Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 18:6-11

6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. 

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 

8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. 

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 

10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. 

11 The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

The first batch of forbidden behavior is incestuous relationships. Today covers the nearest of kin: parents, siblings, grandchildren, and stepsiblings, and then over the next couple days we will expand to more distant relationships, such as uncles and aunts. God will set the minimum number of degrees of separation there must be between a couple in Israel.

Interestingly, Abraham’s marriage to Sarah would not have met the standard required in these verses. Sarah, we learn, was the daughter of his father, but not of his mother. She was his stepsister. Obviously, there must have been a time where Adam and Eve’s children were coupling with one another, and while the population grew, closely related pairings were likely still common. One should not view these early-population examples as a contradiction to the law here described. Humanity had not yet fully come into its own, like a still-developing child. Once the species was mature, God established the rules that would thereafter govern it, and that included the prohibitions on near relationships, and we should look for no more exceptions to it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 16:22-26

22 And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.

23 And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.

24 And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.

25 And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the Lord: to day ye shall not find it in the field.

26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.

God had given two points of instruction thus far:

1. Every household was to gather one omer per person, which would be just the right amount for the day.

2. No one was to keep leftovers for the next day.

Certain Israelites had already tried defying the second rule, gathering extra rather than trusting the Lord to provide again in the morning, and all the extra had spoiled. It just wasn’t going to work for the people not to follow God’s directions in this matter, they needed to not make exceptions to His rules.

But then, as an interesting twist, God, Himself, presented a third rule that carved out an exception to his first two:

3. On the day before the sabbath they were permitted to gather two omers per person, one for the day before the sabbath and one for the sabbath.

The purpose of this rule being, of course, to keep the Israelites from having to labor on the sabbath. Thus, God was providing a valid way to do the exact thing that had been invalid when done by the disobedient Israelites just prior.

The lesson here is clear. When God gives us His commandments, He can also provide special limitations or exceptions to them, but we cannot. Some things are wrong inherently, and some things are wrong because they have been forbidden for that time. In either case, one is only right when applying the commandment of God that is relevant to that situation, and wrong when doing anything other than God’s commandment for that situation.

Some people may balk at the idea of God creating set times when a behavior is right and set times when it is wrong, but any collection of laws has this sort of nuance. For example, one may drive down the road at the posted speed limit, except at a red light they must stop until it turns green, except when that red light is flashing and they should treat it like a stop sign, except when there is a police officer directing traffic at that intersection. Are the rules ambiguous or arbitrary because they change what behavior is correct based on the circumstance? No. In each instance there is one right behavior, and there is a good reason for it. So it is with God’s laws.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Thought for the Day- Choosing to Surrender Choice

Overcoming our bad habits often requires removing the element of choice. We make a commitment to not do the bad habit anymore, and thus the choice is already made and doesn’t have to be made again.

But then, a little later, we make an exception and indulge in the habit. Or perhaps we decide that we will engage in the behavior to some degree, if not all the way. At this point we have created the option to do the behavior to some extent if the conditions are right. So now it becomes a matter of judgment again. The borders have been blurred, and from that point on, we must debate whether each successive situation warrants getting to indulge in the bad habit again or not. Thus, our bad habit has once again become a matter of choice. And this is why we give up on our commitments shortly after making them.

We should set our commitments, refuse to make exceptions, and remove the element of choice.