The Law is Just (Pt. 4): Exodus 21:22-27 - On abortion, miscarriages, and the treatment of slaves.

Thus far we have examined Exodus 21 on laws concerning servants and laws concerning violence. We have seen that when one considers the historical context and the genre of "law" in Hebrew, the Mosaic law turns out not to be the moral monstrosity that skeptics often claim it as being. As we wrap up our examination of laws pertaining to violence we come across a law which liberals and skeptics actually agree with, but only because they misunderstand it. And then finally we find a statement which again grants human rights and protection to slaves. Moses writes:

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth." (Exodus 21:22-27 NKJV)

Notice first, that the beginning of our text deals with injury to a woman that results in a "termination" of her pregnancy. As I mentioned above, this is a verse that many skeptics and liberals actually like. According to them these verses do not grant human rights to "fetuses." Now of course, many of them will claim this is because the Mosaic law only grants such rights to "male property owners," but still, they will argue that our own holy book expounds a view of human beings in utero similar to their own. But where do they get this idea? Well first, it comes from several translations that incorrectly render the phrase in the New King James "gives birth prematurely," as "miscarriage." The most famous example of this comes from the outdated Revised Standard Version, a favorite amongst liberals and secular academics. It says:

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage [...]" (Ex. 21:22a RSV)

Those who take the pro-abortion interpretation of this verse will then point to the fact that the death penalty is not required for this miscarriage, just merely a payment to the husband. When the text says, "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life," by a process of elimination it is presumed that this therefore must refer to the life of the mother. In other words, the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the child, and the lack of a death penalty for the murder of the child demonstrates that "it" is not a human.

In response to that we must first recognize that there is a problem with the RSV translation of this verse (which has been corrected in the NRSV). The Hebrew word used here is Yasa, which literally means "to depart." It is used throughout Scripture to refer to the normal event of a child leaving the womb. This is the word that God used in Jeremiah 1:5 when he told the prophet, "Before you were born (lit.: came forth out of the womb) I sanctified you." This is also used throughout Scripture for untimely birth that does not necessarily result in a death of the infant (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 423). This is exactly why every other translation of Scripture renders this as "give birth prematurely" or a variant of that meaning in English. Therefore, when a fine set by the father/husband is required by the law as a punishment, that is meant as a compensation for the difficulty/stress of the situation in light of the other man's carelessness. However, if "harm follows," whether it be to the child or the mother (which often happened), then punishment up-to-and-including the death penalty could be enforced in response to the level of harm. This verse does not support abortion, it supports the rights of a human being to grow in the womb unharmed.

Then finally in verse 26-27 we find further reinforcement to the argument I made in parts 1 and 2 of the series; that slavery was a temporary institution in ancient Israel which, while limiting a persons rights, did not absolutely void them. This can be clearly observed here at the end of this section on violence. If a man took disciplinary action, whether justly or unjustly, on one of his slaves and permanently injured any of their body parts, they were to be set free.

The Mosaic law, in setting down principles of justice in cases of violence, takes care to protect the most vulnerable in society; from the developing person in the womb, to slaves trying to pay off debts. The law is just.

Next we will move forward through Exodus and examine what the law says about property and property rights.

What Does It Mean That Christ and Scripture Are Self-Attesting?

There are two starting points for presuppositional apologetics: 1) the self-attesting Christ and 2) the self-attesting Scriptures. The presuppositional apologist will not and cannot have any other starting point than these two things. In seeking to persuade the unbeliever about the truth of Christianity, he does not begin with evidences to lay a foundation upon which claims of Christ and the Scriptures might stand. Rather, he begins with Christ and the Scriptures and seeks to persuade from there. But is this a case of circular reasoning? Doesn't this undermine the plausibility of the apologist? Aren't the claims of Christ and the claims of Scripture under scrutiny? Don't they need to be proven true by rational arguments and evidences? Why, then, does the presuppositional apologist begin with them?

It is important to understand that the presuppositional apologist is not opposed to rational arguments and evidences for the Christian faith. They are tools at his disposal, and he may use them as needed. But they are just that: tools. Tools are useful for building a house, but a house does not stand upon tools. It needs a foundation. In the same way, the truth of Christianity does not stand upon the tools of the apologist, but upon the firm foundation of Christ and the Scriptures. You see, it is a question of foundations. What establishes the truth of Christianity? Is it rational arguments? Is it evidences? Or is it Christ and the Word of God?

