Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 20:22-23

22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. 

23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

These verses repeat the language heard at the end of Leviticus18, about the previous owners of Canaan all participating in each of the dark and evil acts described in this chapter, and for this reason being spued out of the land. Israel would be as well if they followed the same pattern. This further supports the idea I presented earlier that these chapters are a second account of the law, giving the same message with a slightly different recollection of the scribe who wrote it down.

The addition of death penalties to the crimes in this account further explain why Israel was commanded to go to war with the Canaanite nations and drive them out of the land. God had said that the Israelites who engaged in these profane practices would face being cut off or executed on a personal level, so it would make sense that the Canaanites who engaged with these sins as a regular part of their society would face the same punishment on the national level. The wars that Israel would engage in were separate from the category of mere conquest, they were to execute God’s judgment upon the condemned.

Posted on by Abe Austin · 1 Comment

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 20:11, 12, 14

11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 

12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 

14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

Today’s verses cover the familial sexual relationships that warranted a death penalty, and they all have to do with parent-child relationships, including parent and child in-law. Continuing with the pattern noted in the last post, these are the sorts of relationships that would destroy a bloodline, creating confusion in the natural and orderly way God has given us to know our heritage and our ancestry.

Families are given to us in what is naturally a hierarchal chain, with grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren and so on. It tells us where we have come from and where we are going. It makes each person both the hope and succession of all that came before, and the guardian and progenitor of all that will follow. It ensures that each member is born with both great support and great responsibility, every member a part of something greater than the self, but also each self is essential to the continued existence of the whole.

It is a beautiful design, but when parents and children fold the chain back onto one another, it becomes a meaningless mass of ambiguous heritage and vague responsibility. So, it is a death of the line, and accordingly a death penalty is assigned to it.

Posted on by Abe Austin · 1 Comment

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 20:10, 13, 15, 16, 18

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 

18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

We now move into the verses prohibiting various sexual relations, much like the ones we just saw in Leviticus 18. The main difference is that this chapter includes punishments for each of these crimes. Not every punishment is the same, and so we learn which sexual relations were more egregious and we can hypothesize as to why.

This category of sin covers verses 10 through 21, and I have decided to rearrange the verses to group them by categories that stood out to me during my study. Today includes all the examples of sex with someone or something who is not a close relation. Most prohibitions have to do with those familial relationships, but there were other aberrant relationships also called out, almost all of them with a death penalty attached.

Specifically, adultery with an unrelated person, male homosexuality, and bestiality were all relationships that would result in the death of both parties. As I consider these, I see a pattern emerge. Each of these sexual acts is tended towards a sort of end or extinction. Homosexual males and people who have sex with animals cannot reproduce, their desires lead to the end of a line, not the continuation of it. Adultery can produce children, but it confuses bloodlines and dissolves the family identity. Each of these aberrant behaviors are already naturally dead acts, and assigning the penalty of death emphasizes that fact.

And then, of course, there is the example of having sex with a woman during her period. This, too, is a non-reproductive act, given that the woman’s body is incapable of fertilization at this time. Even so, the penalty for this act is not death, and that makes sense, given that the sexual union of man and woman is still of the type to reproduce, it’s just the timing that is wrong, whereas all the other acts are not even of the type to reproduce, no matter the timing.

With these laws God seems to be acknowledging a fundamental principle of the universe. It is good and life-giving to be of the type that can reproduce. Those that choose to live after the manner of extinction or act only in impotence are in transgression of their very nature. They live according to death.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 20:9

9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

There has already been some discussion among other commentators as to what sort of “cursing” could warrant a death penalty for an ungrateful child. Tradition maintains that this death penalty only applied to the most severe of oaths against one’s parents, one that employed the name of God, Himself, but so far as I can tell, there is only a matter of tradition, not definitively proven to be true. Honestly, it doesn’t really matter. It still remains a death penalty for words spoken, which ostensibly our laws and culture are against, though recent examples like the murder of Charlie Kirk suggest that many today privately endorse the notion of killing others for their speech.

