Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 23:14-16

14 Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year.

15 Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty:)

16 And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field.

God had already given instructions for the feast of unleavened bread (the Passover), which He reminded the people of here in verse 15, and He also told them of two more feasts to be observed throughout the year. Those two new feasts would be tied to the beginning and ending of the season.

The first feast wasn’t at the very start of the season, though, but rather when the crops had developed enough to give up their firstfruits. The second feast was after they had gathered in the last fruits at the end of the year. Thus they were feasts based on the bounty of nature, celebrating that God had given them some in the beginning, and in greater measure at the end.

Three feasts throughout the year. Converted to our current Gregorian calendar, the feast of unleavened bread would happen towards the end of April, when the firstfruits were well on their way, yet not quite ready to be plucked. The feast of harvest falls in May or June, when the first fruit is completely ripe, and the feast of ingathering comes around October, when the stalks are fully spent and give their last before perishing.

That is their sequential order in our Gregorian calendar, but recall that the Passover occurred at the very beginning of the ancient Israelite calendar. It marked the transformation from the old year to the new. With that in mind, it becomes clear that these feasts are symbols of our lives. The feast of harvest was the feast new birth, fresh life being brought forth anew, like the firstfruits that it celebrated. The feast of ingathering was the end of one’s work, the succumbing to death, and the long winter of the grave. The feast of unleavened bread was the state in between, the limbo betwixt death and rebirth. The bread was unleavened because it represents us still dead in the tomb, but it is looking forward to the fruit that is about to come forth, the life that is about to be restored when the cycle repeats.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:18-20

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

We now shift back to a series of rapid-fire laws, which feel more akin in tone to the ten commandments. In fact, in tomorrow’s verses we will hear the Lord speak in the first person, making promises of divine punishment for transgressors of certain laws.

All of the crimes mentioned in today’s verses carry a death penalty. Two of them have to do directly with forms of idolatry. The witches mentioned in verse 18 were female mystics who would use strange mutterings and sell enchantments as an alternative to relying upon the Lord, and obviously anyone sacrificing to a god other than the Lord was abandoning the true faith to pursue false deities. The other commandment that warrants a death penalty, having sexual relations with a creature, might have also been related to pagan rituals.

But why do these commandments warrant the law’s ultimate punishment? Why the death penalty as opposed to a fine or expulsion? We have already seen some death penalties, but they were reserved for the most extreme transgressions against other people. In every one of today’s laws, however, they are transgressions against God and nature. The target of the offense, I believe, is the reason for the harsh penalty.

Of course, there are those who choose to interpret the Old Testament’s strong punishments upon the heretics as evidence that God is insecure and narcissistic. If God is the Supreme Being of the universe, then why does He get so bent out of shape when we mock him? I think that these arguments are erring on the side of making God too personified. Not to say that it is wrong to think of God in a personified way, but that shouldn’t be the only way we conceive of our creator.

God is also synonymous with truth and right and good. Perhaps it becomes easier to understand the harsh penalties given in today’s commandments when we think of God in these more abstract terms. The people being described in these verses are acting in defiance of truth itself. They are trying to destroy the truth, to pervert it, to replace it with a lie, and it is hard to imagine a faster way to bring suffering and destruction to a people than declaring war directly on the truth itself. The laying of lies and idolatry at our foundation corrupts things at such a fundamental level that it can claim far more lives and souls than any other crime, hence the strong motivation to cut that trend off immediately.

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 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 21:18-21

18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:

19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Today we have rules for a killing that was not directly intended, but which did arise from violence. The killer was not so innocent as if he had carelessly dropped a brick off a roof when a man walked underneath, but he was not so guilty as if he had carried out a premeditated murder.

Forceful violence always has the chance of causing death, but it is not a sure thing. So, too, the attacker’s fate would remain unsure until the outcome of his actions fully played out. If the man that he struck survived, then the attacker would have to pay to cover the man’s lost time and see him thoroughly healed. If the victim should die, though, then the attacker would be put to death, the same as a murderer, for that is what fate determined him to be.

These same punishments are then echoed for a master who beat his servant. Note that verse 20 only says that the master would be “punished” for killing a servant, without specifying what that punishment would be. In the Talmud, though, it is specified that the punishment was still death, the same as against a free man. Also, since the servant or his family would have already been paid for his service, then the master would simply eat the cost for his own brutality. The servant would not lose any earnings for the missed days’ labor.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:15-17

15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

We have a couple more crimes for which the punishment is death. Verses 15 and 17 both have to do with one’s actions towards their father and mother. If one were to smite a parent, or even if only to curse them, then they would face a death penalty. This is demanding a higher level of respect to one’s parents than for any other person. That being said, the commandment does not require one to actively show love and affection to the parents, but it does deny showing active malice towards them. Perhaps one’s parents behaved so reprehensibly that the child cannot show them sweet devotion, the child would be justified by the law in withholding that, but the child would not be justified in harming or cursing the parent.

