in relation to this book. One option has been to simply assert that it doesn’t apply to us. That was for them, then and the New Testament is for us, now. Another approach has been to assert that it’s all applicable and its guidelines are for Christians as well. However, even those who affirm this, don’t actually burn witches or sacrifice goats.
The Message of Leviticus
Firstly, Leviticus communicates that God is Holy (20.3;22.32). Because of this holiness mankind cannot enter into His presence. The manner in which the Israelites set up their camp reveals this separation:
Space Person
The Sanctuary Priests onlyThe Camp The Israelite People
Outside the Camp The Temporarily Unclean
The Wilderness Unclean Spirits
This establishment demonstrates how a persons spiritual position relates to their proximity to the Lord. What’s more, the closer a person or thing gets to God, the holier it becomes:
Space Person
The Inner Court LevitesThe Holy Place Priests
The Holy of Holies The High Priest
Understanding this relationship between the people and God is foundational to understanding the rest of the text. The ritual purity laws and cleansing rituals, kept the people aware of their need for holiness. On those days when an Israelite was to enter into the sanctuary, they would need to be even more aware, given the closer proximity to the Lord and the need for ritual holiness.
Also, death is clearly combined with being unclean. Death defiles the man. Even touching a carcass renders the person unclean (11.24-5; 39-40). Contact with a human corpse was worst of all, to the extent that a priest couldn’t contact a corpse unless it was his wife (21.1-4; 10-12).
Holiness coincides with justice. Because God is holy and He demands the people to be holy, then they must require justice (24.20). Retribution must fit the crime, and crimes must be punished. Additionally, God’s holiness is revealed in Leviticus through His love. The one’s who love God are told to “love [their] companion who is like [them]” (19.18). Because of this love, the Israelites are to treat others justly and lovingly (19.15-18).
Because God is holy and the average person is not, a means to be made pure was necessary. Enter the sacrificial system. Sin results in consequences, and nothing made this more evident than the sacrifice. So prevalent was the need for sacrifice that unintentional sins required the life of an animal (4-5). Logically, this resulted with the realization that sin brings death and the only way to forgive this sin was for something else to take the sinner’s place. This is most clearly stated in 17.11,
“For the life of the animal resides in the blood: I have assigned it to you to make expiation on the altar, for your lives, because it is the blood that makes expiation by the life.”
It was not enough to merely follow the ritual, however, as the nation would later be judged for empty ritual practice. It was understood that God searched the heart of the individual and that brought the forgiveness.
So, what do Christians do with this book?
Leviticus and the New Testament
Beyond this, there are the more difficult aspects of this book, most notably the requirement of a sin offering for a woman who has had a child or menstruated, a leper, and even a bodily discharge. Why in the world are natural bodily functions and diseases considered a sin?! We might be tempted to point out that the people of this book were clearly savages or simply ignorant of the way the body worked and this is the result of these requirements. We might simply want to reject the book as a whole, because of this. I would suggest that neither would be correct.
Consider that the sin sacrifice not only applies to everyday bodily functions, but even to UNINTENTIONAL sins! Sacrifice is expected for sins you didn’t even consciously commit!! How is this fair? How I this just? You might even respond that it’s impossible to remain clean and holy under such conditions!!!
And you’d be right. Because that’s the point.
The sacrifice is required because God is holy. It applies to every part of daily life because every part of our humanity is unholy. This is the message of Paul (Rom. 5.12-21; 8.5) and John (1 Jn. 2.2; 3.5). It is why Jesus came to be sin on our behalf (2 Co. 5.21), the just for the unjust (1 Pet. 3.18). He did this, because it is impossible for any human being to keep himself holy or be able to approach God through his or her own efforts. The message of Leviticus is the message of the cross.
Conclusion
But it doesn’t, in so far as the rituals are concerned. Why? Because Jesus was the last sacrifice required, and he stands in the presence of the Father on our behalf eternally (Heb.5.1-10; 8.1-6; 10.19-23). The need for Christians to remain separate from the world as exemplified in the separation of cloths and kinds of cattle (Lev. 19.19) or the need to remain morally pure as seen in sundry passages (19.20-22; 18.6-10) is still true (1 Jn. 2). The punishment for these crimes, particularly those deserving death still stand, but it is no the Christian who is to impose them, but God alone (Rom. 12.19; 13.4). Likewise, death will come to those who continue in sin without taking advantage of the means by which God has provided for forgiveness (Jn. 3.16-20).