If Christ is who He claims to be, then He is of necessity self-attesting. If He is the Lord of glory as the apostles testified (1 Cor. 2:8), then there is no higher witness than Himself. True, Christ did say that He did not testify to Himself, but claimed another testimony, that of His Father (John 5:31-36). Yet Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30). The Spirit also testifies concerning Jesus (1 John 5:6). But neither the Father nor the Spirit are ontologically superior to Christ. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is a higher witness than Christ; they are witnesses with Christ and to Christ.

Christ came to teach us about the Father, and to provide a way for sinners to be reconciled to Him (John 12:45; 14:6-11; 2 Cor. 5:19). Everything that He did cannot be separated from who He was. As the Son of God, He is one with the Father, and as God there is no one on earth who is higher in authority than Him. Therefore, there is no higher court of appeals than the witness of Christ. There is nothing outside of Christ that can add to His authority or truthfulness. All other witnesses, whether the Church, reason, or general revelation are subordinate to Christ. As subordinate witnesses, they cannot establish the truthfulness of the claims of Christ, only confirm what Christ has said.

Unbelievers cannot appeal to reason or general revelation as witnesses higher than Christ. They are subordinate to Christ. Christ has created all things, and all things were created for Him (Col. 1:16). Reason and creation can only attest to Him, not against Him. But they are subordinate to Him; therefore they cannot be appealed to as an higher authority.

Scripture, too, carries the full weight of God's authority. Christ is the Word made flesh (John 1:1-14). Scripture is the written Word of God. Like Christ, the Word, Scripture has no higher authority outside of itself. All that is written in Scripture cannot be separated from the ultimate author, vis., the Holy Spirit.

It is true that God used fallible men to write Scripture, but these men wrote under divine inspiration. 2 Peter 1:21 says that these men spoke from God as they were being carried (φερόμενοι) by the Holy Spirit. Since, then, Scripture is ultimately of divine origin, though proximately written by men, it is of divine authority. We do not appeal to a higher authority than Christ, for there is no higher authority. Likewise, we do not appeal to a higher authority than the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Christ and Scripture agree because Scripture was spoken by the Holy Spirit, who is also called the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9).

Unbelievers, then, cannot appeal to reason and science, as if they are an authority higher than Scripture. All evidence outside of Scripture comports with Scripture, and, if rightly interpreted, fully supports Scripture. But the evidences brought forth by reason and science are subordinate to Scripture and cannot serve as the foundation of the truth of Christ and His Word.

Christ and Scripture possess divine authority. The authority that they possess is foundational and is sufficient for establishing the truth. Furthermore, since it is divine authority that they possess, the proper response of those to whom their truth claims are made is reverence and submission. The call of the gospel is not "Once you figure out that science and reason are compatible with Scripture, then you may believe." Rather it is "Repent and believe!" Reason and science are not enough to establish the credibility of Scripture because they are limited in their ability to reach beyond the realm of this cosmos and understand spiritual things. Furthermore, there is a fundamental flaw in the human ability to understand things beyond the creational realm.

The things of God cannot be understood by unbelievers because their hearts are darkened by sin. "God is a Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). But the unbeliever "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). The unbeliever, not science and reason, is at odds with Christ and Scripture, because he is not able to discern spiritual things. It is only by faith that anyone can fully understand the world around him and the God who created all things (Heb. 11:3).

This is, then, what is meant by Christ and Scripture are self-attesting. They are the ultimate authority in all the matters that they address. There is no higher authority to appeal to beyond them. Reason, science, and evidences are helpful in meeting the arguments of unbelievers, but the unbeliever must ultimately submit himself to Christ and His Word. He cannot submit himself to science and reason first and then submit to Christ. If he does so, he has not rooted himself in Christ (Col. 2:6-7), as Scripture calls us to do, but he has instead been taken captive by philosophy and empty deceit (Col. 2:8). He does not stand upon a firm foundation, who stands upon anything else other than Christ and His Word.  

