Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 20:1-5

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 

2 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. 

3 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. 

4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 

5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

The chapter that we begin today covers sins that were punishable by death. A controversial category from the Old Testament to be sure, especially since Jesus himself would later defer the penalty of death to those who normally would be executed under these laws, specifically the woman taken in adultery. I think I will discuss the reasons for that in a separate between-chapters side post.

For those that criticize the Old Testament God for proscribing the death penalty at all, I would suggest that any genuine acknowledgement of God as the creator of us all, and of Him as a higher being than the rest of us, must also lead to an admission that He has that right to enact His will whatever it is upon us. One may not want Him to be a God that proscribes death for certain acts, but to suggest that He cannot or should not is to not actually believe that God’s morals are higher than our own.

But that argument is only for the sincere pacifists. We do also have hypocrites today that decry the death penalties in the Bible but then celebrate assassination attempts on their political rivals. For many it is not actually a question of whether some people deserve to be executed, it is merely a desire for their people not to be killed while other people are fair game. To these there is no further argument to be made than to point out their hypocrisy. They already worship an ideology that sanctions death, so let them deal with that before casting stones at any other.

Moving past all that, at least the first death penalty in this chapter is probably the least controversial: execution for one who sacrifices his own children to an idol. Most people even today can appreciate that the murder of innocent children is one of the absolute darkest acts that any person can do. But while I say “least controversial” and “most people,” I cannot say “entirely uncontroversial” and “all people,” for even in recent cases we do see those who would excuse the slaughter of one’s own children, such as with Lindsay Clancy. These are very troubling times indeed. This leads us directly to the further condemnation in verse 4-5, which is against those that would turn their eyes from this sin and spare the murder. God declares that they will be cut off, and so will we if we continue in this same path.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Bringing Out Their Best

Treat someone as unreasonable and beyond persuasion, and that is just how they will be.

But had you treated them as reasonable and capable of considering new information, they likely would have been.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 19:26-28

26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. 

27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 

28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.

Today’s first verse is clearly referring to pagan rituals and magic. It follows that the next two verses are also related to those practices. It seems unlikely “rounding the corners of your head,” (cutting the hair in a particular pattern) is inherently evil, but that at the time was associated with an idolatrous practice that the Israelites must not align themselves with.

Verse 28 is also clearly referring to pagan practices, cutting one’s flesh for the dead is some sort of perverse ritual, and “print any marks” (tattoos) was presumably putting pagan symbols or words on oneself. However, these two are a distinctive subcategory, having to do with harming one’s body, in some cases permanently. We do not receive commandments prohibiting these practices generally, but we also have no positive examples of them elsewhere in the Bible. Other negative examples do exist, such as the priests of Baal cutting themselves during their competition with Elijah in 1 Kings 18:28. Many, myself included, take the idea of our bodies as a temple (1 Corinthians 6:19) as an imperative to treat our flesh with dignity and respect, precluding deliberate harm to it. in any case, what we are left with from today’s verses is a guiding principle, and the requirement to use our own conscience, good reasoning, and prayer to determine how we wish to honor the bodies God created for us.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 19:23-25

23 And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of. 

24 But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal. 

25 And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the Lord your God.

This is an interesting bit of instruction God gives the Israelites. When they would first come into the land of Canaan for their inheritance, they were not to immediately eat fruit from their newly planted trees. Most scholars agree that this did not only apply to the first groves that were planted either, but to all trees that were planted throughout Israel’s generations. The fruit would be unclean to them for three years. God called it uncircumcised. The fourth year would be clean but needed to be given to the Lord. Only on the fifth year could they start to eat the fruit for themselves.

Several commentators have noted that it is common in tree cultivation to not use the first years of fruit as they are small and poor for eating, but if one cuts the buds before they can fully grow during those first years, the tree will learn to bear fuller and better fruit. Thus, it seems likely that the Israelites were going out and literally “circumcising” the trees, cutting off their first buds during those formative years.

