IBL00 - Introduction to Institutes of Biblical Law

View Details

IBL07: Seventh Commandment

Uncovering the Springs Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Lesson: 15-20

Genre: Talk

Track: 68

Dictation Name: RR130AK68

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Our scripture is Leviticus 20:18, and Ezekiel 18:5-9. Uncovering the Springs. Leviticus 20:18, and Ezekiel 18:5-9.

Leviticus 20:18 “18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.”

Ezekiel 18:5-9 “5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,

6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour’s wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;

8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,

9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.”

One of the problems today in the church is that an unholy prudery has kept the church from dealing with many laws. Add to this an unbelief, an anti-nomianism, whereby the laws are regarded no longer as valid. The law that concerns us today is an example of one of these neglected laws. Now obviously this law deals with something significant. The law here, several times in the Books of Moses, in Leviticus 20:18 which we read, in chapter 18:19, and chapter 15:24, there is a reference also to it in Ezekiel 18:5-9 and again in Ezekiel 22:10. Much of Leviticus 15 deals with the same subject or aspects of it.

First of all the law, to cite it briefly, forbids sexual relations with a menstruous woman for a period of seven days, or with a woman who has not fully recovered from child birth. If the relations, that is with a menstruous woman are done unknowingly, there is no moral penalty, merely purification. If deliberate, then excommunication is the penalty. This offense is listed as one of those, according to Leviticus that pollutes the land, which leads to a sickened land and a revolt of nature around man.

Now obviously this commandment is an important one in scripture because it appears repeatedly, and because particular stress is laid upon it in Ezekiel, and because it is cited as one of those things which pollutes the world round about us. It has therefore, something to do with our attitude towards the entire world, that when you find this you also find simultaneously a destruction of the world of nature.

Now as we analyze this first, rather briefly, it is very clear first of all that this act is classified as an aggressive act, it is willful. Second as we have already pointed out, it is an act which pollutes the land. The Bible holds there is a relationship between man and nature. Third, an aspect cited by Ezekiel in Ezekiel 22:10 is that it is an act of perversity, that there is a deliberate perversity about it. On this last point, I think there is abundant conformation. In my own personal experience counseling people over the years I have found that this is an aspect of perversity, that very often a man will insist upon if it is repellent to the woman, or the woman will insist upon it if it is repellent to the man. In other words, its appeal is precisely its offensiveness.

Now, the text literally read: “Uncovered her fountain” Or exposed her fountain, or she hath exposed the fountain of her blood. Now what does this mean, literally? Fountain can be translated, our usage for the word fountain is an artificial one representing the construction of fountains in relatively modern times as well as in ancient Rome. But in the Old Testament times a fountain was a natural spring, a natural source of living water. It is very interesting to note that the word fountain is also, or ‘spring’, the same word in scripture as ‘Eye’ the eyes of a man. It is used symbolically also of God. It is also used symbolically as a source of grace; also used of Israel as the Father of his people; of a good wife, she is spoken of as a spring or an eye whereby a man has living water, or you can also say, a greater vision. His sight is increased by a Godly wife.

Now in our text it obviously has both a literal and a symbolic meaning. A fountain is a source, a place on earth where living water comes forth. Now of course in the literal sense this obviously has an analogy to the woman’s ovulation. Now what is its symbolic meaning? Why is the law stressed so heavily in scripture?

First, to analyze the implications of this law so we can understand its symbolic meaning. This law places the woman beyond the man’s use for a regular period of time. Regularly. Similarly the woman cannot submit or commit herself to a man without limits or without reservation. In other words, man is Gods creature. God is the ultimate fountain of life. Man cannot transgress in any area, because every area of life is to be seen in terms of God and His word. Man’s lordship is under God.

This means that a man cannot exercise unreserved lordship over anyone or anything, nor can anyone permit unreserved lordship over him or her. Thus in everything there is a private domain, a domain that is exclusive between the individual and God. An area where man cannot trespass; and this private domain belongs to God, and every other domain is subject to Gods control.

Very obviously therefore, no man can thus make a woman his creature, or any woman make herself man’s creature, the relationship is covered by Gods law, and we cannot go further than Gods law.

