Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 9:13-16

13 And the Lord said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.

14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.

15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.

16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Pharaoh had held out for two plagues in a row, so now came the third. The Lord sent Moses yet again, and Moses was to deliver a most weighty speech to Pharaoh. Through Moses, God used language like “I will…send all my plagues upon thine heart…and upon thy people,” as well as “I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee,” and also “thou shalt be cut off from the earth!”

And all this was only the preamble! In verse 16 God made a most dramatic assertion. He told Pharaoh that the only reason why the Egyptians had enjoyed their place as a great world power was so that God could make an example out of them! God had made Pharaoh powerful so that He could break him, and show the world that the God of the Hebrews was master over all! God had propped Pharaoh up simply so that he could take a terrible blow!

We often remind ourselves that God is a God of love, and truly He is. But He is not one-dimensional. He is also a God of justice, a God of judgment, and a God of retribution. He redeems the innocent, but He also condemns the wicked. God tells us that He “shall wipe away all tears” from the faithful, but also He asserts that “vengeance is mine” against the wicked. Thus, in addition to His lovingkindness, God is capable of anger, of going to war, and of utterly destroying His enemies like no one else can. And, I would argue, nowhere is this side of God made more clear than in His dealings with the Egyptians.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 9:8-12

8 And the Lord said unto Moses and unto Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward the heaven in the sight of Pharaoh.

9 And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt.

10 And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood before Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast.

11 And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians.

12 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.

Ever since Aaron and Moses turned the river to blood, there hadn’t been much pageantry for the curses God inflicted upon Egypt. Here, though, Moses was to give another visual performance to illustrate the next punishment that was coming. He was told to take handfuls of ashes and sprinkle them in the air. The ashes, we are told, would become dust, and the dust would fester in the body and form a boil.

There is clearly some special symbolism here. Ashes from the furnace seems emblematic to me of suffering and death, or destruction and ruin. Intense heat and fire breaks down some form—wood, coal, straw, flesh—and reduces it to dead ash. Perhaps the ash represented the Israelites who had toiled under the hot sun, broken underneath their labors, and died in premature deaths. We also know that ash was often associated in the Bible with great mourning. There are several passages that speak of times of great mourning and penitence, where the humbled people abased themselves in “sackcloth and ashes.”

So perhaps the sprinkling of the ashes that fester in the skin and emerge as boils is representative of rebellion. The pattern of many nations has been to persecute and enslave a particular set of people, who suffer and die, who are ground into ash, but who then foment an uprising, an angry boil that violently bursts out against their captors.

And speaking of boils, that is something I am directly familiar with. I served a mission in the West Indies, where boils were a frequent affliction. I understand the incredible swellings that stretch and heat the skin, the great tenderness and pain, the disgust when it finally ruptures, the intense spasms when pulling out the heart of it. It sounds as though the Egyptians may have had multiple boils at the same time, too, something that I personally never experienced, but which I cringe at the thought of. In addition to any larger, political symbolism, I believe this curse also represented the ugly, festering, and searing side of sin. Something corrupt had gone into the Egyptians and their own flesh was revolting against it with excruciating results. It is just the same when we subject our God-given souls to darkness.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 9:5-7

5 And the Lord appointed a set time, saying, To morrow the Lord shall do this thing in the land.

6 And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.

7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.

Once again we see the pattern of God revealing his intention to Moses, Moses and Aaron delivering that message to Pharaoh, and then the promised effect coming into reality. There are multiple patterns regarding the behavior of God and man that are being reinforced through repetition in this story, showing that these are general rules and not incidental coincidences. As a general rule, God has His plans and He makes them known beforehand through His prophets so that we don’t mistake His work for random chance. This pattern makes it very hard to deny that God was responsible for what occurred, as one would first have to explain how God knew it was going to happen.

In verse 6 we are told that the effect of God’s curse was total. It states that “all the cattle of Egypt died.” It wasn’t just a portion that God took, it was the entire flock. Meanwhile, “of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.” God’s protection of the Israelites was just as absolute as His destruction of the Egyptians.

This does raise a question, though, for in each of the next two curses (the boils and the hail), we will be told that both the Egyptians were afflicted, and also their “beasts,” including “cattle…in the field.” What cattle were there to be afflicted if all of them had died already from the murrain? Perhaps verse 6 only means “all the cattle of Egypt died”…that had been afflicted with the murrain? Perhaps the disease did not have a 100% infection rate, but did have a 100% mortality rate. Or perhaps literally all of the Egyptian cattle were killed, and they then purchased new flocks from their neighbors, and it was that new purchase that was attacked in the next two curses.

Finally, In verse 7 we hear how Pharaoh sent emissaries to validate the Lord’s claims, to really know whether everything had played out in just the way that the Lord had decreed. “And, behold,” it had. But apparently that had no effect on his behavior. Once more he refused to let the people go, and so yet another curse would follow.

