Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:13-15

13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.

14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.

15 But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

These verses conclude the matter of a man’s goods being lost, stolen, or destroyed while loaned to another man. Verse 13 is still speaking specifically for an animal that is loaned and then destroyed. It states that if the animal is torn to pieces by a wild creature, producing the remnants of the body shows that the borrower of the animal has not stolen, sold, or butchered the animal. It has been utterly wasted, with no profit to the borrower, and so that man is guiltless. It is the same as if the unfortunate act had destroyed the beast while still under the original owner’s care.

That idea is further advanced in verses 14 and 15, where it is pointed out that if one man is borrowing the animal, but at the time of wounding or death the original owner is also present, then there is no restitution to be made. This makes sense, as the original owner’s interest over the creature and protective sense to it would still be in force, even while the other man was borrowing it, and so if the animal was compromised anyway it was either because the original owner was being neglectful or because there was nothing that could have been done to prevent the harm. If, for example, the borrower wanted to make a beast of burden carry a particularly heavy load, and the owner was there and allowed it, and then the animal collapsed, it would be the owner’s fault for allowing it to happen. But if the owner is not there, then it was solely the borrower’s poor judgment that is to blame, and so he must make restitution.

The nuance and breadth of provision in these laws is very impressive. They show a deep understanding of human life, and the many different manners and forms in which misfortune occurs, and a clear recognition of where blame rests for each instance. While there will always be unique, in-between situations, a simple examination of the two laws that stand on either side of that situation would give the judge the proper limits of justice. He could then exercise his personal judgment between those bounds, and the potential for malpractice would therefore be limited.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:10-12

10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:

11 Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.

12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.

Yesterday’s verses mentioned how a judge would have to decide between two conflicting testimonies, trying to find the truth of the matter according to his own observation and reason. Thus, there would be a human element in matters of justice, which means there would be flawed results. Surely, sometimes the guilty would be deemed innocent and set free, while the innocent would sometimes be deemed guilty and unfairly punished.

Today’s verses answer this dilemma. They state that if a man is accused of causing the death of an animal that he had on loan, that he could defend his innocence by making a solemn oath to the Lord. This appeal to the divine is the ultimate endpoint of every legal system. While we will always have lawsuits and trials where the truth cannot be verified, where lies prevail, where the wrong judgment is administered; the sense of justice yet finds its answer in the divine. If a man would make a lying oath before the Lord, then it would become the purview of the Lord to administer justice Himself. Until recently, my own country’s court system similarly required those that testified to swear on the Bible, invoking a divine oversight upon their words. From that point on, a person may yet lie and deceive, but it is most assuredly upon their own head.

Even if a man makes no formal pledge before God, it is still essential that the people believe that God still sees and knows all, and that the unresolved wrong runs contrary to His nature, and that He will make it right in this life or the next. If such were not the case, then there would be times where evil would surpass good, where lies would triumph over truth. It would mean that if one were clever and bold enough, they could wrest the universe to their will to the harm of others, and there would be no justice to ever set things right. And if that were the case, then the entire concept of law, and right and wrong, and justice, would all be vain illusions.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:5-9

5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.

6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.

8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.

9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

The first two verses address the restitution if one man is indirectly responsible for the destruction of another man’s crops. Whether the perpetrator left his beast to feed in the other man’s field, or if he kindled a fire that burned the crops down, he must make restitution. What is notable, however, is that he must make the restitution from the best of his own vineyard. This might be in part because the quality of the destroyed crops can no longer be ascertained, so the courts will just assume the highest value of destruction, and it may be in part a punishment for being so careless as to cause the destruction in the first place. If this penalty is skewed in any way, it is skewed to the benefit of the victim.

Verses 7 through 9 have to do with if a thief steals items or livestock that were being loaned from one man to another. If the items were stolen, and the thief is known, then obviously the thief will have to make restitution. But what if the person who was borrowing the things is only claiming that they were stolen? And what if the neighbor who loaned the things doesn’t believe that story? Then it really is a matter of one man’s word against another, and we are told that it rests upon the judges to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. This is the first time we have seen in the law the need for testimony and investigation. There is always going to be a need for some human judgment to resolve uncertain matters, which means there will be the potential for incorrect ruling. This is a necessary shortcoming that has applied to every law ever made. Law is still a good thing as a general concept, but we must recognize that it is never perfect.

Or, at least, it is imperfect for now. There is an eventual perfect solution as it turns out, which the Biblical record will turn to in tomorrow’s verses.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:2-3

2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

These verses explain the laws relating to a burglar. The phrase “breaking up” is more often translated as “breaking in,” meaning the thief is coming directly into one’s home to commit his foul deeds.

