Posted on by Abe Austin

The Offensively Faithful- Popular Morality

The State of the End)

In the last post we identified the likely moral landscape in the last days, based on the prophecies of Jesus and the prophets. We identified that there would be a minority of the good and faithful, and at least enough of the utterly depraved and murderous that they could have power over the good. I then theorized that the majority might be morally compromised, people who still think that they are morally good, but who justify their sin with twisted principles, and who provide justification for the ultimately depraved to murder the good.

I suppose that either this will be the makeup of humanity at the end of the world, or it will be a state along the way to a more depraved makeup. Perhaps at the end things will have progressed further, to where most of the self-justifying sinful have also reached the deepest levels of depravity, sharing that same murderous intent towards the righteous.

Personally, I consider the first social makeup to be more likely, where the majority of people are compromised but think themselves righteous in their own eyes. Otherwise, at the time of the second coming there would be a sharp line where almost everyone was killed, leaving only a very few righteous alive. I think it more likely that only the murderously wicked will be destroyed, and there will remain many morally compromised who will have to be ministered to by the righteous to finally convert them back to the Lord. At this time, the majority sinful will no longer have the power of government and moral certitude. They will know without any doubt that they are in transgression of their Creator, and that they cannot remake the world in their image, and that they must repent or they will be sinning against the light. This belief is in part due to the account of the partially evil Nephites who were spared at the coming of Jesus, and in part due to the account of Zechariah 13, which states that Jesus will appear at the second coming to Jews who do not yet believe on him.

Folly of the Masses)

Whatever the general state of depravity in the world in the last days, it at least seems certain that the majority of the people will believe things that are false and sinful. To some extent they will be deceived and led astray. They will justify evil. Many will eschew good and be antagonistic towards the righteous. To what degree is up for debate, but this much is certain.

Thus, if one lives in the last days and they hold the majority views, then even without examining what those views are, we already know that they are faulty and that that person has been misled. And, by extension, most people will be morally in the wrong. Only those that are willing to be unpopular, to be ridiculed, to be called “outdated” and “bigoted” will have any possibility of being in the right. Not necessarily all those with controversial beliefs will be correct, but all those that are correct will have controversial beliefs, and all those with the mainstream beliefs will not.

Now, does this apply to us in our situation today? Well, to answer that we must first answer this question: do we live in the last days or do we not? If the last days are far removed from us, then all that we have said is true of a time long distant and may or may not apply to us today. But if we truly do live in the end times, then modern popularity is a barometer for folly. Tomorrow I will examine the question of whether we live in the end times or not, and why I believe that we do. Then we can be more specific about what trends in the world seem most likely then to be misleading.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Offensively Faithful- The Good Minority, the Indulgent Majority

The first point that we must make is that all signs and prophecies seem to suggest that there will be a minority of good and faithful people in the last days. There is not much need for convincing on this point, our cultural depictions of the end times have already set us with that expectation. Still, it is worth noting that that vision is justified by the words of scripture.

Virtually every scriptural description we have of the end times is one of evil and suffering. It is as though each prophet took a glimpse into the future, and the prevailing themes of what they saw was wickedness and tragedy. If the love of Christ was ubiquitous in the last days, you think they would have said something about that. Instead, we hear the following:

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God (2 Timothy 3:1-4).
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts (2 Peter 3:3).

One of the clearest visions of the end days comes from Jesus, himself. When asked by his disciples “what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” he replied:

Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
-Matthew 24:5-14

Language such as “ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake” does not suggest that the believers are in the majority. How are they able to be delivered up to be afflicted and killed, unless they are but a small faction at the mercy of the masses?

The straight up murder of Christians is quite extreme. Anyone that would do such a thing is at the very limit of darkness and violence. But surely there are other degrees of wickedness along the way. There are those that the prophets described as lovers of own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, scoffers, walking after their own lusts, etc. These are people who have given in to immorality, but could arguably still view themselves as basically good, having a generous view of humanity, and trying to make the world what they think is a better place. It seems credible that such a people would be largest of the majorities. They would not be willing to kill the righteous, but to mock and scorn them, which would then justify the radical minority to commit the murders.