Posted on by Abe Austin · 2 Comments

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 9:1-4

1 Then the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.

2 For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still,

3 Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain.

4 And the Lord shall sever between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall nothing die of all that is the children’s of Israel.

Moses came to deliver God’s next promised plague to Pharaoh, and more than any of the previous it was going to cause real, irreparable harm. For the first time, God would bring a plague that would directly cause death. The death was not to be upon the people—that was still to come—but upon the Egyptian livestock. The death would come in the form of a “murrain,” which is an infectious disease. Many types of animals would be afflicted, but most notably the cattle and the sheep.

These, as has been previously discussed, were likely sacred animals to the Egyptians. So this plague was not only to destroy their beasts of burden and their meat supply, but also an assault against their very religion! God is a God of truth, and He does not show respect to the falsely “sacred” rituals that man invents. By destroying the cattle and the sheep God was not only emphasizing His superiority over the Egyptian people, but also over their gods. It might have been deeply offensive to the Egyptians, but what were they to do about it? It was up to their gods to defend themselves against other divinities, and apparently they could not!

Also note that God once again established a divide between the land of Egypt and Goshen. God promised that “there shall nothing die” of the Israelites. Thus, His people would be free to continue raising, sacrificing, and consuming the very same animals that the Egyptians held most dear!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Few There Be

The Narrow Way)

In the middle of his mortal ministry Jesus Christ gave the following instruction:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
-Matthew 7:13-14

The last time I read this passage I was caught by this particular sequence of words: “few there be.”

“Few” would suggest less than half, probably significantly less than half, in any case a clear minority. And if a minority of people are finding the pathway to heaven then, by definition, the average goodness of man would be insufficient.

This makes me wonder…am I only of average goodness in my everyday dealings? Am I only of average zeal in my seeking and proclaiming of the truth? Or is my discipleship the sort of which one would say “few there be?”

Above Average)

I am also reminded of another declaration from Christ:

For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
-Luke 6:32-34

I believe that these verses describe the efforts that most people make to live good and wholesome lives. And while it certainly is not bad to love, do good, and lend to those that we are close to…once again, the default goodness is clearly not enough.

If “few there be” that find the path to eternal life, and most people are trying to be basically good, then we must aspire to be more than basically good. We must be extraordinarily good, uniquely valiant, and exceptionally virtuous. Christ says that we can find the strait and narrow way, but not by doing the status quo.

Perhaps this isn’t the comfiest of teachings, but at least Christ was good enough to forewarn us, to give us a chance to check ourselves and change our path. Pay close attention to how these words stir your heart, and give those feelings the heed and serious consideration that they are due. Don’t be going so fast that you can’t make the turn-off that takes you from where you are headed to where you need to be going. It’s a pretty narrow road, after all, and few there be that find it!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Subjective Abstractions of Objective Reality

Subjective Fear)

There are many instincts that we people have ingrained in us, even without being taught them. We tend to fear heights, have a revulsion to spoiled meat, and pull our hand back when it is burned. These reactions are all invented from within us, though, they do not immediately correspond to some physical, universal reality. The universe is not afraid of heights, the universe is not repulsed by spoiled meat, and the universe does not pull back when it is burned. Fear and revulsion and recoil are not calculable by any sort of physical equation, they are only psychological illusions.

One might also make the case that it is the same with our morality. There is no observable universal reality that hates slavery and abuse. There is no observable universal objectivity to loving kindness and bravery. Could it be that these are also delusions of the mind? That they are simply extreme emotional hallucinations, totally detached from reality, just like being afraid of heights?

It’s an interesting argument but I do not find it convincing. In fact, it undoes itself.

Abstractions of Reality)

Let us consider the first half: the notion that the universe itself is not afraid of heights, and so our fear of it is merely a psychological illusion. It is true that the greater cosmos does not shrink back at the edge of a cliff. All of the elements and minerals and flakes of dust that have no mind attached to them happily roll off the edge of the cliff without a care in the world. But that doesn’t mean that our fear of the cliff is random or detached from reality.

The fact is, we fear the edge of the cliff for a reason, and that reason is based on three universal truths. The first is that objects which become untethered at a high height will be accelerated downward by gravity. The second is that an object which has been accelerated into another object will experience an opposite and equal reaction, a force that presses against it. The third is that a force will continue through a body, dispersing its energy in fractures and breaks, until that other body has cancelled out that force.

These are all objective realities that apply to every physical object in the universe. The combined effect of them is, of course, that an object that is suddenly released at a great height will fall, and hit the ground with great force, and be broken into pieces. Our seemingly subjective fear is actually an abstraction of multiple objective truths that can combine to destroy us. It is well worth appreciating how our minds are able to take all these separate physical phenomena, and encapsulate them with a single, visceral emotion.