Dear Christian, if the book of Leviticus has been a cross you felt you had to bear up to now, I pray that you will leave here seeing it as the cross Christ bore on your behalf.
An Appearance on Lawyers for Jesus
Posted by Clark Bates
June 28, 2016
I was recently featured on the Chicago radio program, Lawyers for Jesus. The program airs live on AM1160 and the shows can be found as a podcast on iTunes and Soundcloud. The show is operated by the law firm of Mauck & Baker LLC, a law firm intent on helping Christian ministries stand up for their legal rights in a modern society. After listening to the broadcast, I encourage you to visit their website at http://mauckbaker.com/
https://soundcloud.com/lawyersforjesus/apologist-clark-bates-explains-how-christians-can-defend-the-bibles-validity-using-common-sense
The Codex and Christianity Revisited: New Research from Notre Dame
Posted by Clark Bates
June 5, 2019
This last weekend I was fortunate enough to be able to attend The Material Gospels conference at the University of Notre Dame. This was a small gathering of like-minded scholars interested in the use of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, as a material document. There were six lectures overall, covering topics form the use of the codex in non-religious practices, the New Testament as a material artifact in early church practice, insights from a Syriac Gospel Palimpsest[1], the resistance of some Christian communities to the use of the codex, and a very enjoyable history of a particularly odd Latin codex, known informally as “Codex Bobiensis”.
There were several points made in these discussions that I wanted to relay here, but I believe I will devote this week’s article to the first two presentations made in the morning, and reserve a singular article later devoted to another presentation that I believe has ramifications for certain modern conceptions of the “Bible” and it’s relation to the person of Jesus Christ. This week’s discussion revolves around the use of the codex in non-Christian culture, and how that might shed light on the reason for the Christian adoption of this fairly unused book-form for their sacred texts.
The Codex in Galen
Among the many manuscripts that were destroyed, Galen recounts a “recipe” codex which contained various recipes for medicinal cures. This catalog had been compiled by the author from physicians coming through Rome from all over the world. They would trade recipes with one another during their interactions and Galen collected all that he had. More fascinating than this early “Physician’s Desk Reference” is that the author had the forethought to organize the text by ailment, making it searchable for the reader. Put simply, the physician could be presented with the patient and a description of the ailment, and the possessor of the codex would be able to turn to the applicable section for a remedy. It is notable that Galen used a codex format for this type of book.
It may be worth noting at this stage that while the codex book-form is the common book-form today, this was not always the case. Prior to the 4th century, the scroll was the most common book technology in mass production. Much of the change from scroll to codex can be credited to Christian use, which I have written about here. That being said, the codex was used in small amounts for various types of writing, yet prior to the 4th century the evidence of its use is fairly limited. While it had, at one time, been postulated that Christians invented the codex, this is certainly not true. It was also postulated that Christians used the codex to demonstrate that their texts were special or of high value. While this has been an intriguing and entertaining thought, it no longer appears to be a sufficient explanation. This is where Galen’s work adds to our understanding.
The Codex in Other Forms
Add to this the talk given by PhD candidate Jeremiah Coogan, “Navigating the Gospel: Nonlinear Access and Practical Use” and even more light is shed upon this fascinating transition in book technology. Jeremiah’s research has revealed that, in general, two genres of book are frequently found in codex form: anthologies and legal texts. Beginning with the second form first, while it is true that when a legal proclamation was made by the emperor, or a lower regent it was often read allowed in public on a scroll. The reason for this, which can also be seen in early Greco-Roman art, is that a scroll carried a recognition of power. When the scroll was unfurled before the people, the demonstration was significant in confirming the authority of the reader and the message contained within.
That being said, once this legal text had been read, and possibly displayed publicly, it would be removed from public view, but retained as a record. The message contained on the scroll was then transferred to a page in a codex and stored. These legal codices contained information that may need to be accessed, but often would not be something committed to memory or regularly read. In essence, a legal corpus such as this would not be read like a novel, from front to back, but in segments. It would not be read linearly.