This instruction is part of the universal pattern of delayed gratification, where one must prolong what is wanted immediately so that it can be had more fully and more rightly later. So much of wise living is learning self-denial in its time, be it in going through your studies, saving money, turning down premarital sex, or just waiting for the world to turn in your favor. And then, when the long waited for blessings do arrive, let the first harvest be consecrated to the Lord. Then the measure of patience is full, we can enjoy our fruit with a full heart, and God will bless all future yields.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 19:20-22

20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 

21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 

22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

Today’s verses deal with a controversial subject: fornication with a bondwoman. There doesn’t seem to be any distinction in the language as to whether this is referring only to a foreign Canaanite woman, or an Israelite daughter who is an indentured servant, or both. In any case, the matter here is clearly fornication, not rape, which is handled elsewhere. Also, I say fornication because it fits are modern vernacular where the woman is unmarried, but she is betrothed, and in Ancient Israel that would have elevated the crime to the level of adultery.

In regular cases, adultery was an immediate death sentence for both parties. Hence the woman taken in adultery brought as a test to Jesus to see if he would approve of stoning her. But as we see today, this was actually only the punishment for free persons. The law recognized servants as not having the same privileges, and therefore they were not subject to the same punishments. As we have seen in several cases, the law was designed with protections around the vulnerable. In one sense it was no respecter of persons, condemning all for the same sinful behaviors, creating no class who could just get away with wrongdoing. At the same time, it would change the range of applicable punishment, always retaining the greatest penalty for those with the greatest opportunity.

Verse 20 describes the woman’s punishment as “she shall be scourged,” but this is a highly debated translation. The Hebrew word used here, בִּקּרֶת (biqqoreth), means “examination, i.e. (by implication) punishment — scourged” (Strong’s Concordance). There is nothing that actually makes certain that the word was meant to be scourged here, instead of investigated, nor anything that links it to the woman only. This passage could just as easily read “they shall be scourged” or “they shall be investigated.” Indeed, almost every translation today does use one of those other interpretations.

What is clear is that separate from whatever punishment is described in verse 20, the man involved in the offense would have to make a trespass offering. After this, both parties could apparently be forgiven.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 19:19

19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Verse 19 is about keeping things separate and pure, not mixing parts together. It can be seen as a continuation of the laws against eating unclean meat and not using leaven during the Passover. All of this, of course, is a symbol of being a separate and chosen people. Though Israel would necessarily live alongside pagan cultures, they were not to mix faiths, not to corrupt their worship of God. Unfortunately, Israel would on many occasions fall into this very error and would lose their kingdom because of it.

Of course, we cannot judge them too harshly. Corruption of the faith is a very real problem in our day, too. There are many “Christians” who are more converted to the trends of our current society than their actual doctrine, seeking to blend fabrics of love and tolerance with sins like homosexuality, to give just one example. Mankind has ever been too concerned with looking right according to the current social standard, and not in being right in God’s eyes.

It is interesting that it is this particular verse has become a favorite go-to for those wanting to discount the Bible’s commandments against homosexuality. “Why do you hold to the Bible’s condemnation of gay people, but you still wear clothes with mixed fabrics?” The answer is that, as previously mentioned, the mixed fabric law was part of the unclean meats and leaven laws, which was explicitly withdrawn in Acts 10, whereas the sins of sexual immorality have never been rescinded. Still, it is ironic and poetic that people attempt to justify homosexuality by referencing the very category of commandments that symbolically opposed the mingling of faith with the immoral trends of the day.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 19:17-18

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 

18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

Today’s two commandments are very interesting. While all the previous ones have been prohibitions against what you do, today’s venture into prohibitions as to what you permit yourself to feel. “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart” and “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” can be very difficult commandments to follow, as they require an emotional state that we may not naturally feel.

In my own experience I have learned that while the presence of hate and the absence of love might be my natural state towards any individual in particular, it is possible to change them over time. By not dwelling on the hate when it arises, it does eventually go away. By seeking to do kind acts even in the absence of love, eventually the love returns. Thus, I do not believe that we are condemned by being amiss in these things in a single moment, but only if we will not train our hearts to love and be kind with the time that we have.