Gods law, in other words, does not permit the transgression of the privacy of another person. Our relationship, even in the intimacy of marriage, is always under law. So that it is never subject to our feelings, but only to Gods word. We can never use ourselves or one another in terms of our desires, but always subject to Gods law; because our fountains are in God. God is the source of our life. He alone therefore has total right and power to unrestricted knowledge, unrestricted use, and unrestricted jurisdiction over us.

No man can claim that right without striking at God. No matter how deeply we love someone therefore, we can never have a total relationship with them. We cannot enter totally into their life. Only God can have a total relationship with us. God knows everything about us, every thought, every fiber of our being, the very hairs of our head, we are told, are all numbered. God has this total access, this total government over our lives. But this law declares that not only are there actual physical limits to the relationship between man and wife, but that symbolically there is a relationship bounded by law at all times, so that no one can have a total relationship with anyone else. Ultimately and essentially we are always the Lords. We can never totally belong to anyone else, or have a total relationship with another.

Now consider the implications of this law. As I indicated, this law obviously has a symbolic content. Very obviously it is important and has far reaching implications. These implications have been lost because for untold generations people have just foolishly walked around this law, and read it and passed on without thinking. But consider its implications. If a man feels that he has total relationship with his wife or a woman with her husband, the total right of use of one another, then certainly in other areas they are going to feel that they have a total right of use, are they not? They can use nature as they will. So that a person who feels he can use, say his wife, or a wife who feels that she can put herself at the use of her husband totally, is going to feel no restraint as they approach he world of nature. Nature is there just to be used, to be exploited. And so there is no law governing or restricting our use of the world around us. We can uncover the springs, the fountains of nature, lay it waste, because we are the Lords thereof, without reservation. That is the attitude that follows.

And we should not be surprised therefore, that when Gods law is despised, nature is despised. And today we have the radical exploitation of nature that is leading to the destruction of the world around us.

It is interesting that when the atomic age began, the atomic scientists were fully aware of how radical the pollution of the world could be from fallout. And how it could, in a couple of generations create a devastating problem. They knew it, and they went ahead saying: “When that time comes we will think of something.” In other words, ‘uncover the springs of life. Use and abuse them, as total lords’.

Another implication of this law. If man and wife have no right to total claim over one another, or total knowledge or relationships with one another, then certainly the state has no right to total knowledge over its citizens, nor total obedience from them, nor total jurisdiction over them. We are creatures of God, only. Not of the state, nor of one another. But it is characteristic of ungodly man, that he seeks to use man in terms of his own will rather than Gods law.

We saw earlier the military laws of scripture, some few months ago. The very real restraints they place on man’s ability to use his enemy, and also to use nature. No permission even to destroy the fruit trees of the enemy. But, what happens when this attitude disappears? In the Thirty Years War for example, Germany was devastated in a radical way. The absolute horrors of that war are staggering. In the Thirty Years War, both sides felt that they could destroy not only whole cities and villages, orchards, vineyards, everything, level them; but that they could use men as they saw fit. And so it became a popular pastime on both sides during the Thirty Years War, to take the farmers and peasants and the villagers as soon as they captured them, and to geld the men in the presence of their wives and daughters, and then to have a massive rape of them. This was great sport. And this kind of thing has happened through the ages; whenever a (?) or a man feels that there is no God over him to govern him. And this is why we are today on the verge of total lawlessness again, because man is throwing off the yokes of Gods law, the restraints of Gods law, and feels that he can do as he pleases.

For example. to cite another instance of the kind of total control men feel they have; Louis the 14th when he wanted to break the back of the Huguenots in France, quartered his troops on them. Now the troops in those days were usually the lowest kinds of people. The dregs of society. Even the French dreaded to see their army, just as the English did, to see their own army move into their area because the troops were so lawless. And to quarter the troops on the families meant that it was to commit the women of a household to the use of the man with a gun who was stationed on them. Our history books no longer say much about it, but can you understand why the Americans resented the quartering of troops on them by Parliament? If that alone was not grounds for war, then I don’t know what it right and wrong. But the textbooks pass over this now. Of course it doesn’t mean much to the historians in this modern day and age, because anything goes.

