Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 28:4-5

4 And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

5 And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen.

The overview of the clothes is given in today’s verses, and next we will hear about each piece in greater detail. All of the mentioned elements are as follows:

  1. A mitre: a sort of hat or turban. Something that would be worn on the head.
  2. A breastplate: a square patch of fabric which was adorned with precious stones. It sat on the chest, hanging from the shoulders by chains of gold.
  3. An ephod: a sort of apron that the breastplate rested upon.
  4. A robe: a poncho-like layer underneath the ephod.
  5. A broidered coat: yet another layer underneath the robe.
  6. A girdle: a sash tied around the waist to secure all the layers.

Thus, there are three layers upon the body: broidered coat, robe, and an ephod, all bound by the girdle, with a breastplate upon the chest, and a mitre on the head.

Yesterday we spoke of the clothes as having a weighty beauty, and one can see how all of these layers and different adornments would fit that bill. We have already seen great symbolism in the structure and instruments of the tabernacle, and surely the pattern continues with this complex and multi-faceted clothing. We will consider the meaning of each as we continue.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 28:2-3

2 And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.

3 And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

Aaron and his sons are to be dressed in specific clothes while performing the office of the priest. These clothes, we are told are for the particular purposes of “glory and beauty.”

The Hebrew word that is translated into “glory” is kabowd (כָּבוֹד), which means weighty good. It is used to describe things that have dignity, honor, and yes, glory. Thus, the design of these clothes is to bring a sense of seriousness and importance to Aaron and his sons, they are to feel the weight of their honorable undertaking when they wear its vestiture.

That is something I can immediately understand. Whenever I have worn a full suit, with its extra weight and encumbrance, I have felt a sort of dignity imparted to me just by the wearing of it. I’m not quite sure why but wearing things that are heavy and deliberately fashioned give a greater sense of importance to the things that we do.

Moving on to the second descriptor, the glory of the priest’s clothes would be paired with “beauty.” Beauty, of course, means to delight and please. Where glory may inspire reverence, beauty inspires engagement. Thus, together, these clothes are meant to draw in, but with soberness. They are meant to create a serious connection. If I were to try and describe that notion in one word, I would say “sacred.” Sacred things are beautiful, but they are also heavily weighted.

Given this, is it any wonder that in verse 3 God states that the creation of this clothing is to be done by those he had filled with his spirit of wisdom? Truly sacred things come to us when heaven touches with the earth. Only those touched by God would be able to construct these sacred clothes as intended.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 28:1

1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons.

We now turn from the details of the tabernacle structure to the dress and preparation of the priests that would carry out its duties. First of all, there were specific men appointed to the office of the priest. At this point it was to be Aaron and his sons. In all, there were only five of them, and we heard previously that there were 600,000 men who participated in the Exodus. If that means 600,000 households, and all of them were only to make a single offering in a year, then it would be approximately 329 households serviced per priest every day of the year.

Of course, eventually the priesthood would be expanded to the entire tribe of Levi, but even then, there is an even smaller bottleneck when we consider that there was only one altar in the tabernacle courtyard upon which to sacrifice animals. According to the numbers that we have, that one altar would have to facilitate 1,644 sacrifices per day for each household to make one offering per year.

And we have not even addressed special times of the year, such as the festivals, when everyone would be bringing an offering at once! In short, I don’t know how the logistics of sacrifices at the tabernacle worked. I don’t think we have all enough details to understand how the work was distributed so that every Israelite could make an offering when he needed to.

But presumably there was a robust enough system that it did work, and there were dedicated men whose whole labor would be carrying out these most sacred rituals, connecting every individual soul in Israel to God.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Virtue is Greater Than Vice

Performing a virtue is always more challenging, and requires greater strength of character, than to perform its counterpart vice.

If I were to tell you that one man killed for his cause, and that another man died for his cause, which man would you say held the greater commitment and resolve to his cause? Obviously, the man that was willing to die.

So, too, it is more impressive to admit the truth than tell a lie, more inspiring to give away a fortune than to amass it, and more meaningful to restore peace than to start a feud.