As a separate matter, if anyone tried to force another man into slavery, the perpetrator would also be sentenced to death. Recall that a key difference between Israelite servitude and our modern conception of slavery was that the serving party willingly elected to enter that station in return for a price. It was freely entered into, would freely be departed from after six years, and received due compensation. It was entirely different from the sorts of historical slavery where people were kidnapped, carried from their homeland, and forced into lifelong oppression. As we see in today’s verses, that form of slavery was never supported by the Lord, in fact He demanded the death of any who participated in it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:12-13

12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:

13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.

In addition to their steps of purification, the Israelites were instructed that they not come too close to the mountain when the glory of the Lord was upon it. They would be permitted to hear His voice, but that did not mean that they could abide touching His presence directly.

This is an interesting notion, one that is visited again later when Uzzah, the Israelite, reaches out to steady the ark and is immediately struck dead (2 Samuel 6:6-7). What is it about the Lord’s presence that people must not come too near, on pain of death?

I see in this a lesson that total godliness is too great for us to endure. It is too bright, it is too pure, it is too glorious, such that it condemns our perverse, fallen flesh. We are like particles of dust that immolate from the heat around the fire, even before we touch the flame. That buffer of disintegrating heat ensures that nothing impure ever touches that perfect light.

This is why each of us must be purified in our hearts before we meet the Father, why we must have our corruptible flesh replaced by an immortal body, why Moses had to be transfigured for his own up-close encounter with the Lord. We require a divine intermediary between us to interact with God, because His glory is literally too much for us to handle!

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Ends of Good and Evil

Of Evil)

Lying is evil. Stealing is evil. Murder is evil. These are functions of the wicked, not of the good.

If all evil behaviors belong to the wicked, and are eschewed by the good, then it logically follows that the wicked will afflict all these evils upon the good, tormenting them even unto death.

To be righteous is therefore to accept all the evil of the world, while denying oneself any opportunity to retaliate in kind. It therefore follows that evil will naturally triumph over good, as it can murder the righteous, but the righteous cannot murder the wicked.

Of Good)

That being said, triumph is good. Resurrection is good. Salvation is good. These are states of the righteous, not of the wicked.

If all good outcomes belong to the righteous, and are denied to the wicked, then it logically follows that the righteous will overcome all the afflictions of the wicked, even being raised from the dead.

To be righteous is therefore to accept all the evil of the world, but then being raised above it all. It therefore follows that good will ultimately triumph over evil, as it can overcome evil, but the evil cannot overcome the good.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Trending Towards Death

It is a terrible thing to be faithless, nihilistic, cynical, and depressed. There are many that find themselves in a state where effort seems ineffectual, the future appears bleak, and life itself feels meaningless. Too long in such a state can be a very dangerous thing, as the broken person may begin to consider ways to expedite the end of their miserable existence. Even if not, though, they will continue forward in a sort of waking death, unmotivated to do any of the things worth living for, isolating and numbing, and just letting themselves go. They may reach a “natural end,” but one that was premature and avoidable.

On the other hand, though, one might love life to the point of debauchery. They might become carnal, sensual, eagerly pursuing every pleasant, vibrant experience, trying to live as full and varied a life as possible. But gross hedonism is just as tended towards death as depression. Promiscuous sexuality, drunkenness, risk-taking, late-night parties, and gluttony do not prolong life, rather they burn it out faster, resulting in either an accidental death, or once again, a demise that might be considered natural, though premature and avoidable.

The soul cleaved from its purpose becomes depressed and gravitates towards death, but also the soul that makes its purpose the pleasures of life also gravitates to death. Survival itself is contingent upon finding the true life worth living, and committing ourselves wholeheartedly to it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- Deferring to the Mob

John 19:8-11:

8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;

9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

We see in the final days of Jesus’s life how he submitted himself to the power of strange leaders and violent mobs. When Pilate gave Jesus an opportunity defend himself from false accusations, Jesus gave no reply, permitting the lies of his accusers to stand alone.

However, when Pilate asserted his power over Jesus, Jesus was quick to shoot that down, pointedly reminding Pilate of the transience of his station, while Christ stood on much surer ground. Jesus had averred just a few days ago that he could command legions of angels to save him, but he chose not to, instead allowing the campaign of evil to achieve its ends.

But it wasn’t always so. The example of Jesus is not strictly one of deference to the mob. There was a time before when an angry horde sought to throw him off a cliff, but he calmly suppressed their efforts. Luke 4:28-30:

28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,

29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way.

Christ rebuked this mob’s designs because it wasn’t yet his time. Later he did not resist because it was his time. So, are we, as Christians, required to patiently suffer injustices and abuse from others? Yes, absolutely. But are we required to do so in each and every situation? Absolutely not!

Like our leader, Christ, we are to be ready to endure all things, but also to be ready to rebuke all things. We are to meekly suffer, but also to boldly defy. We are to resist, and also to acquiesce. And all of this, not according to our own will and judgment, but God’s. It is His place, not ours, to decide when it is time for which response. If we depend only upon our own views, we can be both wrongly meek and wrongly bold. It is too simple to say that we should just be humble or should just be defiant, we must be rightly both.