Not only does this demographic seem credible it sounds very familiar! It sounds like the state of the world today. Let us take a closer look at this hypothesized majority tomorrow. Those that are morally compromised, but who still have enough conscience to not shock society against them. The popular indulgent who seduce the common citizen, accumulating numbers day by day, until they are able to assume what is “right” for the entire culture.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Offensively Faithful- Premise

We have been taught that we must stand firm in the gospel of Christ, eschewing the false teachings that would lead us astray. But at the same time, “all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Isaiah 53:6, Proverbs 21:2). In a world of confusion and deception, how can we know whether we ourselves have been led astray, passionately believing things that are actually harmful and wrong?

That is the question that I wish to focus this short series on. Please note, it isn’t entirely the same as the question of, “how can I know if what I believe is right?” That question does not arise until after we have answered “what if what I believe is wrong?” We must first have our false paradigm broken, and be left with nothing, to then make space for the perspective that is true. Conviction of error must precede elation of correctness.

To that end, I wish to point out a metric by which many who have become deceived might recognize such and begin the process of renouncing their false beliefs. The metric is this: in the last days, if your beliefs are mainstream, are popular, are consistent with current trends, then you are almost certainly in the wrong. The scriptures paint a clear picture that in the last days those that are founded on the truth will be in the minority, they will seem strange to the rest of the world, and the depth of their convictions will be offensive. Furthermore, it seems doubtful that those in the majority will even know that they are deceived. They will not seem to be agents of evil, at least not at first. They will think that they are doing what is right, yet they will still be in the wrong.

Over the coming days we will look at the evidence for these claims, and what that means for us as we take a hard and honest look at ourselves, asking ourselves the question, “Lord, is it I?”

Posted on by Abe Austin

Weak vs Strong Kindness

There is both a weak kindness and a strong kindness. The weak kindness is based on fear. It is where one allows oneself to be consumed by another, or by the masses. This individual gives others exactly what they want to have and tells them exactly what they want to hear. The individual does this because he is afraid of being rejected and left alone. His integrity is secondary to being accepted.

The strong kindness, on the other hand, is only possible when one is firmly his own self, deeply rooted, and full of integrity. Such a one knows his standards, and does not violate them for another, but he will give of himself when it is aligned with his principles. Thus, this person gives “kindness” on his own terms, and when he does so by sharing a part of his own self. It is a sacrifice made not by compulsion, but with true compassion and altruistic motives.

The weak kindness satiates in the moment, but it reinforces bad behavior and ultimately only hurts the world. Only the strong kindness helps.

Posted on by Abe Austin

I Know vs I Do

There is a great chasm between “I know that I should” and “I am actually doing it.”

Within that distance is all the struggle of conscience, the transformation of coward into hero, the measure of one’s very soul. In it we see the difference between a society that is flourishing and one that is decaying, between depravity and morality, and the life or death of the world. All of it turns when we finally act from what we already know in our hearts.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 10:19-20

19 And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord?

20 And when Moses heard that, he was content.

When we heard of the trespass of Nadab and Abihu, I made the case that their sin seemed more egregious and intentional than just performing part of the ritual incorrectly, given that when Eleazer and Ithamar made such an error, they faced no such divine retribution.

Aaron gives an explanation to Moses as to why the priests’ portion was not eaten of the sin offering. At first, it is hard to follow what exactly he is saying, probably due to awkwardness in translation. The general consensus among scholars, though, is that when he says, “such things have befallen me” he is referring to the destruction of Nadab and Abihu, and the grief he and his sons were feeling as a result. Perhaps he means that they felt unworthy to partake with the Lord when they were so near to His wrath, or that in their grief they had been unable to remember all of the steps of the ritual.

Grim of a thought as it is, one might also consider the sin offering to have already been fulfilled by the conflagration of Nadab and Abihu. They were burned for their sins, after all, and one could hardly assume Aaron and his sons to feast on the remains of that! Perhaps Nadab and Abihu’s death rendered the animal offering redundant.

It is interesting to note that as in the case of the golden calf, Aaron stands between Moses and the people. Not justifying error, not saying that Moses’s expectations are wrong, but to be the voice of others and give explanation for why they went astray. Moses also stands between Israel and God, representing more of the law and power of God, while Aaron stands between Israel and God, representing more the flaws and foibles of the people. Thus, in the two brothers is the meeting of both worlds. It was very appropriate, therefore, that Aaron was chosen for his role as the High Priest, making propitiation for Israel to God. And in this case, as with that of the golden calf, Moses heard his explanation, had respect to it, and was content.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 10:16-18

16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,

17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?