A burglar presents far more danger than a thief who picks a pocket or grabs something unattended on the streets. Breaking into a home in the dead of night significantly raises the likelihood of encountering the victim in his most vulnerable position, and so deadly force is more likely to transpire. Accordingly, the law states that a man who strikes a burglar such that he dies shall have no punishment upon him, so long as this did occur in the night. Verse 3 states that if the burglary occurs in the day, lethal force against the intruder is not permitted, presumably as the situation is far less uncertain and dangerous.

If, however, the daytime burglar is captured, there will still be a punishment upon him. As with the prior laws of theft, he must return what he stole twofold. Of course, the man may not be able to pay that fine. He may be able to return what he stole, but not the same value again a second time. In such an instance, we are told that “he shall be sold.” Presumably this means that he will be sold as a servant, but the payment that would normally go to him or his family for his service will instead be given to his intended victim. If he is an Israelite, or converts to the Israelite faith, presumably he will be freed after six years as per the previously stated laws.

I would imagine one side-effect of the Mosaic legal system is that there was much less need for prisons than in our current system. Murderers were put to death, and thieves were only fined, or else served their time as servants in other households.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:1, 4

1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

In the previous chapter we heard all the laws related to killing. These laws covered both the killing of people and of livestock, and both the intentional and the unintentional variances of each. Today’s verses now shift from killing to stealing, and there are some interesting moral lessons to be gleaned here.

The first that stands out to me is that the penalty for the deliberate theft of an animal is substantially greater than the penalty we already read for the accidental killing of an animal. It is a key moral principle that the penalty is not based only on what the outcome was (the loss of the animal), but what the underlying motivation behind that outcome were. The penalty is according to the man’s guilt more than the deprivation that was suffered.

Also, note how in the second verse it says that a thief found with the animal still alive is required to return the creature, and then one also of his own. We already heard the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and this is consistent with that. Since this man had sought to reduce his neighbor’s livestock by one, now he shall experience what it is to have one of his herd reduced by one instead.

And finally, note how the penalty is even worse if the thief has already sold the creature away, or killed it, before he is caught. Now, instead of returning the creature and being out one of his own, he must now give up four or five of his animals. I assume the significantly more severe punishment is because the thief stole with the intention to destroy. He didn’t just take from the rightful owner, he took it out to where it could not ever be given back to the owner. That is a darker sin than to have taken, but to have left the door open for remorse and restoration.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Christian Conception of Evil

A Shallow View of Evil)

Great divisiveness in a culture tends to form ideologies with a naïve and overly-simplistic perception of evil. Festering hatred lures people into a mentality where they conceive of evil itself as propagating outward from “those people” over there. Strict ideologues believe that if they could just convert or destroy “those people,” then the evil would be gone, and society would be a perfect Utopia.

This narrow view of evil is a powerful tool for focusing and concentrating the passion of the ideologues. It progressively motivates them to disparage, dehumanize, and destroy their enemies. Mankind has fallen into the routine of dividing, declaring the other side to be the bastion of evil, and then destroying them for as long as we have a historical record. Yet if the problem of evil is so simple, then why has this pattern never succeeded in the eradication of evil? Why haven’t we finally killed it already? Why do we keep facing it in every generation?

The Christian View of Evil)

For an answer, let us consider the Christian conception of evil instead, taken directly from the words of the Bible.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. -Genesis 6:5

There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. -Mark 7:15

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. -James 1:14-15

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. -Galatians 5:17

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. -Romans 3:10, 12

This view of evil is far more mature, nuanced, and difficult to solve. Instead of saying “evil comes from that group over there,” the Christian perspective maintains that “evil emanates from us all.” It is in me, in you, in everybody. Evil is a super-entity, one that pervades through all of us.

And yes, maybe certain ideologies have a deeper fealty to evil than others; perhaps some dark trains of thought really should be arrested and ceased; perhaps some collectives need to be disbanded; but the true Christian knows that even these efforts will not bring about the perfect Utopia. The true Christian knows that the eradication of “those people” is not the final solution to the problem of evil because even if we stamped all the evil out in one place, it would still seep out from within our own ranks. Eventual corruption is the rule of the world.

The Solution)

Obviously, this conception of evil is much more daunting to wrestle with. If evil will emerge anew in every heart, than what can be done to have victory over it?

Ultimately and universally, nothing.

God will have to claim the victory there because it will always be beyond us. However, on a more individual level, there is something we can do.