The fact is, being put death for one’s words has a long history in humanity, and it seems likely that we have only had a brief departure from it. Interestingly, that departure came about by the prevalence of Christian ideals, and now if it is waning, it appears to be due to the abandonment of those same ideals.

Even so, while many forms of death for evil words might be unjust, today’s verse should cause even the Christian to wonder if there are some that are just. The sharing of words is the sharing of ideas, and the sharing of perverse and twisted ideas has killed innocents, as can be seen in just our recent history. Abortion, Canada’s MAID program, and the sterilization of children with gender dysphoria are a few examples of how words, ideas, and movements are vehicles of self-destruction for entire cultures.

And when it comes to self-destructive and suicidal expressions, it is hard to think of one more direct than the abhorrence of one’s own progenitors. While no one has perfect parents, and some have truly awful parents, our very existence in this world is still dependent upon them. Cursing one’s own mortal beginning is an act of ouroboros. It is the tree cutting off its own roots, the fetus severing its umbilical cord, the breaking of one’s own tether to life. And so, there is something symbolic in the death penalty being assigned to such an act.

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

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 17:13-16

13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 

14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. 

15 And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean. 

16 But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity.

These verses conclude the abolition of eating the blood of animals, stating that even when hunting one must drain the carcass of its blood and “cover it with dust.” This is clearly a burial action. Even though the animal may be retained for its hide or its meat, still the “life” of it that is within the blood must be shown reverence and laid to rest.

Then, in verse 15 we learn that if an animal died on its own, it was unclean to eat, no matter what species it was. Why would a slaughtered goat be clean to eat, but not one that fell to its death? There is no explicit explanation, but a thought that occurs to me is that an animal that is slaughtered for food, is killed to the purpose of eating by the butcher who slew it, whereas an animal that dies of natural causes, is killed by the world, and perhaps that means that the earth has rightful claim upon it. It is like how when a martyr dies for a worthy cause he dies to the Lord, whereas a man who succumbs to old age dies to this fallen world.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Sharing Feelings- Difficult Conversations

I Would Rather Die)

In my last post I made the claim that the type of “sharing feelings” that men need most is admission of guilt and shame. Honestly, that probably goes for women also, but I don’t have extensive personal experience with that, like I do with men. I have seen many men burdened with depression, fear, anxiety, and purposelessness. That has been me, myself. In every case, the first step that must be taken, and then taken repeatedly again throughout life, is the admission of one’s secret wrongs, so that forgiveness and surrender can take place.

These are inherently difficult conversations to have. I cannot think of any that would be harder. Disclosing your deepest wrongs is the single most likely way to break relationships, face painful consequences, and risk total abandonment. It is social and emotional suicide, and many men would rather commit actual suicide than go there. One of the most common things I have heard (and personally felt) is that men feel like admitting these things would kill us. We men often only make these confessions because we finally decide that a quick and sharp death is better than the long, drawn out one that we are experiencing. What a shock and amazement to discover that actually this is the path to life.

Jesus described the path to life as “strait and narrow,” (Matthew 7:14). The things that we must do are clear, precise, and narrowly defined. They are simple and accessible to all. Yet “few there be that find it,” because the first step of that path is the one gate that most of us think we will never pass through: confession of our shame.

Culture of Confession)

I believe confession is necessarily hard. I do not think it will ever be easy. A lot of people talk about changing the culture to make it more acceptable for men to “talk about their feelings,” and I do believe we could make a push to normalize confession culturally, removing the social stigmas around it that are unnecessary, but I don’t think it will ever actually stop being anything less than the hardest thing we ever do. It simply isn’t in our nature to make confession until we have exhausted every other possible option.

And that’s okay. We can never become the greatest version of ourselves without fear, sacrifice, and restoration. Facing something that scares us to death and breaking through that barrier is the gateway into new life. Jesus, himself, explained this when he said, “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Paradise is only available to the reborn, and rebirth assumes the death of the old self.

Thus, even if we ever did create a culture of confession such that there was no fear in admitting to our deepest wrongs, there would still be a need for another crippling fear that we would rather die than face, and a courageous leap into that death, and a rebirth on the other side. Personally, I consider it more likely that confession will just always serve as that primal fear.

