Ornaments of Great Price in the Sight of God

Observation: Luke 43-45

2011-12-29T14:12:00.000-08:00

"He that doeth righteousness is righteous--life is the outcome of character; that as men are so they will live."
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good," granted that a man is sound at heart, it is certain that he will spend a good life, that he will shrink from the veil and pursue and practice the holy thing. If a man is radically corrupt, it is certain that his life will be unworthy and sinful. Character must come form into conduct, behaviour is the manifest action of the secret spring which is within the soul." Every tree is known by his fruit" men must form their judgment about us, and they must judge us y the lives they witness. If, therefore, we don't manifest a Christan temper and a loving spirit, if righteous principles are no visible in our daily dealing, and we don't give evidence of caring more for truth and for God and of the establishment of his Holy Kingdom on the earth--we must not complain if men count us a ungodly--our godliness, our spirituality, everything out to shine out clearly and unmistakably from our daily life.

Romans 12:4-6 thought

2011-12-29T14:00:00.000-08:00

The illustration of the body with its members to set forth the mutual dependence on each other of the several members of the Church with their several gifts and functions, and the importance of all for the well-being of the whole. Christ is regarded somewhat differently, as the exalted Head over the Church, which is his body. the references to gifts means that various members of the body have various capacities as Christians. So we have diversity in Christ's church--varied methods and functions--but they all carry a unity of Spirit of faith and love in Christ and obedience to Hid Divine Word.

Ephesians 2:18-20 thoughts

2011-12-29T13:56:00.000-08:00

Further illustration of identity of position of Jews and Gentile, and of the work of Christ in bringing it about. Our access to the Father is assumed as a matter of spiritual experience; the converted Ephesians knew that in their prayers and other exercises they felt they really stood before God. This came to pass through Christ; God has made peace through the blood of the cross. There is no longer a restriction upon our access to God "we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him." Gentiles are no loner strangers, but members of the household of God. They have been born again, and have become Children of God by faith. This positions ought to make us jealous for our Father's honour, loving in all our relations the members of God's household.

vs. 20: we have an image of Christian as stones by a temple. The foundations was built by New Testament officers--apostles and Prophets in a new dispensation, with Christ the chief cornerstone, determining the lines of the whole building Jesus if THE Origin, Foundation, Support of the Church, but he gives it its shape and form, he determines the place and office of each stone, he gives life and character to each member.

Revelations 3:20 discussion

2011-12-29T13:47:00.000-08:00

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (KJV)

Christ's rebuke and call to repentance are here characterized in terms of the risen Lord seeking admittance into the believer's heart and life

-The church at Laodicea has shut Christ out by allowing their ears to grow dull and their hearts wax so hat that they are insensible to his world. Despite their spiritual sleep and slumber, Christ stands without, entreating the believer to yield room to the Lord.

-The image here is that Christ seeking communion and table fellowship with the estranged believer and the church. TO sup together is an expression of mutual affection. The fellowship meal was an important part of the early Church's weekly assembly (Lord's supper). In the gospels, Christ use the image of table fellowship to portray the Kind and his knights and nobles about his table supping and administering the kingdom together. .

My Thoughts on I John chap.2 verses

2011-12-29T13:40:00.000-08:00

vs. 1: address those who are walking in the light and yet sin through frailty. to walk in light we must confess our sin if we sin, we have a righteous Advocate, who is Jesus.

vs. 2: Christ is an offering rather than the one who offers. Our sins are the subject matter of his propitiatory work. The propitiation is for all, not for the 1st band of believers only. No man--Christian, Jew Gentile--is outside the mercy of God--unless he places himself there deliberately, "loving darkness rather than light."

vs. 3: walking in light involves obedience

vs. 4: "Knowing him" really is having fellowship with him-just as not keeping his commandments is the same as walking in darkness

vs. 5: "His Word" referring to "his doctrine"--from vs 4 we see that really knowing God involves loving him--that what really matters is our love of God rather than God's love for us. Knowing God implies keeping his Word and keeping his word involves loving him, and being in him and have that fellowship with him and his Son in which the Christian's life consists.

vs.6: Christianity is a habitual condition. Obedience, not feeling, is the test of union, and the Christian who is really such has least to tell of "experiences" of such visitations. He who is ever in the light has few sensible illuminations to record: nothing less than the "measure of the structure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13) is to be aimed at. "Ye therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

vs.7: verses 7-28 talk about (mostly) what walking in the light excludes--things to avoid--Antichrists. vs. 7 and 8 are simply an intro

vs. 8: the real, perfect, the very light--Christ is the perfect light as he is the perfect bread and perfect vine

vs. 9-11: walking in the light excludes all hatred towards brethren, for such hatred is a form of darkness. "hate" is not to be watered down into "neglect" or "fail to love." Love is love, and hate is hate, and between the two there is no neutral ground, anymore than between life and death. "He that is not with me is against me." "Love is the moral counterpart of intellectual light."

vs. 12: John is apparently writing to those who have had their sins washed away in the blood of Christ, therefore he writes this Epistle

vs. 13-14: old and young men referring to age as Christians--mature Christians

vs. 15: "the world" meaning the sinful elements of human life--which is all that is alienated from God. St. John is not condemning a love of those material advantages which are God's gifts, nor of nature, which is God's work. He's forbidding those things the love of which rivals and excludes the love of God. "You cannot serve God and mammon."

vs. 16: not talking about loving material objects--but not loving evil dispositions and aims of men--lust of flesh, lust of the eyes (curiosity, covetousness), pride of life--the empty pride in fashion and display. It includes the desire to outshine our neighbors.

vs. 17: If a Christian live, he lives to the Lord; if he dies, he dies to the Lord. If he toils, he does God's will. If he suffers, he bears it. If he be on earth, he fulfills his Father's will in his life--"he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

vs.18: the "last time" here refers to the end of a world as was known in John's time--(Rome would fall), Because why would an inspired writer tell the Church that the "last time" was here, if it was not there? I believe this refers to the terrible persecution under Nero (Anti-Christ), and the fall of Jerusalem.

vs. 19: speaking of people who had abandoned the Christian faith, so they wouldn't be persecuted

vs. 20-22: so an Antichrist denies the Messiahship of Christ and both Father and Son virtually (see II Thess. 2:4) because..

vs. 23: to deny Jesus as Christ is to deny the Son of God--and to deny the Son of God is to deny the Father also, for "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."

vs. 24: let good seed abide in your heart and not be snatched away by evil. Then not only will it abide, but you also will abide in the Son and therefore with the Father.

Headcovering in Asia

2011-07-13T13:37:00.001-07:00

An itinerant Taoist wears a small traditional head covering called a “pagoda,” which is a small oriental imitation of a temple or sacred building. During the fall and winter, Taoists will wear a protective hat or head covering. Why? This is not only because of the Taoist religion, but also have some relations with health preserving. According to Taoists, the head is one of the most important parts of the body, and they believe the hat is a protection to their head.

According to F. Roy Willis of the University of California—women (and probably men) of ancient Sumerian civilization (around 2500 B.C.) wore head coverings of wool and leather—Sumerian priests, however, would not wear any head gear (and would go bald) as a desire to be regarded as humble, as many serious Buddhist monks and nuns do today.

Chinese Buddhist monks and nun will, however, cover their heads for certain ritual/ceremonial purposes and for warmth. There are different types of the hats they wear depending on their status and the occasion.

Shinto priests of Japan wear various forms of headgear (eboshi) depending on their hierarchical rank. The “kammuri” hat is worn only by the highest-ranking priests. It is the same type of hat worn by emperors, court nobles, shogun, and daimyo (feudal lords) of pre-modern Japan.

Iceland

2011-07-13T13:36:00.000-07:00

Iceland only has 320,000 people living in it. It is a beautiful country , with a rich Norse heritage.

A translation of the Bible was published in the 16th century. Important compositions since the 15th to the 19th century include sacred verse, most famously the Passion Hymns of Hallgrímur Pétursson, and rímur, rhyming epic poems. Originating in the 14th century, rímur were popular into the 19th century, when the development of new literary forms was provoked by the influential, National-Romantic writer Jónas Hallgrímsson. In recent times, Iceland has produced many great writers, the best-known of which is arguably Halldór Laxness who received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1955. Steinn Steinarr was an influential modernist poet.

Iceland has also been called the land of the elves.

Why was the veil lost?

2011-07-05T08:59:00.001-07:00

Why was the veil lost?

The veil lost meaning with many, and fell out of fashion. I believe those that continued to try and wear the veil felt discouraged, and under attack by other persons who felt challenged by their action, and they therefore dropped the practice. This God-ordained headship order is looked upon with distain and discontent by many today. Many men have neglected or abused their authority; while many women say they feel degraded and deprived.

"Liberated" woman have exchanged their position of honor, as given by God, for a position of “independent equality,” – wrongly thinking that equality is something more than God’s perfect plan. In exchange for a few new freedoms, they sacrifice their place of protection under man's authority. This attitude of independence is cautioned against in verses 11 and 12 of 1 Corinthians 11. God desires men and women to be dependent on each other, man needs woman, and woman needs man.

By God's grace, a leading, providing husband and a submissive, supportive wife become building blocks for a stable, happy family. Stable families, in turn, build solid, caring churches and a healthy society.

Conversely, as men neglect their leadership, and women spurn that authority, the family begins to deteriorate and our society experiences repercussive social ills. Men and women become bound by the freedoms they sought, and children suffer immeasurably.

Should Christian women wear head coverings today?

We need to examine the Bible to answer such a question. Please read I Corinthians 11:1-16. First we must ask ourselves, “What did I Corinthians 11:1-16 command its original readers to do?” It instructed women to place a piece of cloth or fabric (a.k.a. head covering or veil) upon their heads when praying or prophesying. The size, shape, and color of the head covering is not specified. It is designed to cover the head (vv. 5, 6, 10) and has a function similar to that of hair (vv. 14-15) (although hair, after the fall of man, no longer fulfilled the original purpose as a headcoverning).

This passage also instructed men to pray with their heads uncovered. Men should not pray or prophesy with hats, prayer shawls, skull caps, or any other object that covers their head. The code of good manners in North America still reflects this tradition, which is why men remove their hats for prayer at sporting events, graduation ceremonies, etc.

When should women cover their heads and men not cover their heads?

Paul instructs women to wear a head covering whenever they pray or prophesy (vs. 5). Similarly, men are instructed to keep their heads uncovered when praying or prophesying (vs. 4). At a minimum, this means women should have their heads covered (and men uncovered) when the congregation is gathered for prayer, edification, and worship.

Some Christians point to the second half of 1 Corinthians 11 (which deals with the Lord’s Supper) and argue that the context for both instructions seems to be formal public gatherings of the Body of Christ. Accordingly, these Christians conclude that the instructions in 1 Corinthians 1:1-16 are applicable only in public meetings of the church. This seems a reasonable position, however, women pray throughout the day and in many locations. Women often speak God’s Word to children and friends outside of church settings. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 does not specify a situation that only occurs in public church meetings. This is a reasonable and defensible position. Both Old Testament Hebrew women and Christian women, throughout church history, wore head coverings all the time, and not at worship services only. For these reasons, we may conclude that women should indeed wear head coverings always, and not only in church meetings.

Doesn’t a woman’s long hair qualify as a head covering?

No. This argument is ridiculous: firstly because the Bible is referring to a piece of cloth or fabric when it commands women to wear head coverings (and commands men not to do so). According to Dr. Robert Spinney, it wasn’t until the beginning of the late nineteenth century, that some argued (based on verse 15b) that Paul is instructing women to have long hair and that the so-called head covering is nothing more than long hair. If this “long hair equals head covering” interpretation is true, then we should be able to substitute the phrase long hair for the word covering in this passage and retain the passage’s meaning. For example, if covering means “long hair,” then vs. 6 would mean that the women who do not wear long hair (but only shorn) should have their hair shorn, which doesn’t even make sense, because it is already so. Likewise, vs. 4 would mean that men should go bald all the time! – I don’t think so, do you?

This is why the Greek word used in verse 15 for the covering of a woman’s hair (peribolaion) is different from the Greek word used in verses 6 and 7 for the covering of cloth (katakalupto, which is derived from kalumma, a word that means “a covering, a hood, or veil”). The two Greek words are not interchangeable.

When Paul says in verse 15b that a woman’s long hair is given her as a covering, he is not defining the nature of the covering. By the time he reaches verse 15, the inspired apostle has already presented his argument at length. His readers know what he is talking about, viz. a piece of cloth called a head covering or veil. He is now bringing to bear additional considerations for his listeners to weigh. One such consideration is how our innate sensibilities tell us that women’s heads ought to appear different than men’s heads. Our own natural sensibilities, says Paul, tell us that women’s heads should be more covered than men’s. This is what Paul means by his reference to hair in verse 15b.

It is only in the past century that some commentators have attempted to make this “hair equals head covering” argument. Whether we look at Hebrew women in the Old Testament or Christian women through the ages (and in a variety of different cultures), God’s people have always understood that the head covering is a piece of cloth or clothing worn upon the head and not merely a woman’s long hair.

Is the veil a just commandment for the Corinthians due to their culture, and therefore not applicable today?

Probably the more common explanation of this passage is that it is merely a cultural commandment. (It is amazing how far people will go out of their way to avoid the head covering.) According to this view, the passage is understood as a culture-specific response to a prostitute problem in 60 A.D. Corinth; female prostitutes were easily identified by their uncovered heads, unlike virtuous Corinthians women (or so the explanation goes), prostitutes did not cover their heads. Therefore Paul is telling the Christian women to head cover because it is wrong to go around looking like a prostitute.

According to this view, if this passage was just for a Corinthian problem in 60 A.D., then there is no need for Americans, or any modern culture to wear it today.

I certainly agree that it is not good for Christian women to look like prostitutes, nor do I disagree that Corinth had a prostitution problem. However, there is no indication in I Corinthians 11:1-16 that this instruction is given because of a bare-headed prostitute problem. There is no suggestion in this passage that cultural factors in Corinth prompted this instruction. Nor is there any indication that this commandment is only for Corinthians Christians in their specific cultural setting.

If anything, this is a commandment for all time and for all peoples. Paul doesn’t just tell the women to wear the head covering; he tells them why women should cover their heads. Each of the reasons are timeless spiritual realities, not Corinthian cultural practices. By providing eternal truths for head coverings, the Bible makes it clear that wearing the head covering is applicable to all Christians at all times.

What is I am partially but not wholly persuaded?

What if I agree, but am not morally convicted in my conscience?

These words from R. C. Sproul, Sr. are helpful: “What if, after careful consideration of a Biblical mandate, we remain uncertain as to its character as principle or custom? If we must decide to treat it one way or the other but have no conclusive means to make the decision, what can we do? Here the biblical principle of humility can be helpful. The issue is simple. Would it be better to treat a possible custom as a principle and be guilty of being over scrupulous in our design to obey God? Or would it be better to treat a possible principle as a custom and be guilty of being unscrupulous in demoting a transcendent requirement of God to the level of a mere human convention? I hope the answer is obvious.” (Knowing Scripture, pp. 11-12)

Is there any basis for wearing the veil?

2011-07-05T08:57:00.000-07:00

In Christianity, the Scriptural basis for this practice in I Corinthians 11:1-16. The headship veiling is a symbol of God's complete order of authority.

Men and women are different in many ways but divinely created with equal value (Galatians 3:26-28). Due to the differences between man and woman, and as a result of mankind's fall into sin, God has established an order of authority. Thereby lifestyles are simplified and differences are complemented. This beautiful order of authority, commonly called "headship order," is stated in 1 Corinthians 11:3. "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." In this scripture head may also be interpreted authority. Christ is the Head, or authority, of mankind. Even though He holds this lofty position, and shares in the Godhead, Jesus Christ submits to the authority of God, His Father (John 8:16; 14:28; Mark 13: 31-33)

Similarly, men and women hold equally important positions; but God asks women to be submissive to the authority of men. Married women are under the authority of their husbands. Single women are under the authority of their fathers or church leaders.

Why should women submit and the men provide leadership?

The answer is two-fold. First, woman was originally created to be a "help-meet" for man. (Genesis 2:20-23) She was created from Adam's rib to be his companion, in the loving embrace of his protection and leadership. Woman was created as "the glory of man"; "of the man" and "for the man" (1 Corinthians 11:7, 8, 9)

Secondly, when Eve yielded to temptation, and enticed Adam to sin as well, God pronounced curses on the serpent, the woman and the man. Each had to bear the consequences of their sin (Genesis 3:14-19). Man, thereafter, needed to work hard to provide food for himself and his family. Woman, thereafter, was to be subject to her husband and experience sorrow in childbearing (Genesis 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; Ephesians 5:23-24).

Does that allow men to be tyrants?

Of course these scriptures, addressing the headship order, do not mean that husbands and fathers are to be tyrants, or rule over their wives and daughters in a disrespectful manner. Balanced with other scriptures (Ephesians 5:21, 25, 28; 1 Peter 3:7), men are taught to provide loving, non-oppressive leadership in the way that God intended.

It has been said that headship is not "lordship," but is rather a shouldering of responsibility. When a man shoulders his responsibility, it enables the woman to find security and gives her opportunity to reach her greatest potential.

What did the Church Fathers and Reformers think about the veil?

All the Church Fathers and Reformers agreed on one point: the headcovering mentioned in 1Co 11:4,5,6,7,10,13 was a fabric to be worn on the head by the women in worship. There may be differences among the theologians as to the application of the headcovering, but they are all consistently in agreement that Paul's reference to women being covered in worship was to a fabric headcovering, not to the hair of a woman. Below are some witnesses cited concerning the headcoverning – and who all are famous men in Church history.

According to Tom Shank’s, “Let Her Be veiled”, the catacombs, which were used by the early Christians to assemble for worship, have many paintings that reveal the uniform dress of women in worship. The paintings show the women covering her head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.

Clement of Alexandria understood the words of the Corinthians passage to refer to a veil of fabric and not a woman’s hair; he said: "Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happens to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled." (The Instructor.)

Jerome (345-429 A.D.) said: "It is usual in the monasteries of Egypt and Syria for virgins and widows who have vowed themselves to God and have renounced the world and have trodden under foot its pleasures, to ask the mothers of their communities to cut their hair; not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command."

St. Augustine, who lived in North Africa: “Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, for so much as he is the image and glory of God…Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head.”

In Europe, we know that Martin Luther’s wife, Katherine, wore a head covering. We also know John Knox (from Scotland), in his "The First Blast Of The Trumpet Against The Monstrous Regiment Of Women," (1505-1572) said: "First, I say, the woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As saint Paule doth reason in these wordes: 'Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man was created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man; and therfore oght the woman to have a power upon her head,' (that is, a coverture in signe of subjection)."

John Calvin, from France (1509-1564), a theologian of the Reformation, preached three sermons on I Corinthians 11:2-16 and said: "So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature. . . . So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard.”

R.C. Sproul, an American theologian from our time, said: “The apostle makes the point that the veil, as a symbol of authority, is inconsistent with the position of the man, but it is required for women, who are subordinate to men. If they appear in the public assemblies with their heads uncovered, then they are acting in such a way that challenges the authority of men because they have removed the symbol that they are under masculine authority.

It is obvious from this comparison between men having their heads uncovered and women having their heads covered, that the covering is not hair. For if the covering in this context were hair, verse 6 would make no sense in the context of this passage.”

For a long time, nobody disputed the headcovering—regardless of where they lived—Europe, Mid-East, North Africa, or the Far East.

What is a veil?

2011-06-27T09:51:00.000-07:00

A veil is an article of clothing, used almost exclusively by the woman, to cover the head or face. One view is that as a religious item, it is intended to show honor to an object or space. The actual socio-cultural, psychological, and socio-sexual functions of veils have not been studied extensively. These type of functions, however, most likely includes the maintenance of social distance and the communication of social status and cultural identity.

In Mesopotamia, the region centered in present-day Iraq near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, a veil was a rectangular piece of cloth woven of linen, wool, or cotton and worn by women to hide their faces from public view. While the veils worn by the wealthiest women could be beautiful, veils were not worn for fashionable reasons alone. Veils were one of the first legally enforced garments.

In the 13^th Century B.C., Assyrian law dictated that wives, daughters, and widows must wear a veil, but prostitutes and slave girls were forbidden to wear a veil. The veil thus served as a way of protecting a father or husband's interest in his daughter or wife. The alluring face of a married or marriageable woman could not tempt men from beneath a veil. Wives, daughters, and widows would be severely punished for not covering their faces in public. Those caught wearing their veil illegally could be flogged, have pitch poured on their heads, or their ears cut off. But punishments also extended to male observers. If a man recognized a prostitute or slave woman wearing a veil and did not report her to an authority, he could be publicly flogged, mutilated (having his hand chopped off, for example), his ears pierced and a cord run through them and tied behind his back, and “He shall do labor of the king for one full month.” In Ancient times, even to pagans, the veil was apparently a very serious piece of clothing.

Does anyone wear the veil anymore?

The answer is yes, the tradition of veiling continues into the twenty-first century in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The headcovering, at least during worship services, is still required in a few Protestant denominations and among the more traditional Catholics. Many of the Anabaptist denominations, like the Amish, some Mennonites, the Old German Baptist, and the Hutterites headcover. Many of the Apostolic and Pentecostal, the Plymouth Brethren, and many of the Dutch Reformed churches also headcover. The Muslim religion encourages the use of veils by women. Modern-day women who follow Islam customarily wear veils, and some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have Muslim governments that enforce laws concerning women wearing veils.

For many centuries, until around 1175, Anglo-Saxon and then Anglo-Norman women, with the exception of young unmarried girls, wore veils that entirely covered their hair, and often their necks up to their chins. This type of veil is most commonly known as a wimple. Only in the Tudor period of England (begun in 1485), when hoods became increasingly popular, did veils of this type become less common.

In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam the concept of covering the head is or was associated with propriety. All traditional depictions of the Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ, show her veiled. Veiling was a common practice with church-going women until the 1960s, and a number of very traditional churches retain the custom. The wearing of various forms of the Muslim veil has provoked controversy in the West. In India, Hindu women veil for traditional purposes, it is custom in rural areas to veil in front of male elders. This veil is called the ghoonghat.

What does the veil mean?

For those in Islam, the women wear the veil (or hijab) for modesty and privacy. For the modern Western bride, it symbolizes virginity to others on her wedding day. To the catholic nun, it is for piety. To a Jewish woman, the veil (or tichel) is a symbol of marriage and devotion to her husband.

There are many reasons Christians wear the veil. To me, and I hope to other Christian women who still wear the veil, it is firstly a visible symbol of acceptance of God's order of authority. Secondly the veil is worn to both honor Christ and man. Thirdly, it is worn for protection that is referred to in I Corinthians 11:10. Though woman is created "the weaker vessel" (I Peter 3:7), and under the authority of man, her acceptance of God's headship order gives appropriate signals to the angels. Finally, for me, I wear the veil for personal reasons as well. The veil helps to remind me, and those around me, that I am a servant of Christ. In this way I am also protected from evil.

Thoughts from Ecclesiastes 5

2011-06-16T12:05:00.000-07:00

Ecclesiastes five tells us how man's outward and secular life is unable to secure happiness and satisfaction--but can these be found in popular religion? The chapter lists out exercises of strict religious rules to be observed when serving God.

We must be careful of our conduct, to remember what we are about, and whither we are going.

When we are ignorant and without knowledge, it is better to be silent than to do any evil from our ignorance. Those who don't knwo how to worship God heartily and propery, and thinging to please him with their formal acts of decotion, fall into a grievous sin.

We should weigh well our wishes, arrange them discreetly, ponder whether they are such as we can rightly make subjects of petition, before we lay them in words before the Lord. Let your words always be few in the presence of God, according as it is proper.

It is good to use the common blessings which God bestows with thankfulness and contentment. These temporal blessings are God's gifts, and aren't to be considered as the natural and assured result of man's own exertion. Man, indeed, must labor, but God giveth the increase. This calm enjoyments is allotted to man by God, and nothing more must be expected. These are gifts from God, a great and special bounty from a loving and gracious God. The man who has learned the lesson of calm enjoyment does not concern himself with the shortness, uncertainty, or possible trouble of life. And the man passes a calm and contented life, because God shows that he is pleased with him by the tranquil joy shed over his heart.

How Much Are We to Submit to Our Husbands?

2011-06-13T11:01:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 5 provides insight into what Christ has done for the family. He has made of marriage the choice symbol of his own relation to the Church, and so family life is lifted into a Divine and spiritual light. The consideration of Christ for his people regulates the consideration husband should show to wife; and the loyalty of Christ's people to their Master indicates the loyalty the wife should show to her husband. Husbands and wives thus own to Christ the purification of their relations and the sanctification of the home!

If Paul would summon husbands up tot he heights of consecration by the example of Christ, he would also summon sizes up to a corresponding return of reverential devotion. The Church, in her love and obedience to Christ, is the pattern of wifely devotion. Now, this leads us to consider how Christ rules in his Christ. It is not an inconsiderate despotism, but an intelligent, considerate rule of love. His wishes are expressed with infinite tenderness. There is no fury in his commandments. The Church feels and find that they are not grievous. And so believers are loyal to the Lord from the heart. Noting is so delightful as to obey him. Suppose, the, that such a spirit characterized the wife's relations to her husband that she say in his every expressed wish the outcome of love, and obeyed him the the belief that obedience was her privilege as well as duty,--what Edenic homes men and women would posses on earth!

Though Christianity emancipates and elevates woman, it does not release her for the duty of subjection (compare I Peter 3:1-6). The relation to the husband is intensified in order to enforce the duty. Let there be a subjection in the case parallel to that in the other, for such is the Divine will and purpose. Any subjection due to the husband must be modified by what is due to God, for as the husband may not require for himself, so the wife may not require for himself, so the wife may not give to him, what is God's: God's will is paramount over all. Of the 3 wills that may be in collision, viz., God's, the husband's, and the wife's--the duty of the wife is to take them in this order, having regard first to God's, next to her husband's, and last to her own.

Marigolds

2011-05-09T18:43:00.000-07:00

With blooms ranging from white to orange to burgundy, marigold brings bright color and ruffly shapes to the summer garden they are one of the most carefree annuals, performing well from seed or transplants in a warms, sunny spot and any well-drained soil.

Marigolds (India)

The compact signet marigold and the mid-size French types are suited to bed edgings and containers. The taller African marigolds are best for the back of the border or for a cutting garden.

African Marigolds

When planting different sold-color marigolds, mix in a few with bi-colored blooms to tie the scheme together.

Water marigolds often until they are well established, then water only weekly if rainfall is inadequate. Start pinching out blooms when they first appear to promote budding and a bushy shape. Deadhead and keep pinching until frost to keep marigolds flowering heavily.

Start seems in-doors no more than four weeks before you want to set plants out. Otherwise the seedlings may become leggy.

French and African marigolds are actually misnamed. Marigolds are native to the American Southwest and to Central and South America. In the 1500s, marigold seems were taken to Spain. Fro there, seeds were transported to France and parts of northern Africa, where the taller types eventually became naturalized.

Positive, Sef-Motivating Christians

2011-05-09T18:27:00.000-07:00

Christians have desire. They are dissatisfied with the status quo. They want change for the better. There never was a Christian who didn't want to win for Christ.
Scores of achieving people in every walk of life are all around us, yet few of us ever thing of the long and arduous process the led them step-by-step to their goals. Who for instance, would have though or remembered that Winston Churchill was a poor student.
They wanted something special for themselves--in spite of their past records. In spite of their bloodlines or their home lives--they wanted to win. Many Christians think that self motivation is an option. But EVERYTHING a person does--whether positive or negative, intentional or unintentional, is the result of motivation. Remember this:everyone is self-motivated, whether it be a little or a lot--positively or negatively.
Motivation is an extremely misunderstood and over promoted term. Then word, "Motive" is defined as that within he individual, rather than an outside influence, which incites the person to an action: an idea, need emotion, or organic state that promotes to action.
Motivation is a force which moves us to action, and it springs form inside the person. Defined as a strong tendency toward or away from an object or situation it can be learned or developed. It does not have to be in-born.
Things only will happen in a persons life if they ever want them to. Therefore, motivation is an emotional state. Two key emotions dominate human motivation with opposite, but equally effective results: fear and desire.
Fear is the most powerful negative motivator. Fear restricts, tightens, panics, forces, and ultimately scuttles plans and defeats goals.
Desire, however, is like a strong, positive magnet. It attracts, reaches, opens, directs, and encourages plans and achieves goals.
Fear and desire are poles apart, and lead to opposite destinies. Fear looks to the past--desire to the future.
Fear vividly replays haunting experiences of failure, pain, disappointing, or unpleasantness, and is a dogged reminder that them some experiences are likely to repeat themselves.
Desire triggers memories of pleasure and success, and excites the need to replay these and to create new winning experiences.
The consuming "prison" words of the fearful are likely to be "I have to," "I can't," "I see risk," and "I wish."
Desire says, "I want to," "I can," and "I will."
There is a disturbing philosophical movement today that associates drive and initiative solely with materialistic power and gain.
While there does appear to be a growing obsession focused on the accumulation of non-essential personal possessions, this should not be confused with personal achievement and the pursuit of individual excellence.
Disregarding all material rewards of high achievement, there is a pure personal pleasure which comes with achieving the difficult. The emotional spin-off that accompanies performance of the unusual or challenging personal test can range from a quiet flow of self-esteem to outright exhilaration, and is reason enough for the pursuit of excellence.
After decades of quest, we now know that high achieves have a high degree of self-motivation. The enduring power that moves them to action comes form inside themselves.
Success is NOT reserved for the talented. It is not in the high IQ. Not in the gifted birth. Not in the best equipment. Not even in ability.
Success is almost totally dependent upon drive, focus, and persistence. The extra energy required to make an extra effort--try another approach-concentrate on the desired outcome--is the secret of winning.
Out of desire--the energy and will to win.
"Make no little plans: they have no magic to stir your blood to action--make big plans, aim high in work and hope."
Get that urge to WIN!
There's no time to Lose.

For the Christian Daughter or Son

2011-05-09T17:59:00.000-07:00

Honoring means going beyond what is expected, going out of your way to make the person you are honoring feel loved and appreciated. Love, love, respect, respect, forgive, forgive.

"Honor they father and mother..." (Deut. 5:6). The family is the germ of society, and the family is sustained only as the authority and rule of the heads of the household are upheld and respected. The command, then, to honor parents may be justly regarded as asserting the foundation of all social ordinances and arrangements. Where parents are not honored, a flaw lies at the basis, and the stability of the entire social fabric is endangered.

Many passages in the Word of God speak or refer to the duty of children to their parents. It is worthy of careful noting, that when God would launch forth into the world a new national life, he lays great stress on the recognition of and regard to family sacredness. This is a moral code for the nation and the world for all time to be laid down in the list of the ten commandments: immediately after the honor of God there is the commandment, "Honor they father and they mother." Implicit obedience is a child's first duty.

The Christian Woman; I Peter 3:3,4

2011-03-21T07:14:00.000-07:00

"They talk about a woman's spere

As though it had a limit.

There's not a plave in earth or heaven,

There's not a task to man given,

There's not a blessing or a woe,

Tere's not a whispered yes or not,

There's not a life, or death, or birth,

That has a feather's weith of worth,

Without a woman in it."