We do not applaud the vice because we know it is very easy to do, whereas the virtue is always accomplished by walking upstream, against one’s own nature, and thus truly extraordinary. Any man that lives by virtue is forever greater than the one that lives by vice.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Paradoxical Gospel

One of the most intriguing elements of the gospel is its reliance upon seeming paradoxes. The only way to save your life is to lose it. Christ overcame the world by letting himself be defeated by it. We only find the strength to overcome our vices when we admit defeat and surrender to Jesus. We are saved by grace, but that salvation is then evidenced by our works. In our relationships with our fellow man we are supposed to return good for evil.

It is a fascinating concept, and perhaps one day I will do a more in-depth study as to why this pattern of paradox is so prevalent in the gospel. One reason that is apparent to me now, however, is that it allows God to hide His path in plain sight. Consider the last example in the above paragraph, which is that we are to return good for evil. Jesus was absolutely clear on this point. Here are his words in Matthew 5:44:

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

Returning kindness for cruelty goes against our human nature. It seems completely illogical. It only seems consistent that we would do good to those that do us good, and evil to those that do us evil. In the spirit of fairness, we would at least need to hurt our enemies just as much as they hurt us, and then perhaps we could build a new, more positive relationship since we were back on even ground.

But that isn’t what Christ commands us. He commands us to love even while we are the one at a disadvantage. It isn’t logical and it isn’t natural, but it is a surefire way to experience a slice of heaven here on earth. Genuinely forgiving an enemy brings a buoyancy and cheerfulness to the heart that defies all reason. And so, the evil suffered was actually the potential for good, a beautiful blessing in disguise.

And this is no secret. All of these counter-intuitive, paradoxical behaviors that unlock the greatest joy have already been laid out before us. The proliferation of the Christian gospel has made it so that all of us know that turning the other cheek will make us walk hand-in-hand with God. We all know the way, but few there be that take it because it requires us to go against our own nature and embrace the paradox.

This combination of free knowledge, but paradoxical requirement means that no one will join God by accident, but everyone that sincerely wants to join God may do so. It is an ingenious solution that allows God to save every soul that really wants it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – The Forest Through the Trees

This study has been an interesting journey. I had to dive into the arguments, the reasons, and the details to discover that the answer to my questions was not in any of those. I want to say a few more words about where I am settled today, and this will conclude my study.

Yesterday I spoke about this problem of getting stuck on the details, trying to use rational logic to argue about was originally an emotional reaction. I don’t expect that I will ever stop feeling sad and troubled whenever I think of the children that might have been slain by the Israelite soldiers via a command from God.

I can acknowledge that my conception of God is probably mistaken, and that some part of what is written may have been lost in translation before I read it, and that I don’t fully understand the context of Canaan at the time, and I certainly don’t understand the transition from this life to the afterlife. Thus, I might only feel troubled due to the limitations in my understanding, but so deep are my limitations that I don’t expect to fully overcome them in this life, and so I expect to always feel troubled.

But that doesn’t break my faith and trust in God, because this troubling is but one part in the rich tapestry of experiences that I have had with him. If anyone ever comes to me with questions on these passages, I will probably talk with him about it for a while, but at the end I expect I will say something to the effect of, “it doesn’t do to fixate on the tree at the expense of the forest.” I would advise this person to keep reading his Bible, to read all of it, and to then step back and consider the entire picture. Paul’s famous words to the Corinthians comes to mind.

1 Corinthians 3:12- For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

As I read all of the chapters in the Bible, and not just fixate on one or two, my consciousness lifts above the isolated details, and I become aware of an over-encompassing spirit that is in and through it all. And I must confess that that spirit is undeniably one of goodness, one that loves and cares for the people of this earth, one that stives over thousands of years to reclaim a fallen people, one that is worthy of devotion and discipleship. I should not lose sight of the good in that overarching spirit by obsessing over the small part that I don’t understand.

So, in conclusion, yes, I am still troubled by the command for the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child of the Canaanites, but I am not going to fixate on that troubling to the severance of my connection to the overwhelming spirit of good I find in God’s word. Because I know that God is good, I am sure that when I finally understand all the parts that I do not now, that I will be at peace and in awe of it all.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Mind vs Heart

I have spent the past several days reviewing the common defenses that are made for God having commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite nations. I found some of the arguments more compelling than others. However, even the ones that had strong points were not so convincing that I lost all discomfort for these passages. I find what remains for me is a sense that God was justified to have commanded these actions, but I still wish He wouldn’t have. The more that I delve into the details, the more I realize that the problem isn’t in the details.