In a similar way, anthologies were works like a modern-day encyclopedia. Often these works would contain lists of items and brief descriptions below their title. In one such work, the codex contained a list of birds, categorized by paintings of these birds, followed by a description of them. The picture served as markers for where each section began and ended. Additionally, there was an example of a magical text containing various incantations. These incantations often began with headings describing what the spell would help with, but would also end with a particular marking denoting the end of the incantation before the beginning of the next. In both examples, the texts often used, as with the example provided by Galen, were not intentioned for linear reading.
What Does this Have to do with the Bible?
How this relates to the Christian use of the codex may already becoming clear to some readers, but I will attempt to explain it now. Prolific and eminent scholar Larry Hurtado postulates that the Christians used the codex for the New Testament, and ultimately the entire Bible, as a way of demonstrating that it was of high value.[2] The reason for this was largely due to the cost of producing such a work. However, in recent years other postulations have been made. Another, which I have written some about, was postulated by Hurtado’s former student, Dr. Michael Kruger, suggesting that the portability of the codex over the scroll was especially helpful when dealing with multiple texts intended to be carried together.[3] In this way, the adoption of the codex by Christians may point to an early “canon-consciousness” within the body of Christ. In other words, the use of the codex reveals that the church was already thinking of certain books as a “canon”, likely starting with the Pauline epistles.
Additionally, returning to Rothschild’s discussion, it has become clear that the use of a codex did not, in and of itself, represent that a text was more valuable than another, unlike Hurtado’s suggestion. While it may still be true that the Christians viewed theses texts as sacred, something Christ Keith dealt with in his talk and something I will hopefully discuss in the near future on this website, their use of the codex would not necessarily symbolize this. How this is known, comes again from Galen’s De Indolentia, wherein he mentions that his most valuable texts are actually contained on scrolls, not codices. Therefore, scrolls and codices were interchangeable regarding the “value” one might place on a manuscript. However, unintentionally, both Coogan and Rothschild’s work overlapped in many ways. Both demonstrated rather effectively that a prime feature of the codex was its ease of use when seeking to find a specific place in a text for perusal. If we consider how many of us approach the Bible in our own homes even today, it is rarely to read through it linearly but to access a specific place. Not only are we accessing a specific chapter or verse, but a specific chapter and verse in a particular book. Before us is a virtual library of 66 separate books, delineated by headings, much like the work cited by Coogan, from which we can scan and isolate a particular place for reading, evangelizing or preaching. This form of nonlinear reading would be almost impossible by modern thinking if the codex book-form had not been proliferated by the Christian church. And the evidence that continues to come to light suggests that this may have actually been one of the very things they intended.
Conclusion
* Conclusions made in this article are the author's. It is not my intent to suggest that these conclusions were drawn by the presenters in their talks and I have sought to be clear within the article on this matter.
[1] A Palimpsest is a manuscript that was initially used for a different document than what is currently found on it. It derives its name from the Greek word παλιμψηστος (palimpsestos) which means “scraped again”, referring to the practice of scraping the old ink off of the original document to reuse the material for another writing.
[2]Larry Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts.
[3] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited.
[4] It should be mentioned that this form of non-linear reading in the Christian church was likely borrowed from the practice of the Jewish synagogue. We read in Luke 4:16-21 of Jesus doing this very thing, and using a scroll for such purposes. Because of this, we cannot stretch the link from the codex to the ease of non-linear reading too far. A person trained in the use of a scroll and familiar with the text at hand could likely access a portion of it fairly quickly. That being said, if multiple sections of different books were needed, as they would be in a lectionary situation, the number of scrolls needed would be cumbersome, whereas a single codex would be an improvement.
Does the Bible Approve of Abortion?
Posted by Clark Bates
May 28, 2019
This week’s post is another response to “meme theology”, or in this case it might be considered “meme exegesis”. As the fires of the abortion debate have been stoked once again, with the introduction of new state legislation, making abortion illegal in almost all instances, the vitriol has flooded social media. Recently, when engaging with an abortion advocate online, I was presented with the meme above and the claim that “the Bible promotes abortion”. This is, of course, a backdoor attempt to religiously legitimize a practice most Christians find abhorrent, and it is often produced by those who would not seek biblical approval for any area of their life, making it disingenuous at best.