--20th Century Christian

Man has his specific work and woman has hers. God has made woman to be a helpmate to man.

WOMAN'S MISSION

"Woman's strong heart and gentle hand in God's eternal plan

Where formed to soften, soothe, refine, exalt and comfort man,

And win from pleasure's poison cup to life's pure fount above

And rue him as the angels rule, by deeds of peace and love."

Sarah J. Hale

It is in this sphere of helping and being keepers at home where women find their blessings.

The success that a woman has in her work depends on what she is, and there are certain virtues that will be a crowning glory to every woman who adorns herself with them.

The first virtue she should seek it purity. It is the first virtue of good character. We are nothing without purity, only tinkling cymbals. There is no virtue, no spiritual like, no glory of soul not dignity of character without purity. Luther said, "It is not he who sings so well so many psalms, not he who fasts or watches so many days, nor he who divides his own among the poor, not he who lives quietly, kindly and friendly; but it is e alone ho is pure within and without." Women must hold onto virtue as to a pearl of great price.

Women must adorn themselves in modest apparel. God though that apparel was important enough to make clothes for the first pair and to discuss it in the Bible. Too many women dress in such a way that is seems they are trying to see how close they can come to indecency without falling over. When we appear in judgment we will have to answer for the way we have dressed. Too many women are following the wold in their dress, but worldliness has no part in a Christian's life.

Proverbs 31:25 say she is dignified. A dignified person has qualities to inspire or command respect. DO shorts and men's clothing do this? Recently I heard a man of the world say that a real lady wears dresses.

Some women try to be like men; they copy their clothes; they smoke and copy in a number of things, but as Talmadge said the woman who does so "becomes a hybrid, neither one or the other but a failure."

A Christian woman should adorn herself with strength and honor. She should have a meek and quiet spirit (one that bears up under trials and adversities) with good works instead of trying to keep up with the latest style. A little boy was asked what meekness was and he said that his sister was meekness because she always have smooth answers to rough questions.

"Good deeds, like sunbeams, shine by a luster, purely their own; not can their brightness be tarnished bu all the calumnies or the slanderer's tongue."

Patience and long suffering are virtues every woman should have; she can not live in comfort without them. It preserves peace, sweetens the temper, stifles anger, bridles the tongue and produces harmony. Patience means to suffer provocation with a calm unruffled temper. It also means to have the quality of waiting for what you want without murmuring or fretting. Horne described the attire of patience by saying, "Her countenance is calm and serene as the face of heaven un-spotted by the shadow of a cloud,k and no wrinkle of grief or anger is seen in her forehead. Her eyes are as the eyes of doves for meekness, and on her eyebrows sit cheerfulness and joy. Her mouth is lovely in silence; her complexion and color that of innocence and security; while like the virgin, the daughter of Sion, she shakes her head at the adversary, despising and laughing him to scorn. --Her throne is the humble and contrite heart, and her kingdom is the kingdom or peace." The value of patience has been compared to a jewel. "Pressed by sand and rocks, it reposes in the dark lap of the earth. Though no ray of light comes near it, it is radiant with imperishable beauty. Its brightness remains even in the deep night; but when liberated from the dark prison it forms, united to gold, the distinguishing mark and ornament of glory, the ring, the scepter and the crown. Her end and reward is the crown of life."

God takes time to bring about His purposes. He took four hundred years in bringing about His purposes concerning the Israelites. We must wait. Patience is the grace needed in wating. Let us not be like the Israelites and forget or depair. "With time and patience the muberry leaf becomes satin." ``H. W. Beecher.

Contentment is a virtue the Christian woman should adorn herself with. Contentment is cloecely connected with patience. So long as we have the necessities of life we should be happy. The person who is discontented and tries to find happiness by changing anything but his own disposition nd immediate surroudnings will waste his life in fruitless efforts and fultiply the discontent which he seeks to remove. "The fountain of content much spring up in the mind."

Every Christian woman must adorn herself with sympathy. We find comfort in our own trials when we give sympathy to others. One Christian woman said that she never saw the death of a child announced in a paper that she didn't have an impulse to write words of comfort to the parents. She derived comfort for the loss of her own child when she gave sympathy to others.

A woman cannot adorn herself as a Christian without bearing the gruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, 23). A Christian is compared to a tree and the Christan woman who does not bear the fruit of the Spriit is like a tree which has beautiful leaves but it rotten on the inside. Her have and form may be beautiful but her heat is rotten.

If we adorn ourselves with these crowning virtues it will help us to build a Christ-like personality, one that grows more beautiful with age.

The Girl I Used To Be

2011-03-21T06:35:00.000-07:00

She came tonight as I sat alone,
The girl I used to be.
She gazed at me with her earnest eye
And questioned me reproachfully.

"Have you forgotten the many plans,
The hopes that were held for you;
The great career, the splendid fame,
And the wonderful things to do?"
"Where is your mansion of stately height,
With its gardens surpassing fair?"
The silken robe that was planned for you
And the jewels for your hair."
And as she talked I was very said,
For I wanted her pleased with me,
This slender girl from the shadowy past,
The girl I used to be.
Then gently arising I took her hand
And guided her up the stair
Where peacefully my babies lay
Innocent, sweet and fair.

I told her that they were my only gems,
And precious they are to me;
That my silken robe is motherhood
Of happy simplicity;
That my mansion of stately height is love,
And the only career I know
Is serving each day within sheltering walls
The dear ones who need me so.
And as I spoke to my shadowy guest,
She smiled through her tears that me--
For I saw that the woman I am now
Pleased the girl I used to be.
~Author unknown

Christmas Day

2010-12-15T06:26:00.000-08:00

"His name shall be called Emmanuel...God with us." (Matt. 1:23)
"The Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6).

"There's a song in the air!

There's a star in the sky!

There's a mother's deep prayer,

And a baby's low cry!

And the star rains its fire

While the beautiful sing,

For the manger of Bethlehem cradles a King."

A few years ago a striking Christmas card was published, with the title, "If Christ had not come." It was founded upon our Savior's words, "If I had not come." The card represented a clergyman falling into a short sleep in his study on Christmas morning and dreaming of a world into which Jesus had never come.

In dream he found himself looking through his home, but there were no little stockings in the chimney corner, no Christmas bells of wreaths of holly, and no Christ to comfort, gladden and save. He walked out on the public street, but there was no church with its spire pointing to Heaven. He came back and sat down in his library, but every book about the Savior had disappeared.

A ring at the door-bell, and a messenger asked him to visit a poor dying mother. He hasted with the weeping child and as he reached the home he sat down and said, "I have something here that will comfort you." He opened his Bible to look for the familiar promise, but it ended at Malachi, and there was no gospel and no promise of hope and salvation, and he could only bow his head and weep with her in bitter despair.

Two days afterward he stood beside her coffin and conducted the funeral service, but there was no message of consolation, no word of a glorious resurrection, no open Heaven, but only "dust to dust, ashes to ashes," and one long eternal farewell. He realized at length that "He had not come," and burst into tears and bitter weeping in his sorrowful dream.

Suddenly he woke with a start, and a great shout of joy and praise burst from his lips as he heard his choir singing in his church close by:

"O come, all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant,

O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem;

Come and behold Him. born the King of Angels,

O come let us adore Him, Christ, the Lord."

Let us be glad and rejoice today, because "He has come." And let us remember the annunciation of the angel, Behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people, for unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:10,11.)

"He comes to make His blessings flow,

Far as the curse is found."

May our hearts go out to the people in heathen lands who have no blessed Christmas day. "Go your way, eat the fat, drink the sweet, and SEND PORTIONS TO THEM FOR WHOM NOTHING IS PREPARED." (Neh. 8:10.)

"How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

2010-12-15T06:02:00.000-08:00

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man have been born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
This verse is in answer to a question. The first word of Jesus to Nicodemus in a word that brings a question. The true teacher seeks to provoke activity of mind and curiosity in the learner. The question is certainly a most absurd one, but Nicodemus had no time to prepare a sensible answer. It is easy for us to be wise over the introductory declaration of Jesus, because we look at it with plenty of illustrations and explanations shining upon it. But Nicodemus, in all his previous thinking, had nothing to make him expect Jesus would speak; and so it is little wonder to find him staggered, confused, utterly bewildered, to hear Jesus speaking thus calmly of such a wondrous experience. The question, however absurd, leads on to a piece of most practical information.
We are not to suppose that being born over again means to live natural life over again. Few would care for that, traveling over the old road, meeting the old difficulties, fighting the old battles. Jesus explains that to be born again is to be born of water and of Spirit. Being born of water means passing through the experience of repentance. The true disciple of John the Baptist was born of water. He repented changed from his old view of life, manifested that changed view by changed habits and practices, and, for sign of all this, he was baptized with water.
Being born of water takes us only a small way into the regeneration. Must follow the discipleship of John with Jesus. You may cease to care for the old, and yet have not found your way to possession of the new. The only creature worth calling such is the new creature in Christ Jesus. You must feel in your heart the warmth of Him who has eternal life. By repentance, old things pass away; by spiritual birth, all things become new. The spiritual man looks on a virtually new world. The precious becomes worthless, and the worthless precious--the once neglected is sought for, and the once sought for is neglected.

An Argument Against Genetic Manipulation

2010-11-22T08:19:00.000-08:00

Today we have a society influenced more by humanism, materialism and moral relativism than by religious or ethical convictions, but we must realize that the possibilities of genetic manipulation are profound. With such awesome technological discovery (consider the clone “Dolly” the sheep), there comes dramatic potential for significant abuse. As such, we need to keep a careful eye on “science” and continually remind ourselves that technology is not the supreme authority, or the cure for advancing or improving upon all of human life.

First of all, the risks involved in genetic manipulation concerns not only the individual undergoing gene therapy, but also the offspring. The price to be paid for any mishaps would be too high, since these would be hereditary and transmitted from one generation to the next.

The threat of power over others creates another argument against genetic manipulation. Most parents consciously choose to have children, and some try to influence the development of their child in utero. All parents exercise authority over their children after birth and use the authority to educate and develop their children. This use of parental authority is natural. But genetic manipulation gives a person absolute dominion over the existence of another. The genetic material will be what the person’s intelligence and appearance and special skills will be—all this would be determined by another person. Again, if people can have this kind of power over others, then the quality clause is just empty words from a quaint past. Those who genetically manipulate would be seen as “God-like.” The calling into existence of a precisely specified new person is an exercise in apparent human omnipotence.

According to Jeremy Rifkin, who is president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, genetic engineering weakens the authenticity of the genetically modified person’s accomplishments. It holds that the engineered person’s abilities and talents are no longer his or her own, that these accomplishments are because of the alteration.

In Leonard Pitt’s article, “A Risk Free Life,” he argues that the dangers that come with this kind of control over life are denying one of life’s most basic truths. He acknowledges that he does not know what he would have done if placed in a situation where he could use genetic manipulation to clear away a danger. Pitt argues, however, that people who seek this sort of power will abuse it to alter, arrange, pick and choose their children like a “meal in a take-out restaurant.”

Genetic alteration treats humans as products that must be designed, perfected, and controlled; they are viewed as commodities, no longer gifts. Genetic engineering is a problem because it tries to remake nature, besides human nature, to serve purposes and satisfy desires.

The problem with biotechnology is that there is a distinct beginning but has no clear end. Cell by cell, tissue by tissue, organ by organ, we might willingly surrender our personhood in the market place. In the process, each loss will be compensated for with a perceived gain until there is little left to exchange. It is at this point the case of our agreement become apparent. But is also at that point that we may no longer possess the very thing we were so anxious to enrich: our humanity. In the decades to come, we humans might well barter ourselves away, one gene at a time, in exchange for some measure of temporary well-being. In the end, the personal and collective security we fought so long and hard to preserve may well be irreversibly compromised in pursuit of our engineered perfection.

A Secular Argument Against Homexual Marriage

2010-10-12T10:29:00.001-07:00

Homosexual Marriage

Nature and Creation have defined marriage as the union of man and woman for the purpose of conceiving children. With rare exception, life is perpetuated by man and woman. In the natural world there are a male and a female: while the female guard the clutch of eggs, the male is searching for food. This distinction between man’s masculinity and woman’s femininity extends beyond autonomy—they are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, each fulfilling their natural difference. This natural distinction makes man and woman complementary partners for the commitment involved in the structure of marriage. Traditional marriage presents the foundation to establishing the perfect family unit in the home.

The natural design has been questioned far too much in society today, the consequence of which has been a low estimate of marriage. For several reasons homosexual marriage contradicts the nature of marriage: it is not based on the complementary union of man and woman, and the purpose in a natural marriage cannot be achieved in a homosexual union.

Our Founding Founders would never have supported same-sex marriage, Thomas Jefferson said that homosexuality “should be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one-half inch in diameter at least.” As a secular argument, homosexual marriage has been a debate on equal rights rather than legal rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. Homosexuals are not the only people denied the right to marry the person of their choosing. Roughly half the states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and in all states it is illegal to marry more than one person (Kolasinski, 2004). Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the peoples interest of a stable and self-perpetuating propagating society. Homosexual couples cannot biologically conceive children, such a fact justifying the laws which forbid their marriages (Vermont House and Senate Judiciary, 2000.) Homosexual marriages would have to prove what state interest these marriages might serve if it were to be legalized (Kolasinski, 2004). So far, no proof has been met.

Many argue that homosexuals are capable of creating “artificial insemination,” so the state has declared interest in legalizing lesbian marriage. Even so, a homosexual union cannot supply both the male and female roles of mother and father which have been proven to be critical to the healthy development of a child (Adam, 2004). It is so essential for a child to be nurtured by both sexes if they are to learn to function in a society made of both sexes.

The most harmful damage homosexual marriage presents is the legalization of sexual love. If the state must recognize the marriage between two men because they “love” each other, then the state could not logically deny the recognition of any other marital union. If, to the state, the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction, the question of legalizing homosexual marriage is answered. If sexual love is become the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage looses its logical base, leading to marital chaos.

Why is the Homeschool Movement Rising?

2010-10-12T10:28:00.001-07:00

Homeschooling is not a new idea—it is the restoration of an old and successful idea. It is not only a return to effective, parent-directed education—but for some it is part of a moral and spiritual reformation.

From the founding of this country by the Pilgrims in 1620 to the mid-1800’s, most of the early education provided took place at the home with the parents, pastor, or a tutor providing the instruction. In colonial America, home education provided a complete education of children, making them both literate and self-sufficient, and also prepared those who wanted to proceed to grammar schools or college (Klicka, 2002). As a result of home education and private grammar schools, the overall literacy in the first hundred years of our country was much higher than it is today. John Adams said “a native of America, especially of New England, who cannot read and write is as rare a Phenomenon [sic] as a comet” (Butterfield, 1961).

It wasn’t until the early 1900s when the public schools were formed and attendance laws were passed that homeschooling nearly died out (Klicka, 2002). Some believe this change to state education began a decline in American education.

However, homeschooling has grown significantly since the 1970’s in the USA. The modern homeschool movement is making an exodus from “conventional” or “standardized” schooling to return to the traditional, individualized home instruction. In the spring of 2007 1.5 million students were being homeschooled (National Home Education Research Institute, 2010). Since 2007 there has been a steady eight percent increase in the homeschool movement every year until there are now over two million homeschool students. Some possible reasons for the homeschool trend include religious/moral convictions of the parents, dissatisfaction with academic standards, and the school environment (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

Many believe homeschooling is particularly attractive as an adjunct of spiritual and moral education where children are carefully trained in God’s Word to not only think but live as Christians. According to the U.S. Department of Education, a significant amount in the movement (eighty-three percent) educates at home for religious and moral reasons. The public schools have practically removed all references to religion and prayer, in effect removing traditional teaching and standards, substituting a “sanitized” secular education. When prayer was removed from the schools in 1962, the public schools experienced a terrible decline. Statistics from 1962 show SAT scores suddenly plummeting—teen pregnancies, teen suicides, teen alcohol and drug abuse, teen sexual diseases, use of pornography among students, and illiteracy rates suddenly increased between 200 and 300 percent (Barton, 1988). This situation would certainly be a reason for parents with religious convictions not to use the public schools.

The academic failure in the public schools is also one of the reasons parents are not choosing the public school system. Most of the areas of academic decline have been in math, reading skills, logic, and the ability to draw inferences. The textbooks, used by the public schools, contain numerous errors and lack content. For example, Texas Board of Education was ready to receive new history textbooks when two individuals announced they had found two-hundred and thirty one obvious historical errors (Graves, 1991). While there are many fine public school teachers, many are incompetent and lack training. Teachers’ colleges and universities do not teach knowledge but rather four years of methods. Poor training is apparent in the low standards set by many states to be certified to teach. For instance, the educational exams used by some states require a score of only thirty-five percent for math certification (Klicka, 2002)—this type of score would cause a student to fail an exam who was studying this subject. According to the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, public schools teachers are more likely to send their children to a private school than any other group (Doyle, 2004). On the other hand, modern American culture must take its share of the blame for the academic failure in the public schools. Teachers cannot be expected to succeed where they are undermined by the system in which they work or the home environment of the student. The public school product is not prepared for college or the business world. Colleges have had to simplify their courses and standards in order to admit public school graduates.

Many choose homeschooling (eighty-eight percent) out of concern over the public school environment (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). In 1940 the top discipline offenses, according to educators, were: talking, chewing gum, making noise, running in the halls, getting out of turn in line, wearing improper clothing, and not putting paper in wastebaskets. By 1982 the top disciplinary offenses had become rape, assault, robbery, burglary, arson, bombings, murder, suicide, absenteeism, vandalism, extortion, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, gang warfare, pregnancies, abortions, and venereal diseases (USA Today, 1985). Parents wishing to provide a safe environment for children and youth may elect to homeschool rather than expose their children to the violence in the public schools.

As the schools continue to fail, parents are beginning to realize the dangers of sending their kids to public school. Homeschool parents are realizing that they can do a better job in educating their kids—and they are doing just that. Homeschooling is an option that is available to parents if they are seriously committed to educating and teaching their children in traditional, biblical values America was founded on. If kids are not taken out of the failing public school system, America is likely to loose a generation of children.

She Looketh Well to the Ways of Her Household

2010-09-07T09:11:00.000-07:00

I know some believe happy children are netter than clean homes. Very true!!! But at the same time we must realize an unclean home makes for an unhappy family.
So how can we battle a messy home? It is always so pleasant to walk into a home where it shows someone cares to clean up.
If we clean a table--we will find it to look so much more peaceful, for cleaned homes DO look peaceful. Disorder and clutter make one feel tired and exhausted--it may be strange, but filth does not weary one as much as clutter!
So one does not start cleaning up by using a broom and mop--but from de-cluttering. Only leave what would be on the counters and clear everything else...it will leave a much more peaceful looking area. The floors, walls, closets, cupboards--DE-JUNK! Determine to get rid of 3/4 of your cluttered contents.
The order given to others in your home gives a peace in others. You can admire and respect the other women who keep things neat, clean, and happy.
So children do not tire of messes--they get used to it. Simply developing a habit of reducing clutter is the training we need that will help us and our children to become dissatisfied living in clutter.
Most of all, however, we must remember our home is for the family, not to show. We cannot keep counters perfect all the time--we can only do our best with the strength God has given us, which is all that is required.
A cluttered home is no disgrace--it only becomes that when you are willing to let it remain that way for days at a time.
"Until the pain to remain the same exceeds the pain to change, we'll remain the same."

Why One Should Not Cease Teaching and Writing

2010-08-19T08:56:00.000-07:00

"Preach the word, be instant in season, one of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine." 2 Tim. 4:2
If you consider how earnestly God enforces his holy word, you would sincerely fear God, and ever abide in his commands. No one can escape them. If we do not desire grace, light, truth, righteousness, salvation, true religion, life, the kingdom, blessings and God himself, we must, by his righteousness judgment, doubtlessly inherit disgrace, darkness, falsehood, unrighteousness and idolatry--and hereafter eternal damnation, death, hell, malediction, and the devil himself.
So for the sake of Christ and the church, you must not hold your tongue, but must tell the truth, let righteousness go forth as a light, and their salvation burn as a torch, and that thus all mankind may acknowledge the righteousness of the Lord, and all tongues, generations, and people confess his glory.
Outside of his divine word there is no salvation, therefore one cannot be silent; for the honor and praise of God are at stake, and it avails the salvation of a brother.
First reason to write is that we desire, according to God--that no bishop, pastor, or teacher be permitted into the chruch of God and teach and administer the sacrements of the Lord, other than those who are comprised in the doctrine, ordinance and life of Christ.
Secondly, that we desire, even at the cost of life and blood--to preach and teach the holy gospel of Christ through all the world with ardent hearts. (Matt. 28:19, Mk. 16:15).
Thirdly to seek, teach, and desire a true faith and Christian life conformable to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles.
Fourthly, to teach and seek a right Christian baptism--first with spirit and fire (Lk. 3:16) afterward in the water, in obedience to faith, to receive remission of sins--for thus has Christ Jesus commanded all the believing--and thus the apostles administered and taught it.
Fifthly to seek and desire a woman's role in the church, home, and public.
Sixthly, to abolish strange ceremonies and manners of worship which are without the word of God that the ignorant populace may no longer be deceived by vain works which are nothing short of idolatry--but that they may put their faith in the living God and his son, Jesus, that they walk in his divine commandment, not varying to the right or the left; for in him is life everlasting, (Jn. 12:50) and in none other.
Seventh, we desire to teach that all magistrates, emperors, kings, dukes, counts, barons, mayors, knights and other officers may be taught and trained by the spirit and word of God, that they may sincerely seek, honor, fear, and serve Christ Jesus, the true head of all lords and rulers--that they may rightly administer their office, and use the sword given them of God, in his fear and in brotherly love, to the praise of God, to the protection of the good and to the punishment of evil, according to the intent of the word of God, (Rm. 13:3 and 1 Peter 2:13) as did the men of God as Moses, Joshua, David, Josiah, and others. Read Deut. 17:2,3 and you will understand what God has commanded all magistrates to do.
Eighth, to teach and desire such a supper as Christ himself instituted and administered (Matt. 16:19, Mk. 14:22, & Luke 22:19).
We also teach the true love and fear of God, the true love of our neighbor, to aid and assist all mankind and to injure none; to crucify the flesh and its lusts; to circumcise the heart, mouth, and the whole body with the knife of the Divine Word, of unclean thoughts, unbecoming words and actions. Now consider whether these things are not the will of God, the true doctrine of Christ, ad the true life which is of God--although the gates of hell may willfully oppose them. The eternal word of God will remain immutable forever.

Home as the Greenhouse

2010-08-17T08:35:00.000-07:00

People seem to not really see babies as helpless, dependent little people. They beleive they were born to be shoved out into the world--they actually think they ought to be shoved into it as soon as possible so they can grow and mature more quickly. Supposedly children can handle the world on their own without their parents. Parents believe that they should not control their child's environment and their duty to give their children over to teachers, peers, and public education, which decides their environment. This is supposedly for superior than the "old-fashioned" rearing and raising by the parents themselves.
Deuteronomy 6:7 describes the parents to "teach them diligently;" the entire Bible has descriptions of the home being the "greenhouse for young plants. Psalm 128:3 and Psalm 144:12 speak of children as plants nurtured at the house and about the table. These two Psalms also speak of a blessed mother and a blessed nation. The family and nation that rasies children in a Christian environment at home will be blessed.

Children will preform how they were raised once grown. Whatever they had most around them will stay as permanent memories that affect the decisions and morals of their lives.
Instead of values of diligence, respect, appreciation of Christianity, purity, modesty, and etc...we will have whatever were the influences at the school---drunkenness, laziness, gluttony, fornication, deceitfulness, runners of mischief, bitterness, disrespect. They become the product of the environment their parents carelessly and thoughtlessly placed them in.
When in a green house, children will mature and become REALLY independent. They will have strong characters formed by saturation in God's word and the sight of it in your life. You will have given them roots and wings.

Possessions Speak

2010-08-13T06:12:00.000-07:00

What do our homes say to others? Did it confer to them the impression that we want them to see of a godly, Christian home, that looks like Christ's children live there--is it an atmosphere of "home" where others can feel welcome?
If you were away and strangers stopped in--could they tell you were Christians? Could they feel Christ's presence?
If Christ himself were to step in would you feel at ease to show him your house? How would you answer of he pointed at something and asked "Why?"
I am not speaking of dust and dirt--but things--possessions...what is it that we hang on the walls? What do we place on the side tables? What is it that is on the counters?
Our homes definitely say something about who we are--but let them speak of the things that make them a "home" where families can grow physically and spiritually and not just be a place of "pretty walls."

It is a good thing to give thanks to the Lord...

2010-08-11T11:05:00.000-07:00

"Sing praises unto thy name, O most High." Psalm 92:1
How infrequently we give thanks for the overflowing goodness from the Lord's hand! It is refreshing to behold a thankful heart, full of joy and awe of God--his simple and sincere love for us--and the lovely creation he places around us--not just the creation in plants and shrubs, or the star-filled heavens, or the glorious mountains--but also the most special creations of simple things that bring peace to our minds when we choose to dwell on them, contemplating how God is everywhere...you can pick anything, and find something of our Father's world in it.
And must our praise and thanks to the Lord always be hemmed in with our limited language of "A's" and "B's"? No word can describe the ecstasy in my soul when I see something beautiful, simply in my heart I am bursting with thanksgiving and happiness, but with no words to scream out in joy but a silent music playing gleefully in my heart.
When one is enduring trials and temptations--thanksgiving can be very difficult to commit to with our bitter and tried hearts. How can we truly be thankful with such feelings? if our faith is strong enough, it decides if everything is going to be alright and "that decision of faith eternity will soon confirm." ~Judson. Trials usually occur because of choices we have made--there are different kinds of trials for every choice--if one is to decide according to God's word we can trust the trail is for our good and will help us to grow.
There is NOT a trial that God doesn't give for our good. "For whom the Lord loveth he chastenth..." (Heb. 12:6) it is for our profit (vs.10). It is by no means joyous to suffer...but there is no trial that we are not able to endure--for God is faithful, "Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which ye are able." (I Cor. 10:13).
If we walk with God--to have him as a Friends--to turn to him in trouble--to follow him is obedience and trust that His guidance is pure--to share our dreams and toils with Him--then we are able to find joy and thankfulness. It is this type of companionship that helps endure without bitterness or hurting to affect our courage and trust in Him. We certainly are not immune to suffering--but our relationship with God is.
"Cast all your care upon Him; for he careth for you." I Pet. 5:7

Simply Trust, Simply Obey

2010-08-10T05:51:00.000-07:00

Take no thought of tomorrow--for God will take care of tomorrow. It is none of our concern--our lives are entirely dedicated to God's way and will, and we are united with Him in the way He wants to go.
When something interrupts us--our lives should become so simply aimed that God's interruptions become welcome. If our goal is complex, full of concerns and worry, the peace of Christ is destroyed, and we loose focus of pleasing Him. Nothing on earth should interrupt our goal to please Him.
We must "weed out" and die to our worldly desires and goals if we are to keep the Lord's plans and goals for us. We make our lives so unnecessarily difficult by disobeying Jesus Christ's demand the we take no thought of tomorrow. (Matt. 6:34).
We must surrender our planning to Him--it is His job, worrying about tomorrow brings us no-where. God gives us daily bread and blessings daily, not weekly. The Lord gives us strength according to our days, not years.
We need to keep that one thing necessary continually before us in our hearts, minds, and souls, and that is seeking to trust and obey God. Simply trusting that this is what God wishes, and trusting with our whole heart, and obeying in a manner pleasing to Him.
Our worldly life is not felt by God--he only know how he wishes it to be used for his kingdom--if we are full of worries, plans, and concerns--we cannot be used towards His goals, for worldly goals are continual crowd our lives and days, and not one con be devoted to His will or the interruption is too large.
Simply trust and obey--surrender all, give all, hope for nothing, pray continually, seek nothing--except the will of God--make His will yours, for ours has no gain, on blessings--only worry and concern, and His will is good and perfect, conform and become one with Christ.

Surrendering All

2010-08-09T11:36:00.001-07:00

There are reasons God wishes for a surrender in our lives--obviously it must be for our benefit, for nothing is with a reason when it is the will of God. The will of God surpasses all human understanding, and it takes trust to let go of all desire and sacrifice to accomplish whatever is acquired. Our earthly travails, troubles and suffering are a part of God's plan to combine a lesson on a small or larger scale, depending on the sacrifice.
Surrendering requires humility, considering there are other who are better in more things than we. It takes discipline to remain on that uncomfortable stand, and experience in the act of suffering and submission. To accept this is God's work in action, your life taking a form in His hands that holds the clay, who knows the perfect structure you need.
What exactly, must we surrender? "Everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake..." (Matt. 19:29) our bodies, our family, our hopes, dreams, our most secret plans,our clothes, our speech, our writing--ALL to God, his work, his plan, his destination; our ways mean nothing to him--we must model our lives as he directs us.
How so we find such perfect directions-where do we find it but in God's Holy Word--we must soak ourselves in it, reading, reading, reading, constantly, so we may know how to take our situations that come along day by day and take God's way to dealing with it--also, when we cannot find an answer, seek it our through prayer and quiet meditation on Him.
When we surrender everything we have, we must also surrender our friendships--our company and surroundings influence us in a deceitful way--we grow numb to what we see and begin to accept it as "the norm." We cannot not always change our surroundings, but let us not let them change us.
Following Christ's footsteps--what an awesome responsibility and opportunity to try and Imitate! If we fall or stray even by a strand off that goal of his plan, then we must try to gain root of why we are on that strand, we loose focus and begin to despair of forget, we have no example to follow it seems, we are alone, and it seems the other path looks correct, until too late--we fall, we fail, and we grieve when brought face to face again with the path of that strand--we don't know how much to do--the answer is EVERYTHING--do everything--exceed your expectations and go the mile that others won't take because it's too risky--and do it with all your heart, soul, and mind.

Creation and Genesis

2010-04-20T11:32:00.000-07:00

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth..." Genesis 1:1 The Beginning! or, at the commencement of time, according to the original translation. Without indication when the beginning was, the expression intimates that the beginning was THE beginning. CREATED--this describes Divine activity. The idea of creation is acknowledged by the best expositors to be here intended. Its employment in verses 21 and 26, though seeming against, is really in favor of a distinctively creative act; in both instances something that did not previously exist...i.e. animal life, human spirit, having been called into being. in the sense of producing what is new frequently occurs in Scripture (cf. Ps. 51:12, Jer. 31:12, Isaiah 65:18). Thus, the visible universe neither existed from eternity, not was fashioned our of preexisting materials, nor proceeded forth as an emanation from the Absolute, but was summoned into being by an express creative fiat. The NT boldly claims this as a doctrine peculiar to revelation (Hebrews 11:3). Modern science explicitly disavows it as a discovery of reason. the continuity of force admits of neither creation nor annihilation, but demands an unseen universe, out of which the visible had been produced by an intelligent agency residing in the unseen." Whether the language of the writer to the Hebrews homologates the dogma of an "unseen universe," the last result of science, as expressed in what I have written, is practically an admission of the Biblical doctrine of creation." _joinprompttext="">"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth..." Genesis 1:1
The Beginning! or, at the commencement of time, according to the original translation. Without indication when the beginning was, the expression intimates that the beginning was THE beginning.
CREATED--this describes Divine activity. The idea of creation is acknowledged by the best expositors to be here intended. Its employment in verses 21 and 26, though seeming against, is really in favor of a distinctively creative act; in both instances something that did not previously exist...i.e. animal life, human spirit, having been called into being. in the sense of producing what is new frequently occurs in Scripture (cf. Ps. 51:12, Jer. 31:12, Isaiah 65:18).
Thus, the visible universe neither existed from eternity, not was fashioned our of preexisting materials, nor proceeded forth as an emanation from the Absolute, but was summoned into being by an express creative fiat.
The NT boldly claims this as a doctrine peculiar to revelation (Hebrews 11:3). Modern science explicitly disavows it as a discovery of reason. the continuity of force admits of neither creation nor annihilation, but demands an unseen universe, out of which the visible had been produced by an intelligent agency residing in the unseen." Whether the language of the writer to the Hebrews homologates the dogma of an "unseen universe," the last result of science, as expressed in what I have written, is practically an admission of the Biblical doctrine of creation.