I think this is a common mistake when raising and addressing issues related to God. We are dealing with a matter of spiritual unrest and are trying to resolve it in intellectual terms. We too often assume that our feelings are invalid if we cannot express it as a logical argument. Therefore, the critic will experience negative feelings towards these verses and will give logical arguments against them. The defender of these verses will respond in kind by providing logical rebuttals. Even if those rebuttals are sound, they will do nothing to convince the critic, because the logic wasn’t where the problem began. It isn’t the critic’s mind that needs to be converted, it is the heart.

Thus, my response to all of the defenses that we have covered thus far is, “yes, you have some good points, and maybe it all makes sense in my head…but I still just feel sad about it.” In my next post I will try to take a different approach to addressing these concerns. I think it is time we took the matter to a higher level of consciousness. I wish to make an appeal, not the to mind, but to the Spirit. We will see how that goes tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Response to Common Defenses #3

I have been examining God’s command to slay the entire population of a nation, and in my last post I responded to the defenses that suggested such an action was justified, and that God has the moral right to do such a thing. I concluded that such an argument makes sense to me when viewing the destruction of a wicked nation as a whole, but when zooming in to the level of individual children being destroyed, it is still uncomfortable.

Today we will look at another category of defense for these verses, which argues that the destruction of these innocents may actually have been an act of mercy. Here are two examples of that line of reasoning.

  1. From the eternal perspective, death is simply an awakening from a painful dream into glory.
  2. When a nation becomes truly depraved, their own children suffer most. Some of these children were already being killed in pagan sacrifices, and those that lived were fixed on a path of corruption. Cutting this misery short was an act of mercy.

This line of argument is taking a common principle of life and extending it to the extreme. We all know that there are things that are unpleasant, that no one wants to go through, and which under normal circumstances would be wrong to subject another person to; yet we also know that there are exceptions to this principle when it prevents the person from experiencing greater harm, or when it is a step towards greater joy.

For example, under normal circumstances it is wrong to shove another person, and wrong to advise a person to cause themselves pain. But what if you are shoving the person out of the way of a charging horse? Or what if you are encouraging someone to go through painful physical therapy so that they can walk again. Because your underlying intention is good, and because the intended outcome is good, it actually becomes an act of kindness and love to shove and to encourage painful exercise.

An important realization here is that at first thought we might think it is fundamentally wrong to cause someone pain, but clearly that isn’t the case. If all I hear is that someone caused another to feel pain, I still don’t actually know whether that person did something good or bad. Causing pain is not objectively wrong. The intent to harm is.

But does this reasoning extend all the way to death? It is more challenging for us to see the ultimately good consequence that might follow death, because for us death is the end. We do not see anyone receive any positive consequence that comes after having passed through it. Of course, we’ve all been told that there is the potential for experiencing a terrific good after death, but that is something we can only imagine for now. The degree to which death disquiets us is a metric for just how real heaven is in our minds.

Summary)

If these things are true, then it is understandable why from God’s perspective His consignment to death might be an act of great mercy, but why it seems cruel from ours. Our view of the exchange is being halted in the middle, just long enough to see the hard part of the bargain, and none of the good return.

A stronger testimony of the afterlife might improve my outlook on these passages, but I still have a lingering concern. Even if God has great enough rewards to make up for any type of death, why not subject the innocent to the most peaceful demise imaginable? Why not make all the infants die peacefully in their sleep, as opposed to by the sword? I’ll keep these questions in mind as I continue with this analysis.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Response to Common Defenses #2

I will continue my examination God’s command to slay entire nations. Yesterday I responded to the defenses that suggested this never actually happened, that either God was exaggerating, or that He was incorrectly attributed as the source of those commands when, in fact, they came from man. I generally dismissed these arguments, but I do find the next two categories of defense far more compelling. Today, I will look at the defenses that say that such a slaughter is justified. Here are two examples of this argument:

  1. God has every right to take life, and to use whatever means He chooses, be it a flood, a meteorite, or the armies of His chosen nation.
  2. The destruction of the evil is karmic. “Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.” These nations were evil and had caused violence, even upon the innocent, and so they reaped the consequence of violence, even against their innocents.