It is also interesting to note how these two laws in the Old Testament point to the higher law that would come later. I think we do not often remember that when Jesus said that the second greatest commandment was “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” (Mark 12:31) he was not presenting a new idea, he was quoting himself as Jehovah in today’s verses. And he was also quoting the Old Testament for what he gave as the first great commandment, to love God with all our hearts. (see Mark 12:30 and Deuteronomy 6:5).

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 19:11-16

11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. 

12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. 

13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. 

14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord. 

15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. 

16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord.

The first two verses sound like we are back to retelling the ten commandments, the prohibition against stealing being the eighth commandment, and not taking the Lord’s name in vain being the third. Verse 13-16 have echoes of not bearing false witness, which is the ninth commandment, but they go deeper here, calling out various way that we might cheat and abuse our fellow man.

Verse 13 calls on us to be earnest in doing right by our fellow man, including not withholding his wages for a single day. If you have what is rightfully his, you must give it immediately. Though you may not have ever contemplated stealing from him, you must also not deprive him for a single night.

“Cursing the deaf” is an interesting concept, as obviously he would not hear the insult. And while a blind person would be hurt by a stumblingblock in his path, he would not be able to see you put it there. In both cases you could likely get away with the insult and injury, you will not have to answer to anyone in this life, and that is what makes them so perverse. They are seeking to create a permanent imbalance in the universe, to sin and get away with it, frustrating the cosmic scales of justice. This is the exact inverse of Jesus’s injunction that we do our alms (acts of kindness and mercy to our fellow man) in secret. Giving a gift that cannot be thanked or rewarded is the purest form of goodness to our fellow man, so causing secret harm is the most depraved form of evil to our fellow man. Both types of secret acts will be accounted for with God, though.

Verse 15 makes the interesting point that in judgment, or in matters of the law, we must not prefer one side over the other, not even the more vulnerable and weak. We must not overlook the crimes of the poor because they are poor, and certainly not those of the mighty because they are mighty. This is a very pertinent commandment for our day, where many speak in favor of being a “respecter of persons,” calling on us to give preference based on race, sex, nationality, ability, and sexuality. It is wrong to do, though, whichever direction we would apply those preferences.

Finally, verse 16 also says that we must not “stand against the blood of our neighbor.” This commonly has two interpretations. The first is that we must not testify falsely against our neighbor or abstain from testifying truthfully in his favor. The second is that we must not stand idly by while our neighbor comes to harm. We must at all times be willing to protect, intervene, and support our neighbor against all evil. Being a coward in the face of danger will never be justified.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 19:9-10

9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. 

10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God.

Now we move to one of the hospitality laws of Ancient Israel, which was that any person who grew a field of produce must leave the corners unharvested, freely available to the poor and to the foreigner, who might gain sustenance in their time of need. This, of course, would be integral to the story of Ruth, who met her future husband Boaz by gleaning in his field, as she tried to sustain both herself and her mother-in-law Naomi.

This represents a perpetual sacrifice to the greater good. The farmer who grew the field would gain no direct benefit from leaving part of his field unharvested. Whether the poor were sustained or perished would likely have very little effect upon him. But it would help the health of the community as a whole. It would provide an opportunity to those who most needed it. It would foster a greater sense of unity and quell antisocial acts by those who were most desperate. It would improve the economy of the nation as a whole. Surely, then, that would have positive effects on the farmer’s generations, even if not immediately to him in the moment of his sacrifice.

This is the principle of planting the tree that you will not be around to feel the shade of, going to war to die for the freedoms of people you will never know, or doing an act of kindness in secret so that no one can repay you. It is doing good to make the world better, to make things better for our children and our community but not gaining any personal benefit from it. Well, aside from the most important benefit: the purifying of our own soul and gaining an invitation to the table of the Lord.