Wonderful Touch

2010-03-30T06:30:00.000-07:00

All that is contained in the earth,
And all which remains without--
Everything that God has made,
Is His, without a doubt!!!

My God created time and life;
When nothing did exist--
He made something out of nothing,
From the fingers of His fist.

Why is He so mindful of us,
So unworthy and so small,
To take such an interest in us--
And to know the affairs of all?

Blessed be our wonderful Lord!
Who loves, cares, and helps so much
He did lay His life down for us
His life--yours and mine, did touch!!!

Teach Me

2010-03-29T11:27:00.000-07:00

Teach me, Lord, to do thy will
For thou art truly my God,
Search me, Lord, you know my heart,
Teach me to receive the rod.

Teach me how to take pleasure
In all my troubles and strife,
For then when I become weak,
Your strength gives me life.

Teach me, Lord, to always love,
Fervently with a pure heart,
To conduct love toward the brethren,
And that with willing heart.

Teach me how to sing to Thee,
And how to bless thy name;
Let me kneel to my Maker,
And tell him my sins with shame.

Teach me, Lord, to want knowledge
And to seek virtue and work,
To speak without vanity,
And avoid evil that lurks.

Teach me to have good conscience,
Let me draw dear to You,
For then when I die and go,
I want to be with you.

The Articles of the Church of England proved not to be Calvinistic.

2010-02-23T12:05:00.000-08:00

Review of New Publications
1803
Orthodox Churchman

The Articles of the Church of England proved not to be Calvinistic. By Thomas Kipling, D.D. Dean of Peterborough, and late Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. 8vo. 1802. Second Edition.

In the supplement to our second volume, p. 414, one of our correspondents had so fully expressed our sentiments respecting this treatise, that we did not deem it necessary to notice it in our reviewing department. We think it right, however, to announce its appearance in a second edition, more especially as it is now enlarged by the addition of an Appendix.

The learned author, after premising, that all the peculiar opinions of Calvin, which are connected with het subject of his enquiry, may be comprised under the single doctrine of predestination, proceeds to prove, that the doctrines of our Church are not, as has sometimes been asserted, in unison and correspondence with those op[inions o Calvin. This he does, and in the most satisfactory manner, 1st, by delineating the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination; and, 2dly. By comparing this doctrine with the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England.

He considers the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination as reducible to the following propositions.

1st. That omnipotent Being, who has existed from all eternity, after he had decreed to create man in his own image, and had fore-ordained his fall from original righteousness, by which fall Adam’s own nature would be corrupted and depraved, viewed with the eye of prescience the whole of Adam’s offspring as a mass of corruption and perdition.

2nd. Among the vast multitude of human beings composing this mass of corruption and perdition, Almighty God decreed, before the foundation of the world, to bring some everlasting salvation and to damn all the rest eternally. This decree or purpose of God is denominated by Calvin predestination, some being thereby predestined to everlasting happiness, and other condemned by it to everlasting misery.

3dly. The objects of this decree are, not collective bodies of men, as Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, Romans, but individuals, as John, Matthew, Thomas, Peter, every one of whose fate after death is fixed by it, before he is born, immutably and everlastingly.

4thly. Adam, agreeably to the preordinance of God (for we are now come to the execution of this decrees) fell from innocence; and , in consequence of this lapse, the whole of man’s nature, as the Deity had foreseen and foreordained, underwent a complete change. It became corrupt, depraved, vicious; and every descendant of Adam, through his first parents’ transgression, became a lost, a damned, an accursed creature, and fuel for the flame of divine vengeance.

5thly. From the birth of Abraham (if not from an earlier period) to this present time, the Deity, agreeably to his eternal purpose and immutable decree, hath constantly been taking, and will continue daily to take, those individuals, whom he hath predestinated before the world began to everlasting salvation, out of this mass of corruption and perdition. All the rest, every one, whom he Passeth by, and leaves in this state of corruption and perdition, he reprobates; that is, abandons to wickedness in this life, and will torture eternally in the next. Those, whom he makes choice of, selects, and segregates for salvation, are called elect. Those whom he leaves in their original pollution, abandons, and will eternally torment, are called preterits (praeteriti) but most commonly reprobates. By election and reprobation is executed the immutable decree of predestination.

6thly. This discrimination made by the Deity between the elect and the reprobates is arbitrary; in no degree owing to any superior excellence, worth, or merit in the former, either present and actual, or future and foreseen, but wholly and solely to God’s will and pleasure. He extricates the elect from destruction for a demonstration of his mercy and goodness. He leaves the reprobates in their original state of perdition for a display of his power and glory.

7thly. The elect are put under the custody and protection of Jesus Christ; and, do what they will in this life, they cannot fail of being saved finally, being under an immutable decree, and guarded by omnipotence. The reprobates, how much soever they may exert themselves for the purpose, cannot attain everlasting salvation, being hindered therefrom, and repelled by Almighty God. As the final salvation of the elect is in no degree doubtful, from their first entrance into this world to their departure out of it, but is all the time fixed and certain; so neither is the eternal damnation of a reprobate ever uncertain, during his passage through this world, but is even before he is born unalterably fixed and sure. That he should perish, is the very purpose, for which he was created.

8thly. Neither the best purposes, nor the best endeavors, nor the best acts, of an elect, even after regeneration, are in any wise preparatory to eternal salvation. On the contrary, as the elect people of God under the Mosaic dispensation, were commanded to desist on the Sabbath day from their worldly occupations, so, in respect of a all spiritual concerns, the elect under the Gospel dispensation are enjoined to bid adieu to all wills, works, and endeavors of their own, and to keep most religiously a perpetual Sabbath; that there may be free and sample scope within them for the operation of God’s spirit.

9thly. God, who of his own will and pleasure predestinated the elect to eternal salvation, himself prepares and fits them for it. The means used by him for this purpose are the preaching of his word, and the operations of his spirit; both which together constitute what is denominated special calling.

10thly. The operations of God’s spirit are manifold – He forms in the elect a new understanding.2. He destroys their natural, and creates in them a new will.3. Every propensity they may have, and every effort they may make, to do works pleasing and acceptable to God, is his.4. He also, it is, who begins; continues, and finishes, every good work done by them; and who makes them persevere unto the end in well doing. In each of these operations, he does not concur or co-operate with the elect, but is the sole and entire operator; and they are his instruments or organs.

11thly. Though the elect may, for a time, resist the grace of God, they cannot finally overcome it. This grace is sovereign, and invincible in its operation.

12thly. God, who arbitrarily predestinated the reprobates to eternal destruction, himself also prepares and hits them for it. He does this by blinding their minds, hardening their hearts, stupefying their intellects, depriving them of the knowledge of himself, withholding from them the influence of his spirit, and delivering them over to the devil.

13thly. The number of the elect is very small. The reprobates, of course, are numberless.

Lastly. The reprobates, those numberless rational beings, whom Almighty God hath raised up for the illustrating of his glory, are hateful to him. He also hates, in proportion to their naughtiness, the chosen few.

When these propositions are brought together, and consider in one view, they almost induce us to think that Calvin had set himself to collect al the absurdities on the subject, which the human imagination was capable of conceiving. That the above is a faithful representation of the opinions of Calvin on the subject of predestination, is most incontrovertibly shown by copious extracts from the writings of Calvin himself. These extracts the learned reader will do well to consult; but it is not necessary for us to transcribe them here. After this delineation of what Calvinism is, we need not follow the author in his comparison of it with the Articles and Liturgy of our Church; but may safely leaven it to the judgment of our readers to determine, whether the doctrines of the Church can with any propriety be called Calvinistic.

Next Month's reading from Kindred Spirits

2010-02-18T06:59:00.000-08:00

I am really looking forward to getting this book from the library!!!

Here is a link to join the monthly reading!!!
http://kindredspiritsbookgroup.blogspot.com/

His Will

2010-01-27T10:15:00.001-08:00

Learning the painful lesson of havening to admit we're wrong and to try to appreciate the good that comes out of it; to see that what happened was for the glory of God, that is was His will—helps us grow.
The taste of humility can be sorrowful and even bitter to the taste when it comes to the test.
It really reminded me of how humble Jesus had to make himself living down here among us humans and die (Phil. 2:8)—and how small our own lessons of humility are so pathetically silly compared to His. It’s a great comfort to know that whatever lesson comes by it is God's will, and blessings come out of every situation. Each lesson and trial is apart of the narrow walk He gives us.
Personally, it makes me feel very small how God chose us to love and care for, to create in His likeness out of anything and everything, that He cares for us so gently and kindly—so amazing!! We are so small and so insignificant yet so precious in His sight.
And then men have the gall and sinful will to rebel, hate, and curse this loving God,--so forgiving and gentle—they murder...sin upon sin deliberately—and yet God is so patient! So astonishingly forgiving and patient that it quite overwhelms me. I continue to stand in awe of Him.
And then we return to "painful" lessons in humility—what petty feelings to have pride in anything! He create everything and I can do nothing without Him. He knows everything about us and what's in our minds every passing moment. What a n awesome, awesome God we praise and worship!
Nut then I hear of the horrid earthquake in Haiti—and I think, "Why, Lord?" Why so much death? "Because it is my will." Is the answer I keep receiving—that's what pops up in my mind—God has a plan for this—this is his plan in action for our lives in History. It is quite impossible to hear of death and we not hurt, and not see why it doesn't happen somewhere else (like the White House, hee hee—that was bad—sorry); but instead to these poor, poor people. "It's My will."
"Amen, so be it Lord."

Comments

2010-01-22T09:49:00.000-08:00

It seems that occationally comments will not show up on my blog--so I am going to post a recent comment that won't show up that was written to my post "Rejoice!"

That was written just lovely! I am a friend of Marquetta's and found your blog through hers. I am a homeschooling mom with teenage daughters. God bless, Rose

Rejoice!

2010-01-15T11:16:00.000-08:00

Rejoice! Look to your Lord,
Do let Him to you hurt go toward
Find joy in Loving day by day--
Commit you trouble to Him this day.

Rejoice! Listen to God
And let your soul do give Him laud;
Pay heed to all He has to say
And find joy following day by day.

Rejoice! See your Lord work
Pour out your praises and your mirth
There will you find joy and peace
In surrendering to THE High Priest.

Clarification on "What is Theonomy?"

2010-01-12T14:12:00.000-08:00

It seems a few people have been confused by my last post, "What is Theonomy?"

Not sure how good it is, but it is the best I can do for the moment.

Theonomy is a school of theology that is more or less unique to Calvinistsand Postmillennialists. Postmillennialists believe that the world will grow better and better until it becomes almost completely "Christianized",then Christ will return and wondrously create a material new creation,like the garden of Eden, free from the effects of sin. Because of theirbelief that the world must grow better (like the parable of the leavenwhich leavens the whole lump), it becomes a logical corollary that the law of God should be obeyed and enforced in civil society. Because of their belief that God is an arbitrary tyrant who capriciously predestinates some men to salvation and actively hardens the rest, predestinating them to damnation, Calvinists tend to be severe in their view of their fellow man.The cold and unfeeling Puritans are a good example of society under control of "theonomists." They have little toleration for differing points of view, even among believers. Calvin burned to death his best friend because his view of the Trinity did not accord with his own. Therefore, theonomy under Calvinists is probably NOT where we want to go.
However, the basic idea that God's moral law is binding and should been enforced is very sound. The Old Testament had moral law, ceremonial law,and various additional laws suited to the Jews' time and situation. Only the moral law is binding today. Christ's sacrifice nullified the ceremonial, law which was a type pointing to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The other laws, like dietary laws and the city of refuge that you mention, are not binding today, but were only for the Jews. The dietary laws were to keep the Jews separate from the pagan neighbors. The cities of refuge embodied a principle of looking at the mental state of the actorin homicide to determine if it was murder or voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. That principle is still sound and Anglo-American law follow sit today; but the requirement that the offender reside in a city of refuge until the death of the high priest obviously is not binding.
Morals do not change. It was always wrong to steal or murder and it always will be. So, God's basic moral law is timeless and should be enforced.Yes. Should adultery, fornication, sodomy and other moral offenses be punished by the civil authority? I think it can and should. It is an historical fact that for many centuries Anglo-American law punished these offenses. In England through most of the middle ages sodomy was punishable with death. As we came into the "Enlightenment" society softened the punishment of crime, so that today even murder often is not capital. You can judge for yourself where this has brought society and if softening these laws or nullifying them all together has been good.

What is Theonomy?

2010-01-11T13:22:00.000-08:00

I found this definition on the internet:

Theonomy means literally, “God's law,” or the belief that the moral laws of
the Old Testament are still binding today.

I found this objection to Theonomy:

"I have no argument with a great deal of what the theonomists teach. In
fact I find much of their writings on apologetics and theology
positively delightful. So my rejection of Theonomy does not mean that I
wholesale reject all of what they have to say. I have always agreed with
their stance that there is no neutrality, and that all persons have
basic presuppositions (many they cannot account for), even prior to
reading any of their writings. My disagreement is with their political
ideology which appears to be bent on enforcing the first table of the
Law.

The rule of God is good and I long for it in its fullness when our Lord
returns, but a theocracy is still a rule of man, since men's
understanding of God is always subjective. Thus the depravity of man
itself rules out the possibility of a real theocracy since our
application of it is always flawed. This is not to mention the
disagreements amongst ourselves us are sharp. I especially find it
disturbing when theonomists begin speaking of imprisoning or deporting
persons of other religions. Such a lack of meekness is not our place
this side of the cross prior to the parousia. Do you hope to persuade
those in prison of our Christianity by force of will? In my opinion this
methodology, proposed by many prominent theonomists, is in conflict with
the Word of God. The sword is not to be used as it is in Islam to coerce
conversions. I have had enough debates with theonomists to know this is
what many of them believe.

Also disturbing, and often to my surprise, is that the attitude of many
of those who attempt to enforce their logic to persuade me in this issue
to be unrelenting and often mean-spirited. Theonomy/Reconstructionism
needs to take a gentler approach if it hopes to persuade others. Jesus
told us to look at the fruit of the persons to determine the spiritual
reality, and the common lack of genuine humility I find among many
followers of reconstructionism is enough to give me serious pause. I say
this while recognizing my own cold-heartedness toward others so this is
surely not a blanket condemnation. I merely say it because I believe
love hates what is harmful and destructive in others' lives. When I see
my friends caught in something that is ultimately harmful I must come
humbly with a clear attitude of "I love you and am committed to you but
I can't stand to see what this is doing to your life," all the while
recognizing my own sinfulness.

It is my strong belief that in this era our Lord has called us to make
his Word known through meekness, suffering and godly persuasion, not
coercion. If postmillenialism is true and we have the opportunity to
apply biblical law to civil government, I would part ways with you guys
with regard to the first table of the Mosiac Law. I do not believe that
it can be enforced on unbelievers. Our tools of war are love, prayer and
the word of God, as empowered by the Holy Spirit. Political enforcement
of worship isn't going to save people. The Lord never sanctions it."

[Dad writing now] I agree that the moral law of the Old Testament is still
binding. However, most "Theonomists" are Calvinists and my concern is that
they would tend to be too "Puritanical" in imposing their view of things on
others, and would start witch hunts and burning people who interpret the
"Trinity" differently than they do if they allowed. That seems to be the
basic concern of the writer of above, and I share it to a certain degree.

I agree that we definitely should try to conform human institutions,
including government and culture, to the Bible, but I believe that a good
deal of toleration must be shown toward all Christian sects. The civil
government should not be a sword in the hand of sectarians or to give one
denomination power over others; all Christian faiths should be protected.
There may be a few very outrageous sects on the fringe of Christianity
should be excluded from protection, but generally, all Christian sects
should be acknowledged and protected.

I do not think non-Christian religions should have the protection of law.
But neither do I think they should be compelled to convert or be
persecuted. I don't think we should let them build mosques or synagogues
either. Why should false religions have legal protection in a Christian
land? Men who argue there is no God can have a terribly destructive
influence and effect on a society and I can't see why communities should
have to allow such irresponsible conduct to have free license. Restraint
is a good policy when dealing with dissenters and outsiders, but I do think
there is a point at which we should be able to penalize evil speech that
destroys men's souls.

Study: Young Children Who Are Spanked Are Happier and More Successful as Teenagers

2010-01-06T16:53:00.000-08:00

By Thaddeus M. BaklinskiGRAND RAPIDS, Michigan, January 5, 2010

A US-based study suggests that spanking isn't harmful for children and, in fact, states that children who had been physically disciplined when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, grew up to be happier and more successful, performed better at school as teenagers and were more likely to do volunteer work and to want to go to university, than those who had never been spanked.The study, conducted under the auspices of the Portraits of American Life Study (PALS) {http://pals.nd.edu/} by Dr. Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of Psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, found there was a lack of evidence to prove that spanking harmed children, and that spanking used judiciously as the normal consequence for bad behavior is beneficial to children."The claims that are made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data," Gunnoe said. "I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool - you just don't use it for all your jobs," she added.Professor Gunnoe interviewed 2,600 teenagers about being spanked. She found that when participants' answers were compared with their behavior, such as academic success, optimism about the future, antisocial behavior, violence and bouts of depression, those who had been physically disciplined only between the ages of two and six performed best on all the positive measures.Those who had been spanked between seven and eleven exhibited more negative behavior but were still more likely to be academically successful.In cases where physical discipline continued beyond the age of 12, or in those who had never received corporal punishment, the children were found to perform more poorly in the indicators that were taken into consideration. Dr. Gunnoe found that almost a quarter of the teens in the study reported they were never spanked.The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) states that disciplinary spanking by parents can be effective when properly used. "It is clear that parents should not solely rely upon disciplinary spanking to accomplish control of their child's behavior," says the organization's position statement. "Evidence suggests that it can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan."According to the ACP, effective discipline has three key components: a loving, supportive relationship between parent and child; use of positive reinforcement when children behave well; and, use of punishment when children misbehave.Many parents who are fearful of using spanking as punishment claim that spanking teaches physically aggressive behavior which the child will imitate.Aric Sigman, a psychologist and author of "The Spoilt Generation: Why Restoring Authority will Make our Children and Society Happier," commented on the results of Professor Gunnoe's research."The idea that smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetishised view of what punishment is for most parents," he told the UK Daily Mail."If it's done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be taught to distinguish this from a punch in the face."

The Two Most Avoided Things that are Costly

2009-12-31T08:54:00.001-08:00

Suffering and Sacrifice. There two avoided hardships are sent our way repeatedly to help us grow in our love and faith in Christ, then, in the end, blessing and satisfaction replace the grievous things--greatness, nobleness, and heaven only come by way of toil and sacrifice. So face your trials in faith and all joy, knowing what a wonderful reward awaits. God bless.

Inspiring Quotes!

2009-12-31T08:51:00.000-08:00

"What am I to do? I expect to pass through this world but once. Any good work, therefore, only kindness, or any service I can render to any soul of man or animal, let me do it now. Let me not neglect or defer it, for I shall not pass this way again." --An Old Quaker Saying

"Do not pray for easy lives! Pray to be stronger men. Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks. Then the doing of your work shall be no miracle, but you shall be a miracle." Phillips Brooks

Commiting ALL to HIM

2009-12-31T08:30:00.000-08:00

I read from a book simply the phrase, "You can trust the man that died for you."
Many go through their lives worried, irritated, afraid, nervous, disappointed, and scarcely think how, or why they are if they have committed themselves to god and the Lord to take care of all their sin, but hardly pondered yielding the heavy pack of troubles and concerns for Him to organize, and be guided by HIM to lead them into the best path-ways in this world.
"He guided them by the skillfulness of his hands." Psalm 78:72
We must (if I may take liberty with the pronouns) "surrender ourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead." Romans 6:13. In every situation we are put in, we must ask Him His will and direction in all our courses of life.
"The Lord is righteous in ALL his ways, and holy in ALL his works.
The Lord is nigh unto them that call upon him, to ALL that call upon him in truth." Psalm 145: 17&18.
We can always trust him to hear us, but "what is man that THOU shouldest magnify him? and that THOU shouldest set Thine heart upon him?" Job 7:17. God's love for us sets us apart from creatures and things in His, attention, and care in our lives so that He is always attentive to our hurts and worries.
We can always trust Him to lead us in the correct path for us, if we just trust and obey.

Swedish Government Seizes Child from Home Schooling Family

2009-12-25T13:50:00.001-08:00

GOTLAND, Sweden, December 23, 2009
— A Christian home schooling family could permanently lose custody of their only child simply because they home-school. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) are joining forces as legal advisors to the family in order to persuade the Swedish government to return the seven-year-old child to his parents.
“Parents have the right and authority to make decisions regarding their children’s education without government interference,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska, who is based in Europe. “This is about a socialist government trying to create a cookie-cutter child in its own image. Without help, the parents in these cases are really powerless since the system is so one sided.”
Swedish authorities forcibly removed Dominic Johansson from his parents, Christer and Annie Johansson, in June of last year from a plane they had boarded to move to Annie’s home country of India. The officials did not have a warrant nor have they charged the Johanssons with any crime. The officials seized the child because they believe home schooling is an inappropriate way to raise a child and insist the government should raise Dominic instead.
“It’s one of the most disgraceful abuses of power we have ever witnessed,” said HSLDA attorney Mike Donnelly. “The Swedish government says it is exercising its authority under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in their unnecessary break up of this family. In addition, the Swedish Parliament is considering an essential ban on home schooling. We have heard that other home-schooling families in Sweden are having more difficulty with local officials. We fear that all home-schooling families in that country are at risk.”
Swedish social services initially limited visitation to the child to two hours per week but now have curtailed that to one hour every fifth week and no visit at all for Christmas because the social workers will be on vacation.
On Dec. 17, a Swedish court ruled in Johansson v. Gotland Social Services that the government was within its rights to seize the child. They cited the fact that Dominic had not been vaccinated as a reason to remove him permanently from his parents and also claimed that home-schoolers do not perform well academically and are not well socialized. The ordeal has left the child and his parents traumatized.

Duggar's 19th Child Born Prematurely

2009-12-16T07:01:00.000-08:00

By James Tillman
LITTLE ROCK, AR, December 15, 2009
Michelle Duggar, of TLC's "18 Kids and Counting" reality show, delivered her 19th baby prematurely by emergency c-section on Thursday, December 10th. Josie Brooklyn was at 25 weeks gestation when the decision to deliver her was made due to the fact that Michelle had preeclampsia, which can cause serious complications for both the baby and mother.
"The obstetrical and neonatal teams reached the collaborative decision that Mrs. Duggar needed an emergency c-section to ensure the blood pressure problem would not be detrimental to her or the baby," said Dr. Paul Wendel, director of the Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS).
Michelle Duggar had been admitted to a hospital over the previous weekend due to gallbladder issues; while there, it was discovered that she had preeclampsia, a condition characterized by high blood pressure in relation to pregnancy. It is a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death, and is cured only upon delivery of the baby.
Josie is currently in stable condition in UAMS' Neonatal Intensive Care Unit; she weighs 1 pound and 6 ounces. Babies born at 25 weeks have a 4 out of 5 chance of survival.
Over three thousand comments have been left on the Duggar blog entry announcing the birth; the vast majority of them are supportive and offer prayers and well wishes for Josie, Michelle, and the whole Duggar family. TLC has said that they will pass well wishes in comments on to the Duggars.
The Duggars have written a book about their experiences, including their decision to stop using birth control; in addition to their reality TV show they have been featured on numerous occasions in the media. Through such media they have spread their belief that "children are a heritage of the Lord," as their website proclaims.

Far From the Meddling Crowd

2009-12-14T12:54:00.000-08:00

This is the January 2010 reading for a book club I've joined, called Kindred Spirits Book Club, click the link to join us in reading this wonderful British book. http://kindredspiritsbookclub.blogspot.com

Fear depopulation, not overpopulation

2009-12-14T12:46:00.000-08:00

Canada and most European countries now have birth rates below the 2.1 replacement rate
By Maurice Vellacott
Diane Francis authored a very disturbing and 40-years-outdated column on Tuesday ("The real inconvenient truth: The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy," Dec. 8). Such rhetoric about overpopulation flies in the face of the depopulation dynamics that are striking fear into many politicians and economists around the world.
But just as disturbing is Ms. Francis' sanitized view of China's one-child policy, which she recommends. This policy has been thoroughly documented as being a forced abortion policy, with all the outrageous abuses against women that one might expect from such a policy. China is facing a serious gender imbalance because of its massive slaughter of unborn girls, due to parents' preference for boys.
If the Chinese hadn't been limited to only one child, they wouldn't have felt the need to make this deadly choice. This one-child policy also led to a number of high-profile refugee situations as a few brave women, threatened with the killing of their children, sought to flee China. And some are trying to fight the brutality from within the country. Ms. Francis should do more research before she conjures the image of China's one-child policy as a worthwhile depopulation strategy.
Furthermore, depopulation - not overpopulation - has already been thoroughly exposed as today's problem, not a solution. A cross-section of professionals, including economists, demographers and social scientists, have recently produced two documentaries on this problem: Demographic Winter and Demographic Bomb.
Canada and most, if not all, European countries now have birth rates below the replacement rate of 2.1. The documentaries are must-viewing for anyone serious about addressing the challenges of population today. As the producers of Demographic Winter note: "Worldwide, birthrates have declined by more than 50% in the past 30 years (since 1979). There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world's population, with below-replacement fertility. Sometime in this century, the world's population will begin to decline. (The United Nations Population Division says that, worldwide, we could achieve below-replacement fertility by 2030.) At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach what demographers call population free fall in our lifetimes. Russia is losing 750,000 people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050."
By 2015, the number of deaths in Europe will have outstripped the number of births. By 2060, the ratio of people of working age to those over age 65 will be two to one. The growth momentum of Europe's 27 member states will continue to carry it until 2035; after this the population will begin to decline drastically from a predicted 521 million to 506 million by 2060. These conclusions come from a report released last summer by Eurostat, the European Union's statistical service.
Economists have been lamenting for years a looming crisis with social welfare programs as the proportion of elderly people to workers in many Western countries declines. Nations with social welfare systems also need children to survive. A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train wreck for state pension systems.
Ms. Francis pretends that economies can flourish with depopulation. On the contrary, the past century has seen the largest population growth in global history, yet simultaneously, the standard of living has risen and life expectancies have increased across the globe. People typically reduce spending as they age and children move away from home, so as the older age cohort increases relative to a nation's population, the country's economic health can be expected to decline.
An article published in The Globe and Mail in January of this year (Baby Boom best bet to cure China's ills, Jan. 28), presented evidence that even China was in urgent need of population growth: "Population is at the heart of long-term economic expansion," writes China scholar Derek Scissors in a paper for the Heritage Foundation, a U.S. think tank. "China is soon to leave what has been an extended demographic pattern supporting economic growth and enter a very different pattern entailing difficult policy choices."
In summary, I was shocked to read Ms. Francis' advocacy for depopulation, especially drawing on the imagery of China's ruthless one-child forced abortion policy. Hopefully Ms. Francis will have further opportunity to examine this significant topic and explore the current relevant studies.
Maurice Vellacott is a Conservative Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin.

Is the Jewish race the Chosen People of God? More

2009-12-09T14:02:00.000-08:00

NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!The Jews were provisionally chosen by God to bring Christ into the world because of God's promises to Abraham that he would be a father of many nations and that in his Seed, all nations would be blessed (Gen. 17:5, 16; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). If you'll notice, after the flood the world was divided into the nations and languages that now fill the earth. That is in Gen. 10 & 11. Then, in Genesis 12, we are introduced to Abraham. The point here is that God was going to use Abraham and make him into a great nation so that Christ could come into the world through him. The laws and institutions of national Israel, were given by God to show the world's need of a Savior. The temple service was a grand object lesson showing the need for blood sacrifice and a chosen mediator to take away sin. The blood of bulls and goats, of course, could not save or take aways sin, but merely pointed to Christ (Heb. 10:1, 4). Just as the temple service was not "everlasting" but had a specific purpose pointing to Christ, so the nation of Israel had a provisional and temporary purpose. Once the purpose was fulfilled, the "election" of the Jews as God's bride concluded. The "bridal" imagery of Israel's national election is important, because it is based upon a covenant. Which covenant? The old covenant, of course! See Jeremiah 3 & Ezekiel 16. But Jeremiah said there would be a NEW COVENANT! And that new covenant is based upon the gospel and faith in Christ. The Jews covenant has ended and is gone; the ONLY way to be the bride of Christ today is through the only existing covenant there is, the gospel!The Jews' possession of Palestine was also provisional and conditional. God put the nation in Palestine (versus some other place) because it was the cross road of the ancient world, between Egypt and Ethiopia in the south, Assyria and Babylon in the East, Greece in the North, and Rome in the West. By placing the Jewish nation where he did, God made certain that every race and language of men would be exposed to the laws and institutions he gave the Jews, and so be prepared to receive Christ when he came. There are many passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy showing that the Jews' possession of the land was conditional upon obedience. If they obeyed and were faithful, they could remain in the land. But if they sinned and rebelled, God would cast them out of the land. The scripture show that they were not faithful, so God destroyed the nation, first by the hand of the Assyrians and Babylonians, then finally by Rome for the murder of Christ and rejection of the gospel. Read Matthew 23 & 24 where Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the nation by Rome for rejecting him and persecuting his church.Are the Jews God's chosen people today. NO! All men come to grace through Christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28
Paul is talking about whether men need to obey the law; whether men need to be circumcised (become Jews) in order to find grace in Christ. Paul answers NO. Through faith, repentance, and baptism we receive the adoption of sonship, are made the seed of Abraham, and become heirs of God and eternal life (See Gal. 3:29). Paul says there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave or free in God's eyes anymore. All men come to grace exactly the same way - through faith - and one's lineal descent is irrelevant. In Philippians, Paul said he counted his lineal descent from Abraham as "dung" for the surpassing greatness of being justified in Christ (Phil. 3:1-8). Thus, Paul's Jewish ancestry was a big zero under the New Testament. Jews have no advantage any more. The gospel went into all the world so all men can be saved. There is only one Covenant today - the gospel of Christ. Anyone preaching that the Jews are still God's people is preaching a reversion to Judaism and the Old Law. The Jews are not God's chosen people today, unless he has rejected the church and gone back under the Old Covenant.