That being said, many Christians would simply reject the claim and respond in anger, possibly justified, but never actually examine the passages cited. As I am a avid proponent of Christian apologists being biblically mature ahead of everything else, it follows that we should know the passages cited, their proper context, and how to respond biblically. That is the purpose of this week’s article. Below I will address each passage and seek to explain why they cannot, legitimately, be applied to the abortion agenda today.
Exodus 21:22-23
"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
“In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus, the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is not considered a person. If the fetus were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman—death. Abortion, then, is not murder.”[1]
The conclusions made in this reasoning stem from the belief that the Hebrew word יָצָא (yâtsâ) should be translated as “miscarriage” or as “depart”. While the idea of “departing” is consistent with a possible translation, the concept of miscarriage is not. This is a gloss based on the semantic range of the verb. At its core, the verb is an action of “going out” or even “bringing forth”, which is its most common use in the OT.[2] This has also been acknowledged in modern English Bible translations, as the only version that translates this as suggesting the death of a child is the KJV. All other English translations of this passage render the verse as “gives birth prematurely” which, while still being a gloss, is a more accurate treatment.
What is additionally important in this passage is the line that immediately follows:
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm…”
The “harm” in question here, is applied to the child, but could also, indirectly apply to the mother. Let us also point out that even if we were to accept the tenuous linguistic argument that a “miscarriage” is in view here, that is not the same as an abortion. An abortion is the intentional ending of an unborn human life. A miscarriage can happen for many reasons, but always unintentionally.[3]
What’s more, in the following verse there is the penalty for what is to happen if harm does occur to the baby or the mother. In such a situation, the law of lex talionis (eye for an eye) applies. While those who use this passage to suggest that the Bible does not view a fetus as a human life argue that v. 22 applies to the fetus dying and v. 23 applies solely to the mother, they are making that argument on speculative grounds linguistically, and largely from presuppositions made prior to reading the text.
That is why this verse led scholars like Meredith Kline, formerly of Gordon-Cromwell, to say:
“This law, found in Ex. 21:22-25, turns out to be perhaps the most decisive positive evidence in Scripture that the fetus is to be regarded as a living person.”[4]
And if this were not enough, there is the larger corpus of Scripture which clearly presents the unborn life as sacred.[5]
Leviticus 27:6
"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the Lord involving the valuation of persons, then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels. If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, the valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels. If the person is from a month old up to five years old, the valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female the valuation shall be three shekels of silver. And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the valuation for a male shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.'"
The argument from this passage is largely an argument from silence. Not much need to be said here in the way of refutation, for there is nothing in the verse to bring one to the conclusion found in the meme. What is at issue is that the law in this passage refers to the value to be paid for a person, beginning with full grown males and females, down to children up to 1 month old. The argument then, is that since there is no monetary value listed for children less than 1 month old, the passage is positively stating that children less than a month (a fetus included) are not considered human life.
Hopefully it is clear, at the outset, that not having a monetary value attached to children under 1 month does not necessarily, or even logically, conclude that they are not considered human life.
Formally stated, the argument from “silence is, in many cases, a lack of evidence, for the reason that the matter in question did not come within the scope of the author’s argument.”[6] The assumption imported into the pro-abortion argument behind this verse is that a votive offering is somehow indicative of the redemptive value of human life. The problem with such an assumption is that it is exactly that, an assumption. The nature of a votive offering is unclear, especially in this text.
A votive offering is generaly recognized as an offering paid as part of a vow to God. This vow could be for many reasons. It could be a vow that resulted in blessing or protection. In such cases the offering is either being paid by the offeror for themselves, or for the other party, but has no direct impact on the recognition of that individual’s humanity. The reason for this is precisely as Dr. Briggs noted above so many years ago, the idea of the humanity of the individual was not within the scope of the argument. As we have already seen, the value of unborn life was already clear in Jewish culture, and thus not part of the guidance in Lev. 27:1-7. Even if the votive offering were one of redemption, it would be to redeem those who had made a vow, of service in most cases, to the temple or to the Lord in some fashion.[7] One can hardly expect a child less than one month old to be of service in a temple, especially since they would still be nursing. A child of one month to five years could easily be of service, first with the mother, and then on their own, once old enough to work. In either case, it has nothing to do with the humanity of the child.
Numbers 3:15-16
"And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, 'List the sons of Levi, by fathers' houses and by clans; every male from a month old and upward you shall list.' So Moses listed them according to the word of the Lord, as he was commanded."