18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.

Moses examined the work of the priests’ first sin offering, and it appears that an error was made. A portion of the sin offering was to be burned upon the altar, and a portion given to the priests to eat. From the sound of it, Eleazar and Ithamar had burned the entirety of the offering and had not eaten any of it, and Moses was not pleased at all with this turn of events.

Interestingly, Moses here reinforces one of the symbols meant by the priest eating their portion of the sin offering: to bear the iniquity of the congregation. It is clear that eating the sin offering is eating the sin, it is taking the follies of others as your own burden, which is exactly what every great leader must do. They must bear the flaws of their people, to then find a way to atone and make things right again.

What is more, it sounds as though the blood was not spread upon the horns of the altar, as was also required. This was, no doubt, a tense moment, given the dramatic condemnation brought upon Nadab and Abihu for their earlier trespass. But as we will see in tomorrow’s verses, Aaron has an explanation that will calm the tension down.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 10:12-15

12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy:

13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of the sacrifices of the Lord made by fire: for so I am commanded.

14 And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons’ due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel.

15 The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord; and it shall be thine, and thy sons’ with thee, by a statute for ever; as the Lord hath commanded.

Moses gave Aaron and his sons some instructions on eating their portion of the sacrifices. Some of this information we already knew, and some of it is new. First, they were told that the portion of the meat offering that fell to them was required to be eaten in the tabernacle courtyard, beside the altar. As we have already seen, the priests eating their portion was not only a privilege, but an obligation, a part of the ritual itself, and with strict guidelines as to how it could be performed.

Their portion for the wave breast and heave shoulder had a different set of instructions, though. As a reminder, the wave and heave offerings were separate from the meat offerings, first introduced to us in connection with the peace offering. The most distinctive quality we learned earlier about the wave and heave offerings were that the offeror would also eat a portion of. It thus became a shared meal between God and offeror, a symbol of unity and peace.

But that was for the common Israelite. Today’s verses seem to be continuing the initial rituals that Aaron and his sons performed for themselves. They are not offering a wave and a heave offering for another Israelite, but on their own behalf. And this was not required to be eaten within the tabernacle courtyard beside the altar, it just needed to be eaten in a clean place. And the priests did not have to eat it alone, their families, sons and daughters, could partake of it as well. This makes it even more clear that the wave and the heave offerings were a blessing in the lives of those who made it. Other offerings may have been focused on atonement or glorification of God, but this one was about being one with God and rejoicing in that, and one’s own household could take part in that same joy.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 10:8-11

8 And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying,

9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:

10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;

11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

The prohibition of alcohol when the priests went to the tabernacle is intriguing. We have heard many of God’s commandments to Israel already, but nothing against the general use of alcohol, yet God is forbidding it in this specific case. And note, it isn’t just a ceremonial act, like wearing the priestly clothes, it seems to have moral implications as God explicitly says that this has to do with the difference between “holy and unholy, unclean and clean.” If that is the case, then why not prohibit alcohol as a general rule?

I see two explanations.

  1. Some things are not generally wrong, but only in certain contexts. Drinking alcohol, a woman being on her period, a man having a night-time emission, these were not damning sins that would ruin a soul’s standing before God, but they were all things that God said should not overlap with attendance at the tabernacle. Some things, while not strictly evil, are just particularly worldly, particularly mortal, and therefore should remain in that domain. Being sweaty and smelly after attending the gym does not make one a sinner, but we all know it is best for us to shower and change our clothes before coming to church.
  2. As Paul taught, the law “was a schoolmaster,” fit for where the Israelites were at the time, but meant to prepare them for greater laws to come. Just as how Christ enhanced the prohibitions against adultery and murder to include lust and anger, perhaps abstinence from alcohol was a higher form of the Lord’s dietary laws.

I see both explanations as credible, though my personal beliefs are aligned with the second point. In either case, it becomes clear that just because God set firm restrictions or requirements in one time and place, does not mean there cannot be further nuance and variation at other times and places.