The Still, Small Voice

2009-12-08T10:54:00.001-08:00

"And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice." I Kings 19:12
Going through the daily rush of our lives when things are under pressure and you are tested, we need to pause and listen to that still small voice.
God is that voice, and unless we give heed to that hint in our minds that stops our conscience, and asks us to listen to the little restraints and prohibition he gives us that help us advance in our understanding and conversation in the Lord.
We need to simply trust and obey God, and "know that all thins work together for good..." (Romans 8:28)--he will sometimes seem to be making no sense of the situation, but he WILL care for you, and know that there is a purpose for everything under heaven..." (Ecc. 3:1) and it is all apart of his glorious plan for our lives.

Trust And Obey Hymn
When we walk with the Lord in the light of His Word,
What a glory He sheds on our way!
While we do His good will,
He abides with us still,
And with all who will trust and obey.
Refrain
Trust and obey, for there’s no other way
To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.
Not a shadow can rise, not a cloud in the skies,
But His smile quickly drives it away;
Not a doubt or a fear, not a sigh or a tear,
Can abide while we trust and obey.
Refrain
Not a burden we bear, not a sorrow we share,
But our toil He doth richly repay;
Not a grief or a loss, not a frown or a cross,
But is blessed if we trust and obey.
Refrain
But we never can prove the delights of His love
Until all on the altar we lay;
For the favor He shows, for the joy He bestows,
Are for them who will trust and obey.
Refrain
Then in fellowship sweet we will sit at His feet.
Or we’ll walk by His side in the way.
What He says we will do, where He sends we will go;
Never fear, only trust and obey.
Refrain

No More

2009-12-07T06:11:00.000-08:00

By a Homeschool Mom

When we first started homeschooling, I was so excited to give my children the opportunity to experience every learning situation available. My schedule included lofty ideas of weekly field trips and my children's involvement in any sport, music, or church activity they wanted to attend. After all, we wanted to make sure no one accused us of isolating our children. However, after homeschooling three to four months, I realized my sanity was at stake if I continued to run my four children out the door to each of their daily activities. The half-completed projects and academic assignments that were left behind added additional proof we had a problem. That's when I decided: no more.

New changes were made at our house, and we began to reevaluate what was important to our children's education. Even worthwhile activities within our church and homeschool group had to be analyzed and prayed over. We simply did not have enough time to participate in everything that was available. "Simplify" became my theme, and I rediscovered the joy of homeschooling our children again.

Moses was a great leader in the Bible, but even he had to learn how to simplify his life. After leading God's people out of Egypt, Moses had the awesome responsibility of making this mass of people get along with each other. Imagine dealing with the issues created by millions of people living together out in the wilderness. Moses was burning out fast trying to keep ahead of all the demands. Fortunately, Jethro, his father-in-law, noticed what was happening and gave him some practical ideas to get his life back (Exodus 18:17-27).

What about your family? Are you running from activity to activity and missing the whole point of homeschooling — you know, the schooling you're supposed to be doing at home? Life already has enough demands on us to hurry and miss the joy of loving relationships. Don't let the world pull you off the track God has given you in homeschooling. Guard your time together and pray before you say "yes" to one more thing. Remember, we're not isolating. We're equipping our children to grow in their walk with Christ, and that simply takes time. "See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is" (Ephesians 5:15-17).

Lord, our family is on overload, and we need Your help. Programs and activities have replaced people and relationships, and we need Your discernment to rediscover why we are homeschooling. Bring us back to our first loves — You and each other. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Are the Jews still God's Chosen People?

2009-12-06T12:42:00.001-08:00

This was written when I was questioned on my post on "Our opinions Concerneing Israel."
This is the reply:
The nation of Israel was chosen to bring the Savior into the world. Jesus had to be born somewhere in some nation, so it only made sense that God would create a nation whose laws and traditions would serve to prepare the world for Christ. It would make no sense for the Savior of the world to be born into a pagan home that worshipped false gods, would it? So, God chose Abraham and made his seed into a nation. National election of the Jews was merely PROVISIONAL - it was a temporary arrangement so Christ could be born to Abraham's seed as promised. But, being a servant of God was NEVER based upon ethnicity. Men are not acceptible based upon race or physical descent. What makes anybody acceptible to God is the obedience of faith. Thus, Paul says "For he is NOT a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart" (Rom. 2:28, 29).So, here Paul expressly states that being a Jew does not mean one can trace physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but a "Jew" is an obedient, servant of God based upon faith. He repeats this in Romans 9:7, 8, saying, "Neither, becaue they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall they seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Here, Paul says lineal descent from Abraham does not make a person Abraham's seed or a child of God. Only in Christ are we the seed and do we obtain the status of being children and heirs of God and eternal life.The verses you cite showing the Jews were God's people, were all from the Old Testament. The Old Testament has been annulled by the cross of Christ. Today, all men are viewed equally by God and all must come to grace exactly the same way. God does not have two covenants, one for the Jews and another for the rest of mankind. The promise of salvation was made to Adam and Eve before there were any Jews and the promise was for all men.Yes, any unbeliever who denies Christ is an antichrist, regardless of race or nation. My only point in saying the Jews were antichrist was to dispell the fallacy that they are somewhow God's chosen people today after rejecting God, murdering his son, and persecuting his church and gospel. The Jews rejected God and he rejected them and destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 in vengeance and wrath. What God has done, let not man undo! We should not support any nation, Jew or Muslim, that is an enemy of Christ.

Does God want us to be "happy" or holy?

2009-12-04T08:27:00.000-08:00

Posted by Caspian.
December 3, 2009 at 11:00pm

.This question has supporters on both sides, more so on the "Happy" or "Both" side I believe.

But what does the word of God tell us about this? After all that is what truly matters. So where does the Bible give us an example of this, or insite into to subject.

Well, let us go back to the beginning(literally!); the first two humans, Adam, and Eve. But you may be thinking, "What do they have to do with it? People refer to them bringing sin into the world not holiness or happiness! But what else can we pull from this oft told story?

First, lets get some back ground shall we? God created a perfect world and plopped Adam and Eve into it. But not just any random place, they were in the garden of eden! They walked with God, talked with him, and even had their pick of fruit! WOW~ They had everything they need to be "happy"! And they were I believe...for a time. But what happened to them? Why can't the story just say and God let them eat of every tree in the garden and they were Joyful?

I would not be out of line here I believe to interject the reason the story doesn't read, and Adam and Eve ate of every tree and lived happily ever after, was because God valued their holiness he told them NOT to eat of the tree "Of the knowledge of God and evil", not because he didn't want them to have the happiness of eating of every tree, but because he valued their holiness higher. It took priority, as they would no longer be holy after eating of the tree.

Now some may say "Dude, that was TOTALLY a "far out" example. Come on, its Adam and Eve we are talking about, things were different back then." Or perhaps even "That example had nothing to do with your lame point, joy killer!"

*chuckles*

Of course I disagree(why would I have posted otherwise!) but sure, why don't we look at a different situation. Once again old Testament(but don't worry, I didn't chose Cain and Able THOUGH! I could have ;))
Lets' look at the life of a prophet of God, they should be a good example one way or the other right? Right! Jonah is a man we don't know much about, but we do know he had a temper, and was not always into seeing people go unpunished. : But what else do we learn from his story? Well once again lets start at the beginning what was the surrounding info? To start with, he was a prophet ( I already said that once), so he went about giving people God's messages, mostly warnings I believe as that was a prophets typical message. So with that little tid bit of background lets plunge in:)

God commanded Jonah to go to the Ninevites(a sinful people very hated and despised). This was NOT something that would be a "happy" thing to do, nor would it give Jonah physical gain, I believe he possibly feared for his life in going there. People often aren't "to big" on someone coming up to them and saying "Repent sinners, or the Lord God's judgment will wipe you out!".At least last time I checked ;). Now imagine doing that to thirty thousand people~ You get the picture Jonah had going through his mind :C

Now for one, at face value, would that make you feel happy? NO! I'd be terrified of the people and resistant to God. So what did Jonah do stuck with a tricky situation, between the proverbial "rock" and God! Not exactly the most comfortable circumstance. So he....Fled! He ran for his life!

But~ Lets look a little deeper at the key reason why he fled. Was he going to be happy going to Nineveh? NO. Would he be happier/ more comfortable going and relaxing on the sand somewhere? Yes! Away from those sinful people, and the followers of God asking what God wanted them to do(that would be very akward). Now you might say I over simplified this but I would ask you to bear with me.

So back on Jonah's tale, he fled to Tarshish in his thinking, away from God's command and perhaps he was also looking forward to being away from the people(I would be!) Now we all know what happened, God caused a storm to rise up, and long story short Jonah ended up in a "large aquatic animal":P. But why? If God wanted him to be happy, wouldn't it have been better to let Jonah go? I don't think God was like "Darn that Jonah, now he's gonna pay, Him V ME. We'll see he cries uncle first! I get this giant animal to get him! HA! That'll show him."

NoNo!,
I don't think this was what was happening at all! God cared about Jonah, and that is why he chose what he did. He valued Jonah's holiness/obedience(I think they go hand in hand) higher than Jonah's sinful "happiness" so he brought the fish in to discipline him, and hopefully teach him a lesson. Why? Because rather than having Jonah live his life "Hunky Dorry" he was calling him to holiness, as I believe God calls us all. God cares that you are holy and following after him, rather than you being happy. I hope this has shown you good reasons why I believe this to be true.

Challenge to Ireland's Pro-Life Laws Goes to European Court of Human Rights

2009-12-04T06:55:00.001-08:00

By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
December 3, 2009 (C-FAM) - Irish abortion laws and sovereignty stand in the dock next week when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears a challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of life "from conception."
Three petitioners in the case A, B & C v. Ireland allege that they were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, undergoing unnecessary expenses and hardship due to the nation's pro-life laws. They claim violations of various rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Third-party interveners Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the European Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund (on behalf of Family Research Council), contend that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. They also claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that therefore the ECHR lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ireland's constitution "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The country's recent approval of the Lisbon Treaty after receiving guarantees that its pro-life constitution would remain unaffected has raised the stakes of the Court's decision.
Skeptics of the ECHR's ability to be impartial where "abortion rights" are implicated point to the court's 2007 ruling Tysiac v. Poland, which held that Poland had violated the European Convention by denying a woman a "therapeutic" abortion that allegedly would have saved her eyesight. The woman there had obtained a certificate from a general practitioner as a prerequisite to obtaining an abortion allowable under Polish law, which remains among Europe's most protective of the unborn. Five medical experts overruled the general practitioner, determining that the ongoing deterioration in eyesight was unrelated to her pregnancy – a finding seconded post-delivery by a review panel of three additional experts. Despite this, as the dissent pointed out, the ECHR credited the one generalist's opinion over that of eight experts to reach the desired result.
Jakob Cornides, a European legal commentator who has criticized the Tysiac decision, distinguished that case from the present one, noting that, "rightly or wrongly, Tysiac was premised upon the notion that Ms. Tysiac's contemplated abortion would have been legal under Polish law, and if lawful, it should have been available. In Ireland, however, the constitution protects unborn life and legislation indisputably prohibits abortion."
Cornides further points out that "the Court so far has avoided taking a position on whether abortion should be legal or not, leaving this question to national legislators. It would indeed be inconceivable that countries like Ireland or Poland, to name just two, would have signed up to the Convention if they foresaw an explicit or implicit 'right to abortion.'"
Irish voters overwhelmingly approved Ireland's pro-life constitutional provision in a 1983 referendum. Pro-lifers further note that Ireland has the world's lowest rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, as confirmed in a recent report by the World Economic Forum.

Cambridge Study Says 5-year-olds Too Young To Start School

2009-12-04T06:41:00.000-08:00

By Thaddeus M. Bakllinski

LONDON, October 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study of primary education by Cambridge University recommends that formal schooling of children should begin at the age of six, a year later than the present norm in the UK.

The 608-page Cambridge Primary Review, which was based on 28 surveys and 1,052 written submissions by 14 authors, 66 research consultants and an advisory committee, said there was no evidence suggesting formal teaching environments benefited young children, and that introducing children at the age of five into the structure and discipline of a classroom could even be harmful.

Dame Gillian Pugh, chairwoman of the review, said: "Four and five-year-olds tended to be at a stage where they were just 'tuning in' to learning and that they could be 'turned off' if they were made to follow too formal a curriculum, too early on."

"If you introduce a child to too formal a curriculum before they are ready for it," she continued, "then you are not taking into account where children are in terms of their learning and their capacity to develop.

"If they are already failing by the age of four-and-a-half or five it's going to be quite difficult to get them back into the system again. They are not going to learn to read, write and add up if you have alienated them," Pugh said.

The report recommends that children up to the age of six should instead continue the more informal, play-based education typically found in nurseries.

In Finland, as in Germany and Sweden, children begin school in the year they turn seven. In France, children begin formal education at six. Finland is regarded as having Europe's best education system, with the country's students regularly achieving top marks for reading literacy and science in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

England's custom of starting school at five, shared in Europe only by Wales, Scotland and the Netherlands, dates from the requirements of Victorian factory owners, the report states, and warns of the "Stalinist overtones of a 'state theory of learning'" enforced by the "machinery of surveillance and accountability."

The government dismissed the review as "disappointing" and out of date.

Schools Minister Vernon Coaker said the recommendations would actually disadvantage British school children.

"It's disappointing that a review which purports to be so comprehensive is simply not up to speed on many major changes in primaries," he said.

"The world has moved on since this review was started. We want to make sure children are playing and learning from an early age and to give parents the choice for their child to start in the September following their fourth birthday."

Teachers' unions, however, endorsed the review and criticized the government's response.

"It is absolutely extraordinary that the government has decided to ignore the Cambridge Review recommendations," said Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers.

"Any government worth its salt, particularly in front of an impending general election, would have embraced this immensely rich report as a source of policy ideas."

A previous study, released in 2007 by Durham University's Curriculum, Evaluation and Management (CEM) Centre and presented at the European Association for Learning and Instruction (EARLI) conference, is substantiated by the Cambridge University report.

The Durham study found that, although there have been massive changes in early years education in the last decade in the UK, children's development and skills at the start of school are no different now than they were before the introduction of the early childhood curriculum.

"Our aim with this study is to provide a single perspective on the changing profiles of children starting school in England during a time of rapid change," said Dr. Christine Merrell of Durham University.

"One would have expected that the major government programmes would have resulted in some measurable changes in our sample of almost 35,000 children," though no benefit was evident.

Other studies have found marked negative effects from the introduction of 3 to 5 year olds to formal schooling, including brain chemistry damage, aggression, negative social and emotional development, and illness.

A Resipe!

2009-12-03T13:44:00.000-08:00

French Apple Pie

You will need these things:

1 Pie crust

1 cup sugar

1/4 cup cornstarch

1/2 tsp. nutmeg

1/4 tsp ground cinnamon

pinch of salt

6 cups of thinly sliced baking apples, (approx. 6 med. apples)

1 cup flour

1/2 cup butter or margarine

1/2 cup brown sugar

Now you'll have to preheat your oven to 350 F.
Mix sugar, cornstarch, nutmeg, cinnamon, and salt into a bowl
Stir in the Apples
Pour the ingredients into the pie pan
Mix in the flour with the butter, NOT melted--in a bowl
Mix in the brown sugar until crumbly--save a little to sprinkle on the top.
Put in the pie pan
Bake for an hour and 30 minutes--cover the pie with aluminum foil for the final 10 minutes of baking.
Enjoy!

More Muslim Ladies--Pics

2009-12-03T12:01:00.000-08:00

Najaf Sultana, 16, poses for a photograph at her home in Lahore, Pakistan on Wednesday, July 9, 2008. At the age of five Najaf was burned by her father while she was sleeping, apparently because he didn't want to have another girl in the family. As a result of the burning Najaf became blind and after being abandoned by both her parents she now lives with relatives. She has undergone plastic surgery around 15 times to try to recover from her scars.

Shehnaz Usman, 36, poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008. Shehnaz was burned with acid by a relative due to a familial dispute five years ago. Shehnaz has undergone plastic surgery 10 times to try to recover from her scars.

Shahnaz Bibi, 35, poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008. Ten years ago Shahnaz was burned with acid by a relative due to a familial dispute. She has never undergone plastic surgery.

Kanwal Kayum, 26, adjusts her veil as she poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008. Kanwal was burned with acid one year ago by a boy whom she rejected for marriage. She has never undergone plastic surgery.

Munira Asef, 23, poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008. Munira was burned with acid five years ago by a boy whom she rejected for marriage. She has undergone plastic surgery 7 times to try to recover from her scars.

Bushra Shari, 39, adjusts her veil as she poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Friday, July. 11, 2008. Bushra was burned with acid thrown by her husband five years ago because she was trying to divorce him. She has undergone plastic surgery 25 times to try to recover from her scars.

Memuna Khan, 21, poses for a photograph in Karachi, Pakistan, Friday, Dec. 19, 2008. Menuna was burned by a group of boys who threw acid on her to settle a dispute between their family and Menuna's. She has undergone plastic surgery 21 times to try to recover from her scars.

Zainab Bibi, 17, adjusts her veil as she poses for a photograph in Islamabad, Pakistan,

Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2008.. Zainab was burned on her face with acid thrown by a boy whom she rejected for marriage five years ago. She has undergone plastic surgery several times to try to recover from her scars.

Naila Farhat, 19, poses for a photograph in Islamabad, Pakistan, Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2008. Naila was burned on her face with acid thrown by a boy whom she rejected for marriage five years ago. She has undergone plastic surgery several times to try to recover from her scars.

Saira Liaqat, 26, poses for the camera as she holds a portrait of herself before being burned, at her home in Lahore, Pakistan, Wednesday, July 9, 2008. When she was fifteen, Saira was married to a relative who would later attack her with acid after insistently demanding her to live with him, although the families had agreed she wouldn't join him until she finished school. Saira has undergone plastic surgery 9 times to try to recover from her scars.

THOSE NICE PEACEFUL MUSLIMS, I WANT TO PUKE !

2009-12-03T11:51:00.000-08:00

Irum Saeed (the left), 30, poses for a photograph at her office at the Urdu University of Islamabad, Pakistan, Thursday, July 24, 2008. Irum was burned on her face, back and shoulders twelve years ago when a boy whom she rejected for marriage threw acid on her in the middle of the street. She has undergone plastic surgery 25 times to try to recover from her scars.
Shameem Akhter(top), 18, poses for a photograph at her home in Jhang, Pakistan, Wednesday, July 10, 2008. Shameem was raped by three boys who then threw acid on her three years ago. Shameem has undergone plastic surgery 10 times to try to recover from her scars.

Terrorism that's personal
(12 images) GRAPHIC CONTENTTerrorism that's personal (12 images)EDITOR'S NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT
Text by Jim Verhulst, Times' Perspective editorPhotos by Emilio Morenatti, Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30kristof.html

We typically think of terrorism as a political act.
But sometimes it’s very personal. It wasn’t a government or a guerrilla insurgency that threw acid on this woman’s face in Pakistan. It was a young man whom she had rejected for marriage. As the United States ponders what to do in Afghanistan — and for that matter, in Pakistan — it is wise to understand both the political and the personal, that the very ignorance and illiteracy and misogyny that create the climate for these acid attacks can and does bleed over into the political realm. Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times op-ed columnist who traveled to Pakistan last year to write about acid attacks, put it this way in an essay at the time: “I’ve been investigating such acid attacks, which are commonly used to terrorize and subjugate women and girls in a swath of Asia from Afghanistan through Cambodia (men are almost never attacked with acid). Because women usually don’t matter in this part of the world, their attackers are rarely prosecuted and acid sales are usually not controlled. It’s a kind of terrorism that becomes accepted as part of the background noise in the region. ...
“Bangladesh has imposed controls on acid sales to curb such attacks, but otherwise it is fairly easy in Asia to walk into a shop and buy sulfuric or hydrochloric acid suitable for destroying a human face. Acid attacks and wife burnings are common in parts of Asia because the victims are the most voiceless in these societies: They are poor and female. The first step is simply for the world to take note, to give voice to these women.” Since 1994, a Pakistani activist who founded the Progressive Women’s Association (http://www.pwaisbd.org/) to help such women “has documented 7,800 cases of women who were deliberately burned, scalded or subjected to acid attacks, just in the Islamabad area. In only 2 percent of those cases was anyone convicted.”
The geopolitical question is already hard enough: Should the United States commit more troops to Afghanistan and for what specific purpose? As American policymakers mull the options, here is a frame of reference that puts the tough choices in even starker relief: Are acid attacks a sign of just how little the United States can do to solve intractable problems there — therefore, we should pull out? Or having declared war on terrorism, must the United States stay out of moral duty, to try to protect women such as these — and the schoolgirls whom the Taliban in Afghanistan sprayed with acid simply for going to class — who have suffered a very personal terrorist attack? We offer a reading file of two smart essays that come to differing conclusions.
• In August, Perspective published a New York Times Magazine piece that followed up the story of Afghan sisters Shamsia and Atifa Husseini, who were attacked with acid simply for attending school. If you wish to refresh your memory, you may read the original article here.
• Two very smart, informed observers come to opposite conclusions on the proper U.S. course of action in Afghanistan. Here are excerpts from arguments that each of them has recently made:
Here are excerpts from Steve Coll’s “Think Tank” blog at NewYorker.com, in which he argues why we can’t leave — “What If We Fail In Afghanistan?” (Read it in full here.)
In an essay entitled “The War We Can’t Win” in Commonweal (also reprinted this month by Harper’s), Andrew J. Bacevich makes the case that we are overstating the importance of Afghanistan to U.S. interests. Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University and the author, most recently, of The Limits of Power. A retired Army lieutenant colonel, he served from 1969 to 1992, in Vietnam and the first Persian Gulf War.. He was a conservative critic of the Iraq war. Several of his essays have run before in Perspective. To read this one in full, go here.
• See the Sunday November 22, 2009 Perspective section in the St. Petersburg Times But be forewarned: Those photos are even harder to look at than these ones.
More pics will be posted.

Our Opinions Concerning Israel

2009-12-03T08:13:00.000-08:00

We feel that the favoritism the U.S. has shown the Jews/Israel has injured our relationship with the Arab world and has caused them to hate us. We
owe Israel no special friendship or allegiance. The Jews are antichrist.
An Antichrist is anyone who denies the Son. (I Jn. 2:22 & 23 who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledge the Son hath the Father also. ). The only way to the Father is through the Son. The Jews deny Jesus and therefore are Antichrist, and have not the Father. The Bible says that those who deny Christ are at enmity (hatred) with God (Rom. 8:7, 8) If the Jews are at enmity (enemies) of God, why should Christian befriend them (except to lead them to Christ, of course)?

The Jews were provisionally chosen as a nation to accomplish God's purpose to bring Jesus into the world; they were “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” which God bore with much longsuffering and patience (Rom. 10:22, 23). The Jews had the chance and refused the gospel. You also say, Emily, that the Jews did not kill Jesus; yet they rejected him and cause the Son of God to be crucifed when Pilate was determined to let him go (Acts 2:23)! The moral blame was squarely placed on them. (Matt. 27:1 when the morning was come, the chief priests and elders took counsel against Jesus to put him to death). You also say that He gave Himself up willingly, that is true. He did it for us, but that doesn’t change the fact that they sought to murder Him. (Also look at Matt. 27:20) That is why their city and nation was destroyed by Rome in AD 70 (see Matt. 23 & 24). Jesus said "your house is left to you desolate" - that is, they abandoned God and so he abandoned them to be destroyed. Emily, now you said that God sees all men equally, you are right. That means all men find grace the same way – through Jesus. Jews must obey the gospel the same as Gentiles. There is no preferential treatment. The ground before the cross is plane. Unless the
Jews repent and accept Christ, they are condemned as every other man or
woman. As a "Christian" we have no business taking sides with a nation
that denies Christ. That makes us a party to their sins. So, while we certainly do not favor the Muslim, neither should we favor the Jews. Both deny Christ and are enemies of the gospel. That is the plain and simple truth.

The Accomplished Girl

2009-11-16T07:39:00.000-08:00

The world looks at an accomplished woman as one who has a position in the social like of a job and etc. Not so...

The real accomplishments are the homely arts of home-keeping--the woman's work and place in life. Most girls of today WILL enter into jobs outside of the home, yet the vast majority of them will, in the end, become mothers and "Keepers-at-Home" (hopefully).

Since all girls, however, will have a home--the accomplishments of home keeping are what she needs most--for they are what establish the whole structure of the home.

A girl needs to know how:
1. To keep house (make beds, sweep, dust)
2. She should be able to cook good, nutritious food
3. Know know to sew and mend
4. Able to take care of her body and keep it in good condition
5. She should learn some useful way of wage earning
6. Every girl should have a business education,. or at least an understanding of business methods
7. She should know how to entertain and show hospitality with ease and grace
8. To show truth, honesty, honor, obedience, and goodness

Some of these accomplishments, such as sewing, take time to develop--but that's hwy they should be started NOW.
Master being a keeper at home early--it will then be easier when the real thing comes, when you have a home, husband, and children of your own.

And do it with the spirit knowing it is God's Will and happiness to be forming these accomplishments.

God bless.

Foundation of Character

2009-11-16T07:33:00.000-08:00

The real foundation of a woman's character can always be found by a constant study and dedication to reading the Word.
Character is not inherited, we build it every day by the things we put around us...it forms our morals and ethics.
Youth is the building time--it is a serious job and can be a hard task. You will not be benefited by following other examples around you if the girls are foolish, giddy, ignorant, rude, lazy or sloppy.
You must set a pattern--the perfect pattern, to work with. Choose with a cautions and prayerful spirit the things you pick for your life--reject all that falls short of your standard--what ever is done, we must never allow ourselves to be guided by what other do. Jesus is our Perfect Pattern--so set you measuring stick by His example. He is our foundation.

A Girl's Ornaments

2009-11-16T06:34:00.000-08:00

By Mabel Hale
“Whose adorning [let it be] the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit.”* (I Peter 3:3-4)
The girl is the woman to be, and girlhood is the dressing room for womanhood. The perfect woman has graces and powers of body, mind, and soul that make her able to be the mother of men and to guide them into the right paths of life. Her example and influence are unbounded, not only in her own home but in society in general. No girl can come to this perfect womanhood unless she uses the opportunities of girlhood rightly. If she does not develop a healthy, active body she is handicapped through all her life. If she does not come to womanhood with a mind and soul that are clean and clear and properly directed she cannot rightly fill her place. A vain, silly, giddy woman is just as unfitted for the responsibilities of life in mind and soul as a sick woman is in body. A right attitude toward her dress will not only help a girl to grow strong and vigorous in body, but will aid her in growing strong and beautiful in mind and soul.
Let us always keep in mind that the perfect woman is a Christian woman. To be a true Christian is to take the path in life that was mapped out for us in the life of Christ and to show daily in life and manners the graces and the spirit of Christ. He was “meek and lowly in heart,”* (Matthew 11:29) and showed always the opposite of vanity and pride. Paul speaks to Christian women of the “ornament of a meek and quiet spirit.” And the girl who is growing into a perfect woman is noticed for her kindness, sympathy, gentleness, sweetness of spirit, and her willingness to be of service. There is about her a humility that makes you feel that she does not despise you and think you below her, that she is rather thinking of your happiness than her own personal appearance.
These beautiful graces—kindness, sympathy, humility, gentleness, purity—are the real ornaments of beautiful girlhood. But it is in the ornaments that clothe and beautify her soul and mind that make her a lovable and desirable creature who carries happiness and cheer wherever she goes. Seek first the more beautiful inner ornaments and then clothe the body so that those more important ornaments are not hidden.
Your clothes should not be conspicuous among your comrades, either as old-fashioned or odd, nor as being smart and daring. It is not a trait of beautiful girlhood to expose the person in a way to call forth coarse remarks and criticisms. It is impossible to point out certain things that are wrong, for a fad that is causing strong comment today may in a few years be forgotten, but this principle always holds good: that our girls who are striving for a beautiful girlhood and a clean and useful womanhood should always dress so as to appear modest and quiet and inconspicuous in their environments. The same thing is true of the use of jewelry and any ornaments. For a girl to be wearing jewelry and gems gives her an appearance of pride and haughtiness that is not at all in keeping with a Christlike spirit nor with a girlhood beautiful. To drape herself with jewelry makes her appear silly and vain. But any girl can easily settle these matters for herself if she will keep in mind that her business is always to keep in evidence the true ornaments of mind and soul and then be careful that in clothing and beautifying her body, she does not dim her more precious ornaments.
There is yet another angle regarding dress that our girls should keep in mind. Good girls behaving as they should are one of the strongest influences for good in the lives of their boy associates, and every girl striving for a clean and beautiful girlhood should not in dress or action do that which in any way lowers her in the estimation of clean-minded boys, nor causes her to become a temptation to those who are weak.

Our American Religion, Christianity--and the General Argeement On Our Political Views

2009-11-09T08:16:00.000-08:00

I know that many will disagree with this article, but I wrote it answering the curiosity of a Hindu girl who wrote me with the interest of wanting to learn more about Christianity. I know that many of the subjects are personal opinions and not the general belief, but I wrote what I believe from my heart of what the Bible teaches.

Christians reject the idea of "evolution" as scientifically impossible: order cannot assemble itself from chaos; life cannot spring spontaneously from non-life; all things did not come from nothing. Rather we believe in one God, who put order into nature, and put into creation all living things within a period of six days; that He created man in His image, meaning man was given Hod's Spirit, and he received a soul. By meaning he is created in "His image" I refer to moral qualities...such as love, peace and joy. God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

Christianity does not follow the Greek Mythological idea of reincarnation. We believe that each soul is unique and specially created in His sight.

We also believe that man has free will--the power to make decisions and be responsible for them...which caused man to fall from God's image in the garden of Eden, and know good and evil...to have the ability to know and commit sin. We believe that the wages (punishment) of sin is death.

God's grace doesn't mean He does not see our sin or ignore it--but by coming down and becoming a man, Jesus--He made available a way for all men to have forgiveness of sins by repentance and baptism through His sacrifice on the cross.

The Christian life means a sanctified life, one that is committed to Jesus and promoting His Gospel and following it as well to the ability of our fallen nature--following the Fruits of the Spirit (God's image)--which are love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance; and also observing modesty of dress, the raising of the family, the promotion of the Bible in all branches of our lives (privately and abroad), purity in marriage, and such like.

As to political views, I believe that Christianity should be the basis of the moral and ethical foundation of the government; however, one can see there has been a sad decline away form morals in the political arena of the USA; since about the close of the Civil War, when immigrants form Europe came over many who were not Christian--it changed America's morals and ethics in many different ways.

For instance...consider abortion and homosexuality--Christianity is supposed to be strongly opposed to these things--but it has been protected and even promoted by our government! What a sad thing to be loosing our Christian Heritage to radical and evil decisions by politicians that we nominate. It's frustrating.

