Monthly Archives: January 2025

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, EXODUS

DOES EXODUS 21 ALLOW FOR ABORTION? — BOB PRICHARD

No. Exodus 21 is sometimes cited as evidence that the Bible allows for abortion. Some say that Exodus 21 allows for abortion because it suggests that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the life of the mother. This passage deals with accidental injury to a pregnant woman, while abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child. Exodus 21 actually teaches that the life of the mother and child are both protected by God’s laws.

Here is what Exodus 21:22-25 says: “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.”

Simply put, what the passage describes is a situation where men are fighting and during the fighting injure a pregnant woman [possibly an innocent bystander or one intervening to stop the fight]. If “her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow,” the man is fined, but “if any mischief follow,” then the more severe “life for life, eye for eye” punishment follows.

Some teach that “her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow” means that the mother has a miscarriage, and loses the child, which is punished with a fine. While “if any mischief follow” means that the woman herself dies or is severely injured. This explanation is not true to the text, or reason. Miscarriage is extremely traumatic to any mother.

What “her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow,” refers to is a premature birth, in which neither the mother or child suffers serious injury. How could the death of an unborn child be considered “no mischief”? The fine was imposed because of the threat to the life of the mother and child caused by the negligence of the fighting men. Some modern translators have inserted the word “miscarriage” in verse 22, the Hebrew word used in the text means birth, not miscarriage. [There is a different word for Hebrew word for miscarriage, which Moses used in Exodus 23:26, translated “cast their young” in the KJV]. Notice the clear meaning in the NIV: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she give birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows” (Exodus 21:22).

The phrase “if any mischief follow” (Exodus 21:23) does not make any distinction between the mother and the unborn child. The “life for life, eye for eye” law applied equally. In fact, if any distinction is being made between the mother and the child, the more natural understanding is that “if any mischief follow” applies more directly to the child than the mother, because the focus of the passage is on what happens when “the fruit” departs from the mother. Significantly, the law of Exodus 21:22-25 applied as harshly to the accidental death or injury of the unborn child as it does to the intentional death or injury of any other innocent person. Exodus 21 upholds the value of innocent life. Abortion destroys innocent life.

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, SALVATION

CAN A SAVED PERSON EVER SO SIN TO LOSE HIS SOUL? — BOB PRICHARD

The doctrine that once a person is saved, he can never be lost, is usually referred to as the “doctrine of eternal security,” or the “impossibility of apostasy.” This doctrine comforts many, but it is contrary to the scriptures. Several Bible characters fell away.

Demas faithfully served with Paul. Paul wrote, “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you” (Colossians 4:14), but then later wrote to Timothy, “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica” (2 Timothy 4:10). Not only did Demas forsake Paul, but we understand that he forsook the Lord as well, “having loved this present world” too much.

Philip converted Simon the Sorcerer at Samaria, and even baptized him (Acts 8:13), but then Simon sought to buy the ability to give the spiritual gifts. Peter warned him, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:22-23). Simon risked his soul for earthly riches and prestige. Surely he would have been lost if he did not follow Peter’s command to repent.

What about Judas Iscariot? When he betrayed Christ, not one of the other disciples suspected him. They certainly would have suspected him if he had not exercised the same spiritual gifts, healing powers, and casting out of demons as they had. He appeared to be a faithful servant of Christ to all of the other apostles. But who would argue today that he is saved?

God cares for His children, and He also gives those children free will. Each person has the right to choose to obey the gospel of Christ, or to refuse to obey the gospel of Christ, or to renounce Christ entirely. This ability to choose gives man responsibility. A man without free will would not be responsible for his sins. If a person can live any way he wishes to, and commit any sin he wants to after conversion, and he can do this without losing his soul, then that person has lost his free will to choose whether or not to be a Christian.  

Jesus said to the church at Ephesus, “I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Revelation 2:4-5). The church at Ephesus, meaning the individual Christians who made up that congregation, had “left” its “first love,” and had “fallen.” The Lord warned them of the consequences if they did not repent.

Peter lists a number of graces such as faith, virtue, and temperance, which each Christian should work to acquire, saying, “if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (2 Peter 1:10). Peter’s promise, “ye shall never fall,” however, is a conditional statement. We are promised not to fall “if ye do these things,” but implied in the promise is that we will fall if we do not do these things. The doctrine that a child of God can do anything he pleases and never be concerned for his soul is neither scriptural nor reasonable. Every man is accountable to God for how he lives. What dangerous ground a man walks on when he chooses to sin, rather than striving with all his ability to do the Lord’s will!