Calvin on Evidences and Establishing the Authority of Scripture

Presuppositional apologetics is simply Reformed apologetics. There is nothing new under the sun:

Yet they who strive to build up firm faith in Scripture through disputations are doing things backwards. For my part, although I do not excel either in great dexterity or eloquence, if I were struggling against the most crafty sort of despisers of God, who seek to appear shrewd and witty in disparaging Scripture, I am confident it would not be difficult for me to silence their clamorous voices. And if it were a useful labor to refute their cavils, I would with no great trouble shatter the boasts they mutter in their lurking places. But even if anyone clears God's Sacred Word from man's evil speaking, he will not at once imprint upon their hearts that certainty which piety requires. Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. Isaiah very aptly expresses this connection in these words: "My Spirit which is in you, and the words that I have put in your mouth, and the mouths of your offspring, shal never fail" [Isa. 59:21p.]. Some good folk are annoyed that a clear proof is not ready at hand when the impious, unpunished, murmur against God's Word. As if the Spirit were not called both "seal" and "guarantee" [II Cor. 1:22] for confirming the faith of the godly; because until he illumines their minds, they ever waver among many doubts! (The Institutes, Book I, Ch. VII, Sec. 4b)

The Law is Just (Pt. 3): Does Exodus 21:12-19 Say That One Can Stone Their Own Children for Rebellion?

Yes, actually, it does. Immediately this may seem problematic though, as the punishment does not seem to fit the crime in our ordinary observations of such behavior. In fact, this law is embedded between other laws that do seem to be reasonable in many people's eyes.

“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. (Exodus 21:12-19 NKJV)

As usual I have three principles to keep in mind when reading texts like this.

1) We must recognize that God's covenant to redeem Israel only heightens their moral responsibility. We cannot understand many of the Mosaic laws if we do not recognize that the number one concern of the Torah is how a sinful people can live amidst a holy God. This becomes the primary concern of the text after the Exodus, during the construction of the tabernacle, and in the wilderness wanderings. Redemption, in the case of Israel, makes the law more severe in its stipulations. For example, after the theophany on Mt. Sinai, where God verbally gave his law, stricter penalties can be observed over issues like work during the sabbath. For example, in Exodus 16, the Israelites, probably in large numbers, continued to work on the sabbath and yet God had mercy on them after rebuking them. But after God appears to the congregation, he demands the death penalty for the same crime in Exodus 35, and we see it enforced in Numbers 15. Because of their direct experience of God's mercy previously, and his appearance before them, their rejection of his law became a "high handed sin." This can be observed with other laws as well. We must remember that men are responsible before God, not other men, and justice is primarily about an attribute of God, not about "fairness" or equality before men. Revelation intensifies these realities, especially in light of how God orders his covenant community.

2) Covenant transmission occurs in the Bible primarily through the family unit. Therefore, the parents are entrusted with the covenant and the responsibility to pass it along to their children in the form of signs (IE circumcision/baptism), instructions (Dt. 6:1-4), and example. This also meant that children of the covenant had a heightened responsibility as well; to receive and believe in God as He was given to them in the covenant. In the Old Testament, where church and state were required to be conjoined, this meant that excommunication due to covenant rejection was normally enforced through the death penalty (with some exceptions). The disobedient child subject to the death penalty is not a child who merely displayed regular adolescent foolishness, but one that was particularly wicked and refused to obey God and the parents He placed over them. A rejection of parental authority in the context of the covenant had a heightened severity to it (in line with point 1)). This is why the 5th commandment, to honor one's Father and Mother, is the first commandment pertaining to our duty to man that follows the previous four pertaining to our duty to God. Parents were the horizontal connection to the individual child's vertical relationship with God. Furthermore, to "curse" one's parents is a serious offense, and probably involved a lot more than what us moderners intend when we say "swear words." Deuteronomy 21:20 further describes this child as one who, "will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." This is a child, who at a certain age of maturity (IE he could drink), had rejected his parents authority (and thus rejected God), and committed his life to squander and wickedness.

3) Again, as I have stated in previous posts, the Old Testament laws present us with maximum penalties, not necessarily required penalties. On top of that, the passage in Deuteronomy 21 clearly implies that a child put to death for such offenses had to have their parents as the accuser. Capital offenses in the Old Testament require two or three witnesses, and since the offense was against the parents, the parents had to be the witnesses. In the ancient near-east, just as today, that would be a very difficult thing for a parent to do regardless of the child's behavior. Familial connections often lead to extraordinary instances of mercy and grace. In fact, out of all of the historical books, we do not have one instance of parents bringing such charges against their children. It probably rarely, if ever occurred.