Providing an Orderly Environment in the Home

2009-11-09T07:59:00.001-08:00

"Let all things be done decently and in order." I Corinthians 14:40
God's creation is founded upon order. Yet the complexity of the simplest thing astounds the most learned scientist...but that simplest thing is still formed upon a detailed arrangement of order.
As we try to apply order to our own lives and homes we don't usually consider the grave importance of why--besides providing and clean house to breathe and function.
Really--I think the question should take a turn for-- "Does a peaceful environment, produced by household tasks, mean anything to encourage order in the future lives of our kids?"
Clutter and disarray usually contributes to chaos and confusion in the home, and children have to live with whatever we put there.
Cleanliness naturally leaves one with a sense of rest and peace. Also and openness of a room refreshes one to clear thinking and concentration--not being led and distracted to articles about.
Both of these environments are also important to not only thinking--but for homeschooling. Whether it is a kitchen table or a special room for schooling, the area should be put into the best arraignment. It has been proven that a peaceful, quiet, and clean atmosphere provides the student with the best surroundings to the clear judgement and outcome of their work.
We should not resent household 'drudgery," but we should see that is is God's wish for us t have order, and it is to His glory.
Household tasks are a granted and holy privilege ordained by God; they are apart of the great calling of raising a generation for Him, and we should give them the best we can to construct their futures.
God bless.

Inspiring Children Unto Good Things

2009-11-04T07:09:00.000-08:00

What do you want your children's ideals to be? Send them to the public school and you've lost your best way to teach and to place in their hearts what you want for them, Christianity and its ethics.
Here is a list of Christian ethic that should be instilled in children:

1. Modesty in your girls
2. Caring for the poor and widows
3. A care for the elderly
4. A strong sense of manners
5. A Christian home-school education
6.A strong knowledge of the Scriptures
7. An honor for parents
8. A want for church family life
9. Order and Cleanliness
10. A knowledge of sewing (girls)
11. Gallantry and gentleman's behavior in boys
12. A love of serving God to the best of their ability

This is a shamefully short list--but I listed the most essential, obvious ones. We have lost a lot of these qualities thanks to a dividing of the American, Christian home. A parent's example will be a child's blueprint for life--even is the next generation where to break form the mold the influence of the parents example will always be there--somewhere.
We must remember that siblings are of influence too. An immodest sister will encourage the younger to copy her. Crude manners of a brother will poison the sweet, polite tone of the younger.
We must inspire ideals that are wholesome, founded, positive, pure--strive for perfection! How as St. Peter's home ordered--what were his ideals for his family? What qualities of obedience were in his wife? What rules did they lay out together for the ethics of the home?
"But as he called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation." I Peter 1:15
"For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness." I Thess. 4:7
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5:48
Aspire to inspire!

Feminism and Its Effects on America

2009-11-04T06:54:00.000-08:00

Many women of today are working for the most evil game of history--Feminism.
All over America, we can see the "Liberation" movement working. IN every town, there are women busy to abolish the traditional, Christian family, legalize pro-abortion (Which thanks to the Obamanation has practically been fulfilled), homosexuality, socialism, and encourage divorce...in short, they are trying to kill anything associated with Christianity.
I think we can thank a lot of feminists for today's problems and society's degradement. Feminism teaches that are thought of by men as the "lesser" and the "degraded sex"--down to the point of the disgraced position of prostitutes, and not elevating us to the beauty of refreshment of Christian, woman, mother, and wife hood.
Feminism? It is NOT promoting femininity--it's promoting man-hood ideas. It is anti-feminine. Why would I want to look and do like a man when I have been lucky enough to have the blessing of being born a woman? It's insanity to let ourselves think that being at war with kids and the home is our calling.
Christian womanhood is being abandoned by many women everyday, leaving their little infants and children to government institutions, and working. Could leaving the comfortable home routine and being condemned to business suits, set hours, governed times and events of the entire day--mean more Independence? More freedom? More happiness? NO! Feminism equals misery and selfishness. It is not God's plan for women--it should not be yours either.

What the Bible Says About Abortion

2009-10-31T12:44:00.000-07:00

Abortion, Attainder, and Corruption of Blood
A Juridical Analysis of Feticide and the Legal System
under the Mosaic Law
by
Kurt M. Simmons, J.D.

Note: A friend who recently had a tubal ectopic pregnancy, and whose life was at risk, was almost forced to chose between her life and the child's. Fortunately, that choice did not have to be made; the fetus was already dead. In responding to this crisis, I was impressed with the lack of real guidance about what the Bible says in such cases. Hence, I am republishing this book to help provide against this need.
I wrote this short book during law school to satisfy myself what the Bible taught about abortion. Abortion was a huge subject at the time, and rightly so. Many Christians were demonstrating at abortion clinics, trying to stop this abominable crime. Characteristically of lay people who speak of things in overly general and often emotionally charged terms, unaware of the niceties and precision of the law, there was a lot of talk about abortion being "murder." Yet, being a lawyer, I knew that this was not necessarily the case and so set about to find what the Bible really taught. The following are my conclusions. They will surprise some, but I believe I have handled the sacred text correctly.
In reviewing what I wrote 15 years ago, I find that the work is horribly amateurish and over burdened with "legalese" in an attempt to produce a "lawyerly" and authoritative work. My apologies. However, as it would be too much work to rewrite the book in "plain speak" I must release it to the world as is, hoping those who persevere through it will find some profit. Kurt Simmons, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One -
A Brief Account of Abortion and the Place of the Unborn in Anglo-American Law 1

Chapter Two -
Fetal Death and the Law in the Book of the Covenant 12

Chapter Three -
A Fetus was not a Life within the Law of Homicide until Born Alive 24

Chapter Four -
The Maturity of the Fetus and the Criminal Consequences Attached to its Destruction 40

Chapter Five -
Abortion, Attainder and Corruption of Blood 58

Chapter Six -
The Image of God and the Law of Homicide 81

Chapter Seven -
Circumstances Where the Life of the Unborn Was not Indemnified 94

Chapter Eight -
Canon Law, Common Law, and Roe Versus Wade 115

Chapter One
A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF ABORTION
AND THE PLACE OF THE UNBORN IN ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW

At a time in our nation's history when elective abortion has reached epidemic proportions it seemed good to attempt to give an account of what the Holy Scriptures say on the subject. Many fine works have been produced that take up the moral plea against abortion. This book will not attempt to improve upon those efforts. Instead, the present work will be confined to analyzing abortion more in terms of a legal or juridical perspective, in the sense of determining whether feticide and homicide were deemed the same thing in law and, if not, why not, and how the law then dealt with self-induced abortion.
More than merely academic, however, one could hope that discussion of this sort were entirely practical. Time was when judging the propriety of a law appeal might be had to the Bible. Writing in 1769, William Blackstone was able to say that "Christianity was part of the laws of England," and that "the preservation of Christianity, as a national religion, is, abstracted from it's own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to the civil state." Even in the United States where Christianity commands no official recognition or favor, it was not until well into the present century that men would venture to publicly contradict its essential truths, and Americans could proudly boast that this was a "Christian nation." If those days are gone, they are not forgot. The need to restore Christianity to its proper place in our national institutions is felt more acutely each passing day. It makes a profound difference that the religious symbols seen across our land and which mark the graves of our forebears are Christian, and not Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or Buddhist.
Law is the very foundation of society, built upon the customs, habits, and morals of a people. The liberty we have in Christ that the Jews did not enjoy under Moses is the difference between a child and an adult. A child requires constant tutelage in order to conform itself to the expectations of its parent and society; an adult operates within these bounds of his own volition and habit. The student in graduating from school is freed from the rigorous exercises heaped upon him in order to commit his lessons to memory; he is not free to abandon all he has been taught. Tailored for a nation of people, the law of Moses represents God's judgment regarding minimal acceptable standards of conduct for civil society. The practical utility of a juridical analysis of the law of Moses thus lays in its ability to provide Scriptural answers to questions that must otherwise haunt us - in providing a standard against which modern institutions and conventions may be measured. The New Testament is in no wise sufficient to this purpose taken alone. We may be able to deduce from the New Testament that elective abortion is wrong, but we cannot know if God deems it homicide and how it is to be punished. Without the Old Testament, at best we can only guess. The present work is undertaken with a view to taking the guess-work out of these questions. Before turning to the law of Moses, however, a short assay of Anglo-American law will be profitable.
According to Anglo-American tradition dating from at least the seventeenth century, feticide, the killing of a fetus, and homicide, the killing of a human being, were deemed distinct acts. Blackstone defined a human being for purposes of homicide as "a reasonable creature in being, and under the king's peace." (4 Blackstone, Commentaries 198.) However, an infant in ventre sa mere (within its mother's womb) was not deemed rational or, at least, not "in being" for purposes of homicide unless it was born alive.
"If a woman be quick with childe, and by a potion or otherwise killeth it in her wombe, or if a man beat her, whereby the childe dyeth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead childe, this is a great misprision, and no murder; but if the childe be born alive and dyeth of the potion, battery or other cause, this is murder; for in law it is accounted a reasonable creature, in forum natura, when it is born alive." 3 Coke, Institutes 50 (1648)
"Quickening" refers to the mother's ability to perceive the child's stirring within the womb, and generally occurs between the sixteenth and eighteenth week of pregnancy. Thus, at least as early as 1648 when Sir Edward Coke wrote, abortion was regarded as murder or homicide only if the child had quickened, been born alive, survived for a brief interval, and then perished in consequence of wounds inflicted while yet in its mother. But to cause an embryo to abort prior to the time when its mother was able to perceive its movement within her was no offense at common law at all. On the other hand, once the infant had quickened, then any act intended or likely to cause it to be still-born was a "great misprision", or misdemeanor.
Why "quickening" should have been seized upon as a criteria determining whether abortion was criminal has been the subject of considerable debate. In all likelihood it was a rule of convenience based upon considerations similar to those behind the rule assigning live-birth as the criteria for homicide. Coke states in the quotation above that from and after live-birth the child is counted "a reasonable creature, in forum natura," i.e., within the realm of actuality or being. In other words, although it cannot necessarily be shown to possess reason, an infant is deemed reasonable from birth as a matter of law and, therefore, may be the subject of homicide. That "reason" should figure in the definition is itself notable and, bears upon why the line is drawn at the end of gestation and not its beginning.
Reason, of course, is a faculty unique to man and is what distinguishes him from other life forms. In his work on animal and human reproduction, Aristotle, one of history's first true zoologists, identified three distinct stages in the gestational process of man: Vegetable, animal, and rational - the latter occurring shortly after birth. (History of animals, 7.3.583b; Generation of animals 2.3.736, 2.5.741.) Given the influence of Aristotle on medieval thought, it is not unreasonable to conclude his thinking played a role in development of the law of homicide and abortion. If so, in saying that the newborn infant is accounted a reasonable creature from and after live-birth, it would seem that the common law was attempting to define homicide according to a qualitative analysis of human life in terms similar to those propounded by Aristotle. That is, choosing a point where the human fetus more nearly approximated the rational than the animal, imparting to the infant at birth by legal fiction what in fact it may not necessarily possess. Viewed in this light, the requirement that an infant have "quickened" may reflect the law's judgment that the embryo have passed the "vegetable" stage and have assumed the "animal" before its destruction was deemed sufficiently serious to merit punishment.
That the law should be willing to attribute reason to an infant immediately after birth and not before may seem to some arbitrary. However, any time a line is endeavored to be drawn in circumstances where something shades imperceptibly into another an element of arbitrariness cannot be avoided. In the case of statutory rape, for example, the law holds a man to answer for having intercourse with a female below the age of majority on the ostensible basis that she lacks capacity to make mature and reasoned decisions until that age. Obviously, there is an element of arbitrariness in this. The average woman is possessed of nothing one day after her majority she did not have one day before. By the same token, different individuals mature at different rates. There are fifteen year old girls with greater sophistication than some twenty-year olds, and so forth. Yet, despite what may seem to some an arbitrary distinction, the basic policy is invariably sound. By and large the average female below majority is susceptible to the seduction of an older male. That upon her majority some may be as susceptible as before majority is no objection. At some point she must become responsible for herself. Thus the line needs be drawn somewhere, and majority has been deemed by society the suitable place to withdraw the law's extraordinary care.
In the case of infants, in electing to draw the line at live-birth the law seems to opt for the point where the threshold of reason begins, willing to attribute to the infant whatever it may be lacking on this score at birth. Thus, much as the law of statutory rape discounts a young girl's sophistication and ability to make reasoned decisions, though in fact she may very well possess these skills, the law of homicide attributes to the new born child reason it likely does not fully possess, and will punish its death as murder the same as an adult.
Of course, all do not find this analysis acceptable. The Vatican, for example, using a purely biological analysis, seizes upon conception as the threshold of human existence and therefore has decreed that the direct killing of an embryo or fetus is murder and cannot be sanctioned even to save the life of the mother. In other words, the Vatican acknowledges no qualitative difference between a one-week old embryo and its mother. Hence, viewing them both in purely biological terms, without allowing anything for the mother's emotional, intellectual, and spiritual faculties, the Catholic Church maintains that the equality of the two precludes either be sacrificed to save the other where only one can survive. Something approaching this has been adopted in several states which, while permitting the mother to abort at will until the third trimester, define human life for purposes of murder as beginning at conception where a third party acts to destroy it without the mother's consent. California, on the other hand, requires that the pregnancy have advanced beyond the embryonic stage. However, the overwhelming majority of American states still adhere to the common law definition set out by Lord Coke in the seventeenth century, and require that a child be born alive before its death will be deemed homicide.
This is not to suggest that abortion was or is deemed an indifferent act. Just because abortion is not considered to be homicide or murder does not preclude its punishment on other grounds. Thus, most states have had criminal abortion statutes on their books practically from the start. Justice Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade noted that at the time of the court's opinion purporting to confer the right upon women to abort their offspring without interference from the father or the state, thirty-six states had enacted criminal abortion statutes dating from as early as 1821. Even apart from such statutes, of course, abortion of a quickened fetus had always been criminal as a matter of common law. Hence the overwhelming consensus is that abortion properly evokes criminal sanction despite the fact it is generally not deemed a form of homicide.
Other aspects of the law remaining to be considered are the civil remedies for injury to an unborn child. Historically the common law did not afford relief for injuries inflicted upon a child prior to the time it was born. The reluctance to permit actions of this sort was owing, at least in part, to evidentiary considerations about the trustworthiness of evidence offered to show a prenatal injury to an infant born months after the fact and, therefore, not available for inspection when the alleged injury occurred. How could it be known when the specific injury complained of was caused and by whom; might it not have resulted in consequence of some previous or subsequent event unconnected with the defendant? By and large these objections have fallen by the wayside, and most jurisdictions now permit recovery for prenatal injuries. Initially most states adopted a rule holding that the infant must have been "viable" at the time the injury occurred before recovery would be allowed. However, the majority of states now permit an action for damages based on acts or omissions resulting in injury to the child even before it was viable, but not prior to conception. That is, where the mother is exposed to some toxic substance causing a child subsequently conceived to be deformed, the right to recover will belong to the mother, not the child; for it had no existence in law or fact at the time of the tortious conduct.
Last, note should be made of actions for wrongful death. Virtually every state has some form of wrongful death statute permitting recovery for loss of support, companionship, and services of the deceased. There is a split of authority, however, as to whether an action will lie for the wrongful death of an unborn child or fetus; i.e., miscarriage and still birth. Some states allow an action if the child was viable at the time of the injury. Other states foreclose recovery on the basis that the child is not a "person" within the meaning of the enabling statute. To compensate for this, these latter jurisdictions generally permit recovery by the mother for whatever physical and emotional injuries attend the miscarriage or still birth.
With this brief overview of Anglo-American precedents spelled out, we are ready to turn to the Mosaic law for what light the scriptures may throw upon some of these questions.

CHAPTER TWO
FETAL DEATH AND THE LAW IN THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT

If the Bible spoke explicitly to the subject of abortion there should probably be no occasion to undertake this work as the issue would then be an open book. As it is, however, the answers lay hidden within difficult passages, obscured by the nuances of a foreign tongue. Hence, it is not without considerable effort that an account of what God says, or seems to say, relative to the matter can be produced. We begin our discussion with the closest text on point - Exodus 21:22-25:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
There is a good deal more to this passage than first meets the eye. In fact, it bears testimony to the difficulties posed by the passage that about one-half of this work will be devoted to drawing out all it has to say, and the other one-half devoted to placing the information in context and explaining its import.
Initially, it might be useful to note that this is one of three texts beginning with the phrase "if men strive." The others occur at Exodus 21:18-19, and Deuteronomy 2:11-12. Of these, the instant passage and that set out in Deuteronomy include a woman. The difference is that here the woman is a victim, whereas in Deuteronomy she one of the offending actors:
When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets, then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. Deuteronomy 25:11-12
The law does not normally punish men for rescuing the weak when they fall prey to an attacker. The probable reason the woman here is to be punished is because her husband, either expressly or by his conduct, has caused or consented to the fight such that her intervention on his behalf is unjustified in terms of defending the innocent and, rather, is deemed an act of aggression or attack in its own right. This is borne out by the prefatory phrase "if men strive together one with another." The Hebrew here is "yachad," and signifies unitedly. Hence, Amos asks "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" (cf., Ex.21:18-19.) In other words, this is some sort of mutual affray where the husband's culpability prevents the privilege of defense of others from accruing to the benefit of his wife. The reason her hand is to be cut off is that the law's provision that offenders be punished "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth," cannot be applied where, as here, the sex of the offender prevents the law from exacting its due. Lacking the anatomy to permit like retribution, the offending member is treated of instead. More to the point, however, is the fact that if the woman in Exodus 21:22-25 were chargeable with the like conduct by intervening where she had no right we would expect that she, either alone or together with one or both of the men, would be punished for causing injury to the child. But as it stands, the woman in Exodus is an innocent victim and bystander.
Setting aside questions of the woman's culpability, a word or two about the basis of liability in the men is in order. The passage leaves little doubt that the injury to the woman or her child are unintentional. Yet the text speaks in terms of the guilty party paying "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." The explanation for this is found in the doctrines of "felony murder," "misdemeanor manslaughter," and "unlawful acts".
Stated briefly, these doctrines are shorthand for what is termed in law the mens rea - the criminal intent or requisite mental disposition of the accused at the time of the offense. Murder, for example, requires that there be a concurrence of the act producing death and malice aforethought - a state of mind evidencing a wanton or intentional disregard for the life of man. In the case of felony murder, this requirement will be satisfied where a death results in consequence of an inherently dangerous crime. The fact that the actor commits the crime in the face of an inherent risk of death to another evidences his wanton disregard for the life of his fellow man. To instance the case of burglary or nocturnal housebreaking, here the risk of death or serious bodily injury is so great in contemplation of law that where the act results in the death of the householder it will be murder, and this though it be unintentional. The difference between misdemeanor manslaughter and felony murder is that in felony murder the risk of death is sufficiently great to amount to malice in the accused, whereas in manslaughter the risk is not as clearly defined. In other words, the actor's culpability is measured in terms of the risk of death or serious injury and the offense denominated accordingly.
As applied to the present case, the injury to the woman and/or her child are the result of the actor's breach of the peace by an attack upon, or fight with, another man. Given that he has demonstrated a willingness to create an unreasonable risk of injury to another by the fight or attack, he will be held answerable for the unintentional consequences of his deliberate and unlawful acts. The formula of "life for life," also known as the lex talionis or law of like retribution, should probably be taken in this context as short hand for the general law of homicide, and not to indicate that the offense here will invariably amount to murder. The circumstances leading up to the incident and the quality of the offender's acts will determine whether the it will be murder or merely manslaughter should a death result.
This said, we are prepared to address matters more immediately at hand. Our discussion will begin by introducing a paraphrase of Exodus 21:22-25 by the first century Jewish historian, Flavious Josephus:
He that kicketh a woman with child, if the woman miscarry, shall be fined by the judges for having, by the destruction of the fruit of her womb, diminished the population, and a further sum shall be presented by him to the woman's husband. If she die of the blow, he also shall die, the law claiming as its due the sacrifice of life for life. Antiquities, bk.iv, ch.viii, sec.33 (Loeb ed.)
The first point we should observe is Josephus' basic assumption of fact that the child in Exodus 21:22-25 was still-born. Although understandable, this conclusion is neither warranted nor required by the original language. The word translated "depart" in the Authorized Version ("if men strive and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart") is from the Hebrew "yatsa", and means generally to go, come out, bring forth, break out, etc. It is a general term that has no special relationship to the act of child birth. It appears in such contexts as departure from a tent (Gen.31:33), the tabernacle (Lev.8:33), a house (II Sam.11:8), and from a camp (I Sam.13:17). However, when used in the context of child birth, yatsa can describe both live and still births. Thus, in Genesis 25:24-26 it is used to describe the live births of Jacob and Esau saying they "came out" of Rebbecah's womb. Similarly, in describing his own birth, Job proclaimed "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither" (Job 1:21) and, "Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb?" (Job 10:18; cf., Ecc.5:15.) The same word is used several times to describe the birth of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer.1:5; 20:18) and, in connection with the births of Pharez and Zarah, yatsa appears no less than three times. (Gen.38:27-30.)
In connection with still births, yatsa is used figuratively in reference to Miriam when she was stricken with leprosy: "Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb." (Num.12:12.) It is even used in Deuteronomy 28:57 to describe delivery of an "afterbirth". Apart from the context of child birth, there is precedent for use the term as a colloquialism for death. For example, in Genesis 35:18, where Rachel's death is described, yatsa is used saying "And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died)..." Similarly, in Ezekiel 26:18 yatsa is used to describe the fall and destruction of Tyre, referring to this as its "departure," which the context plainly analogizes with death. (Eze.26:20.) Similar usage of the verb "to depart" as a colloquialism signifying one's death may also be seen in Paul's letter to Timothy, saying the time of his "departure" was at hand and, in his letter to the Philippians, saying he had "a desire to depart and be with Christ." (II Tim.4:6; Phil.1:23.) Thus, yatsa is a term of broad application, used to describe live-births, still-births, and even afterbirths and an individual's demise. In all these cases, however, the definition assigned to the term is controlled by the context, signifying a miscarriage only as so permitted or required.
This is in contrast to the Hebrew words "nephel" and "shakol" which specifically signify an abortion or miscarriage. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, in their Hebrew-English lexicon define nephel as an untimely birth or an abortion. Thus in Psalm 58:8 we read: "As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away; like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun." (See also Job 3:16 and Ecclesiastes 6:3, rendering nephel, "untimely birth".) On the other hand, shakol is defined as a cause of barrenness, or abortion in any female (Ex.23:26), animal (Gen.31:38; Job 21:10), or even a grape vine (Mal.3:11). Hence, in Hosea 9:14 we read: "Give them, O Lord, what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts." (See also II Kng.2:19-22 where the waters of Jericho are blamed for causing shakol i.e., barrenness and miscarriage.) Lastly, the third chapter of Job provides a nice contrast of the words yatsa and nephel where they are used alternatively to describe a live birth and a miscarriage.
Why died I not from the womb? Why did I not give up the ghost when I came out (yatsa) of the belly? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept; then had I been at rest...Or as an hidden untimely birth (nephel) I had not been; as infants which never saw light. Job 3:11,12,16.
Hence, whereas yatsa is a term of general application and will signify a still-birth only as permitted or required by the context, shakol and nephel specifically signify an abortion or miscarriage. Now, if it was Moses' intention to set out the law under circumstances where the fetus is invariably born still, it seems more than likely that he would have clearly indicated as much by use of an unambiguous term. As it stands, however, his choice of words leaves the fate of the fetus completely in doubt. For all we can say the accident might result in either a live birth or miscarriage. In fact, this possibility was explicitly recognized by the translators of the New International Version who rendered the word yatsa, "premature birth", and set "or miscarriage" in the margin of Exodus 21:22. Thus, Josephus' assumption that the child was still-born does not necessarily hold up under scrutiny.
This places in issue Josephus' further assumption that the more severe penalties of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" had no occasion to be applied to the child. Having assumed that the fetus was still-born and that no further mischief could come to it, Josephus concludes that this language refers to injuries in the mother.[1] If we discard the assumption that the child is born dead, however, then it seems clear that the text leaves room for the possibility of some additional harm to both the infant and its mother beyond the fact of its untimely birth. Of these the child seems the more likely object of the passage. This follows because the ambiguity created by use of the word yatsa directs our attention to the fate of the child; not the mother. The child comes forth from the womb; is it live or dead, is it maimed or whole? What would be the law in these several cases? That is what we want to know more than anything else; not the fate or the law relative to the mother. The law for the injury or death of an adult are set out in other places. (Ex.21:13-15; 28-30; Lev.24:20; Deut.19:21.) To repeat those lessons here simply does not impress us as the purpose of this passage. Thus, Josephus' position that the lex talionis would have applied to injuries incurred by the woman, while true, nevertheless seems to miss the mark by seizing upon a collateral issue, and failing to account for how the law would apply where the child is born alive.
With these perimeters in mind, it would seem that there are no less than five possible outcomes which might result from the accident. (1) The infant might be born alive without injury and sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb; (2) it might be born alive but crippled or maimed by its prenatal wounds. On the other hand, the child might also be born alive and thereafter expire owing to (3) its injuries or, because, (4) it was not sufficiently developed to enable it to survive. Lastly, (5) the child could be born still. Of these, premature, live birth where the child is sufficiently developed to survive and is not otherwise maimed or wounded seems to be the case most clearly calling for exaction of the fine or mulct. The interest the fine would vindicate under such circumstances would likely belong to the parents, as distinguished from the infant or state, and serve to indemnify them for the emotional stress and anxiety associated with nearly losing the child. Where the infant was born crippled or wounded, then, in addition to a pecuniary award to indemnify the parents for medical expenses (Ex.21:18,19), the law of retaliation would be evoked and the offender punished "wound for wound". In the event the child subsequently died, then, subject to an exception to be discussed in chapter four, the punishment would be "life for life".
That leaves the case of miscarriage. On this score Josephus holds that the offender was to be punished exclusively by fine. The most common objection to this result is that it makes the actor's punishment vary dramatically and unexplainably upon the fortuity of live birth. If the child is born still the offender pays a simple fine. But if the child is born alive only to subsequently die he is subject to a charge of murder, punishable with death. The apparent anomaly of punishing solely by fine the death of a fetus for conduct that would otherwise be murder were it born alive has led several commentators to conclude that the fine applied only where the child was born premature but otherwise sound and whole. If it was injured or maimed, then the language denominating "wound for wound" applied. If it was still born, however, then the punishment was "life for life." Although this interpretation is quite plausible, it is not without its difficulties. Foremost of these is the assumption that a child in utero is a "life" within the law of homicide. For reasons set out more particularly in the subsequent chapter, however, this assumption seems untenable.