BIBLE QUESTIONS, SALVATION

SHOULD BABIES BE BAPTIZED? — BOB PRICHARD

The practice of baptizing babies, widely accepted today, was completely unknown in the early church. The first explicit mention of the practice in history is in the writings of Tertullian of Carthage, an early church leader, who lived in the third century (some two hundred years after the beginning of the church). Tertullian wrote about the baptism of children as a then new practice, reserved for children who were very sick. Tertullian opposed the practice, saying it was not biblical, but many other church leaders accepted it, and the practice became firmly established in religious tradition. It became the almost universally accepted practice until challenged by the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, who taught that baptism was reserved for believers.

There is absolutely no mention of baptizing babies in the Bible. Some teach that the “household” conversions of Lydia (Acts 16), Cornelius (Acts 10), or the Philippian jailer (Acts 16) show that infants must have been baptized. The reasoning is that since whole households were converted, there must have been infants included. None of these accounts, however, mention any infants, and the presence of infants cannot be assumed. Every account of conversion in the book of Acts mentions at least one thing, such as believing, which an infant cannot do. There is no reason to assume that infants were present and baptized. 

It is sometimes taught that infants must be baptized because of “original sin.” “Original sin” is supposedly the sin that all humanity inherits from Adam, because we were all involved in his original sin in Eden. Although we choose to sin, we are not responsible for Adam’s sin. Every person is responsible for his own sins, and the child is sinless until he reaches the proper mental maturity to be responsible for his own sins. The prophet Ezekiel declared, “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). When Paul said, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22), He was talking about physical death and the resurrection. If he was saying that we inherit sin from Adam, simply by being humans, then he would also be saying that we inherit eternal life in Christ, simply by being humans. Jesus said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). He held up their sinless purity as an example for all.

Infant baptism simply cannot be right, because there is no biblical authority for it. It is an ancient tradition of men, no doubt begun with good intentions, but nevertheless contrary to the Bible. Baptism is for the penitent believer (Acts 2:38). Babies cannot repent, and have no sins to repent of. The Bible picture of baptism is a burial of believers. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection” (Romans 6:3-5). Infant baptism changes God’s plan, and may prevent the adult believer from obeying the gospel, thinking he or she has already been baptized, even though he has not followed the biblical pattern.

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHRISTIAN LIVING

IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FORGIVE AND FORGET,  HOW CAN WE REALLY FORGET WRONGS DONE TO US? — BOB PRICHARD

There is no doubt that if we are to be pleasing to God, we must forgive. As Jesus gave the model prayer to the disciples, he told them to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” He then explained, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:12, 14-15). We cannot expect God to forgive us unless we are willing to forgive others. The question is, however, do we have to forgive and forget?

We cannot find the exact phrase “forgive and forget” in scripture, but the principle of forgiving and forgetting is certainly there, because this is the way God forgives. Speaking of the coming Christian age, the prophet Jeremiah gave the Lord’s promise, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34). David described God’s forgiveness of sin: “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm 103:12). God forgives penitent sinners completely and absolutely, and “will remember their sin no more.” But is “remember no more” the same as to “forget absolutely”? When God says he will “remember no more,” He is not saying that He cannot have any knowledge of forgiven sins, but that He has willed to no longer call to mind, or recall those sins. Where those sins are recorded in the great book of the works of men (Revelation 20:12), God has written “forgiven.” 

If we are to “forgive and forget” as God does, then we will determine that we will no longer bring to mind those wrongs that we have forgiven. The nineteenth century preacher Henry Ward Beecher said, “To say ‘I can forgive, but I can’t forget,’ is really to say, ‘I cannot forgive.’” Painful memories of what others have done to us often linger, because of the consequences of sin. When a painful memory of a forgiven wrong surfaces in one’s mind, however, if he has really “forgiven and forgotten,” he will not allow himself to bring it to mind. It is much easier to carry a grudge, or wallow in self-pity, rather than forgiving and forgetting, but we cannot do this and be pleasing to God.

Many have discovered that a good “forgettery” may be as valuable as a good memory. Forgiving as God wants us to is an act of the will. It is not easy, but time heals many injuries when we have forgiven and forgotten as God wants us to. One of the greatest tragedies of life is to see people who hold a grudge against one another, and will not forgive. Some even forget what they disagreed over, but will not forgive. Those who will not forgive will find that God cannot forgive them.

  As Jesus hung on the cross, the words “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), were continually on His lips. If he could forgive even those who crucified Him, surely His followers today can be forgiving people.