Suffice it to say, the repetitious nature of these citations should become very clear at this point. This is, yet again, an argument from silence. The context of the passage is the official numbering of the Israelites by tribe. Given that the infant mortality rate (as far as it can be determined) for Israel in Late Antiquity (3-8th century AD) was as high as 30% [8], the mortality rate for the Ancient Near East would be considerably higher. Thus, when taking a census, it would not be reasonable to count children highly unlikely to survive.
Again, it must re-stated that the humanity of the child is not in the purview of the verse. What is in sight is the population count. A child less than one month would be less likely to be counted, given the mortality rate. Additionally, to reason that the verse above necessitates a conclusion that the infant is not human, begs the question. One must begin with the presupposition that (a) an unborn child is not human, or (b) the Bible explicitly states that an unborn child is not a human. Option (a) is a modern philosophical invention being imported into the text, and option (b) is non-existent in the text.
Numbers 31:15-17; Hosea 9:14;16; 13:16; 2 Samuel 12:14
"Moses said to them, 'Have you let all the women live? Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.' "
"Give them, O Lord—what will you give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts....Ephraim is stricken; their root is dried up; they shall bear no fruit. Even though they give birth, I will put their beloved children to death....Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."
"Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,the child who is born to you shall die."
Given that several passages are in view here, let’s address them at one time. To begin, the statement attached to these passages in the meme points out that God either “approves of” or actively “kills” fetuses or newborns. Before even looking at the verses in question, an immediate response can be made on purely theological grounds. As I have addressed in another post, God is the rightful owner of all humanity as He is the ultimate cause for all human life that ever has been and ever will be. Because of this, it is solely within His right to take the life of whomever He pleases.
Setting that point aside, Numbers 31:15-17 refers to the killing of male children, not unborn babies,
When addressing the Hosea 9 passages, it should be understood from the beginning, that the language used is poetic and figurative. The nation of Israel is being represented in many ways, but all negatively. Chapter 9 begins with punishments that will befall Israel because of their rejection of the law of God. The verses immediately prior to those in the meme declare that the nation will be childless, either in an inability to conceive or to bring to term, and it is God acting out this judgment. All references to unborn children in 9 are to miscarriage or infertility. The direct killing stated in v.16 refers to born alive children. While it is true that judgment language of this kind is found in many Ancient Near Eastern texts, they are commonly hyperbolic in the extremity to which they will go.
Clearly the Israelites did bear children that survived, as there are Israelites still living to this day. Therefore, what we have in Hosea is a divine judgment text, not meant to be taken woodenly but as a blanket judgment of destruction to the people. Barrenness itself was considered a divine curse throughout this time and beyond.[9] While Numbers 13:16b is the closest any of these verses might come to speaking of an unborn child being murdered, it again falls within the context of a judgment text. These actions did take place, and they were under the sovereign will of God, but to be equivalent to the pro-abortion argument it would require the proponent to believe that God was actively commanding them to commit the abortion AND that the abortions being performed were part of God’s judgment on the people receiving them. Again, this is not an argument that will be made.
Lastly, 2 Samuel recounts the well-known passage in which David’s child by Bathsheba dies. While the statement attached to this verse in the meme is technically correct, it again does nothing to support the current, pro-abortion, position. Yes, it is true that God allows the death of, or even kills, a child to punish the parents. This is clearly the case for David. Yet, this is not normative either. It is not abortion on demand for any reason, at any time. Also, as has been stated above, it is God’s prerogative to take human life, and in this case, it is in the form of a child dying of natural causes AFTER birth. It is not a case of child neglect, as has been approved in states like Virginia and New York, and is not tantamount to an abortion. Secondly, as was also noted above, this is DIVINE JUDGEMENT upon the parents. Unless the abortion practitioner or the one promoting abortion is suggesting that they are God’s tool of judgment upon the mothers, the reasoning does not follow.