So yes, there is no universal fear of heights, but that fear is an abstraction of physical laws. So our fear does actually have an objective basis and justification, and no one is deluded for listening to it. The same goes, of course, for our revulsion of spoiled meat and our recoiling of our hand when burned. These impulsive, instinctive reactions are simply abstractions of objective truths in chemistry and thermodynamics.

The Moral Reality)

Having recognized these objective roots to our other instincts, it seems most logical to assume that it is the same for our sense of morality. To suggest otherwise, one would have to make a compelling case as to why one set of instinctive, emotional reactions is grounded in reality, while another is purely relative, and I struggle to think of what such an argument would be.

To me, it is far simpler to assume that our disdain for slavery and stealing is a subjective abstraction around an objective reality. Not a physical reality, but a spiritual reality, and the disdain is not a protection of our physical form, but of our spiritual form. We are afraid of unkindness because it is a reflection of unseen universal, moral truths that will damage our spirits just as surely as falling off a cliff will damage our bodies. So even if our sense of justice and compassion and virtue are subjective illusions, they are still illusions that signify an underlying truth.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Taken to the Extreme

Two Ways of Life)

Many of my generation and culture have expressed that we were raised with strict—and sometimes severe—consequences for any time that we slipped from the moral standards we were expected to live by. Quite a few of us developed a strong sense of perfectionism as a result, inflicting upon ourselves an impossible standard that has tied more than a few of us into painful knots. Too many of us have had constant feelings of being guilty and unworthy. Suffice it to say that there were some flaws in the way we were given our belief systems.

But on the other hand, I have also seen several of my same generation that were raised under an anything-goes sort of mentality. Moral misdeeds were only winked at, and consequences obscured, resulting in some incredibly reckless, selfish, and narcissistic tendencies. Either morality was relative, or it didn’t even exist, and many avoidable wounds were suffered by that denial of objective truth. From my observation, this philosophy wasn’t really any better than the extreme legalism.

The Inevitable Extreme)

Either way, one can easily come to feel that they were dealt the harder hand. I have seen many of my peers throw the baby out with the bath water, renouncing all moral law because they were hurt under an inappropriate application of it. They lack the nuance to see that there was good in the theory, if not the execution.

And, frankly, these flaws and nuances are inevitable. Whatever principles people choose to live and raise their society by, there will always be those that take the principles to an inappropriate extreme. If you decide to instill a strong sense of moral obedience, sooner or later you will have individuals that enact cruel punishments for any perceived deviance. If you decide to instill a carefree, life-loving mantra, sooner or later you will have individuals that pursue carnal indulgence without any regard for the people harmed along the way. Humanity is made up of all sorts. It has the best of people within it, but also the worst, and it is the worst who will always find a way to pervert the well-meaning conventional wisdom.

Lessons Learned)

Having explained this, let me point out two essential takeaways related to the matter:

  1. In any philosophy that you choose to live by, it is worth considering what potential evil might sprout from it down the line. Life philosophies are not so much a destination as a direction, and it is important for us to follow the logical conclusion of that direction to its furthest extremes. In the wrong minds, what are the worst interpretations that others might take from your teachings? If you identify what those perverse extremes are, then you can call them out ahead of time, setting in place the bounds that will let you and others know when things have been taken too far.
  2. Any principle, even one that is true and good, becomes corrupt when pursued at the expense of all other true principles. Going back to the idea of life philosophy as a direction, we might also consider it as a vector: a line stretching across a graph. It may run from one inappropriate extreme to another, but in between it might run through some very worthy territory as well.
    Additional principles can be thought of as more vectors, other lines that stretch across the graph, and at certain points intersect with our first. Those intersection points help us greatly in that they represent the natural bounds that each principle sets upon the other. For example, if we are mature enough to hold both the principle of moral obedience and grace for sin at the same time, then each will keep us from running too far with the other. Together they plot for us when to forgive and when to call for repentance. They will even show us how to do both at the same time!
Posted on by Abe Austin

Doing Wrong vs Trending Towards It

I’ve been part of an addiction recovery group for a while, and I’ve noticed something that can trip up addicts in our sobriety. I think it is a trap that applies universally as well.

I have witnessed and experienced how an addict will sometimes re-examine his definition of sobriety, playing with the fringes of exactly what behavior he will consider a relapse and what behavior he will not. Sometimes he will find a behavior that really doesn’t contradict his conscience or give him any guilt. So he relaxes the rules and guidelines in that one area, but not long after he finds himself pushing the envelope further and further, and ultimately relapsing multiple times in a row.

So was he wrong in his appraisal and just trying to justify doing things that he should have felt guilty about all along? Not necessarily.