God places a restraint on man in every area by His law. It is to Napoleons credit that whatever his sins were, at this point where warfare was concerned he had a Godly respect for the enemy. On one occasion he sentenced to death one of his top officers, because when stationed in a certain area he wrote an insulting letter to one of the citizens of that area making unreasonable demands, and insulting demands. And as he gave the sentence, he said to the entire assembled officers of his army: “Understand this gentlemen. One kills men, but one never puts them to shame. Let him be shot.” It took the persuasion of his general staff to lead him to alter that order. There was a sound perspective there that we must respect in Napoleon, whatever his other sins were.

Thus this law is important. It means that the relationship even in the intimacy of marriage, the most personal, the most intense relationship on this earth, is severely restricted by Gods law. That no man can claim total jurisdiction over a woman or a woman give herself totally to a man. That this area is an area of privacy that is reserved to the individual under God, even as the rest of our lives is subject to the law of God.

Scripture gives us no power to go further than it allows. If a husband and a wife can go no further, neither than cant he church which has so often in the past and in the present attempted to transgress; nor the state, nor the school today which is entering into domains where it has no jurisdiction, nor anyone else. It is wickedness when they seek to do so.

No person, no institution can ever claim any jurisdiction beyond that which scripture allows. We are at all times under Gods law, never directly under mans will. Let us pray.

Almighty God our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto Thee for the certainty of Thy law. We thank Thee that Thy law puts a hedge around us and protects us from ourselves, from our loved ones and our enemies, from all things. And we thank Thee that those who transgress Thy law are under Thy judgement, and that Thy deliverance is nigh unto Thy people. In this confidence our Father we face these days of lawlessness, knowing oh Lord that Thy judgement is sure, Thy deliverance certain, and Thy grace aboundeth. Our God we thank Thee, in Jesus name, amen.

Are there any questions now first of all with respect to our lesson? Yes?

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] You are right in that going to the moon they had to go in terms of Gods law. They were bound by it at all times. But of course in going there, what they were trying to do is to overthrow Gods law, and this is the whole purpose of their attempt here. It’s a vast boondoggle, because it has no practical consequences, by government and science in an attempt to prove that evolution is true and there is no God. But as you have so well pointed out, all they have done is to illustrate that every point they are bounded by law. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] Yes. And it is ironic that even as they must operate in terms of physical principles and laws, they work to deny that any such thing exists. The most influential work today in University circles among scientists is a work by Dr. Coon who insists that there is no such thing as law, there are only paradigms, ideas and concepts which work for a while, and then you find our they are false so you pick up another thing that will work for a while, but there is no such thing as truth, no law. This is a luxury they can afford when they lecture, not when they work in the laboratory, ideas like this. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] Yes, I did comment on it a few weeks ago, and the gist of the whole law is that there is no guilt. And if there is no guilt, there is no innocence either. And of course the whole purpose of the law then is to break down the integrity of marriage, it is just a matter of choice to break up the marriage, and the guilt not being designated, and no attempt being made in the hearing to discover a guilt, the disposition of the children is purely arbitrary, which is an exceedingly serious fact.

If there are no further questions I would like to pass on something to you connected with what our subject was last week when we dealt with homosexuality. Since then there has been another little item in Ann Landers column which is revealing of her attitude. “Confidential to heartbroken mother of a boy with a twisted mind. Yes I recommend psychiatric help, not for him but for you. Your son has learned to live with his homosexuality, in facts he seems to have adjusted fairly well. Now you must learn to accept him how he is and stop torturing yourself.”

This of course puts the finger on what modern psychotherapy is. It has no sense of right and wrong, you learn to live with what you are, and to accept it because there is no right and wrong. And so, what is wrong? (if we can use that word, because they can’t escape the concept) Why, it is the mother here, because she is distressed at her sons perversion. And of course whether she knows it not she is here echoing the thesis of a letter Freud wrote many, many years ago to a mother who wrote in considerable anguish about her sons homosexuality. And he rebuked her for her feelings, and said that ‘Her son could be helped.’ How? ‘He would learn to accept himself.’ And that was the purpose of psychoanalysis. And therein of course is its great evil.

