Posted on by Abe Austin

The Basis for Following the Commandments: Part Two

In my last post I stated that the question of whether it is reasonable to abide by God’s commandments rest on three fundamental pillars. It is not the point of this study to try and prove each of these pillars, only to establish that they are the core issues that must be wrestled with when deciding whether to follow the traditional Christian principles or not. It is left to the reader to discover what answer he or she has to every point.

The first of these core pillars has to do with the reality of the Judeo-Christian God. Is there a supreme creator of the universe, one who calls Himself our Father, who seeks our eternal salvation? There are many different possible representations of who or what that God would be, whether personified or disembodied, whether dwelling in the heavens above or emerging from within the human heart, but for the purpose of this study all that matters is the question of whether a benevolent and all-powerful creator exists. This requirement is itself divided into three parts. As taught in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God must be:

  1. Real
  2. Good and Benevolent
  3. All-powerful

If God were not good and benevolent, then His laws would not necessarily be for our benefit. They might not be given to us out of love, designed to bring about our greatest happiness, and so adherence to them might be counterproductive to our nature. If God is not all-powerful, then He may not be able to secure for us the promised blessings that obedience to His law is supposed to provide. We would have no assurance that following His law would give the peace, joy, serenity, and wholeness that has been foretold of. And if God is simply not real at all, then obviously both of the above failings apply.

And so, it is up to the sincere seeker of truth to determine: do you believe that God is real? Do you believe that He loves you, and only provides laws that are meant to secure your ultimate happiness? Do you believe He has the power to deliver that happiness as promised?

If the answer to any of those is “no,” do you wish it was otherwise? Is there some experience or barrier in your life that prevents you from believing in such a God? Would you be willing to live as if such a God did exist, if only to see whether He manifests Himself to you in time?

Or, if the answer to all of those is “yes,” then one knows that God’s commandments to us are motivated by love, and that they are empowered to bring us the peace and serenity we need. Following such law would be a privilege, and it would be the great desire of the true believer to find out exactly what are the details of that law. And that brings us to our second point, are the commandments taught in traditional Christianity the true law of this true God? We will discuss that matter in the next post.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Basis for Following the Commandments: Part One

There was a time when the morals of traditional Christianity were more or less in harmony with the Western world as a whole. Even those that didn’t consider themselves religious had essentially the same ethical code, with a shared understanding for what behavior was acceptable and what behavior was not. Times have changed, though, and principles that once needed no explanation are not only debated, but outright rejected by millions.

The question naturally arises: do the commandments really matter? What are the underlying principles that have to be considered when determining whether one should pursue every selfish appetite or not? Is it reasonable to think that living outside of traditional Christian ethics is evil, or is it not?

As I’ve considered these questions, I find that the answer rests on three essential premises. In order to excuse oneself in violating the commandments taught in tradition Christianity, they must overcome at least one of these three pillars upon which the Judeo-Christian commandments stand:

  1. Is the Judeo-Christian God real?
  2. Are the words of scripture His real commandments?
  3. Are His real commandments essential for happiness in life?

If God isn’t real, then who cares what His pastors say? If He is real, but the words of scripture are not actually His, then why would we follow them? If He is real, and the words of scripture contain His actual commandments, but one can disobey that law without any consequences, then why not take advantage of that situation?

With the rest of this series I will explore these three points in greater detail. I will leave it to the reader to search his or her own heart, and determine whether the answer to all three points is “yes,” and if it is, whether there can remain any justifiable reason to disobey the traditional Christian moral code.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Variable Offense

I have an inconsistent level of frustration in response to the annoying behaviors of other people. Sometimes I will be very gracious and dismissive, reassuring the other person that I know it was just an honest mistake. Other times I can be deeply irritated and indignant, reproving them for a grave moral sin. In fact, I might start graciously, but when I feel the effects of the inconvenience over a prolonged period, I might change to the fire-and-damnation attitude.

Which reveals to me how fickle and self-serving my judgment of others can be. If my condemnation of another person changes according to my personal situation, then that condemnation is not based upon any principle, only upon my feelings in the moment. My indictment of that person is therefore unjustified, and as the Lord has said, “there remaineth in me the greater sin,” (Doctrine and Covenants 64:9).

If someone has done something against me that is truly, genuinely offensive, then it will be offensive no matter how large or small the negative effects on my personal life. It will be offensive on its own merits, with no further consideration of my personal hardship necessary. And if it isn’t offensive in that way, then it isn’t really offensive at all.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:33-36

33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;

34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.

35 And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.

36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

The final verses of this chapter discuss what is to be done if a man destroys the livestock of another. If the man has directly caused the death of the animal, such as by digging a pit that the creature falls into, or by leaving his known-to-be-violent ox in the vicinity of the other animal, then he will be compelled to buy the dead creature. He must pay the value of the creature as if it were still alive, though, either with money or with his own still-living livestock, and all he would gain in return is the dead creature’s meat. Thus, the owner who had lost his livestock would be restored, and the difference between hurt and whole would be laid upon the man who was responsible for the harm.