CHAPTER THREE
A FETUS IS NOT A LIFE WITHIN THE LAW OF HOMICIDE UNTIL IT IS BORN ALIVE

The threshold issue in determining whether the law of homicide would be applicable in the case of the death of a fetus depends upon the definition of the term "life" in the phrase "life for life." Yet Exodus 21:22-25 states only that life was to go for life without actually specifying what that life consists of or how it was to be identified - whether it belongs solely to those born alive or is shared by a fetus. Thus we turn to the Hebrew. The Hebrew word translated "life" in Exodus 21:23 is "nephesh". It is derived from the Hebrew "nephash", a word stem meaning "to breath", and signifies that which breaths, the breathing creature or being, the soul, the inner being. The Authorized Version, in Numbers 35:15 and Joshua 20:3, in the context of the law of manslaughter, renders the term "person". When coupled with the word "chay", which signifies that which is alive or living, nephesh is modified to read "a living soul, soul of life, etc." The term or phrase is applied alike to both men, animals, and fishes. Thus in Genesis 1:20,21 the literal Hebrew reads:
And God said, Let the waters swarm with the swarmers having a soul of life; and let the birds fly over the earth, on the face of the expanse of the heavens. And God created the great sea animals, and all that creeps, having a living soul, which swarmed the waters, according to its kind; and every bird with wing according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
(See also v.30.) Of man's creation we find similar language: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (Heb."neshamah") of life, and man became a living soul." (Gen.2:7.) Thus, both man and animal are referred to as either being or possessing a "living soul." By the same token, both possess the breath of life: "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." (Gen. 7:15.) The word "breath" here in Hebrew is "ruwach," as distinguished from "neshamah" - which God breathed into the man. Ruwach is generally defined as either "breath" or "spirit," and corresponds with the Latin "anima" - the vital force which animates the flesh of man and beast. This "breath" in man and the animals is the same. "As one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath (ruwach); so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast." (Ecc.3:18-20; cf., Gen.6:17; 7:15.) Thus, it seems that there are two "breaths of life," as it were. There is the "ruwach of life," which is used in reference to the creation of man and beast; and there is the "neshamah of life," apparently given only to man. If this is correct, then God's breathing the neshamah into the nostrils of our first ancestor would seem to be what differentiates man from beast, and permits him to reason, and participate in the divine image and nature (e.g., demonstrate the fruits of the spirit; Gal. 5:16-26). And this is borne out by Job: "But there is a spirit (ruwach) in man; and the inspiration (neshamah) of the almighty giveth them understanding." (Job 32:8; cf., 27:3,4; 33:4; 34:14.) In Proverbs 20:27 neshamah is used to describe the spirit or inner light of man: "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly." (Compare also Gen.7:15, with 7:21-22 where, at the time of the flood, all flesh in which there was the ruwach of life went into the ark, and those that did not perished, together with "...every man; all in whose nostrils was the neshamah of life.")
The sum of what has been said is that, contrary to popular usage, the soul is not the part of man that survives the grave. Instead, what survives death is man's spirit. (Lk.23:46; I Cor.5:5; Heb.12:23.) The soul or nephesh, on the other hand, refers to men and animals as self-contained, living, breathing, corporeal beings. There will be occasion to speak more of this latter, but for now it is sufficient to note the identity of the soul with man's life and breath. The use of mankind's breath to define his earthly existence follows from the fact that it marks the beginning and end of his physical life as an independent being or person. Prior to taking his first breath, the life of an infant is inseparably joined to its mother. If she dies, it dies. The day it draws its first breath marks the day it becomes self-contained, breathing creature or soul after the likeness of Adam. The unborn child requires oxygen to live and grow, of course, but it acquires this through an exchange of gases in the placenta between its blood and that of the mother. Obviously, this is not respiration in the usual sense of the term and in no way conforms to Job's description of the neshamah of God in his nostrils. (Id., 27:3,4.) Hence, given this identity of the soul with a breathing being, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the unborn do not come within the narrow, Biblical definition of a "soul" or "life", at least for purposes of homicide. That we interpret the scriptures correctly on this score is corroborated by Philo.
But observe that the law also banishes from the sacred precincts all pregnant animals and does not permit them to be sacrificed until they have delivered, thus counting what is still in the depths of the womb as on the same footing as what has already been brought to the birth, not because creatures not yet advanced into the light rank equally with the others, but by implication to restrain the license of those whose way is to bring everything to disorder. For if the life which is still growing like a plant and reckoned as part of the parent which carries it and now is at one with it, but in the course of months will be severed from the common organism, is, in the hope that it will become a living animal, safeguarded by the invulnerability of the mother, to prevent the occurrence of the above said defilement, how much more is this the case with the creatures already brought to the birth and endued with a body and soul of their own? De Virtutibus xvi, sec.137-139 (Loeb ed.)
Philo is here discussing the prohibition of Leviticus 22:28 against sacrificing the mother and offspring in the same day. From this prohibition he infers that pregnant animals were also exempt from sacrifice. Whether this was the case or not will be discussed at length in a different context. (See p.-, below.) What is of interest to us for the present is his perception that the unborn are on the same footing with the parent, "not because creatures not yet advanced into the light rank equally with the others..." Rather, the child in the womb is protected by the "invulnerability of the mother" and is reckoned "part of" and "one with" its parent. Mother and child are a "common organism", so that the fetus is on equal footing with those born alive, not in its own right, but by association with its mother. Hence infants in ventre sa mere are a living appendage of the mother that carry a hope of becoming "a living animal...brought to the birth and endued with a body and soul of their own". In other words, until it is born alive, the fetus shares in the life and soul of its mother. Once born, it is a life and soul of its own. [2]/
Another line of passages exists that corroborates what has been observed regarding a fetus not being a life within the law of homicide. Regarding the crime of murder, Exodus 21:12 says "He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death." (cf. Num.35:23.) The word "man" here is "iysh" and signifies principally the male, but is also used in reference to woman. Whenever iysh is encountered in the scriptures it is used solely in reference to children born alive. Thus in Genesis 4:1 it is written regarding the birth of Cain: "And Adam knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord." (cf. Gen.4:23; 49:6; Lv.19:3.) This same point is shown in Leviticus where the lex talionis is repeated with a slight variation in its wording:
And a man, when he strikes the life from any man, he shall surely be put to death. And he who smites an animal to death shall make it good, body for body. And when a man causes a blemish in his neighbor, as he has done, so it shall be done to him; break for break, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has caused a blemish in man, so it shall be done to him. And he who smites an animal to death shall repay it; and he who smites a man to death shall be put to death. One judgment shall be for you whether an alien or a native; for I am Jehovah your God Leviticus 24:17-21 [HIB]
In addition to the word iysh which we encountered regarding murder in Exodus 21:12, the text above uses the term "adam", i.e. a human being. Thus, the passage read literally says "a man (iysh), when he strikes the life from any human being (adam), he shall surely be put to death." As it happens, with the exception of our first ancestor who wore "Adam" as a proper name and was created, not born, adam is used only to describe one that has been born alive. Thus the book of Job asks "Art thou the first man that was born?" (Job 15:7.) And: "Man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble." (Job 14:1; cf.5:7.) References to a child in the womb as a man simply do not occur.
To sum up what has been said so far, we have seen that "nephesh" is translated life, soul, and person, and signifies a living breathing being that is self-contained. Other terms used to describe a victim of homicide similarly refer only those born alive. It would thus seem impossible to sustain the proposition that a fetus is a human being, soul, or life for purposes of the lex talionis. However, before concluding this line of inquiry, it may be profitable to examine another line of scriptures that repeats these lessons from a slightly different perspective.
The necessity of live birth is central in Old Testament scriptures in attaining the status of "man" and a member of the race or mankind. Until a child is born and advances into the light it was regarded as having hardly existed. Thus Job says "Why died I not from the womb? Why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees prevent me? Or why the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept; then had I been at rest...Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light." (Job 3:11-13,16; cf.10:18,19.) Solomon makes a similar statement: "Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun." (Ecc.4:2,3.) These sentiments, with some addition, are repeated again by Job in the following words:
Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me. Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again? Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favor, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit...Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been; I should have been carried from the womb to the grave. Job 10:8-12;18,19
Job thus describes the formative stages of life in the womb as a sort of twilight between existence and nonexistence. As in the other verses quoted immediately above, Job likens miscarriage or failure to survive birth as having possessed no existence for purposes of life under the sun. In other words, Jewish thought clearly placed birth as the threshold of human existence. Not in the sense of denying the obvious fact that a fetus is alive in its mother prior to birth, but in the sense that it has no practical, independent existence until this time. Thus the repeat occurrence of the phrase in reference to the unborn to the effect such "have not yet been." The like phrase and usage is also found in Jewish literature during the intertestamental period in comparing those who have attained fame with those who live out their lives in obscurity, again making clear that birth was deemed the critical inquiry in attaining one's place in the race:
There be of them that have left a name behind them, that their praises might be reported. And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born; and their children after them. Ecclesiasticus 44:9
Philo, in speaking of infanticide, also states that birth is the threshold of the life of human kind.
And therefore infanticide undoubtedly is murder, since the displeasure of the law is not concerned with ages but with a breach of faith to the race. Though indeed, if age had to be taken into consideration, infanticide to my mind gives a greater cause for indignation, for in the case of adults quarrels and differences supply any number of reasonable pretexts, but with mere babes, who have just passed into the light and the life of human kind, not even a false charge can be brought against such absolute innocence. De Specialibus Legibus III, sec.119 (Loeb ed.)
Last, Solomon makes similar remarks when he compares the life of man with the still-born child. In this case it is explicitly stated that the one "that has been", meaning the one that has been born and lived to see the sun, is known as "man" (adam); but the untimely birth is consigned to obscurity and darkness:
If a man fathers an hundred (children), and lives many years, and the days of his years are many, and his soul is not satisfied from the good, and also there is no burial for him; I say, a miscarriage is better than he. For with vanity he enters and in darkness he goes and in darkness his name shall be covered. Also the sun he has not seen and has not known; this (one) has more rest than that (one). Yea, though he lives a thousand years twice, yet hath he seen no good; do not all go to one place?..That which has been already was called its name, and it is known that he (is) man; and he is not able to contend with him that is stronger than he. For there are many things that increase vanity, and what is the advantage to man? For who knows what is good for man in this life, the number of the days of this vain life? Even he makes them like the shadow. For who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun? Ecclesiastes 6:3-6,10-12 (HIB)
This passage demonstrates nicely the distinction between one born alive and the aborted or still born child. The one born alive is referred to as "man," and his existence during his days under the sun is termed "this life." The miscarried child, however, has no part in "this life" - he has not seen the evil under the sun. Therefore, speaking with a view to the perceived futility of "this life", Solomon deems the still born child the luckier of the two.
The word life here is "chay," the noun form of the present participle used to modify soul in the phrase living soul. Job used the same term in the passage cited earlier saying that God had granted him favor and life, and his providence preserved his spirit. (Job 10:12.) Having brought him into the world, Job thus asks why God should now purpose to kill him, concluding that if this were the case it were better that he had not been born. Hence, like Solomon, Job too appears to say that life begins at birth for purposes of defining mankind.
In fine, there is adequate room to argue from the scriptures that a fetus simply is not joined in the company of those who are deemed living souls. The untimely birth has no part in anything under the sun. It has neither seen nor known; nor has it been seen or known. Its very existence is obscure and evanescent; its name hidden in darkness, known only to God. Unless and until it is born alive, it "hath not yet been," and is not acknowledged as a person or human being. It would thus appear that the position of some that the death of a fetus was punishable as homicide is without evidence or support. Hence, Josephus' contention that a miscarriage was punishable solely by fine thus far seems sound.
On a somewhat different note, a final objection that we may do well to notice at this point is the assumption that Exodus 21:22-15 deals only with a fetal death that is the result of unintentional conduct - as if the result might be different were the death intentionally induced. This eventuality is intimated by Wenham (Queen's University, Belfast) in his work on law and the legal system in the Old Testament:
One law (Ex.21:22-25) specifically deals with the death of a foetus as a result of a brawl. Close parallels to this rule are known in cuneiform law (LH 209-14; HL 17: MAL A 21, 50-2) but the interpretation of the biblical law is highly complex. Three things are clear, however, in the present law. First, the miscarriage and the injury to the woman were caused accidentally, a by-product of a quarrel between two men. Secondly, this suggests that the talion formula "life for life...stripe for stripe" which refers to the woman's injury should be regarded as a formula insisting on a punishment proportionate to the injury, not necessarily literal retribution (cf. verses 26-27). "Life for life" only applies in cases of premeditated killing. Thirdly, the loss of the foetus is compensated for by the payment of damages. Biblical law therefore does not deal with the case of deliberately induced abortion. On the basis of certain passages in Job and the Psalms it seems likely that the child in the womb was regarded as a human being, under the protection of its Creator (Jb.10:8-12; Pss.51:5f.;139:13-16; cf. Lk.1:15,44), and that Old Testament writers would have shared the abhorrence of the Assyrians at artificially induced abortion. Law, morality and the Bible, pp.33,34; Intervarsity Press, (1978)
Why Wenham, who's construction follows closely Josephus', should assume that "life for life" applies only to the case of premeditated killing is not clear. The case set out in Exodus 21:28-33, where a death results from an ox with a known dangerous propensity to gore, was potentially punished capitally (v.29), and makes clear that even an unintentional death may have amounted to murder - just as it might under Anglo-American law where the actor is guilty of wanton disregard for another's life. More important, however, is Wenham's intimation that intent may somehow change the result. On this score it should be noted that the lex talionis is not predicated on the presence or absence of intent - at least as a threshold inquiry. Rather, the talion formula turns upon the loss of life, limb, or member in one born alive. Once this is shown, then and only then will the law proceed to inquire into the thoughts and intents of the heart, and then only to determine the appropriate charge. Therefore, to the extent that Exodus 21:22-25 forecloses the possibility that fetal death was treated as homicide absent live birth (a conclusion apparently shared by Wenham), the passage does plainly deal with the case of intentional abortion - if only to preclude a charge of murder or manslaughter. To the extent that the passage does not tell us how the Israelites were to treat of deliberate, self-induced abortion Wenham is, of course, correct. Before we reach that question, however, there is other ground to cross.

CHAPTER FOUR
THE MATURITY OF THE FETUS AND THE CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES ATTACHED TO ITS DEATH

We have already had occasion to see how Josephus interpreted Exodus 21:22-25 and to note that he took the law to punish miscarriage solely by imposition of a fine. Let us now see how Philo construed the same passage of scripture.
If a man comes to blows with a pregnant woman and strikes her on the belly and she miscarries, then, if the result of the miscarriage is unshaped and undeveloped, he must be fined both for the outrage and for obstructing the artist Nature in her creative work of bringing into life the fairest of living creatures, man. But, if the offspring is already shaped and all the limbs have their proper qualities and places in the system, he must die, for that which answers to this description is a human being, which he has destroyed in the laboratory of Nature who judges that the hour has not yet come for bringing it out into the light, like a statue lying in a studio requiring nothing more than to be conveyed outside and released from confinement. De Specialibus Legibus, ch.xix, sec.108 (Loeb ed.)
It is interesting that Philo finds room to comment on matters not so much as hinted at by either Josephus or our English texts. A partial explanation for this disparity is Philo's reliance upon the Greek Septuagint instead of Hebrew manuscripts. Here is how Brenton renders the Septuagint text.
And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty; as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Thus, the translators of the Septuagint apparently found something in the text which suggested that the fetus must be fully formed and developed before the more severe penalties of the lex talionis could be invoked and so rendered the text as to reflect this conclusion. From there, the translator's interpolations were picked up by Philo and found their way into his work. Like Josephus, both Philo and the Septuagint erroneously conclude that the child in the passage is born still. On the other hand, where Josephus has it that the fine applied to the miscarriage and the lex talionis to the injury or death of the mother, Philo attempts to make the language exacting "life for life" reach the child by asserting that a fully formed fetus, even though still-born, answers to the description of a human being. The advantage of Josephus' construction is that it at least leaves room to apply all of the language of the text depending upon the gravity of the injuries to the mother, whereas Philo's assumption that the child was born out of time renders the language exacting "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.," mere surplusage. More important, however, is the fact that Josephus did not deem an infant in ventre sa mere a life within the law of homicide where it was born still, whereas Philo concurred with this conclusion only insofar as it did not implicate a fetus that was fully developed. This should be compared to what Philo says elsewhere to the effect that live-birth is a critical factor in attaining the status of humankind:
So Moses then, as I have said, implicitly and indirectly forbade the exposure of children, when he pronounced the sentence of death against those who cause the miscarriage of mothers in cases where the foetus is fully formed. No doubt the view that the child while still adhering to the womb below the belly is part of its mother is current both among natural philosophers whose life study is concerned with the theoretical side of knowledge and also among physicians of the highest repute, who have made researches into the construction of man and examined in detail what is visible and also by the careful use of anatomy what is hidden from sight, in order that if medical treatment is required nothing which could cause serious danger should be neglected through ignorance. But when the child has been brought to the birth it is separated from the organism with which it was identified and being isolated and self-contained becomes a living animal, lacking none of the complements needed to make a human being. And therefore infanticide undoubtedly is murder, since the displeasure of the law is not concerned with ages but with a breach of faith to the race. Though indeed, if age had to be taken into consideration, infanticide to my mind gives a greater cause for indignation, for in the case of adults quarrels and differences supply any number of reasonable pretexts, but with mere babes, who have just passed into the light and the life of human kind, not even a false charge can be brought against such absolute innocence. De Specialibus Legibus III, ch.xx, sec.117-119 (Loeb ed.)

Philo writes here with a view to the Greek practice of exposing their unwanted infants. But as Moses did not speak directly to this issue, Philo argues from the mistranslation of Exodus 21:22-25 in the Septuagint to the effect that if the destruction of a fully formed fetus was punishable with death, what else can it be to destroy a child born alive if not murder? In any event, notice that Philo says that it is not until birth that the fetus becomes a living, self-contained creature lacking none of the indicia necessary to make it a human being. Thus, there is an apparent discrepancy between Philo's assertion that a fully developed fetus destroyed in utero answers to the description of a human, and his statement here that live birth is also a critical factor. However, a fetus is either a "life" within the talion formula or it is not. As we have seen, every indication is that a fetus was not a life until born alive. Thus, in making these assertions it seems clear that Philo is merely attempting to accommodate the Septuagint's mistranslation. That he contradicts himself, therefore, should not surprise us. He is attempting to make straight what the Septuagint made crooked, so it is inevitable that he fail.
This said, Philo's basic premise that the fetus' maturity bore upon the criminal definition attached to its destruction requires further attention. So far as we have been able to ascertain thus far the law of homicide was powerless to reach an infant unless it was born alive. Yet, if we pause to consider the matter, use of the phrase "live birth" normally presupposes, and is reserved for, infants possessing a significant level of development. Hence the necessity of live birth as a requisite for a charge of homicide would seemingly offer some correlation with Philo's position that an undeveloped fetus was not a candidate for murder. If so, it would appear that the translators of the Septuagint and Philo struck upon something by their insistence that the stage of the infant's development was a factor in determining the applicable charge. Their only error would then lay in failing to see that, in addition to the stage of development, the lex talionis was made to turn upon the presence or absence of live birth; a factor they failed to apprehend owing to the mistaken assumption that the infant was born still. However, if we engraft the requirement of live birth upon Philo's interpretation it then appears to be a correct statement of the law. And this is borne out by the original tongue.
There are two terms in Exodus 21:22-25 that refer to the fetus. Both appear in verse 22. The first refers to the fetus in its mother's womb saying "if men strive and hurt a woman with child." Strong's has it that this word is from the Hebrew "hareh", or "hariy", and means simply to be with child, from and after conception through the period of natural delivery. For example, we encounter this word in Genesis 4:1 where it is said that Eve conceived and bare Cain. Similarly, hareh appears in Isaiah 7:14 in reference to the Christ child: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." But the same word also occurs in I Samuel 4:19 where the wife of Phinehas is said to have been with child, "near to be delivered". Hence the word translated child in our English texts refers to the whole gestational period and in no way signifies the fetus' level of development or maturity. On the other hand, the word translated "fruit" in Exodus 21:22 ("so that her fruit depart"), is from the Hebrew "yeled", and is defined by Strong's thus: "Something born, i.e., a lad or offspring: boy, child, fruit, son, young man." Why the translators of the Authorized Version chose to render yeled "fruit" in this passage is a curious thing as it is the only time in the whole Old Testament they did so. This is unfortunate as it is somewhat misleading and likely to be confused with the Hebrew word "periy", also translated "fruit", as in "fruit of the womb". (Ps.127:3; cf., Deut.7:13.) Now, periy is used only figuratively to refer to human kind and itself carries no implication of the subject's age or maturity except as required by the context. On the other hand, the term yeled refers only to a fully developed infant or child. For example, we encounter this word in reference to Moses where it is written of his mother that she "conceived [hareh], and bare a son; and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child [yeled] therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink." (Exodus 2:2,3.) This passage demonstrates nicely the distinction between hareh in reference to Moses' conception, and yeled in reference to the babe when he was three months of age. The same usage occurs in II Sam. 12:5,18, where Bathsheba informs David of her pregnancy saying I am with child (hareh), but when the child is delivered the term yeled is employed. Hence, while hareh speaks to the whole period of gestation, yeled signifies only a fully developed infant or fetus that has been delivered into the world of men. This should be compared with the term "golem," which in Aramaic means an unfinished vessel, but, in the Hebrew, a wrapped, unformed mass, i.e. an embryo. The word appears in Psalm 139 thus:
Where shall I go from Your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from Your face? If I go up to Heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Your are there! If I take the wings of the morning, dwelling in the uttermost part of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me; and Your right hand shall seize me. If I say: Surely the darkness shall fall on me; even the night shall be light around me. Even the darkness will not be dark from You, but the night shines as the day; as is the darkness so is the light. For You have possessed my inward parts; You wove me in the womb of my mother. I will thank You, for with fearful things I am wonderful; Your works are marvelous, and my soul knows it very well. My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret; when I was woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my embryo; and in Your book all my members were written; the days they were formed, and none was among them. Psalm 139:7-16 (HIB)
Of course, golem is merely a euphemism for what we understand to be an embryo. Hence there is an element of interpretation evident in versions rendering the term such. The translators of the Authorized Version elected a more literal, albeit somewhat obscure, rendering of Psalm 139:16:
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Although to read the Septuagint and Philo one would think the opposite were true, the word golem does not occur in Exodus 21:22-25. Instead, it would seem that the translators of the Septuagint concluded that a distinction was inferred and to be drawn between an embryo and a fetus based, perhaps, upon the juxtaposition of the terms hereh and yeled. However, as we have seen, the term hereh offers no indication of the child's age or maturity, and is used in at least one occasion to describe a full term pregnancy. Thus, the rendering of the Septuagint's translators on this score should probably be taken as an interpretation, rather than a translation, of the text; viz., an attempt to reconcile their own misgivings that the child was born still with the alternative penalties set out by Moses. In other words, having assumed the child perished in consequence of the accident, the translators were at a loss to identify the circumstances in which the lex talionis might be invoked over against the fine, and, rather than simply leave this question for the reader to sort out, manipulated the text to reflect their own conclusion. As we have seen, Josephus, faced with the same dilemma, made the language assigning "life for life" apply to the mother.
This said, that Philo and the Septuagint err on this score is really beside the point. Our purpose in calling attention to their misgivings is merely to underscore the meaning and significance of the word yeled, and its implications upon the proper interpretation of the passage - viz., that Exodus 21:22-25, including both the fine and the lex talionis, expressly applies only to a fully developed child. The further question, of course, is whether the text's express application to a fully developed fetus implicitly excludes an embryo from the provisions of the law there set forth. The better view is that it does. As Philo and the translators of the Septuagint undoubtedly were aware, even apart from the term yeled, the language of the text punishing the offender "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot," is impossible to apply an embryo "yet being unperfect," having none of those members.
Thus the souls which are already pregnant are naturally likely to bring forth children, rather than those which are now receiving the seed. But as the eyes of the body do oftentimes see obscurely, and often on the other hand see clearly, so in the same manner does the eye of the soul, at times, receive the particular impressions conveyed to it by things in a most confused and indistinct manner, and at other times it beholds them with the greatest purity and clearness; therefore an indistinct and not clearly manifested conception resembles and embryo which has not yet received any distinct character or similitude within the womb: but that which is clear and distinctly visible, is like one which is completely formed, and which is already fashioned in an artistic manner as to both its inward and outward parts, and which has already received its suitable character. And with respect to these matters the following law has been enacted with great beauty and propriety: "If while two men are fighting one should strike a woman who is great with child, and her child should come from her before it is completely formed, he shall be mulcted in a fine, according to what the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall pay the fine deservedly. But if the child be fully formed, he shall pay life for life." De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Studies, sec. 135-137 (Yonge's translation)

Since, contrary to Philo's belief, imposition of the fine was not reserved for circumstances where the child was imperfectly formed and, indeed, cannot be shown to have applied to an embryo at all, but was to be applied to a fully developed child where the facts did not warrant invocation of the more severe penalties of the lex talionis, the conclusion that an embryo is excluded from the provisions of Exodus 21:22-25 seems unavoidable.
Having foreclosed the possibility that an embryo fell within the terms of Exodus 21:22-25, it remains to be seen what stage of maturity is contemplated by use of the term yeled. Philo's comments on this score seem confusing and even contradictory. First he says only that the child must be already shaped and the limbs have their proper qualities and places in the system. Viewed in isolation, the emphasis this description places on the physical appearance of the child's hands and feet, arms and legs could easily suggest a very young child, perhaps as early as twelve weeks or so into gestation. Then, however, Philo adds the comment that the child he is describing requires nothing more than to be conveyed into the world and released from confinement. This hardly suggests a child only twelve weeks of age, and more nearly infers a child approaching full term - one that is so far developed as to be merely biding time, as it were, until birth. Along these same lines are Philo's comments taken from his allegorical work immediately above touching Exodus 21:22-25 where he mentions that the child must be completely formed both in its outward and inward parts. A similar thought also seems to be expressed in his treatment of infanticide where Philo refers to a child born in the normal course of nature as being "self-contained" - a phrase we would submit should probably be taken as synonymous with the concept of viability. A viable creature is one that has the inherent capacity to prolong or sustain life without artificial support - qualities probably subsumed in the definition of a "living soul" or "soul of life." As it happens, the lungs are generally acknowledged as the very last of the vital organs to reach maturity, and are a leading cause in the incident of fetal death in premature births by the child's inability to properly assimilate oxygen through normal respiration. In other words, it is as if premature children are not viable because they cannot properly breathe, and they cannot properly breathe because they want sufficient vigor and vitality to be viable. Thus respiration and viability are more or less mutually interdependent, and seem inseparable from the definition of nephesh - a breathing creature. This is important because Exodus 21:22-25 equates the child (yeled) with a "life" (nephesh) where it was born alive. Hence, if nephesh implies viability, then we would expect yeled to incorporate something of this concept also. If this is correct, then Philo and the Septuagint appear to indicate a viable infant when they refer to one that is perfectly formed, waiting only to be born. For what it is worth, Jewish tradition as represented in the Talmud is in accord, not deeming a child a soul or life within the terms of the lex talionis and numerous other ordinances of the law unless it is both born alive and viable. (ben keyama; Mekh., Mishpatim, 4; Sanh. 84b; Nid. 44b; Oho.7:6.)
Viability normally obtains between the twenty-sixth and twenty-ninth weeks, or roughly the seventh month, albeit survival is attenuated absent artificial assistance to regulate the body temperature and respiratory rate. And apparently this was true even in ancient times as Philo attests that viability begins at the end of the seventh month. (De Opifico Mundi, sec. 124; Legum Aligoriae, I, sec. 9. [3] ) Hence, assuming that in using the term yeled Exodus 21:22-25 has in mind a child that is at least nominally viable, seven months is likely to represent the approximate age associated with a fully developed fetus, and candidate for homicide where born alive.
Bearing in mind that we have yet to reach the issue of self-induced abortion, it remains to be discussed why the law apparently excluded an immature fetus from protection by the lex talionis and the fine. As touching the fine, if viewed as an action in the nature of a suit for wrongful death, it seems likely that the law simply felt that the parents' interest in the prospective child was not sufficiently strong at an early stage of development to merit an award for damages. This should be compared with Exodus 21:28-32, granting an award of damages to indemnify the loss of a servant or child in being, and with the law elsewhere to the effect that the unborn young of animals and slaves were not a form of property until reduced to possession at birth. (Gn.30:25-43; Ex.21:4.) The difference seems to be that in the case of a child, as distinguished from a slave or livestock, there is an emotional attachment associated with its expected birth that the law is willing to vindicate, which in the other cases it is not. Thus, until the child reached an advanced stage of development the interest of the parents was apparently regarded as a mere expectancy that the law deemed too attenuated to protect. Anglo-American law follows a similar tact, the probable majority of states foreclosing recovery by parents for the wrongful death of a child prior to the point where it is deemed viable.
But if the parents' interests are too remote in the earliest stages of pregnancy to merit an award for a child's loss, what of the rights and interests of the child? Are the child's claims to protection no stronger than the parents' claims to the child? Under what circumstances is the law prepared to vindicate the rights of the unborn, if at all? The answer to this question is somewhat more complicated. In the first place, it must be borne in mind that the law extended no rights or privileges to a child until it was born alive. This is why the lex talionis could not be invoked until live-birth. The law of retaliation vindicated one's personal rights, and these did not accrue until birth. Thus, for killing a child while in its mother's womb, one may be punished for trespassing upon the rights of the parents, but not for trespassing upon the rights of the fetus. From and after live-birth, however, full human rights are afforded the child, and even relate back to the period of gestation. To take a case from Anglo-American law, where a father dies prior to the birth of a child already conceived, if subsequently born alive, the child will share in the inheritance with its siblings. However, if it is miscarried, the child's rights fail to be perfected and are lost. This demonstrates nicely how the law is sometimes prepared to acknowledge the rights of a child accruing during the period of gestation provided it is subsequently born alive.
Exodus 21:22-25 is in accord. The facts of Exodus 21:22-25 contemplate the case where a mature child is born contemporaneously with, and as a result of, the accident. Where this occurs, and the child is crippled or the like, there is no difficulty: the law instructs that the actor is to pay "eye for eye". Hence the rights of the child are perfected and will be vindicated upon live-birth for injuries incurred while in its mother's womb. The further question whether an action would lie where the child was born weeks or months after the incident is less clear. It may be that, like early common law, no recovery was permitted for injury to an embryo or nonviable child - perhaps for evidentiary reasons concerning the causal relation between the accident and the child's injuries. A good argument can be made, however, that the child's maturity at the time of the incident would not change the result. That is, that damages would be available where the child is merely an embryo when injured, even though it is born months later. As we have seen, hareh is sufficiently broad to include the whole gestational period. Hence, according to this argument all that would seemingly be required is that the child be fully developed when born in order for its rights to be perfected and the lex talionis evoked. On balance, however, whether an action would lie for prenatal injuries where the child is born long after the asserted injury depends upon how much emphasis is laid upon the hypothetical facts of Exodus 21:22 which posit that the child's birth is in close proximity to the mother's injury. As we have seen, Anglo-American law is divided, about half of the states require that the child be viable at the time of the injury, the other half requiring only that it subsequently be born alive. The literal terms of Exodus 21:22, however, favor a construction that would require the fetus be viable at the time the injury occurred and be born as a result thereof.
Exodus 21:22-25 thus covers an incredible amount of law in its few verses. Both the law of private recovery for wrongful death of the unborn child is dealt with, as well as the criminal consequences of the child's prenatal injury and post-natal loss. Questions still remaining to be answered include how to account for the apparent disparity of punishments exacted depending upon live versus still birth, and how deliberate abortion was dealt with, if at all.

CHAPTER FIVE

ABORTION, ATTAINDER, AND CORRUPTION OF BLOOD

As we have seen, Exodus 21:22-25, although it reveals much concerning the still-birth of a child, stops short of telling us how the law dealt with the case of deliberate, self-induced abortion - except to indicate that it was not homicide. The principles and precedents relied upon by the Israelites to condemn and punish abortion will now be taken up. As before, we will resort to Josephus to begin our discussion.
The Law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the foetus; a woman convicted of this is regarded as an infanticide, because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race. For the same reason none who has intercourse with a woman who is with child can be considered pure. Contra Apion, bk.II, sec.202 (Loeb ed.)
Josephus states in treating of Exodus 21:22 that miscarriage and abortion were punishable only by fine; that he now calls it infanticide seems contradictory and hard to give account. The context of Josephus' comments above relates to marital laws among the Jews, and is part of a larger discourse against Apion in defense of Jewish antiquity and culture. A fair portion of what Josephus reports in his account of Jewish law represents the oral tradition of the Pharisees, to which sect Josephus belonged. The Pharisees, it may by noted or recalled, represented the largest sect among the Jews in the days of our Lord. The principle feature that distinguished them from the Sadducees, the next largest sect, was their insistence upon the necessity of observing the body of oral traditions deduced from the law - some of which has survived and is now reduced to writing as recorded in the Talmud. On this score it is important to bear in mind that, although the Lord leveled perhaps his most severe criticisms at the Pharisees, not everything they taught or deduced from the law was erroneous. The most substantial charge laid to the Pharisees' account was their hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and willingness to sometimes deal dishonestly with the law when deemed expedient. Yet for all that they were able to reason correctly and handle the law honestly when inclined to do so. For example, the Pharisees taught the resurrection of the dead, whereas the Sadducees did not. (Acts 233:6-9.) Indeed, what Josephus says above regarding the impropriety or unlawfulness of sexual relations with a woman while pregnant may be hinted at in the fact that Joseph had no relations with Mary while pregnant with the Christ child. (Mt.1:25.) Whether the teaching of the Pharisees on this point was responsible in whole or part for Joseph's abstinence probably cannot be known. The purpose behind this teaching among the Pharisees speaks to endangerment of a child in utero and, to a lesser extent, the asserted proper use of sex solely for purposes of procreation. Obviously, Joseph may well have been moved by entirely different considerations, such as reverence and godly fear given the nature of the child in Mary's womb, and to accommodate the prophecy that Jesus would be born, not just conceived, of a virgin. Even so, the point remains: while it is right to approach the traditions of the Pharisees with all caution and circumspection, it would be wrong to reject them out of hand.
But to return to our discussion, what Josephus says above appears to contradict what he said earlier to the effect that the law of homicide did not apply to a child killed in utero and born still. To thus give account of this apparent anomaly must be our immediate task. The first clue toward unravelling the mystery of Josephus' statement that the woman who procured an illicit abortion was regarded as an infanticide lays in the context in which it appears. As already mentioned, what Josephus says here regarding abortion is part of his treatment of laws surrounding the institution of marriage - part of a larger defense of Jewish customs and traditions in general. Immediately proceeding his comments regarding the institution of marriage, Josephus makes the case for the superiority of the nation's religious observances involving the temple and sacrifices. Specifically, he notes that, among the Jews, feasts and sacrifices were not occasions for dissipation and riot, but worship and reverence. Closing his discourse regarding religious observances, Josephus says that, "In view of the sacrifices the Law has prescribed purifications for various occasions: after a funeral, after child-birth, after conjugal union, and many others." (Contra Apion, II, sec.198; Loeb ed.) Bearing in mind that Apion was Greek, this can be seen as a subtle dig upon Greek religious observances, which were little more than an excuse for every lascivious practice. The point, of course, being that, whereas the Greeks used religion as an occasion to vent every unlawful vice, the God of the Hebrews had taken care to ward off encroachments of this type by guarding the temple precincts through various ceremonial cleansings so that even the man who had enjoyed legitimate relations with his wife could not approach the alter that same day. (See Lv.15:16-18.)
As touching those who participate in funerals, Josephus says that ceremonial washings were imposed so that none who committed murder might suppose he could be made pure in the sense of approaching the temple precincts to worship. (Contra Apion, II, sec.205; cf., Num.19:11-13; Lam.4:13-15; Eze.23:38,39.) This explanation makes sense and finds adequate corroboration in the ceremonial cleansings imposed on those returned from war (Num.31:13-20) - suggesting that even the death of enemies was a thing grievous to God - and the banishment of the manslaughterer to a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest, foreclosing the possibility that such approach the temple to worship for the duration of their exile. (Num.35:32.) This too may be seen as a dig on the Greeks, whose temples offered sanctuary to untold criminals who, by fleeing and taking up virtual residence there, were suffered to escape justice. And here too, the God of the Hebrews had specifically legislated against such desecration and defilement, making clear that his temple was to a place of reverence and refuge from, not for, sin. (Ex.21:14;1 Kng.2:26-31.) Thus premised, it is easy to see that this is the significance of what Josephus said regarding the man who had relations with a woman with child not being pure. That is, one who through sexual relations caused, or threatened to cause, a child to be still-born was deemed ceremonially impure. That Josephus has this in mind is evident from the fact that very next sentence addresses ablutions imposed after relations between a man and wife:
Even after the legitimate relations of husband and wife ablutions are required. For the Law regards this act as involving a partition of the soul [part of it going] into another place; for it suffers both when being implanted in bodies, and again when severed from them by death. That is why the Law has enjoined purifications in all such cases. Apion ii, 203 (Loeb ed.)