One little footnote to our subject of last week, homosexuality, the most interesting thing to me was the reaction. Both here and in the past in the evenings there are many children and young people from pre-teen age to college age who listen. There were for the first time a number of comments from them last week. It was startling how many of them talked to me after the meeting to tell me, that this was a problem on the school grounds and off the school grounds of considerable dimensions. Some of the college students said that they were aggressively solicited by card-carrying perverts, who very proudly flashed the cards of their organization, and threatened people, so that they were very glad to hear a subject that has never been discussed before in any religious group. It was a start to me to realize how many of them had extensive knowledge of the subject from very aggressive actions on school grounds and off the school grounds as well. It does indicate how serious our present situation is.

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] The, oh, the war in Ireland. The war in Ireland, about the most I can say for it is a plague on both their sides. I think the people on both sides who are involved in this are hoodlums. I have no use for the Reverend Mr. Paisley, I think he is a trouble maker, and his associations in this country with certain of our leaders are not ones I have any respect for; now supposedly what they are afraid of, the protestants so-called there, is that in Union with Ireland if such a Union is ever affected, the protestant minority will suffer. While the reality is that there are Irelands in the rest of Ireland, and there is no persecution of them. The real issues go deeper. The background of the problem in Ireland is not religious as much as it is between different branches of the same racial group. Both the Scotch and the Irish are Gaelic in background. Now the people of North Ireland are predominately what is called Scotch Irish; the Scotch-Irish are Scottish settlers who some few centuries ago were brought in by the English. These Scotch-Irish settlers have no desire to be a part of the rest of Ireland, the rest of Ireland feels very strongly the Ireland should again be united, and be free as an entire unity. This is the real basis of conflict, and I think this is the background and the façade under which the religious aspect masquerades itself, because some religious exploiters are using the situation. This is the real problem, there are many Irish men from the rest of Ireland that are in North Ireland which is an industrial area working, and naturally they are for union, and the Scotch Irish element is very hostile to it. They want to maintain their unity with Great Britain.

Of course, you can add to the situation and the problem now that the Scots in Scotland are increasingly in favor of independence, and the Welsh in Wales. So Great Britain has its problems, and many of them are of its own making through singular disrespect for these groups. I think the Scotch in particular were offended when Elizabeth was crowned, and she insisted on taking the name Elizabeth the 2nd, but she is not as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, she is Elizabeth the 2nd of England, but Elizabeth the 1st of the United Kingdom. But she in effect said: “Scotland doesn’t matter.” And of course this, the climax of a long period of contempt as it were for Scotland and Wales, as though the only part of the United Kingdom that counts is England itself. So, it has a long, involved history, And I have barely scratched the surface.

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] Well, of course the reason for that appeal is to get the sympathy of the Irish in the United States. There is a long history of appeals to the United States on the part of Ireland. When the Civil War broke out we had a fair sized Irish population, and one of the little known aspects of the Civil war that at the time created a lot of tension with Great Britain, was that Union agents were apparently in Ireland recruiting soldiers. ‘Come over to the United States and fight and get you citizenship.’ And the Irish were ready to do it, and did it in considerable numbers, although some Irish fought on the side of the South, because they wanted the military experience so that they could then go back to Ireland and fight the English.

There is a long as I say, and involved history in this connection that led to a lot of trouble. One of the attempts after the Civil War was on the part of the Irish who had gained military experience, to invade Canada from the United States, and they actually organized towards that end, so that the British would be forced to send troops to Canada, and meanwhile there would be a revolution in Ireland.

I give this as a background, it is a long involved history, and the United States because of its Irish population has always been important to Irish politics. And when there is a speech either in North Ireland or Ireland proper, there is usually a great deal of it said with an eye on the United States. There are more Irish in New York for example then there are in Dublin, so when you consider the Irish population of the United States, the Irish politicians on both sides talk with the American patriots in mind. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] There was an oral revelation to Adam and Eve at the beginning, so they obviously had a knowledge of the law quite extensively. We do know that they observed for example, the distinction between clean and unclean animals, we do know that they observed a number of other laws and regulations, so that they appeared for example in the early and later chapters of Genesis before the law was given. So that, a very large amount of the law was apparently known by people at that time orally. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] No, that had reference to the average lifetime then.

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] Yes, there is an obvious abnormality about man’s lifespan, because the lifespan of most mammals can be very simply computed; you take the period of their maturity, multiply it by five and add it on to their period of maturation. So that if an animal takes a year to mature, then it has 6 years as a lifespan. Well, man’s period of maturation is roughly 20 years, so he should live approximately 120, in terms of this kind of computing. And obviously mans lifespan is radically shorter.