As a general rule, good begets good and evil begets evil, but there are times where an action that is neutral, or even good, should be treated as evil, not for its own sake, but because of the evil places it tends to lead to. The addict has to acknowledge what actions follow his choices down the line. Lending a sympathetic ear to a friend might seem like a good thing to do, and in-and-of-itself it might be, but if spending time with that particular friend often leads to you eventually losing your sobriety, then maintaining that relationship is actually a bad thing to do.

The addict—and everyone else as well—is playing a game of chess against his own nature, and to not get caught in a trap he has to know how to play six moves ahead. He must reject what is clearly wrong, but also reject whatever leads to it. He must place a prudent and deliberate buffer around evil. He must come to know himself very, very well.

Posted on by Abe Austin

It’s Hard to Change Your Story

It can be a hard thing to change the story we have told other people of who we are. Each of us suggests to others what our principles and priorities are, what we will and will not do, and what behavior they might expect of us. Sometimes we begin to shift who we are, though, and at that point it becomes difficult to explain to others this new emerging version of ourselves. This is true whether our change is for the worse or for the better.

For the Worse)

Let us first consider the example of a change for the worse. Suppose I am developing a bad habit, or that I’m trying to admit to a bad habit that I’ve kept a secret. In this case, then telling others about this new lifestyle of mine reveals any number of the following details about me:

  1. I was lying to people in the past.
  2. I’m ignoring my conscience to do something that I still know is wrong.
  3. I wasn’t nearly so firm in my past convictions as I pretended to be.

None of these are a pleasant thing to own up to. None of them show me in a very good light. All of them make me a fool and/or a liar. Any other principles that I still claim to maintain are now suspect, because I’ve already shown the capacity to abandon one of them. This creates a motivation to hide our vices, to let people go on thinking that we are still as saintly as they had assumed, thus adding another layer of deceit to our story.

For the Better)

Now let us examine the example of me giving up a bad habit, changing my life for the better. In this case, there is still a friction against changing my story. For one, I might have the sense that my present company have something over me in that they knew the old me, the worst me, the me who openly did the things I now say I don’t do. I might be worried that these people will see my new efforts as nothing more than an act, a forced performance and not my true character. They might be anchors, trying to pull me back to what they think is the “real” me, even though I am trying to reject that version.

Not only this, but if I have done these bad habits with others, they may feel judged by my rejection of that behavior. I might say that I don’t judge them for doing that which I now consider inexcusable in myself, but that is inconsistent. I am now opposed to a part of my old self that still loves on in my friends’ current selves, so in truth I am now rejecting a part of who they are.

These two factors create a pull back towards our old ways. We are motivated to undo our story rewrite.

Is Change Possible?)

Whether for the better or the worse, change implies that there something wrong and deceitful about yourself either in the past or the present. Making a change means admitting to your flawed nature, your unreliableness, and your uncertainty. Is it any wonder, then, that so few people seem to change? Some people even believe that no one can really change. They say that people can only alter their outer behaviors from time-to-time, but will still be the same person at their core.

I don’t think the situation is quite that severe, though the difficulty of true transformation should never be understated. I think it would be more accurate to say: a man really can change, even for the better, but more often than not it takes an act of God to do it!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 8:28-32

28 And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness; only ye shall not go very far away: entreat for me.

29 And Moses said, Behold, I go out from thee, and I will entreat the Lord that the swarms of flies may depart from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people, to morrow: but let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more in not letting the people go to sacrifice to the Lord.

30 And Moses went out from Pharaoh, and entreated the Lord.

31 And the Lord did according to the word of Moses; and he removed the swarms of flies from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people; there remained not one.

32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

Pharaoh agreed to the demands being made, even for Israel to depart into the wilderness to perform their sacrifices. Now that Pharaoh had given his word, Moses assured him that he would entreat the Lord, but Moses already anticipated Pharaoh’s deceit and warned him against it. Pharaoh, however, went right ahead and betrayed his word for a second time.

I’m really not sure what Pharaoh expected to happen when he broke his word this time. He had already seen that God would return with greater affliction, so it should have been clear that he was only making his situation worse. And not just marginally worse, either. The curses were about to enter an entirely new tier of suffering. The turning of the staff to a snake and the river to blood can be considered as the first phase of God’s curses, transfigurations that were merely meant to frighten Pharaoh without causing lasting harm. The second phase was the irritation and annoyance of frogs, lice, and flies. Now, though, would begin the third phase, in which the curses would deal in actual death! I believe Moses’s warning that Pharaoh must not deal deceitfully was insinuating that if he tried to test God further, the Egyptians would enter into this new order of suffering, but Pharaoh chose to walk that path anyway.

And, according to verse 32, Pharaoh really did choose it. I’ve mentioned this verse before, but let’s take note of it one more time. In other passages it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but here it says that “Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also.” The “also” suggests that Pharaoh was the one who hardened his heart in the previous instances as well, not God. As I’ve mentioned previously, I think it is this reading and interpretation that makes the most sense.