This Christian conception of evil, that it arises in every heart, is the very reason why Christianity has always taught that every man ought first and foremost to address his own personal evil before that of the world. That isn’t to say that we don’t concern ourselves with the greater evils of the world, or that we don’t give our energy to curtail it, but our primary concern is to first plug the well of evil in our very own heart. If all of us could just do that, could just get control of the darkness that is within, then that would be the greatest blow against evil we could ever achieve.

It may seem paradoxical, but the fact that evil is so universal means that it can only be remedied individually. It is up to all of us to each do our part.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Air is Getting Thinner

Just Letting Go)

Sometimes I’m actively, vibrantly living with purpose. I’m trying to identify what my calling is, what God put me here for, what sort of person He wants me to be, and I’m trying to fill that measure day-by-day.

And then at other times, in many times, I just kind of give up on trying and coast. I fill my spare time with mindless media, ignore my personal health, let the house get messy, and don’t really contribute anything to the world.

I feel very disturbed by how low I can go when I just stop trying. I would have hoped that when I tried to coast I would still have a basically meaningful life, but I really don’t feel that way at all. When I stop striving I feel like I drop into a godless world, something vain and artificial and inconsequential. The only options seem to be constant striving or descending into absolute nihilism.

Worldly Decline)

And as I look around at the world, I don’t think I’m the only one this happens to. I think we are experiencing this sharp dichotomy as an entire society. Our world has become more godless and quality everywhere is in decline. Our stories are less creative, our vocabulary is diminishing, our aspirations are waning. We live for Netflix and food delivery and the latest iPhone, leaving behind community, achievement, and virtue.

I believe that we were once a more Godly, more purposeful sort of people. Even if someone tried to let go of God they would still find themselves living a relatively meaningful life because they lived in a cultural atmosphere that was richer and deeper, where the base expectations were higher. Now, though, there is so little standard left to hold you up once you let yourself go. In other words, the air is getting thinner, so you have got to have your own oxygen mask, you can’t rely on breathing what you get from the culture.

Perhaps Jesus saw this when he gave the parable of the 10 wise virgins. In the darkest part of the night we’re just not going to get by with coasting. We have to be intentional about living in connection to God and with purpose, or we will die.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Basis for Following the Commandments: Summary

In this series I noted society’s progressive departure from traditional Western ethics and morality, which are founded upon the Judeo-Christian commandments. I identified three core pillars of belief that are essential for wholehearted adherence to these commandments. They were:

  1. Belief in the reality of the Judeo-Christian God
  2. Belief that the Bible contains the genuine commandments of that God
  3. Belief that those authentic commandments are essential for true happiness in life

If someone lacks any one of these testimonies, then they are not likely to be motivated to actually follow the commandments.

Review)

As we discussed, belief in the reality of the Judeo-Christian God means believing that God is real, that He is our creator, that He is benevolent, and that He is all-powerful. Put another way, we need to believe that God is someone we can actually trust. We trust Him because He is good, and the things He says are genuinely meant to bring us joy, and we trust Him because He is capable, so if He says something is for our ultimate joy He will be able to deliver on that promise.

Overlapping with that testimony is the third one, which is to believe that God’s instructions are THE BEST way to obtain happiness and purpose in our lives. So long as we think we can figure out a better plan than God’s we will hold ourselves back from His law. To have this testimony means that we trust in Him more than anything else, even more than we trust in ourselves. It means that His word carries greater weight than any other.

Finally, even if we believe that God is real, and that His word carries greater weight than any other, we still need to know what those words are. To follow the commandments we have to believe that the Bible is genuine scripture, divine words that originated from that real and trusted God. Without this testimony, one is left to operate only on the direct whispers of God to our own heart, which I believe for most of us occurs less frequently than the number of times we need guidance in our lives. At some point we need to adopt principles on faith, and one must have a testimony in the Biblical commandments to follow them

Cultivating Testimony)

Some people seem to come by these three pillars of testimony naturally. Their inner core is already perfectly aligned with each tenet and they accept and live the ethical principles of Christianity without struggle.

But I believe that is not the case for most of us. I believe that most of us do not naturally have all three of the core beliefs mentioned here. Maybe we have one, maybe two, maybe none of them at all. However, not naturally having all three pillars of belief does not mean that we should just abandon the Christian ethic. It turns out that most testimonies do not come before the trying of the law, but after. Most of us don’t know what we believe until we live it. Either we try the right thing and then become convinced that it is right, or we try the wrong thing and then become convinced that it is wrong.

So if you lack any or all of the core pillars mentioned above, I would implore you to not give up on their ideas, but to put them to the test. Pause and think what sort of life you might live if you did already believe in them all, and then try living that way for a time. See whether you find a greater sense of wholeness, peace, and joy from that lifestyle or not.