At first, we may hesitate to confidently state that in this instance, the law is indeed just. That is because we often associate justice, with mere human justice, not divine justice. Justice is an attribute of God, one which all fallen men are opposed to and violate. Therefore, in the covenant community, where God was "birthing" salvation for the world, rebellion against God's commands were treated with more severity as we saw in point 1). Because of the covenantal arrangement of Hebrew life, the parent-child relationship was also intensified according to point 2). However, the parental-child relationship was not completely disregarded, as the parents had the final say in this matter given point 3). So with this law we get a sense of both the severity of God's justice, and the implied tenderness and mercy that comes from familial relations. This law is completely fulfilled by Christ, who as the eternal, beloved Son of God, came into this world, under the law of Moses, to redeem us from the curse of the law. He did that by submitting himself to the death penalty for our childish rebellion against the Most High, even though he was without sin. However, because he was the eternal, beloved Son of God, being without sin, when he had completed that work, he was raised again from the dead and ascended into heaven to return to the "lap" of the Father. Therefore, all those who are in him are given the status as the sons of God, and are justified in their relationship to the law. The law is Just, and Jesus is merciful. Amen.

John Calvin on the Ethical Nature of Belief in God

Calvin affirms that all men have a knowledge of God, but that they do not respond properly to this knowledge. The sinful nature, which effects the intellect, is the source of unbelief, not a lack of information. Unbelievers know God exists. This reality also takes the gusto out of the argument of universalists or sycretists who argue their position based upon a vague notion of God found in various religions. Calvin writes:

Nevertheless, it is one thing to feel that God as our Maker supports us by his power, governs us by his providence, nourishes us by his goodness, and attends us with all sorts of blessings-and another thing to embrace the grace of reconciliation offered to us in Christ.

Further, he states,

Moreover, although our mind cannot apprehend God without rendering some honor to him, it will not suffice simply to hold that there is One whom all ought to honor and adore, unless we are also persuaded that he is the fountain of every good, and that we must seeking nothing elsewhere than in him [...] (Institutes Book I. Ch. II.i)

According to Calvin (and Paul in Romans 1), man does not have an intellectual problem, he has a moral problem with God. He knows who God is, as even the demons know God and tremble (James 2:19). We should not be surprised then that we see the knowledge of God in all men, and that often they may give themselves over to their better knowledge as they seek a benefit from doing so (ie to appease conscience, earn blessings, or be "moral"). The problem according to Scripture, as Calvin points out, is that men are "holding back" or suppressing the truth. They will not fully commit themselves to God because they do not trust in the goodness of God. Their unbelief is rooted in an implicit slander against God. It is founded in ungodliness and is strengthened by their unrighteousness. Calvin elaborates:

For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him-they will never yield him willing service. Nay, unless they establish their complete happiness in him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to him. (Ibid)

If you examine the narrative of the fall, in Genesis 3, it is the goodness of God that Satan attacks in tempting Eve to turn from him and try and become god herself. Indeed, this noetic (or mental) effect of sin is implanted in all of us, unless the Holy Spirit regenerates us. That is why we grow in our sanctification as we come to find our joy in the goodness and grace of God. To hear this fleshed out further, check out this sermon on Genesis 3.

Dr. Donald Barnhouse on the Organic Inspiration of Scripture

I came across this passage in Dr. Barnhouse's The Invisible War which I found insightful in describing the doctrine of Verbal-Plenary inspiration to those who are unfamiliar. He writes:

"It is objected by some that the marks of human personality upon the writings of the various human authors indicate that the Bible is a human book. We would answer this with an analogy. The angel who announced to Mary that she would become the mother of the Messiah, heard the Virgin ask, "How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man?" The answer came: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). So the baby was born. He was the second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God. But He was not a Chinese baby, nor a Negro baby, nor a Nordic Aryan; He was a Jewish baby. The greatest glory of Israel was this: "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5).

Just as the Holy Spirit came upon the womb of Mary, so He came upon the brain of a Moses, a David, an Isaiah, a Paul, a John, and the rest of the writers of the divine library. The power of the Highest overshadowed them, therefore that holy thing which was born of their minds is called the Holy Bible, the Word of God. The writings of Luke will, of course, have the vocabulary of Luke, and the works of Paul will bear the stamp of Paul's mind. However, this is only in the same manner that the Lord Jesus Christ might have had eyes like His mother's, or hair that was the same color and texture as hers. He did not inherit her sins, because the Holy Spirit had come upon her. If we ask how this could be, the answer is that God says so. And the writings of the men of the Book did not inherit the errors of their carnal minds, because the writings were conceived by the Holy Spirit and born out of their personalities without partaking of their fallen nature. If we ask how this could be, again the answer is that God says so." (Barnhouse, The Invisible War Pg. 6)

This analogy, while not claiming to give a comprehensive vision of how the Spirit works in inspiration, is helpful in giving us a tangible example that we can relate to. Inspiration is analogous to the incarnation. Just as Jesus took a human nature onto His divine nature, so the Holy Spirit can use finite men in the writing of God's inerrant Word. There is no necessary problem with either of those truths, although our minds cannot completely comprehend either mystery.