Thus, what Josephus says regarding the man who risks causing a miscarriage through illicit intercourse not being pure can be seen as a reference to ordinances or traditions of the temple worship imposed by or upon the Jews to bring home the holiness of God and his abhorrence for sin. This places what Josephus says regarding a woman who aborts her offspring in an unexpected light. That is, the context suggests that in saying a woman convicted of abortion "is regarded as an infanticide," Josephus is merely indicating such women were deemed ceremonially unclean - stained by sin, as it were, in the same manner as the murderer, manslaughterer, fornicator, etc. The same terminology is used in reference to the eunuch:
Shun eunuchs and flee all dealings with those who have deprived themselves of their virility and of those fruits of generation, which God has given to men for the increase of our race; expel them even as infanticides who withal have destroyed the means of procreation. Antiquities, bk.iv, ch.viii, sec.40 (Loeb ed.)
Josephus comments touching the eunuch are derived from Deuteronomy 23:1 where one wounded in the testicles or who had suffered the loss of his genitals was prohibited to enter the congregation of the Lord. Thus, the eunuch suffered under the same disabilities and impurities as a gentile (vv.3-7), and an illegitimate child (v.2). All of these were precluded to worship with the sons of Israel at the temple, and were relegated to the court of women and gentiles. (Neh.13:1; Lam.1:10; Eze.44:6-9; Acts 21:28; Rev.11:1,2.) However, that is not the whole story. As stated by Josephus, persons suffering under these disabilities were to be shunned, and Jews were to have no dealings with them. (cff. Jn.4:9; Acts 10:28.) Moreover, unlike the chance impurities that would make one ceremonially unclean and might be absolved with the passage of time and the performance of certain rites, the mark upon the eunuch, the gentile, and the bastard followed them for life, and even fell upon their children, typically until the third or fourth generation, but in some cases even "until the tenth generation" - meaning forever. (Deut.23:3.) Apparently this is the significance of the language in the Decalogue to the effect that God would visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children "unto the third and fourth generation of those that hate me." (Ex.20:5.) In other words, by committing certain offenses one's forebear could be "attainted" and cause a "corruption of blood" (to use Anglo-American terminology), thus losing his name in Israel, causing disenfranchisement of his bodily heirs until the required number of generations had lapsed.
During the middle ages the better part of western civilization, like antiquity before them, was draw up along feudal lines. Unlike today, where the majority of wealth consists in rights to receive annuities, dividends, and other payments based upon contract or ownership of corporate shares, and the like, for most of mankind's history land and livestock were the principle forms of wealth, and society was generally occupied in agricultural pursuits. The custom thus grew up in different parts of the world which had it that all men held the land mediately or immediately of the king. The king, in turn, gave the right of possession to nobles and lords who were sworn to fight the king's battles and provide local administration of the laws. These lords would thus distribute the land to vassals or tenants from whom the lord received rents and services. Remnants of this system can be seen today in the division of land into cities and counties which enforce the laws and collect taxes from those possessed of land. In feudal times, the right to devise, hold, and inherit land was based upon an oath of fealty to one's lord. Where one died without children or heirs, or suffered some other disablement, the land would "escheat" or revert to the lord of the fee. Among the disablements that would cause an escheat that are relevant here were bastardy, alienage, and attainder.
Illegitimate issue could not inherit land, being styled in law the sons of nobody. Being thus the son of no one, a bastard had no "inheritable blood" - meaning that, in contemplation of law, his blood imparted no legal claim as would entitle him to inherit an ancestor's lands. Thus, where there was no other claimant than one of illegitimate issue the land escheated to the lord. Aliens suffered under the same disabilities, and were precluded to hold land by purchase or inheritance, so that if there were none to take but an alien upon a man's death, the land would revert to the lord. That leaves attainder. According to English common law, when a man was convicted of treason, felony, or outlawry for flight from justice he suffered forfeiture of all chattels and goods. Where the conviction proceeded to sentence and judgment, the convicted man was attainted. Attainder (Lat. attinctus, stained or blackened) caused a corruption of blood in the person attainted so that he could neither inherit lands or other estates from his ancestors, nor retain those he already possessed, nor transmit such by devise or descent to an heir. The consequence of this corruption of blood was thus to destroy the inheritable quality of one's blood, causing the land to revert to the lord of the fee through a kind of civil death that blotted out, in contemplation of law, all of one's heirs. Thus, attainder effectively reduced one to the status of an alien who, because such owed no duty of allegiance to the lord or king, did not have inheritable blood. (See generally, Blackstone, Commentaries II, 244, 251-253; IV, 373-382.)
Originally, attainder and corruption of blood caused a forfeiture that cut off one's heirs in perpetuity. Later forfeitures were limited merely to the life of the person attainted. The founding fathers saw fit to make this limitation part of our national institutions in cases of treason stating that "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." (U.S. Const. Art.III, Sec.3.)
Similar rules seems to have obtained in Israel. In the twenty-sixth chapter of the book of Numbers is recorded the census taken of the sons of Israel after the first generation removed from Egypt had died off. According to this census, all males twenty-years old and upward as were able to go to war were enumerated by their father's house and tribe. To these the land was thus to be divided for an inheritance, according to the number of names. The letter of Aristeas which gives the history of the translation of the Septuigent has it that each of these original settlers was distributed 100 acres of land. (Aristeas, sec. 116.) In this way, each member of the community obtained a name and an inheritance of paternal land in Israel. It is submitted that this is the significance of the language in John 1:12-13 to the effect that those who believe upon Jesus are empowered to become children of God, born "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh...but of God." That is, unlike the covenant community of the Old Testament and its system of paternal lands and herediments, participation in the privileges and immunities of the New Testament Kingdom is not predicated upon pedigree or the inheritable quality of blood.
Now, that an Israelite could suffer forfeiture of his paternal land upon conviction for an enormous offense is intimated and appears from the twenty-seventh chapter of Numbers. There we have recorded the case of the daughters of Zelophehad. It seems that Zelophehad had five daughters, but died without sons. Hence, when the census was taken of those able to go to war, the daughters were not enumerated, thus giving them no paternal possession. Therefore, these women went to Moses to solicit the right to enter upon the paternity of their father in these words:
Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. Numbers 27:3,4
In mentioning the fact that their father had not been in the company of Korah in that man's rebellion against Moses, the inference is that the daughters of Zelophehad were attempting to dispel the possibility that their father's name had been entered upon the roles of the impious for participating in the rebellion, causing it to be struck from the number of those making up the congregation and entitled to possess a paternity. This would not have meant, of course, that Zelophehad's name would have been struck in perpetuity so that none of his lineal descendants could ever enter the congregation. Rather, apparently it would merely have disqualified his posterity for the requisite number of generations, who could then redeem the land from whatever family member it fell to during the period of separation. This seems to be borne out by the fact that Dathan and Abiram's names were entered upon the roles of the census and, though dead, were given an inheritance in Israel, notwithstanding that they participated in Korah's rebellion. (Num.26:9,53.) In other words, in saying their father had no part in the rebellion, Zelophehad's daughters were giving assurance that they suffered no disability to presently entering upon the paternity of their father based upon attainder for his acts or crimes. That possession of the land as an inheritance or paternity was predicated upon obedience to the terms of the covenant is also clearly shown by Ezekiel:
Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land; but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance. Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God: Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood; and shall ye possess the land? Ezekiel 33:24,25

The point we are trying to make through all of this is that the Jews deduced from the commandment to have no dealings with gentiles, illegitimate offspring, and eunuchs, a body of law which, while nominally ceremonial, in practice was penal in the highest degree. Hence, whereas we are inclined to regard the exclusion of gentiles and others from the mainstream of Israeli society as a type of ceremonial uncleanness or impurity, actually it was a form of ecclesiastical censor and ostracism that was sufficiently severe to substitute as a criminal sanction, and in some cases apparently did.
While it is not clear in every case what sins fell within the pale of this rule, reason suggests that attainder and corruption of blood obtained upon conviction of most capital and other enormous crimes, in addition to the usual sanctions of the criminal law. This offers some explanation for the language repeatedly encountered to the effect that capital offenders were to be "cut off from among their people." (Lv.20:18.) Other cases evidencing the practice of ostracism for various ecclesiastical offenses may be seen in those guilty of contracting affinity with foreign wives, bastardy - including children of forbidden marriages - and those condemned for embracing notions deemed false and heretical. Hence, after the captivity, when it was learned that certain Jews had made forbidden marriages they were compelled to divorce their wives under penalty of forfeiture of all their substance, and separation from the community. (Ezra 10:1-8.) Similarly, we find that those who expressed faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah were expelled from the synagogue (Jn.9:22,34;16:2) and suffered the spoiling of their goods (Heb.10:32-34). Lastly, we see that Jephath, the illegitimate issue of Gilead, was thrust out of his father's house and prevented to share in his estate in conformance to Deuteronomy 23:1. (Jud.1:1-7; cf.Gn.21:10;25:6.) The term translated "bastard" in the Authorized Version is from the Hebrew "mamzer", meaning to alienate, a mongrel, i.e., one born of a Jewish father and heathen mother. Hence, by implication, those born of mixed marriages, concubinage, incest, adultery, fornication, or prostitutes - "the sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore" - would also have fallen within the rule. (Isa.57:3; cf.Jn.8:41.)
Another line of cases falling within the pale of this rule more closely related to abortion are the homicide crimes. As noted before, Josephus' reference to the murderer and one having relations with a pregnant woman being impure implies that these individuals also suffered attainder. (See Lam.4:13-15.) Shadows of this may also be seen in the punishment of the manslayer. For killing a man unintentionally or under circumstances negating malice, the manslaughterer was banished to a city of refuge for the remainder of the life of the High Priest. However, after the High Priest's death, the offender was permitted to return to the "land of his possession." (Num.35:28.) In other words, the manslayer suffered a type of attainder, limited to the life of the High Priest, during which he was excluded from the congregation and enjoyment of his paternity. After his exile was complete, however, he was admitted anew into the congregation and could retake possession of his land.
Banishment of the manslaughterer is singularly important to our analysis. Josephus informs us that a woman who procures an illicit abortion was regarded as an infanticide. The term "infanticide" suggests to many wilful and deliberate murder. However, that Josephus has in mind manslaughter appears from what he said regarding eunuchs being shunned and expelled "even as infanticides." Murder, of course, was punished capitally. Hence, in referring to the infanticide as suffering expulsion and exile, Josephus indirectly tells us something about Jewish understanding of this offense.
In the typical case of infanticide the child's death is intentional, albeit of natural causes. That is, the mother or parent fails to take adequate precaution to preserve the infant's life at birth by omitting to bind up its umbilical cord or guard it against exposure. According to modern Anglo-American law, where a child dies in consequence of the malicious omission of the performance of a duty, such as that of a mother to feed her child, it will be murder. However, this has not always been the case. At early common law the death of a child under these circumstances would have amounted to no more than manslaughter. Josephus' indication that the infanticide was punished by banishment or exile suggests that first century Jews understood the law of Moses in terms similar to early common law. How this squares with Biblical teaching is hard to say.
In the case of the aggressive ox set out at Exodus 21:28-32, the owner was chargeable with murder for permitting his beast to roam at large in the face of an inherent danger to others. This will be murder because his conduct evidences a wilful and wanton disregard for the risk of death or serious bodily injury to others he has created by effectively releasing a wild animal in a populated area. The causal relation between the death of an abandoned child and its parents' omissions, however, is more tenuous. Parents who abandon their child do not actually create the risk of death to the child - the risk already exists in the infant's inability to provide for itself. Indeed, without affirmative steps taken by the parents to save the child it cannot survive. Hence, they merely allow the child to succumb to death from natural forces already set in motion, and do not set those forces in motion themselves. Thus, while the moral quality of the parents acts is plainly malicious in the sense that their omission is wilful and wanton, the fact that the death is the result of a failure to act in the face of parental duty distinguishes infanticide from the case of the ox. The owner of the ox creates a risk, the parents merely omit to alleviate one. The question is whether this is sufficient to extenuate the offense from murder to manslaughter. Apparently the Jews held that it was. In Ezekiel 33:1-9 is recorded the case of a watchman charged with the duty to warn of an approaching enemy. If the watchman failed to warn, and the people were slain unawares, their blood was required of the watchman. The charge upon the watchman created a false expectation of security in the people leading them to be caught unprepared. For their deaths the watchman is accountable. However, a charge of murder seems very unlikely. He has occasioned men's deaths, but he has killed no one. The better view is that he is guilty only of manslaughter. A similar analysis should probably obtain regarding Abraham sending Hagar and Ishmael into the wilderness with scant water supplies. (Gn.21:14-16.) Although the scriptures record that it grieved Abraham to send Ishmael away because he was his son (v.11), Abraham's provision for the child's welfare was nominal, at best. With so much wealth and manpower at his disposal to properly feed and escort Hagar and Ishmael to another settlement, the token supply of bread and water Abraham gave the two seems calloused and uncaring, perhaps even hardened. Even so, had Ishmael actually died it is hard to see how Abraham could be justly charged with murder. He might have prevented the child's death, but he did not kill him. Missing is the requirement repeatedly set out in the law that the murderer commit some overt act causing, or creating the risk of death, such as striking a man or the like, before it will be murder. (Ex.21:12.) Hence, Josephus' suggestion that infanticide was merely manslaughter, punishable by banishment, is arguably sound.
Another interpretation of what Josephus says might be that he is referring to infanticides among the gentiles that came to trade or worship in Judea, similar to the Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts 8:27.) Because these individual's crimes would have been committed beyond the jurisdiction of the state, the Jews would not have had authority to punish them for either murder or manslaughter. Hence, Jews were to flee all dealings with such persons. If this is the significance of what Josephus says, then it may well be that infanticide was deemed a form of murder. Certainly Philo was persuaded as much. (See p. --, above.) Even so, there is no indication that Josephus means to suggest that the woman convicted of abortion was punished capitally as a murderer. The better view is that Josephus intends we understand that she was punished in terms similar to manslaughter - e.g., she was attainted, suffered forfeiture of her goods, and was driven from the presence of respectable society. Paul's statements in I Corinthians 11:6 to the effect that it was a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven (cf., Num.5:18; Deut.21:12) offers some suggestion that women excommunicated from the congregation may have also been marked by shaving their heads as a badge of their infamy. In any event, it seems clear that for deliberate self-induced abortion a woman was punished by a form of ostracism akin to that imposed upon eunuchs, illegitimate children, and gentiles. Except to bring such unto repentance, no Jew could have any dealings with them. They were made aliens in the land of their nativity, surviving on the edges of society.
The severity of this punishment should be compared with the fine imposed on the actor in Exodus 21:22. The only difference that can be cited between the cases is that Exodus 21:22 posits an unintentional loss of the child, whereas abortion is deliberate and wilful. Yet the fact that the child's loss is unintentional does not mean that it is not malicious. As we said before, the fact that the offender in Exodus 21:22 was potentially punished "life for life" indicates that the accident might amount to murder. Hence, the difference between deliberate abortion and malicious, but unintentional still-birth, is marginal at best. If an adult life were being discussed, either way it would be murder and punished with death. Why the punishment for abortion should be so much more severe than the fine in Exodus 21:22-25 is thus hard to give account. Perhaps the short answer is that where the offender's act causing loss of a child was intentional or malicious he suffered attainder and corruption of blood in addition to the fine or mulct, just as a woman who aborted her own child. This seems to be borne out by Josephus' reference to the man being "impure" who caused an abortion through intercourse. If he is impure and subject to separation based upon a miscarriage caused through intercourse, there is no reason to expect otherwise of the individual in Exodus 21:22-25 where his acts evidence the same moral quality. After all, the monetary exaction imposed in Exodus 21:22 was primarily intended to indemnify the parents for loss of a viable child and was not even exacted if the child was imperfectly formed. If attainder obtained, then the incongruity of the actor getting off scott-free where the child was not viable is avoided.
In sum, abortion appears to have been punished in a manner analogous to manslaughter. The ecclesiastical arm of government apparently had standing to prosecute the offense, although the civil arm could not - the lex talionis having no application in such cases. Unlike Exodus 21:22-25, there is no indication that the age or maturity of the fetus had any bearing upon the offense. Where the procedure was attempted and resulted in the child's being born alive, if it was viable and subsequently died, the act would be murder. Where the infant was imperfectly formed and the law of homicide did not apply, the law of abortion filled the gap, so that there was no escape. Thus, whether the child perished in her womb or after birth the mother or other party would have been liable no matter what age the child.

CHAPTER SIX

THE IMAGE OF GOD AND THE LAW OF HOMICIDE

By now the questions asked toward the beginning of this book have pretty much all been answered. As we have seen, abortion was not homicide, but was punished, rather, by an ecclesiastical censor in the form of attainder. These things answered, other questions crop up. For example, why should the law deem the same act murder or no depending upon the fortuity of live birth and the maturity of the fetus? What do the several criteria before a charge of homicide could obtain tell us about the offense? For that matter, why were abortion and murder punished differently at all?
It is no secret that the two principle aims of the criminal law are generally deemed to be retribution and deterrence. Retribution, to vindicate and avenge wrong, and to right the scales of justice. Deterrence, so that the people will not venture to imitate the acts of the offender, fearing that they themselves will receive the like rewards for their crimes. In the words of Solomon, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." (Ecc.8:11; cf.Deut.17:12,13.) Thus deterrence requires that the law be sufficiently severe to warn off would be offenders. Justice, on the other hand, is largely a sense of equality and proportion. To have just weights and just measures is for them to be equal to the standard of measure they purport to represent. In the realm of criminal law, justice requires that wrong be avenged in due proportion to the crime. The more severe the offense, the greater the punishment, and so forth. The sometimes delicate balance between justice and judgment, mercy and truth, was expressed by the Psalmist saying they had met and "kissed," presumably in the law of Moses and the talion formula of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." (Ps.85:10; cf.89:14.) That the law excluded the unborn from the benefits and protection of the lex talionis strongly suggests a want of proportionality between a life in being and life developing in the womb. In other words, it would seem the two "lives" are not equal. The focus of our inquiry must therefore be conducted in terms of identifying what differentiates the two.
In the sixth chapter of the book of Genesis we learn that very early into the history of the race the world became filled with violence. Indeed, so great was this propensity in men that God was moved to destroy the world by the flood. (Gn.6:9-13.) We know, of course, however, that God relented of his purpose and in Noah preserved a seed to replenish the earth. Moreover, in reaffirming his commitment to the race, it is written that after the flood God vouchsafed to man his life blood as an assurance that mankind was precious in God's sight:
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man. Genesis 9:5,6
Thus the law of homicide was enacted because man was made in the image and likeness of God. Obviously, the fact that man is made in God's image is not the only consideration justifying the punishment of homicide. Even countries that are nominally atheist and hold that man is merely a product of evolutionary chance punish murder. The need for peaceable order and security in society requires that minimum acceptable standards of behavior be imposed upon its members. But these, and any other reasons that might be offered, would merely be human justifications, and could not sanction punishing the murderer with death apart from the approbation of his Maker. Thus, entirely apart from any considerations men may suggest, God's reason for requiring the life of the murderer is that man was made in His image. Hence, the life of God's other creatures evokes no similar vindication. But as the protection and vindication offered by the lex talionis is predicated upon the imprint of God's image in man's soul, how else does one account for the exclusion of the nonviable, stillborn child from the law's protection other than to conclude that such do not bear the impression of this stamp?
The word "image" in Genesis 9:6 is from the Hebrew "tselem" and means a phantom, i.e. illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol. On this score, it is noteworthy that the Second commandment prohibited Israel to attempt to portray God's image by making idols of wood or stone. They were prohibited to do this because not only was it presumptuous to attempt to fashion a representation of Him whom they had never seen nor could see, but because it is impossible that God's moral character, the only part of him we have been shown, should be reflected in lifeless stone. Besides, God had already given the nation as near an image of himself as could be set in stone when He revealed himself through the moral commands of the Decalogue. This is fairly intimated in the account of Moses when he ascended the mount to receive the Ten Commandments, asking God to "show me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in the sight." God responded saying "I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee." (Ex.33:13,19.)
And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the childrens' children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Exodus 34:5-7
The better part of the words spoken by God to Moses above occur in the Decalogue following the prohibition against graven images. (Ex.20:4-6.) The inference seems to be that knowing God and his way involves understanding his moral attributes of mercy and justice, long-suffering and love - things impossible to be represented by the art of man. Thus premised, the law of Moses may be seen as something of an initial step in God's desire and plan to reveal himself to man's darkened mind, and to recreate His image in an estranged and fallen race. To the extent that it was possible for moral and legal pronouncements suitable for national institutions to portray God's essence, the law of Moses was like a tapestry whose threads were woven together to give man a moral and intellectual portraiture of his Maker. The law of Moses revealed God through a veil or glass obscurely, but Jesus clearly, and face to face.
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech; and not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished; but their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ...But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. II Corinthians 3:13-14,18
(See also, I Cor.13:8-13; II Cor.4:6.) Hence Jesus is said to be the "image of the invisible God" (Col.1:15) and the "express image of his person." (Heb.1:2.) Now, Jesus, like Adam, was a son of God (Lk.3:38), and Adam, like Jesus, bore God's image and likeness. However, after the fall Adam's sons are said to have borne Adam's image and likeness - not God's. (Gn.5:3.) The letter to the Romans informs us that in Adam all die inasmuch as the natural man is at enmity with God. He is carnal, sold under sin. (Rm.5:12-21; 7:14-25.) Hence, in Adam, mankind bears the image and likeness of its first ancestor after the fall, and has impressed on its collective soul the stamp of our first ancestor's moral estrangement from God through his propensity to sin. However, the image that Adam lost, Christ came to restore and renew in the Christian through "knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Col.3:10.)
Thus said, it seems clear that to be made in the image and likeness of God meant that mankind was created in his heart and mind to resemble God in his moral faculties and judgments. In breathing into man the neshamah, it would appear that God thus deposited the divine image in the seat of man's moral faculties, creating in Adam a sort of temple for a dwelling place of God through his spirit. And just as the temple in Jerusalem was vindicated with death in the man that ventured its desecration or destruction (I Cor.3:16), the law of homicide was enacted to vindicate the unlawful killing of man. Philo gives it thus:
The second commandment [i.e. the 7th ] is to do no murder. For nature, who created man the most civilized of animals to be gregarious and sociable, has called him to shew fellowship and a spirit of partnership by endowing him with reason, the bond which leads to harmony and reciprocity of feeling. Let him, then, who slays another know full well that he is subverting the laws and statutes of nature so excellently enacted for the well-being of all. Further, let him understand that he is guilty of sacrilege, the robbery from its sanctuary of the most sacred of God's possessions. For what votive offering is more hallowed or more worthy of reverence than a man? Gold and silver and costly stones and other substances of highest price serve as ornaments to buildings which are as lifeless as the ornaments themselves. But man, the best of living creatures, through that higher part of his being, namely, the soul, is most nearly akin to heaven, the purest thing in all that exists, and as most admit, also to the Father of the world, possessing in his mind a closer likeness and copy than anything else on earth of the eternal and blessed Archetype. De Decalogue, ch. xxv (Loeb ed.)
Philo took man's mind for the vessel which bore God's image and imprint. Thus, Philo has it that it is a form of sacrilege to kill a man because man is a type of votive offering in the temple and treasury of God. While there is nothing objectionable to this analogy, Philo's earlier analogy of an unborn child to a statue is more on point. When a sculptor begins his work he gathers raw materials which in no way resemble the subject or model. To take the case of a sculptor that has been commissioned to render the image of Caesar in stone, it is not hard to see how one of the despots among the Roman emperors might punish with death the man that presumed to affront Caesar by defacing his statue. Indeed, we know that such laws existed. However, it is also easy to see how in the statute's formative stages its resemblance to Caesar could be so remote or nonexistent that Caesar would feel little or no affront if it were disfigured or destroyed. In such case, Caesar would feel no great indignation at the act because its lack of resemblance to him prevented his identification of the unfinished statue with himself.
To take the case of man, until viable - until the time when the statue is waiting to be released from confinement in the studio - the Artist's self-portrait remains imperfect. The image of God has not yet been reproduced in the subject. The unborn child has no moral or intellectual faculties. These will only begin to develop after birth. Hence the law of homicide enacted to protect and vindicate the finished product bearing these qualities does not apply. The long and short of the case then is that the law of homicide seemingly proceeds upon a qualitative analysis of mankind, with a view to his rational nature, drawing the line at birth. The earlier stages of gestation, when the child more nearly approximates animal and vegetable life, do not evoke the same implications and concerns present in a viable child born alive. The unborn child is human to be sure, but it is not a human being. The stamp of the Creator's likeness has not yet been fully impressed in contemplation of law until born alive into the light and life of man.
This should be compared with what we have been able to ascertain about Old Testament punishment of abortion. In this case we find no suggestion that the fetus' stage of development bore upon the applicability of the charge. Rather than the qualitative analysis used in punishing homicide, attainder for abortion seems to have thus been predicated upon the sanctity of the bare germ of human life. Indeed, among the Jews certain false notions grew up that attached undue significance upon men's seed even prior to conception:
They too must be branded with reproach, who plough the hard and stony land. And who should they be but those who mate with barren women? For in the quest of mere licentious pleasure like the most lecherous of men they destroy the procreative germs with deliberate purpose. For what other motive can they have in plighting themselves to such women? It cannot be the hope of offspring, a hope which they know must necessarily fail to be realized; it can only be an inordinate frenzy, and incontinence past all cure. Those who marry maidens in ignorance at the time of their capacity or incapacity for successful motherhood, and later refuse to dismiss them, when prolonged childlessness shows them to be barren, deserve our pardon. Familiarity, that most constraining influence, is too strong for them, and they are unable to rid themselves of the charm of old affection imprinted on their souls by long companionship. But those who sue for marriage with women whose sterility has already been proved with other husbands, do but copulate like pigs or goats, and their names should be inscribed in the lists of the impious as adversaries of God. For while God in His love both for mankind and all that lives spares no care to effect the preservation and permanence of every race, those persons who make an art of quenching the life of the seed as it drops, stand confessed as the enemies of nature. De Specialibus III, sec.34-36 (Loeb ed.)
There is little question that Philo has in mind ostracism and attainder in saying that the names of those who quench the seed of life as it drops "should be inscribed in the lists of the impious as adversaries of God" and "enemies of nature." The relation of this purported offense to the castrate, the man who has intercourse with a pregnant woman, and one who aborts her offspring is not difficult to grasp. Like the man who has carnal knowledge of a woman during her period of separation (Lv.18:19;20:18), the pedophile (Lv.18:22), and hybrid cattle and seed (Lv.19:19; Deut.22:9,10), one way or another, each of these is a type of "confusion" (Lv.18:23), offers violence to the procreative process, and sets at naught the imperative to be "fruitful and multiply." (Gn.1:28.) The ostensible basis for the tradition reported by Philo above, appears to be a misconstruction of the sin of Judah's son, Onan - viz., misplaced emphasis upon Onan spilling his seed, whereas the significance of the passage more properly lays in Onan's defrauding his brother's widow by going into her while refusing to raise up children in his brother's place. (Gn.38:9; Deut.25:5-10.) This aside, elective abortion stands squarely condemned no matter how early the pregnancy based upon its destruction and desecration of life's germ.
Given that homicide proceeds upon a qualitative analysis of man's life, while abortion was punished based upon the sanctity of life per se, it would seem that both sides of the present debate over abortion have points that are valid. Although, contrary to what the Vatican asserts, abortion is not murder, neither is it the indifferent act pro-choice advocates would have us believe. The qualitative analysis advanced by abortion rights proponents rightly discerns that the child in utero is not a human in being possessed of the rights of a child born alive. However, while this analysis has its proper place when we reach the question of proportionality between crimes and punishments, it cannot be used as a license for abortion upon demand. That it may not be homicide in no way changes the fact that abortion is an outrage condemned by Heaven and nature, and the conscience of man.