In the world before the flood, man did have a very long lifespan. After the flood it began to drop very steadily, and some 15-20 years ago a statistician took a chart of this and he said; (I don’t know enough about statistics even though I took a course in statistical method) That in terms of an exponential curve this was a valid curve, indicating that the facts were true facts. Until man’s lifespan became what it is today. Now Isaiah declares that the time will come again when under a Godly world order, when the sinner dies at a hundred he will be accounted to have died young. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] Yes, the law against the use of pork of course is very definitely and very firmly stated in scripture. And we know that the law has a sound background, because I saw a list once of over 200 diseases that can be communicated through Pork. The prohibition is firm, it is there. Now, in the New Testament we are told that while there is a difference now in our relationship to these regulations, they are there as a principle of health. That while, we are no longer bound to abide by them in the sense that we cannot eat with another person who uses pork, and Paul and Peter when they went around, in their personal diet they maintained the dietary law of the Old Testament, but they never made it an issue if they ate with another. So that if they were guests in those homes of other people, they ate their food including pork. This was no longer to be a principle of division because Christ is. However, they maintained it on the whole in their personal living. In the world round about them, pork was very heavily used.

Now, it is significant that there was a religious prohibition against pork in the Bible, but there was a religious requirement of pork in the world round about them. And this is a very significant fact, in other words it would appear that precisely because God had prohibited it, other people made it a requirement. In a sense to say religiously: “You see, this is where we stand on the whole matter.” And you find for example in some of the countries that the meat that was used for offerings at the temple had to be pork. So it was really a deliberate counter-offering as it were. I think the avoidance of pork is a good, sound, health principle as well as a good requirement of scripture.

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] There are those who claim that it is the meat that most readily communicates, even with extensive cooking, other ailments. I don’t know, I have no confidence in this area. I do know that it is listed as something like beasts of prey that is forbidden to us, it is a scavenger animal, and scavenger animals are forbidden. That is the principle.

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] No, chickens are not because of certain aspects of their digestive tract. You see.

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] Not in the same sense, and they are brain-eating also, to a great degree.

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] One thing more and our time is up. A few months ago our newsletter, or the Chalcedon Report, was written by Gary North with an introduction by myself, dealing with the college student movement, and in particular Gary North reported on the (Yacks?) conference at Long Beach. A conference at which the anarchistic element predominated, in which the backslide of anarchism was flaunted. Now, at the conference because of the kickback, and the opposition that many adults who were present, the (Yack?) claimed that it was not a (Yack?) conference, they disowned it. Now that the dust has settled it is interesting to see that they are again calling it a (Yack?) conference. They made their explanations to every big contributor to (Yack?) they have smoothed all ruffled feathers. And this week I received a letter, a form letter from California Young Americans for Freedom signed by the executive director, commending Rampart College, and stating: “Rampart college has become our main arsenal supplying this weapon which is so crucial in the fight for freedom.” And it goes on to speak of Mr. (La Favor?) and also the important part he and Rampart played in setting up the conference June 16-18. So now they are boasting of their part.

If anything this proves that they lack elementary honesty. Because first they put on a conference, and when there is a kick back they say they have nothing to do with it, and now they are boasting of their part in the conference. So, they are appealing here for funds in their fight for freedom. Well, how much freedom can liars gain for us? Yes?

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] Yes, and (Hess?) and Rothbart feel that the two good student organizations are (YAP?) and SDS.

[Audience Member] …?…

[Rushdoony] I don’t know. I do know that ISI, the other supposedly conservative student organization is no better, in fact if anything it is more anarchistic. I’d say that the only reason that (Hess?) has not given his approval of that is that he is not one of the anarchists who is leading that group. Well, with that our time is up.

View Details

IBL06: Sixth Commandment

Abortion Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Genre: Speech

Track: 39

Dictation Name: RR130V39

Location/Venue: ________

Year: 1960’s-1970’s.

Our scripture is Exodus 21:22-25. Exodus 21:22-25. The subject, abortion.

Exodus 21:22 through 25.