The Law is Just (Pt. 2): Does Exodus 21:7-11 Promote Selling One's Daughter into Sex Slavery?

In my previous post I presented a general introduction to the Mosaic institution of slavery. Specifically, I dealt with the issue on whether or not slavery was viewed as more important than marriage, in ancient Israel, and also whether or not Moses advocates for the breaking up of slave marriages. As I demonstrated, if we keep in mind the high view of justice and restitution that revolved around the institution of slavery, and the voluntarism that was implicit in it, most of the claims made about the "horrors" of the Bible, as it pertains to slavery, dissipates. In fact, the Mosaic codes protect against abuses. When we approach our text today, a similar point will be made, but as it pertains to daughters who were sold into slavery/servant hood with the expectation that they will be married into the household. So what does the text say?

“And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money." (Exodus 21:7-11 NKJV)

If one is unfamiliar with ancient near-eastern culture, it is somewhat understandable as to why they would assume that this is talking about "sex slavery." In fact, there are plenty of Facebook memes out there making arguments to that effect. However, this is simply a case of not understanding, or not being willing to understand, time and place. There are three principles through which to view this verse and the culture that it made sense in. The first principle is a repeat from my previous post.

1) Slavery in the Old Testament is a form of civil restitution. It is commonly referred to as "debt-bondage" slavery. If someone had gone into debt, they could pay off their debt by going into slavery for a time (or if they were not able, to sell their son or daughter). In fact, the verses immediately prior to our text state, "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him" (Exodus 21:1,2 NKJV). If slaves were injured by their Master they were to be set free, and paid restitution" (Ex. 21:26,27). Slaves were not to be treated as sub-human, however, their rights were somewhat limited. For example, while an injured slave was to be set free, if they were killed, the text says that their master was just to be "punished," without specifying the death penalty which is the normal penalty for murder (Ex. 21:20). Slavery was a regulated institution, and slaves had a certain amount of rights, but it in no way was meant to be a desirable institution. God did not want to make it look like an easy way out. God's people were to avoid debt (Prov. 11:51; 17:18; 22:7; 22:26,27; 27:13)

2) Families who were in debt, where the parents were not able to work, could knock out two birds with one stone by selling their daughter into slavery with the intention that she would marry into that family, who obviously were in a better financial position. This would bind the family who is in debt to a family who is more successful, and thus provide them with obvious social advantage. They would also be assured that their daughter would end up in a better situation. The daughter would first prove herself by being a faithful debt-bondage servant in the household for the time period allotted.

3) Women in the ancient near east do not necessarily have the same expectations of romance and relationships that women in our day do. Initially the principles above may seem harsh, legalistic, and purely economical. However, women back then would not necessarily view it that way. Even in our day where romance and personal choice are everything in relationships, people still pursue spouses for economic and social reasons one way or another. Furthermore, in the biblical worldview, love is not something that "happens," it is something that is developed and grows in the context of a binding social contract. In that, everything from a voluntary choice in marriage to arranged marriages are considered "biblical." The key issue in the biblical scheme is parental approval.

In light of those three principles, the nature of verses 7-11 become clear. This is not a verse about "sex slavery." The word "sex slave" is never used in the text, it is simply read into the context by those who are openly antagonistic to Scripture. A sexual slave would be antithetical to the ethics of the Mosaic law, as only sex within marriage is permitted and encouraged. Furthermore, the wisdom literature of Israel also strongly condemns fornication and prostitution. In light of principle 1) this was a move a family would make to better their situation and their daughter's situation, while also getting out of debt as principle 2) makes clear. If you look back at the law, it actually provides legal and economic protection for such a potential bride. If the the master who was engaged to her did not like her, he could not just sell her to foreigners to become a lifelong slave. She was to be sent back, or "redeemed." If he married her to his sons, and they left her, she was still to be treated as a daughter, not a slave. This verse protects women from abuse in its ancient near-eastern context. The Law is Just.