CHAPTER SEVEN

CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN WAS NOT INDEMNIFIED

No work on the subject of abortion would be complete if it neglected to discuss the circumstances under which abortion was permitted by the law, if at all. In a very real sense, however, the question of the lawfulness of abortion is merely one of several related issues involving the sanctity of life in the womb and when it may be expended. In the proceeding chapters we saw how the law placed a stigma upon children conceived from illicit unions. The apostle Paul repeats this in substance when he says that children born to a married believer are holy, whereas other children are unclean, or common. (I Cor.7:14.) Thus God does not view all children alike - he has special regard for the children of his saints. All men approach the throne of grace upon equal terms to be sure, but the seed of the righteous is blessed (Deut.28:4; Ps.37:26; Prov.20:7), and that of the wicked cursed. (Deut.28:18; Ps.21:10;37:28; Isa.14:20,21.) If this is the case with children born of illicit unions and godless men, what would be the case of a child conceived of a capital offense, or whose parent was otherwise condemned to die - would the sin of the parent be visited on the fetus, annulling the sanctity and invulnerability of its life? Hence, to round off our discussion and the scope of this work, these questions too will be taken up.
In Deuteronomy Moses established as a fundamental precept that only the guilty were to be executed for their sins. Innocent parents and children were not to be put to death for the other's acts.
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16
A similar declaration is made in the book of Ezekiel thus:
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:20
These passages contain the basic premise of the law that innocent blood was not to be spilt for the crimes and wrongs of another. Only the offender was to die. But there is another and more subtle lesson in the passages. The word translated "children" and "son" in the texts is from the Hebrew "ben", meaning that which is born, born of a woman; male child, or son. Hence it is a term that explicitly refers to one born alive. (cf., Lev.22:27-28 where the term is applied to the newborn young of animals.) Thus said, the unborn do not come within the terms of the prohibition against the child being slain for his parent's sin or crime. The further question, of course, is whether this implies protection only for children born alive, such that the fate of a fetus was determined by the fate of its parent. Seemingly it does.
In the eighteenth and twentieth chapters of book of Leviticus are set out numerous offenses against modesty and decency. The offenses range from adultery and incest to sodomy, beastialty, and carnal knowledge of a woman during her period of separation and purgation. Although the offenses set out in both chapters eighteen and twenty are substantially identical, the chapters differ in that the twentieth alternates the punishments between death (vv.10-15), cutting off (vv.17-18), and being or dying "childless."
This should be compared with the eighteenth chapter where the punishment assigned to all of these forbidden unions is described as a "cutting off" saying "whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people." (Lv.18:29.)
Scholarship is divided as to the full significance of the phrase "cut off" or "cut off from among their people." One of the difficulties posed by the phrase is that it is used in a wide variety of contexts. For example, Zechariah 9:10 speaks in terms of God bringing peace to his people by cutting off the chariot, the horse, and the battle bow. On the other hand, it also occurs in I Sam.2:33 where the decedents of Eli are referred to as being cut off from serving as priests at God's alter. Hence the phrase is susceptible of both blessing and cursing. Moreover, even where the context makes clear that the latter is intended, the further problem remains to determine what punishment is indicated; whether death or some other, such as banishment and exile. The better view, however, probably is that death, coupled with attainder and corruption of blood is intended unless the context requires otherwise. Certainly, this is the most natural construction we are wont to assign to the phrase. Indeed, the first verses of Leviticus make clear that capital punishment and cutting off were virtually synonymous:
Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. Leviticus 20:2-3
Other examples of this usage occur in reference to the death of our Lord saying
He was taken from prison and judgment; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. Isaiah 53:8-9
Daniel says the same thing, stating that the Messiah would be "cut off." (Dan.9:26.) And that being cut off implicates maintaining one's name and possession of paternal lands in Israel is seen in part from the law's commandment that a near kinsman marry the widow of a deceased Israelite who died childless so that his name "not be cut off from among his brethren." (Ruth 4:10; cf., Deut.25:6.) That this was the understanding of the Jews appears from what Josephus says in treating of the laws appearing in Leviticus eighteen and twenty touching forbidden unions:
As for adultery, Moses forbade it entirely, as esteeming it a happy thing that men should be wise in the affairs of wedlock; and that it was profitable both to cities and families that children should be known to be genuine. He also abhorred men's lying with their mothers, as one of the greatest crimes; and the like for lying with their father's wife, and with aunts, and sisters, and sons' wives, as all instances of abominable wickedness. He also forbade a man to lie with his wife when she was defiled by her natural purgation; and not to come near brute beasts; nor to approve of the lying with a male, which was to hunt after unlawful pleasures on account of beauty. To those who were guilty of such insolent behavior, he ordained death for their punishment. Antiquities, bk.III,ch.xii,sec.i (Whiston ed.)
Understanding how the Jews construed the instruction to cut off certain offenders is important in that one question that naturally arises is whether children conceived from unlawful unions were to perish with their parents or, whether punishment was to be deferred until the child was born. A strong argument can be made that it was the former and not the latter.
And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing; he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. Leviticus 20:20,21
It is conceded that the phrase "die childless" is susceptible of several constructions. For example, it could mean no more than that the children of these unions were attainted similar to other illegitimate issue. That is, as we are wont to describe illegitimate children as being "fatherless," so the scriptures here may employ a similar euphemism in reference to the parents saying they are "childless" for purposes of maintaining a name and place in Israel. Similar usage occurs in reference to Coniah the son of Jehoiakim saying "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall proper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." (Jer.22:30.)
On the other hand, even if this or a like construction is placed on the phrase "die childless," this would not preclude the possibility that the offenders, if caught, were to be capitally punished, and this though the woman be pregnant with child. In other words, the phrase is broad enough to contemplate both the case where the offense remains undetected until after the birth of a child, and where the offenders are discovered in the act or shortly thereafter. In the former case, the child would escape with its life, but be excluded from the covenant community; in the latter it would perish with its mother.
Judging from the intertestamental books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, trials of this sort were not unknown to Israel, saying that "children begotten of unlawful beds are witnesses of wickedness against their parents in their trial." (Wisdom 3:6; cf., Ecc.23:24.) Moreover, judging from the case of Judah and Tamar, circumstances where a woman pregnant with child was sentenced to die for an illicit union were also known. Omitting unnecessary details, it is sufficient to simply to note that Tamar conceived child by her father-in-law, Judah, under circumstances excusing or extenuating each party's guilt for what was otherwise an adulterous and incestuous union. What follows is the account of what transpired when Tamar's condition was found out.
And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child; and she said, discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more. Genesis 38:24-26
From this account it may be seen that the crime of adultery was punishable with death and that the child conceived of the union, although it was fully three months old, would, of necessity, perish with its mother. Nor was this act of Judah in pronouncing sentence upon Tamar though she was pregnant an isolated or aberrational incident. The law of Moses, promulgated hundreds of years later, also spoke to this issue. If a man was betrothed to a woman and upon consummation of the marriage it appeared that she was not a virgin, the law instructed that a trial of the accusation might be had and, if it were shown that she had turned aside and committed adultery, then she was to be stoned. (Deut.22:13-21.) Now, there are any number of ways that a woman's lack of virginity might appear; not the least of which is an untimely pregnancy. Thus, if a woman were pregnant with another man's child at the time of her marriage and an accusation was made against her it is plain that in stoning the woman the embryo or fetus would die with her. The Gospel of Matthew records that Joseph contemplated this very thing when it was learned that Mary was pregnant with the Christ child before they celebrated the marriage, albeit he determined not to make her a public example and was minded to put her away privately. (Matt. 1:18-20; cf.Deut.22:13-21; 24:1.)
On this note, what Philo says in his work on the virtues should probably be addressed. As mention in passing earlier, Philo found in the prohibition against killing a newborn lamb or the like and its mother the same day (Lv.22:27,28) the further prohibition against the sacrifice of pregnant beasts. (See p.--, above.) Philo uses this as an argument against the Greek practice of infanticide, reasoning that the invulnerability of the life in the womb bears evidence of its greater sanctity once born. He then continues thus:
"For it is the height of unholiness to kill mother and offspring on the same occasion and on the same day. It was on this principle, I think, that some legislators introduced the law that condemned women who commit deeds worthy of death should, if pregnant, be kept in custody until the child is born, lest their execution should carry with it the destruction of the life within the womb. These decrees of theirs apply to human beings, but Moses rising to a further height extended the duty of fair treatment even to irrational animals, so that by practicing on creatures of dissimilar kind we may show humanity in a far fuller measure to beings of like kind to ourselves..." De Virtutibus, sec.139,140
The inference may be drawn from what Philo says that the law of Moses purportedly forbade the execution of a woman with child. In saying that some legislators introduced laws staying execution until the child was born, Philo tacitly admits, however, that no such law can be identified in the Pentateuch. To the extent such a law existed at all, it depends upon an extension of the prohibition against the sacrifice of pregnant beasts. Yet the law of Moses nowhere prohibited the sacrifice of an animal pregnant with child. In the first place, the command not to slaughter an ox or sheep and its young applied only to offspring born alive:
When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering make by fire unto the Lord. And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day. Leviticus 22:27,28
The word "young" in the Hebrew is the word "ben", the same word used in the passages from Deuteronomy and Ezekiel prohibiting putting the children to death for the parent's sin. The term explicitly refers only to that which has been born. Hence there is no suggestion that pregnant animals are treated of here. However, even if for argument's sake it were conceded that the passage precluded the sacrifice of pregnant animals, this would not mean that pregnant animals were prohibited from slaughter in other contexts. There were any number of provisions in the law instructing that animals be destroyed for various purposes. For example, for having spilled the blood of man or where such had been vilely abused for carnal gratification. (Ex.21:28-32; Lv.20:15,16.) That a pregnant animal condemned to die in either of these cases was to receive a stay of execution pending birth of its offspring simply has no Scriptural precedent. Yet, before the prohibition against sacrificing a pregnant animal can be extended to stay the capital punishment of a pregnant woman, it must first be shown to apply in the context of destroying attainted beasts. If it cannot be shown to apply to beast marked for destruction, no justification exists for the law's extension to humans. Hence that the prohibition was applicable beyond the immediate context of sacrifices is highly doubtful. Animals that were crippled or maimed were prohibited from sacrifice also. (Lv.22:24.) If pregnant women were exempt from execution based upon what is said in Leviticus chapter twenty-two, then it might just as easily be argued that the crippled were exempt from execution on this basis also. All things considered, it seems plain that there simply is no support based upon these texts for the proposition that the law of Moses required a stay of execution for a woman with child - even assuming that is Philo's meaning, which itself is not clear. To the contrary, every indication is that no such rule obtained.
That the life of the unborn was inexorably tied to the fate of its mother also appears from the "law of jealousy" set out in Numbers chapter Five. This law provided for the case of a wife whose husband suspected, but could not prove, she had been guilty of adultery. In such cases the law instructed that the husband might bring her to the priests who would make trial of the matter by pronouncing a curse over the woman if she had strayed. The curse was to be written with ink and blotted out with water, then mingled with the dust of the temple floor and given to the woman to drink. The words of the curse were thus: "The Lord make thee a curse among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot." (Num.5:21,22.) If the woman was guilty the terms of the curse came upon her; but if she had been chaste, then she might conceive and give her husband child. (v.28.) Of particular interest to us here, however, are the terms of the curse. Unfortunately, the curse is couched in euphemisms that render its meaning somewhat obscure, but the fact that if the woman were innocent she would conceive and bear children suggests that her guilt was to result in the obverse; i.e. she would be barren or miscarry the interloper's child.
The Hebrew word translated "rot" in the curse is "naphal", a word we encountered earlier and which serves as the stem for nephel, which signifies a miscarriage or abortion. The Hebrew word for "thigh" in the curse recited in Numbers is "yarek", and is used symbolically to signify strength and stability. Thus Sampson is said to have smote the Philistines "hip and thigh with a great slaughter." (Judges 15:8.) The thigh was also where a man wore his dagger and sword. (Ex.32:27;Judges 3:16,21;Ps.45:3.) By the same token, Jesus is pictured in the Revelation riding upon a white horse, victorious, bearing the name upon his thigh "King of kings and Lord or lords". (Rev.19:16.) On the other hand, the thigh was also a euphemism for the loins or generative parts. Thus in Genesis 46:26 the offspring of Jacob are referred to as springing from his "thigh". (cf.Ex.1:5; Judges 8:30.) Moreover the thigh, or loins, were used in ancient Hebrew society as a token of veracity in giving an oath. Hence when Abraham took an oath of his steward that he would not take a wife for Isaac of the women of Canaan, he made him swear by placing his hand under his "thigh". (Gen.24:2,9;cf.47:29.) Finally, the image of the woman's thigh falling away bears a strong resemblance to the historical narrative of Jacob where the Angle smote him in the hollow of his hip and thigh causing it to dislocate. (Gen.32:25.) In saying that the waters would enter the woman's "bowels", the word "meah" is used. The term is used to signify the source of procreation and the womb many times in the Bible. (Gn.15:4,25:3; II Sam.7:12; Isa.49:1.) This is also true of the word "beten", translated in our English version saying her "belly" would swell. (Gen.25:23,24;38:27.) Taken together, in thus saying that the water would enter the woman's bowels and her belly would swell and her thigh rot and fall away the sense seems to be that she would contract something akin to descensus uteri (Lat., a falling of the uterus) a condition wherein there is a defect in the pelvic floor allowing all or part of the uterus to protrude out of the vagina. Obviously, to conceive seed with such a condition is impossible. Moreover if a woman were pregnant at the time she contracted this ailment she could not carry a child to term, resulting in miscarriage or abortion.
The case of Jehoram is remarkably similar. In that case Elijah wrote to Jehoram saying that because he had made the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem go whoring after other gods, the Lord was going to smite his children and wives with a plague and that Jehoram would be stricken by a disease until "thy bowels (meah) fall out by reason of the sickness day by day." (II Chr.21:12-15.) Thus, because of Jehoram's spiritual fornication he was stricken with a plague by which his bowels fell out, perhaps through the floor of his abdomen into his loins by a hernia, much as the adulterous woman's uterus.
Another case that is similar to the curse and its apparent effect appears in II Kings 2:19-22 where the soil and waters of Jericho are described as causing barrenness and miscarriage or abortion - almost as if the situation of the city were a direct allusion to the dust of the temple floor and the water made bitter by blotting out the curse. In any event, there is ample grounds to understand the curse as causing miscarriage or sterility in the woman; the former if she were pregnant with the adulterer's seed, the latter if she were guilty, but without child. This interpretation is shared by the translators of the New International Version. As an alternative for the language of Numbers 5:22 - "so that your abdomen swells, and your thigh wastes away" - the translators of the NIV placed these words in the margin: "causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness." If this is correct, the trial of bitter water represented little more than a formula for the abortion of the adulterer's seed, and makes plain that the fate of the unborn was in no way indemnified against the sin of its mother.
Moving to the case of therapeutic abortion, we begin by noting that childbearing is filled with risks to the life of the mother even with the modern advances of medicine. Obviously, in ancient times the risks were potentially greater. Hence, the Bible records several instances where mothers died in result of live birth. (Gen.35:17,18; I Sam.4:19,20.) The question thus becomes whether the law permitted alleviation of this risk to the mother by terminating the pregnancy, or were they required to stand idly by, content to let nature take its course? The fact that the Bible records instances where women actually perished in childbirth and none where the pregnancy was terminated, will suggest to some that therapeutic abortion was neither practiced nor allowed. However, the want of precedent demonstrating the practice of therapeutic abortion proves little or nothing. To the contrary, where a woman had "hard labor," because it could not be known that either the mother or child would survive the process of live birth, the law's permission to take the young seems clear.
If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young; but thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. Deuteronomy 22:6,7
This passage seems to stand for the proposition that the mother was to be spared at the expense of her offspring. They cannot survive without her, but she may survive to bear again. Hence the unborn that might only potentially live and be saved were expendable where necessary to save the life that actually was. That, in principle, texts such as this were applicable beyond their immediate context and represented lessons transferable to the lives and dealings of men, may be seen from the Apostle Paul's assurance in Ist Corinthians.
Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt this is written... I Corinthians 9:8-10
If passages in the Old Testament such as the prohibition of muzzling an ox treading out corn were in fact lessons for men, then it is hard to see what situation the law's command to spare the mother at the expense of her young was intended to reach if not the issue of abortion. It cannot be an allusion to a rule of war, since the Israelites were either permitted to take both the mother and children as the spoils of war, or else, what is the opposite of releasing the mothers, required to slay such women as had known man by lying with him. (Compare Deut.20:14 with Num.31:15-18; cf.Deut.21:13.) Moreover it cannot speak to the issue of slavery as the nation was permitted to have servants of both mother and child. (Ex.21:4.) As purely a matter of conservation the law seems ill-founded, given that our own laws generally preclude taking game below a certain age, and never in the brooding season. Thus, if there is a better application of the passage other than abortion one would be glad to hear it. Until then, it seems that the interpretation offered here rings true. [4] A mother bird will abandon her nest in order to save her life. It seems inconceivable that God would require different of men.
Another case where the law's consent that the unborn be taken may be deduced from the law of rape. In this case, the law ordained that for the rape of a woman engaged to marry only the man be slain. "But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death; for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter" (Deut.22:26.) Now, where the woman consented to have intercourse she also was to be put to death, for it was adultery and, as we have seen, the adulterer's child was to perish with her. If the adulterer's seed was thus to be destroyed where the woman consented to the unlawful union, it is difficult to imagine that his seed should be preserved where he has committed forcible rape. Can it reasonably be supposed that the victim, either alone or together with her husband, was expected to rear up the rapist's offspring? Rather, it seems more likely that resort might be had either to the passage in Numbers regarding the waters of the curse, or to the principle of the mother bird hatching out her eggs, as authority for permission that a pregnancy resulting from rape be terminated. "For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her" (v.27); hence "thou shalt in any wise let the dam(sel) go, and take the young". Jewish authorities are in accord, abortion generally being construed permissible in these circumstances, provided the child had not yet emerged into the world. (Oho.7:6; Rashi and Meiri, Sanh.72b.)
In conclusion, there is ample precedent for the lawful use of abortion where necessary to save a mother's life and in circumstances of rape or, what it frequently the same, incest. Additionally, staying execution of a pregnant woman until her child was born is a piece of sentimentality the Mosaic law nowhere appears to have indulged; particularly where the child was conceived the sexual union serving as the underlying offense.

CHAPTER EIGHT

CANON LAW, COMMON LAW, AND
ROE VERSUS WADE

The Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade accommodated feminists by conferring upon women the right to terminate a pregnancy without interference from the state, or even the father. In so doing, considerable emphasis was placed upon the fact that the common law did not punish abortion unless the child had quickened. Not content with this, however, the court was also at pains to cast doubt upon whether abortion of even a quickened fetus was ever firmly established as an offense at common law. The court's objective was transparent: If it could be shown that our medieval forebears granted women a right to abort her offspring without molestation from the state, a basis could be laid for holding that this right became part of the law of the land when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.
The court takes its lead on this note from an article by Cyril Means, associate professor at New York Law School, entitled "The Phoenix of Abortional Freedom: Is a Penumbral or Ninth-Amendment Right About to Arise from the Nineteenth-Century Legislative Ashes of a Fourteenth-Century Common-Law Liberty? (17 NYL F 335 (1971).) The "penumbral" right the author refers to is the "right of privacy" the U.S. Supreme Court found to emanate from certain provisions of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment guaranty against unreasonable search or seizure of persons, houses, papers, and effects. It is this right the court has used to strike down laws regulating the use of contraception, marriage, procreation, childrearing, and the like. The article was timed to appear just prior to the court's decision in Roe v. Wade, and was intended to steer the court's decision. Apparently it had its desired effect - Means was cited and relied upon heavily by justice Blackman, writing for the court.
Means argues that the comments of Lord Coke reproduced in the first chapter of this work (p.--, above) were spurious - that Coke's report that abortion of a quickened fetus was a "great misprision" at common law was a mere fabrication whipped up to establish secular jurisdiction over this traditionally ecclesiastical offense. However, the argument is all but convincing.
Means' argument is constructed around two 14th century cases he is convinced are proof that abortion of even a quickened fetus was not an offense at common law. So convinced was Means that these cases clinched his point, he takes the fact Coke also cited them as evidence of Coke's dishonesty. However, it would seem that in making this charge Means failed to pause for mature reflection.
First, Coke cited several authorities in the passage in question without indicating what proposition he intended each to demonstrate. Means merely assumes Coke cited the cases in question in support of the proposition that abortion was a misprision, but that this was Coke's meaning is not clear. The better view is that it was not.
The cases, Y.B. Mich. I Edw. 3, f. 23, pl.18 (1327) and Y.B. Mich. 22 Edw. 3 (1348) (the latter reported in Fitzherbert's Grande Abridgement), both involved indictments for killing a child in its mother's womb. The first simply reports that the judges were not prepared to indict the man for felony. The second is to the effect that the accused was not to be arrested upon the indictment because it could not be known whether he was responsible for the child's death - that is, the judges felt there was insufficient evidence to warrant arrest. Thus, neither case states in holding or dicta that abortion was not a punishable offense. To the contrary, the second case might arguably be cited for the proposition that, where there was competent evidence of the cause of death in the fetus, a misdemeanor complaint would have obtained. How then does Means conclude these cases affirm abortion was not a crime at common law? Not from what the cases themselves say. Rather he relies upon the passing statements of two commentators who wrote hundreds years later.
The first is Stanford (1557) who states "if a man killed a child in the womb of its mother: this is not a felony, neither shall be forfeit anything..." The statement, "neither shall he forfeit anything" is seized upon by Means as proof that abortion was not an offense at common law. In support of this he cites Stanford elsewhere to the effect that for conviction of a misprision a man suffered the forfeiture of certain chattels during his life. Hence, Means concludes, if a man suffered no forfeiture where he caused a child to die in its mother's womb, abortion must not have been a misprision at common law. Stanford's comments were relied upon and repeated verbatim by Dalton (1648) - Mean's second authority. The problem with Mean's hypothesis, however, is that the cases Stanford was treating of nowhere state that the accused would suffer no forfeiture or, for that matter, other punishment. Wittingly or unwittingly, Stanford merely slipped that assertion into his text. From there it was picked up by Dalton. Apart from Means, no other commentators or cases appear to have given it any credit. For Means thus to have seized upon so flimsy an authority to build his case for a common law liberty to abortion seems incredulous.
To what purpose did Coke cite these cases? Probably for the only proposition they confidently affirm - viz., that abortion was not murder or felony. To demonstrate the proposition that abortion was a great misprision Coke appears to have relied upon the following statement, which he also cited, written by Bracton in the 13th century:
If there be anyone who strikes a pregnant woman or gives her a poison whereby he causes an abortion, if the fetus be already formed or animated, and especially if it be animated, he commits homicide. Bracton, The Laws and Customs of England, III,ii,4
Apparently Coke took Bracton's use of the term "homicide" to mean some lesser form of that offense than murder - a conclusion shared by Blackstone who construed Bracton to signify manslaughter.
Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as a infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. for if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor. I Blackstone, Commentaries 125,126
To Blackstone, Coke, and Bracton may be added Hawkins, Hale, and Fleta - all who reported that abortion was an offense at common law - in addition to a goodly number of cases stating as much in dicta. Means, on the other hand, cites only two obscure authors and cases - neither of which so much as actually state abortion was not a criminal offense. That the court in Roe v. Wade would thus place any stock at all in Mean's article only serves to demonstrate how far it was willing to reach to justify a desired result.
But there is another aspect of the court's justification of its decision in Roe v Wade that belies its duplicity. Even if it could be shown that abortion was never firmly established as a common law offense, this would not justify the conclusion that medieval society deemed it an indifferent act, escaping all punishment. As already noted, Christianity was part of the laws of England. Hence, for the better part of the history of the English people, Britain's national institutions included both secular and ecclesiastical courts and laws, as did most of Europe. Many offenses punishable today were not cognizable at common law. For example, incest, adultery, fornication, prostitution, and sodomy were left to ecclesiastical authorities to punish and deal with. Abortion was also at least nominally among this number. For enforcement of the judgement and sentence of the ecclesiastical courts the king's law afforded final assistance and sanction: an individual excommunicated by the court Christian, and refusing for forty days to submit to the fine, humiliation, whipping, or other penance imposed, could be arrested and imprisoned at the instance of the bishop upon supplication to the king's court. It has even been suggested that this is the significance of Paul's statement to the Corinthians (I Cor.5:5) that they should "deliver such a one unto Satan" i.e., where a man refused to repent, he was to be excommunicated and accused to secular authorities. In any event, that punishment of abortion among the number of secular, common law crimes may never have been firmly established therefore should neither surprise nor alarm us. As we have seen, the law of Moses nowhere included abortion among the number of crimes falling within the ambit of the lex talionis, but left it to ecclesiastical authorities to deal with. That medieval society should have grown up along similar lines seems natural given Christianity's place in the development and civilization of our forebears. Hence, given that the ecclesiastical arm of medieval governments punished illicit abortion, and this without regard to quickening, what need was there for secular authorities to punish it also? Indeed, it is not until the influence of England's established church began to wane that the secular arm of the government found it necessary to address the offense. The preamble to the 1803 legislation, 43 Geo 3, c 58, England's first abortion statute, thus recites "no adequate means have hitherto been provided for the prevention and punishment of such offenses." Hence, abortion had always been an offense, it simply happens that it typically fell in the first instance to the jurisdiction of the canon, rather than the common law courts. For the Court in Roe v. Wade to have thus focused exclusively upon how the common law courts dealt with abortion was selective at best, dishonest at worst. The excesses of a former age that reduced the Christian church to a mere courtesan and consort of kings may well recommend the wisdom of our forebears to withhold official endorsement to a particular denomination among those professing Christ, but should offer no impediment or objection to insisting that God's word and judgments be given their proper place among our national institutions. The court in another place has ruled that there is no constitutional right to commit homosexual sodomy, yet this too was originally an offense left to the courts Christian to punish. That in case of abortion it should thus find a right to commit such acts with impunity only serves to show that its decisions are couched more in terms of being politically correct than historically consistent and forthright. In fine, the court was merely looking for a pretext to justify its legalization of that which had been a crime in Anglo-American jurisprudence from time out of mind.
But whether the common law or, for that matter, ecclesiastical law in Europe and England punished abortion and, if so, how, perhaps begs the issue. The question for Christians must be how God viewed the offense. If the severity of the punishment is any indication, abortion was a crime of grave proportions under the laws revealed to Moses. As neither God nor the substantive nature of the offense have changed, it cannot be but that illicit abortion still stands squarely condemned. Hence, to restore society's collective abhorrence for the act and assess its punishment appropriately must be the immediate task of all that fear God and would seek his blessing upon their native land. As with Blackstone, may it one day be said again that "Christianity is part of the laws of America."
[1]Apparently, Jerome was of a similar opinion and rendered the Hebrew accordingly:
"si rixati fuerint viri et percusserit quis mulierem praegnantem et abortivum quidem fecerit sed ipsa vixerit subiacebit damno quantum expetierit maritus mulieris et arbitri iudicarint sin autem mors eius fuerit subsecuta reddet animam pro anima oculum pro oculo dentem pro dente manum pro manu pedem pro pede"
[2]/ That Philo, an Alexandrian Jew schooled in the learning and philosophy of the Greeks, should refer to an infant in ventre sa mere as a "plant," suggests Aristotle's formula of "vegetable, animal, rational" may well have influenced his thinking on this score. (cf., De Congressu Quaerenae Eruditionis Studies, sec.138.)
[3]Jewish tradition has it that Isaac was born in the seventh month. Hence, according to the legand, children born in the seventh month survive out of deference to Isaac whereas those born in the eighth month succomb. (See generally, Pseudo Philo 23:8.)
[4]According to Pseudo Philo Deut. 22:6 was taken in reference to woman and child, not a dam and her young. (Ps. Philo 53:10.)

Public Education Vs. Christian Home Education

2009-10-31T12:20:00.000-07:00

The Public Schools--
It's Advantages (In Sarcasm):
1. Poor spelling, grammar, math, history, literature/reading, and phonetics
2. Peer Pressure
3. Lack of Attention to the Child
4. Influence of bead manners, language, music, clothes, and personality
5. Element of crime...
6. Drugs
7.Violence
8. Bribery
9. Teen Pregnancy
10. Abuse of each other
11. Education in/of homosexuality
12. Youth-suicide
13. Fornication

I'm not saying some of the stuff in that package does not come in a homeshcool home--but in a truly Christian Homeschool Home, I highly doubt such stuff can be on the list.
Yes, Homeschools don't have a lot of recess--not a huge social environment, or all the great experiments for science--but you don't have to have all that--or at least in that excess.
There are, hopefully, homeschool groups in your area, which will organize field trips, and play days, and provide social activities for your kids...but really...
ARE your children's social life of their salvation more important?!
Also--their basic structure of moral standards--the foundation on which their future lives will influence how they make decisions society...their ideals on freedom, prosperity, industry, independence, self-sufficiency, godliness, home, family, marriage--EVERYTHING.
Schools can teach some things--but math and grammar isn't going to mean very much to their moral and ethical knowledge.
This fundamental knowledge that is missing is God's Word...and it is missing everywhere--our schools, government, the home, in America--it is excluded abominably.
If we can't acquire it any other way but though the Christian parents--how will it be obtained if they send their children to a Public School?
"Oh, we send them to church." is the excuse.
Shockingly, the churches remain alarmingly silent about this shameful situation the society of today has become. The church's members are insulted! Why would the coward preacher risk his job? If Christian education and morals are now only in the home--then quarantine the kids!
Of we want to save society--we must start at home...by home educating, teaching proper women's roles in the home, men's roles as the godly leaders for the home--and God being Lord of the home.

Feminism has benifitted Women in only a Negative Way

2009-10-31T09:12:00.000-07:00

Feminism has only encouraged stress and destruction of the home.
Did Feminism Benefit Men more than Women? Prominent US Feminist Asks
By Hilary WhiteOctober 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an Op Ed in the New York Times, leading US feminist Maureen Dowd has expressed her surprise that recent research continues to find that women, who may have been economically "emancipated" by the feminist revolution, are more unhappy now, forty years later, than men. Calling it a "paradox" that women may have thrown off the aprons, Dowd wrote, "But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved. Did the feminist revolution end up benefiting men more than women?" Dowd, a journalist and regular columnist for the New York Times, is known as one of the last of the old-school radical feminists, and is the author of the book "Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide".Dowd's Op Ed follows a report by Time Magazine showing that despite increased economic opportunities, limit-free "reproductive choice" and easy divorce, men are more happy overall than women in the US. Women, Dowd said, are being "driven to distraction" by maintaining both their status as mothers and wives while at the same time maintaining high-powered careers. Citing several different researchers, Dowd said that a big part of the problem is children. "One area of extreme distraction is kids," she wrote. But an even bigger threat to women's happiness, she said, is the natural instinct of women for forging strong emotional bonds and relationships. "They tend to attach to other people more strongly, beat themselves up more when they lose attachments, take things more personally at work and pop far more antidepressants."In the Time piece, Nancy Gibbs says that the magazine's research showed that although women have "gained more freedom, more education and more economic power," the study found that "they have become less happy". Since Time did a piece on feminist gains in the early 1970s, Gibbs wrote, "close to half of law and medical degrees go to women...half the Ivy League presidents are women, and two of the three network anchors soon will be; three of the four most recent Secretaries of State have been women. There are more than 145 foundations designed to empower women around the world."But women are still saying they are not happy compared to men, according to the surveys, and are suffering more than men in the financial downturn. The mysterious "paradox" of modern, emancipated, contracepting and high-achieving women is not so mysterious to some. Gibbs writes that among the "most confounding" changes is the evidence "that as women have gained more freedom, more education and more economic power, they have become less happy". "No tidy theory explains the trend."Gibbs herself points to an answer, saying, "Among the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the detachment of marriage and motherhood" and that women "no longer view matrimony as a necessary station on the road to financial security or parenthood".She notes the leap in the numbers of children born to single women (from 12 per cent to 39 per cent) and notes that while "a majority of children in the mid-1970s were raised by a stay-at-home parent, the portion is now less than a third".But Albert Mohler, commenting in a column, followed the evidence, saying, "The big question raised by these studies is this: Has feminism produced unhappiness among women? That question is inescapable when seen in light of the historical context."Mohler is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a board member of Focus on the Family and hosts a Christian radio talk show that discusses social issues. He quotes Gail Collins, who wrote in her book "When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present," that the achievements of women "did not resolve the tensions of trying to raise children and hold down a job at the same time"."Sadly," Mohler writes, "most feminists seem incapable, given their ideological commitments, of asking the hardest questions."In reality, feminism was never only about opening doors for women. In order to make the case for the vast social transformation that feminism has produced, the feminist movement aspired to nothing short of a total social, moral, and cultural revolution. Along the way, feminism redefined womanhood, marriage, motherhood, and the roles for both men and women."