I don’t want to extend this study long enough to lay out the evidence for the following assertions, but perhaps I will do so at another time. The Christian ethic has been the bedrock of Western civilization, and has brought greater innovation, illumination, and relief into the world than any other thing. It would be naive and foolish to discard it without ever giving it serious consideration and experimentation. If it has uplifted so many billions, it really might lift you as well. Certainly it has done so for me.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Basis for Following the Commandments: Part Four

Thus far we have discussed how accepting the traditional Western ethics requires us to both believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and that the words of the Bible contain His genuine commandments. There yet remains one core pillar for our testimony, though, which is a belief that God’s true commandments are absolute.

The fact is, there are many today that do believe in God and do believe that the Bible contains His commandments, however they are taken by a notion that these commandments are little more than paternal advice. They think it is ideal to follow the commandments, and that it would be good for other people to adhere to them, but that things won’t be so bad if they personally don’t. What they lack is a testimony that God’s laws are actually imperative.

Traditionally, the commandments have been presented to the Western world as having both a negative deterrent against breaking them, and a positive reinforcement for following them. The negative deterrent is the assertion that breaking the commandments brings suffering, either in the form of divine punishment or simply natural consequences. The positive reinforcement is the assertion that following the commandments brings joy, either in the form of divine blessing or simply natural consequences. The combination of these two is that following the commandments will lead to the most fulfilling, most joyful, most complete form of life that we can experience, whereas regularly breaking them will lead to the most heartbroken, the most painful, the most fractured form of life that we can experience.

So now the questions come to you. Do you believe that God’s commandments genuinely matter? Do you believe that the quality of your life will be always be affected by adherence or resistance to them?

If the answer to any of those is “no,” why is that? As with the other pillars, is there something in your life that prevents you from believing that the highest quality of life can only be achieved by adherence to the commandments? Is there some part of you that insists on finding another way? Would you be willing to experiment with the commandments, adhering to them as a matter of analysis, to see if your quality of life markedly improves?

If, on the other hand, your answer to all of those is “yes,” then you have established that God is real, that His commandments are taught in the Bible, and that following those commandments really matters for your personal happiness. There can be no logical reason not to abide by these principles of traditional, Western ethics. Only weakness of the flesh could cause you to set these principles aside.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Basis for Following the Commandments: Part Three

In my last post I discussed how a belief that the Judeo-Christian God is real, benevolent, and all-powerful are necessary components to accepting the commandments taught in traditional Western ethics. However, those beliefs alone do not get us all the way to being convinced of exactly which law we need to live by. Today we will talk about the second aspect of our testimony that is necessary to follow these commandments. In order to abide by these rules, we have to believe that they are really coming to us from the God that we believe in.

The commandments that have been taught to us in traditional Western culture have all been derived from the Bible. They include the ten commandments that were given to Moses, as well as the others that are scattered throughout the sacred text. We follow them because we consider them to be the words of God, Himself, and since we believe that He is real, benevolent, and all-powerful, we are inclined to follow the instructions that He has given us. He would know, better than anyone else, what behavior would be for our own good, and following His plan would be the most certain way to achieve happiness and peace.

But what if one believes in God, but not necessarily in the authenticity of the words of scripture? We are thousands of years from the first writing of those words, and it is strictly a function of faith to say, “yes, these words really did come from the mouth of the Lord, and not just the pen of man.”

One doesn’t even have to get lost in academic arguments on the authenticity of the text. In my observation, the reasons why most people dismiss the Bible has nothing to do with scholarly analysis, but just because their default is not to believe something that is so fantastic and far removed from them. Even if one accepts that a loving God probably would leave instructions to His children, they might struggle to accept anything that purports to be that instruction. They have lost their capacity to believe in the incredible.

I turn these questions over to you. Do you believe that the Bible is genuinely the word of God? And if it is, do you accept that the commandments written therein are His genuine instructions to you?

If the answer to any of those is “no,” why is that? As with the questions of God’s reality, is there some experience or barrier in your life that prevents you from believing in anything that purports to be scripture? And even if you are prevented from believing by default, would you be willing to abide by the commandments contained in the Bible even while unsure of their authenticity, if only to see if they come alive for you as you do so?

If, on the other hand, the answer to all of those questions is “yes,” then we have established that God is real and His commandments are the same as what is taught in traditional Western tradition. Even with all that, though, there remains yet one more pillar of faith that must be established. Even if these are God’s commandments, how absolute are they? Is it permissible for us to flex and bend them? We will discuss that matter in the next post.