Numbers 5:21; 27-28
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to the people of Israel, If any man's wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband...the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water....Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you...the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’"
This passage is often cited as one in which God “causes an abortion”. At best, what may be in view here is another example of a miscarriage, but even this is suspect. No, popularly used, English translations interpret this text to reference an abortion. The exact statement is that the “abdomen will swell” and the “thigh will fall away”. Both are euphemistic terms that are unclear. While it is possible that the swelling of the abdomen might be suggestive of an illegitimate pregnancy that fails to come to term[10], the reference to the “thigh” is consistently euphemistic of the sexual organs.[11]
Rather, “The most probable explanation for the phrase 'and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away . . .' is that the woman suffers a collapse of the sexual organs known as a prolapsed uterus. In this condition, which may occur after multiple pregnancies, the pelvis floor (weakened by the pregnancies) collapses, and the uterus literally falls down. It may lodge in the vagina, or it may actually fall out of the body through the vagina. If it does so, it becomes edematous and swells up like a balloon. Conception becomes impossible, and the woman’s procreative life has effectively ended . . .”[12] This being the case, pregnancy is not in view but rather the inability to ever conceive.
Genesis 38:24
"About three months later Judah was told, 'Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.' And Judah said, 'Bring her out, and let her be burned.' "
The caption attached to this last verse declares that the “law of God” required the execution of pregnant women by burning to death. Suffice it to say that the Law does not prescribe the burning of pregnant women, least of all here. The larger context of this story is a narrative, not a legal passage, therefore drawing the conclusion that the actions taken or even attempted are approved by God would be contrary to the genre of the text.
The narrative within which this verse falls is the deception of Judah by his daughter-in-law, Tamar. In the story, Tamar, has married Judah’s son, Er, but he has died without producing an heir. According to the law, it falls to the closest male sibling of her husband to marry her and produce a child.[13] Judah commanded his second son, Onan, to perform his duties as the levirate, but Onan did not. This left Tamar without an heir and without a husband, leaving her helpless as a woman in that time. Tamar’s recourse is to disguise herself as a prostitute and convince her father-in-law, Judah, to sleep with her. He does this, and she becomes pregnant. The law actually requires that Judah marry Tamar at this point.
When Judah is told that his daughter-in-law has conceived through prostitution, he responds violently, but not in any way sanctioned by OT law. When he learns that he is actually the father, he immediately adopts his role as her kinsman redeemer. Judah, the one calling for her to be burned, is depicted in this narrative as the enemy, not the hero. It is Tamar that is the righteous character in this story, for she is doing what is necessary to protect herself and ultimately continue the messianic line that would lead to David (Ruth 4:18-22) and ultimately to Christ (Matt.1:6-17). Therefore, this verse neither promotes abortion, nor does it depict the law of God as validating the burning of a pregnant woman. To suggest so is, like every other claim in the meme, a non sequitur.
Conclusion
The argument ultimately devolves into a form of, “If God can do it, so can I”, and this is probably the most accurate of statements to be made. The inner corrupted desire of all mankind is to usurp the authority and role of God in their lives, and the abortion industry is no different. The pro-abortion argument from Scripture is nothing more than tacit agreement that the person in favor of abortion is seeking to be God.
[1] Graham Spurgeon, “Is Abortion Murder?” in The Religious Case for Abortion, p. 16
[2] See Gen. 1:24; 4:16; 9:18; Ex. 28:35; 29:46; 32:34 and many, many more.
[3] The Mayo Clinic defines a miscarriage as the “spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week.”
[4] M. G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JETS 20 (1977): 193-201
[5] Job 10:8-12; 15:14; Ps. 51:5; 58:3; 139:13-16; Eccles. 11:5; Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15
[6] C.A. Briggs, “The Argument E Silentio: With Special Reference to the Religion of Israel,” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, vol.3 (1), (June, 1883).
[7] This is similar to the vow made by Hannah concerning her son Samuel in 1 Sam.1:11.
[8]Meir Bar-Ilan, Mortality Rate in the Land of Israel in Late Antiquity: https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/articles/to_check/infant.html
[9] Consider the barrenness of Sarah (Gen. 15:2); Hannah (1 Sam. 1:5-11); the curse of David’s wife Michal (2 Sam. 6:23) and even the statement made by Elizabeth (Lk. 1:24-25).
[10] R.K. Harrison, Numbers, WEC, 111-3.
[11] Walter Riggans, Numbers, Daily Study Bible Series, p. 50 (cf. Gen. 24:2)
[12] Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers V 11-31), Vetus Testamentum, 34:1 (January, 1984). Also, Frymer-Kensky, “The Trial Before God of an Accused Adulteress,” Bible Review, 2:3 (Fall, 1986).
[13] Deut. 25:5-10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)