I want to be clear that I absolutely know how hard the things I am advocating for are. I know it firsthand. I do not encourage men to seek this soul-shattering experience lightly. I only advocate for it because I know it is the only way, and that what is on the other side is worth it. In fact, it is so much more than just “worth it.” It isn’t that life continues on the other side of confession, it is that it begins. Everything before it is simply a walking death. Everything after it is the genuine article. And so yes, I acknowledge that this is hard, but I bear my witness that it is right and true. May I meet you one day on the other side.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 3:2-5

2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.

3 And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the Lord; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,

4 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.

5 And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.

In the last post we discussed the difference in meaning between the Meat Offering and this Peace Offering. These different meanings are reflected in the different steps of the sacrifices, as we can see in today’s verses. For the Meat Offering, there was no death involved. The offeror merely gave some grain, or flour, or baked goods. The absence of a death would certainly help maintain the joyful levity that that offering represented. But with the Peace Offering a death was mandatory, which is much more fitting for the thoughtful and emotional themes of reconciliation to the Lord that the sacrifice represented.

The fact is that death is a necessary component for any reconciliation. It might be the death of the ego, where I finally put an end to my ideas and my behavior, letting them die, so that I can be reconciled to another. Or it might be the death of individuality, such as when a man marries a woman, and they lay to rest their solitary lives to begin a new one of unity. Certainly, it can also be the death of the Savior, who paid the ultimate price so that we can have ultimate oneness with God again.

And so, in this symbolic offering, a life is appropriately taken, and the fat of the animal, which represents its passions, its energy, and its drive, are laid on the altar and burned. The offeror gives up all these things to instead be subsumed into the Almighty.

SacrificeEligible oblationStepsExplanation
Peace OfferingCattleGratitude for reconciliation
Animal is slainGiving up old life for one of unity with another
Fat burned on altarGiving up old plans, passions, and drives

Full table.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Thy Sins Are Forgiven

One of the most common phrases of Jesus’s ministry was “thy sins are forgiven thee.” When the paralytic man was lowered to him through the roof, Jesus first forgave the man’s sins, then healed his body. When the woman of many sins wept on his feet and anointed them with ointment, he also told her that her many sins were forgiven. The woman taken in adultery he did not directly forgive, but he did provide her a stay of execution and implored her to sin no more, implying that he was giving her time to seek the same forgiveness that the others had received.

Even as he was dying on the cross, Jesus had two famous moments of forgiveness. He interceded for the Romans who were carrying out his execution, observing that they were acting without understanding. He also promised the repentant thief that the two of them would see each other in paradise, implicitly forgiving him of the very sins that the man was being put to death for.

These are nice moments to think on, times where Jesus gave the greatest gift that we can experience in this life. I can’t imagine reading these stories and not being moved with happiness and hope.

But I think it also worth noting the deep gravity behind them also. I think we should always remember that when Jesus said, “thy sins are forgiven thee,” that forgiveness did not pop out of nowhere. Yes, it was given freely, but it was not acquired freely. Every time Jesus uttered those words an implication followed, “thy sins are forgiven thee, because I will die for them.”

In Hebrews it states: 

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Hebrews 9:16-17

Surely, part of the reason why the death of the testator, Jesus, was necessary, was because his New Testament would take the place of the death penalties in the Old Testament. Thus, when Jesus let the woman taken in adultery go free…it was only because he was going to be killed in her place. And in all the other cases where Jesus pronounced “thy sins are forgiven thee,” those were only words until he paid the price that would give them actual force. The wages of sin are death, and so forgiveness of sin could only be real after his death for them.

We rejoice whenever Jesus’s words of forgiveness, mercy, and healing come upon us, and well we should. We marvel at how freely we receive them, how they seem to come from out of nowhere. But in the midst of our joy, we should remember that the freeness of them is only an illusion from our perspective. In reality, with every word of forgiveness Jesus gives to us, he is agreeing to die for them also.