There is another situation covered in these verses also, where an ox kills another but it was unprecedented for the creature to do such a thing, so the owner had no reason to expect this would happen. In this instance the man is innocent of any malfeasance, but still his neighbor has been deprived. There is not guilt in this scenario, only ill fortune, and the solution provided by the law is an exactly equal distribution of that ill fortune. The living ox would be sold and the two men would split the money from that, and also they would split the meat from the dead creature. They would share in the fruits of life and death in equal measure.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:28-32

28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.

29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Today’s verses consider a situation where a person was killed, but there was even less culpability than in the case of manslaughter. What if a man did not directly cause the death of another, but an ox under his possession did? This matter takes us to the very limits of homicidal responsibility.

God’s solution depends on whether the ox already had a reputation for goring other things or not. If the ox had never been known to attack other animals, then the creature would be killed and its flesh wasted. The owner would gain no benefit, he would simply be out the value of the creature.

If, however, the ox had been known to gore other creatures, and the owner neither put the animal down nor provided adequate protection from it, and the creature killed another person, then the ox would again be put to death, but now the man would be consigned to death also. However, this is the one instance of the death penalty where a ransom price could also be put on the life of the owner, and if the owner paid that ransom he could go free.

We have therefore seen four levels of homicidal culpability, with fitting punishments for each.

  1. Direct, intentional homicide: death penalty.
  2. A violent scuffle that escalated into unintended manslaughter: death penalty, unless the man abandons his home and goes to a city of refuge.
  3. Accidental death via an animal that the owner knew was dangerous: loss of the animal and a ransom to be paid, or else the death penalty.
  4. Accidental death via an animal that the owner did not know was dangerous: loss of the animal.

The Lord showed Himself to be well aware of all the nuances and complexities of human life, how the same unlawful outcome might require different punishments based on the varying contexts. In this we see how He did not judge man by the outer appearances, but by the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:26-27

26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.

27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

We have some more verses of the law meant to protect a servant under his master’s care. If a master were found to have abused a servant so that the servant lost an eye or a tooth, then the servant would go free, while still retaining all of the money that was initially paid for his service. The abusive master would simply lose out on any of the six years that remained in the servant’s term.

We have already mentioned how the servanthood described here in Exodus was fundamentally different from—and morally superior to—our more modern conception of slavery. We have also discussed how this sort of paid servitude may have been necessary, given the economic state of the newly-freed Israelites, providing both an opportunity to the poor and a surety to the higher class.

But to be sure, the servants of Israel were still in a vulnerable position, and that reality is well-recognized within the law. Note that we have not seen any laws that would protect or compensate the master should he have an unproductive servant, but we have already seen multiple laws that would protect the servant should he have a cruel master. There is a common narrative in our culture that the Old Testament God was cruel and championed the oppression of the weak, but such claims are disingenuous, ignoring how His laws were deliberately tilted in the favor of the most vulnerable. The care of His heart is made manifest in the guardrails of His law.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:23-25

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.

These verses contain the root of what might very well be the most famous phrase in all of Hebrew law: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” As we see here, though, that is only the beginning of the saying. Hand, foot, burning, wound, stripe, and even life all are to be returned in equal measure upon the afflicter. Any harm that a man causes to another, shall be caused back on himself in return.

This is a good and fair law, it is consistent and equal to all. It is designed to deter the guilty, protect the innocent, and provide justice when all else fails. As I have stated elsewhere, when Jesus taught the higher law of turning the other cheek, he was not dissolving this principle of fair recompense, but rather teaching the other side of the same concept. Moses gave the half of justice that condemns the guilty, Jesus gave the half the exalts the holy. We need both.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:22

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.

We are told that if a pregnant woman was struck and lost her child, that the man who caused the miscarriage would now be punished, both by the demands of the husband and the judges. The exact penalty was therefore determined on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a single, predetermined sentence. In any case, it seems like death would not have been the typical punishment.

Some may take this lesser penalty as evidence that the child growing in the womb was not considered a spirit-quickened soul, but such a conclusion isn’t certain at all. It could also be that the penalty was less because the situation described in these verses would be an accidental death. It tells of two men who are struggling with one another, who in the course of their struggle accidentally shove up against the woman. This would therefore amount to manslaughter at the most, and not murder, and we have already seen how the Lord took a more lenient view towards manslaughter than murder.

What would be more conclusive is if we had a law relating to the intentional causing of a miscarriage, but that particular situation isn’t spelled out in the books of Moses. Perhaps to the ancient Israelite that situation was considered to have already been covered by the other laws we have read.