“22 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.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

The subject of abortion is not a pleasant one. But if we were only to deal from the pulpit and from scripture with that which is pleasant we would very quickly abdicate our Christian state. We are to deal with what God requires rather than that which pleases us. Now, abortion, the destruction of the human embryo or fetus has long been regarded by biblical standards as murder, but it is significant that in recent years this stance has been radically altered.

We are very thoroughly familiar with the fact that the liberals both within Protestantism and the roman catholic church have very extensively compromised on the subject, and are ready to grant the so called right to abortion. The sad fact is, that even within evangelical circles the compromise is very deep. For example, Christianity Today a major evangelical publication which represent the Billy Graham perspective –in fact, one of the moving forces behind it is Graham’s father in-law– had an article in the November 8, 1968 issue. This article was written, again very significantly, by Waltkey[?] of the Dallas Theological seminary.

This man’s perspective is antinomian, premillennial, dispensationalists. In this article he declares that abortion is permissible in terms of scripture. Now this is inflamed defiance of our text and of the sixth commandment. The historic grounds from the days of the old testament to the present has been the sixth commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill, and the text which we read. Let us look at that text again as given in a very modern legally precise translation by Casuto[?]. “When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child and her children come forth but no mischief happens, that is the woman and the children do not die, the one who hurt her shall surely be punished by a fine. But, if any mischief happens, that is if the woman dies or one of the children dies, then you shall give life for life.” It should be noticed that children is given in the plural because this is a legal statement to cover not only a child but multiple birth[s] as well.

Now let us analyse this law. Remembering that this is case law under the general principle thou shalt not kill. Remembering further that case law gives a minimal case and declares that from this minimal case if it is true here it is certainly true elsewhere. Thus this has legal implications which from the days of Moses through the early church to the present have been realized. Now first of all in this case cited, we do not have deliberate abortion. It is accidental. Two men are fighting and they fall against the woman who is pregnant and she aborts or delivers later prematurely.

This then, is a minimal case! It covers any type of case that might ensue from an accident. This entered into legal statutes all over the world; for example, in Boston just very recently there was a case in which a child was born prematurely as the result of an accident when a truck struck a car in which Mrs. [unintelligible name] was a passenger, and she won a case against the trucking company because of that. In terms of this principle which has entered into our law. Thus even in the event of an accidental abortion there is liability! There is still a crime, a legal offense. Second, this means that if there is a penalty for even accidental abortion and the penalty is death if the child be born dead, how much more is this true without possibility of exception in an induced abortion? This is of course the principle of the minimal case illustrating everything in an area.

Now third, a point that is very obvious here is that even if there be no injury to the woman or the fetus, still the man is liable to a fine and must be fined. It’s stipulated as mandatory. Now again this sets forth something of considerable importance. The law clearly protects pregnant woman and the embryo so that every pregnant woman has, in terms of biblical law, a strong hedge of law around her. For since even a mother bird with eggs or young is covered by the law, according to Deuteronomy 22 verses 6 and 7. It is clear that any tampering with the fact of birth is forbidden except where required or permitted by God’s law.

Now this legislation against abortion is unique in world history. There is nothing to compare with it outside of scripture and those legal codes which have been influenced by the Bible. It is true that occasionally you do find in some cultures laws against abortion, but they are not against abortion in principle! For example, in the Roman empire there were laws against abortion, but it was not that abortion was bad it was only a crime if and when a woman defrauded her husband of an heir, by means of abortion. Only then.

Perhaps most revealing of the attitude outside of scripture is the statement that we find in Plato and in Aristotle. These are so typical of the attitude of all pagan antiquity and of the modern world that it is well worth reading what Socrates says in Plato’s republic. And I quote: “I should make it a rule for women to bear children to the state from her twentieth year to her fortieth year. And for a man after getting over the sharpest burst in the race of life, henceforth to beget children to the state until he is fifty-five years old. If then, a man with either above or under this age shall meddle with the business of begetting children for the commonwealth, we shall declare his act to be an offense against religion and justice inasmuch as he is raising up a child for the state, who should detection be avoided instead of having been begotten under the sanction of those sacrifices and prayers which are to be offered up at every marriage ceremonial by priests and priestesses and the whole city to the effect that the children to be born may ever be more virtuous and more useful than their virtuous and useful parents who have been conceived under cover of darkness by the aid of dire incontinent.

The same law will hold, should a man who is still of age to be a father meddle with a woman who is also of the proper age without the introduction of the magistrate, we shall accuse him of raising up to the state an illegitimate unsponsored and unhallowed child. But as soon as the woman and the man are past the prescribed age we shall allow the latter I imagine to associate freely with whomsoever they please, so that it be not a daughter or a mother or a daughter’s child or grandmother. And in like manner we shall permit the woman to associate with any man except a son or a father or one of their relations in the direct line, ascending of descending, but only after giving them strict orders to do their best if possible to prevent any child happily so conceived from seeing the light. But if they cannot sometimes be helped to dispose of the infant on the understanding that the fruit of such a union is not to be reared.

‘That too is a reasonable plan, but how are they to distinguish fathers and daughters and the relations you described just now, since all the children are reared by the state? How are they to know which is their daughter or their father?’ Not at all, I replied, only all the children that are born between the 7’th and 10’th month from the day on which one of their number was married, are to be called by him if male, his sons, if female, his daughters. And they shall call him father and their children he shall call his grandchildren. These again shall call him and his fellow bridegrooms and brides grandfathers and grandmothers. Likewise, all shall regard as brother and sisters those that were born in the same period in which their own fathers and mothers were bringing them into the world.

And as we said just now, all these shall refrain from touching one another, but the law will allow intercourse between brothers and sisters if the lot chances to fall back that way and if the delegated priestess also gives her sanction.”

Now, this is substantially what Aristotle said. This is substantially also what many of the modern so called reformers have in mind. What is the principle here? There is much reference here to religion and to marriage ceremonies, sacrifices and prayers. The principle of course is that the state is God. It is the ultimate order, it is the working God of the system. Therefore the state can order abortion, infanticide, and incest, whenever it so deems advisable. There is no law beyond the state, and whatever the state decrees is therefore ipso facto morally right. Total statism.

This was the world into which the early church moved. On all sides there was this total permissibility in so far as the state decreed it was advisable. But the church condemns abortion from the very beginning! From it’s earliest days. For example the apostolic constitutions declared “Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion nor kill back that which is begotten, for everything that is shaped and has received a soul from God if it be slain shall be avenged as being unjustly destroyed, according to Exodus 21:23.”

Tertullian[?} for example declared that “To hinder a birth is merely a kind of man killing, nor does it matter if you take away a life that is born or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one, you have the fruit already in the seed.” Thus very early the church took a stand, in fact it would take a sizable volume just to quote the various statements of the early church fathers and of the various church councils against abortion. It was declared to be murder.

This attitude prevailed until recent years, but the modern attitude has been increasingly permissive. Beginning in the latter half of the last century some scholars began to say that there was nothing ultimately wrong with abortion, that in fact the main reason for it was not sin or murder, but it was poverty. In fact, A. E. Crawley, a distinguished anthropologist of the last century and the beginning of this century maintained and I quote: “Often as not, the sole reason is poverty.” Unquote.

Havelock Ellis saw civilization as leading to a decrease in abortion as life became more rational and scientific, and he declared that “It was not a sin, but just a primitive remedy for economic distress and for reckless sexual behavior.” But abortions have not decreased but they have increased with the spread of rationalism and science.

As a matter of fact in 1946 there was the very startling I. Nesburns abortion case in San Francisco, and the records that there were seized at that time indicated a very startling fact. The annual birth at that time in San Francisco were approximately 1600, the annual abortions, 18,000. Since then the ratio has increased markedly in favor of abortions, and the various states that have liberalized abortion laws have not found any decrease as has been admitted within the past two or three weeks in the number of illegal abortions. With the 1960’s an extensive program was begun, to gain the so called woman’s right to abortion with the U.S. public health association leading the way in the campaign.

It was pointed out that in the soviet union it was legal and that much needs to done to bring us up to the times. The courts themselves had been leading the way in recognizing these so called rights. In recognizing this so called right. Just recently, in New York, Mrs. Robert Stewart won a case against a hospital when they refused her an abortion after she had had measles and the child was born defective. She won a very sizable award against the hospital, which demonstrates the direction the law is taking.

And yet, it is interesting that at the same time, studies in primitive societies and abortion in these societies has been most telling against abortion! Even though the scholars like Doctor George Deberiou who report these findings are not particularly favorable to the Christian perspective. According to Doctor Deberiou for example; in these primitive societies the purpose of abortion seems to be revenge against the father, hatred of responsibility– he quotes the {?} as saying “Children are a burden and we get tired of them. They destroy us.”–, as analog to suicide, as hatred of life and as hatred of men. And the motivation in very many cases is, he says, the preservation of beauty and the continued enjoyment of freedom and responsibility. And yet, interestingly enough Doctor deberiou has a chapter in this report on these primitive societies titled The Eschatology of the Fetus[?].

In other words, even these primitive societies believed that they are committing murder. And so they have various stories about the afterlife of these murdered ones. The situation today then is very, very critical, and very little attention is being paid to the objections that are being raised by some outstanding doctors. For example, a very important article which gains too little attention was written by doctor A.C. Midas of the U.C.L.A. medical schools together with his brother and published in the American Bar Association journal, and here is the resume of that article. They, the brothers, said: “Those who deplore the loss of five to ten thousand mothers annually in illegal abortions ignore the one million or more unborn children sacrificed in the process of this massive assault on human life. The brothers said that some persons would justify abortion in the case of unborn infants that would be born crippled or defective.

“Would any reputable doctor propose”, they said, “to try living cripples or mental or physical defectives? Incomparable ex parte proceedings…. start by eliminating senile parents, then the millions of blind persons. Move on to all who are bedridden, then those confined to wheelchairs, and finally those who use crutches. Proceed a gradually with a disposition of the millions who wear spectacles, who have braces, use hearing aids, are equipped with false feet, are too stout or too thin. Where draw the line between acceptable and the unacceptable of fitness?!” the Midas brothers asked. “No human being is perfect, would the world moreover really be a better place after the destruction of the millions of defective individuals? Has the world gained or lost from the services of the epileptic Michael Angelo or the deaf Edison, or the hunchback Stimeds[?], or the Roosevelt’s –both the asthmatic Theodore or the polio paralyzed Franklin–, it must be recognized abortion laws would logically be followed by {?} or legalized euthanization.

The attack on life is essentially the same.” they said. Unquote. And that of course is an excellent statement from a medical perspective of the Christian stance. Abortion places life under man and the state rather than under God. And the demand for abortion is antinomian to the core. It was very revealing that just this past week in New York when a legislative committee was holding hearings on the subject the meeting was broken up by a mob of young women. They entered, screeching and declaring they were tired of listening to men debate something that was a primary concern to women. And they shouted, what right to you men have to tell us whether we can or cannot have a child? Now that states the issue very, very tellingly.

What right? In other words, what these women were saying was that unless you could experience childbirth you have no right to legislate. Law is then derived from experience, and if you follow this to its logical conclusion then you must say no one who has not committed a murder has the right to legislate about murder. And those of us who have never thought of murder re disqualified then from legislating in this area. Only those who’ve experienced something then can legislate according to this perspective. Can anything be more deadly to law?

In other words the modern humanistic position says that the only ground for any law is experience. We began by citing someone writing in Christianity Today which is the Billy Graham voice more or less, who came from Dallas Theological Seminary, a premillennial dispensationalist school, saying that abortion is permissible and why not? Their perspective again is experience. Experiential religion, you have to have a revival experience or you’re not a Christian. In other words, the test is again experience; not the work, not the act, not the law of God! And wherever you shift things from the law word of God to experience, you become antinomian and you destroy everything.

So whether you are an open atheist –like these women– and leftist, or whether you are someone from Dallas Theological seminary or Christianity Today, when you shift the ground to experience you are anti God. We must say therefore, that men who cannot bear children can legislate concerning childbirth because the principle of law is not our experience but the law word of God. In this and in every realm. Let us pray.

Our Lord and our God we give thanks unto thee for our law word. And we pray our Father that in these days as men make an assault on and on the life of man in every domain, Thou wouldst make us strong in Thee that we may once again establish Godly law and order. Confound, we beseech thee, these wicked ones. And frustrated their endeavors, and use us mightily unto the end that we may reestablish this end on the foundation of thy word. Bless us to this purpose in Jesus name, Amen.

Are there any questions now? With respect to our lesson first of all. Yes?