I think this is a credible position, and it brings to light some interesting realizations. It helps me to recognize that I, and I think many others, are accepting of terrible things happening as a result of karma, or nature, or some sort of cosmic law. If people reap destruction by foolishly testing the forces of nature, it is still just as tragic, but we don’t typically blame the passionless and impersonal hurricane, tornado, or force of gravity for it. The laws of human morality simply do not apply to those forces of nature. Where we struggle, though, is when that force of nature becomes personalized in the form of God.

Christians do believe that there is such a cosmic force of justice which is laid at the very foundation of nature, and which gives the wicked their due, but we also believe that that cosmic force is one and the same as God. And even though we separate that God as being of an entirely different order from ourselves, we still see Him as a person, and we subconsciously apply our own morals and emotions onto Him. We are not supposed to kill the family of our bitter enemy, so we feel that neither should a person-like God.

I do believe that this point of conflict depends on one’s conception of exactly who and what God is. The less that God falls under the category of “just another person,” the more we stop applying the rules of “just another person” to Him.

However, that does still leave a point of discomfort with the passages where God orders the destruction of the Canaanites. Even if we come to view God as being of a separate order that the laws of human morality do not apply to, that is not the case for the Israelite soldiers who actually carried out the slaughter. When God rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, when He sent the flood in the time of Noah, surely there were many innocents that died, but at least God carried out those actions by His own hand. Or maybe it was the earth that carried out those actions based on the designs God had laid at its foundation. But for the wars between the Israelites and the Canaanites, it was men with swords that carried out the destruction, and that is a much harder pill to swallow.

Of course, we also bestow our governments with the freedom to carry out great acts of destruction that we feel the common humanity should not wield, and then those governments employ our own populace as soldiers to carry out that task. So, to some degree we are already allowing for the act of destruction to be delegated from a higher authority to the common man. We even allow for the fact that even a moral war is sure to have collateral damage and destroy some of the innocent.

Summary)

I’ve been on one side of this argument and then the other, and in the end, I am still left divided. On the one hand, I really do think these defenses of God’s commands have a solid foundation. They are logical, and they point out that these passages are similar to other acts of destruction that we accept, such as the destruction caused by nature and a justified war.

However, even if I accept these arguments intellectually, I still feel an unease about the whole thing. Some of that might be due to a fundamental misconception I have of who and what God really is, but I don’t think that accounts for all of it. I believe the remaining unease comes when I shift from thinking of the destruction of an entire nation to thinking of the individual destruction of a single innocent. At the macro level I can see the downfall of a corrupt nation which serves the greater good, but at the micro level I see an innocent baby being killed. Let us see tomorrow if the third defense for God’s commands can help me here.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Response to Common Defenses #1

Yesterday I shared some of the common defenses to criticisms of God commanding the destruction of innocents in the Old Testament. I divided those defenses into three categories, and I would like to respond to each of those categories one at a time, explaining what I find convincing or unconvincing about them. Today, I will look at the first category, which was defenses that say that God never actually commanded such a slaughter. Here are two examples of this argument:

  1. God is exaggerating. If I say my favorite sports team “murdered” the other team in last night’s game I’m using the exact same sort of hyperbole. We never do read a verse describing the actual slaying of children, it was only the enemy army that was killed.
  2. This was the work of man, not God. Either corrupt leaders claimed to do this under God’s command, or translators misattributed these messages to God when it was really called for by man.

I wanted to start with these arguments because, frankly, I find them particularly unhelpful. That isn’t me saying that these claims are false, for all I know they could be completely valid, I’m just saying they are only conjecture and that they dodge the real issue.

Personally, it does not bother me to say that the Bible is the word of God…seen through a human lens. I am fine with acknowledging that it has several different versions of the same stories, not all of the details agree with one another, there is the possibility of human malfeasance and error, and some cultural nuances are lost on most of today’s readers. Because of all this, it is possible that when I read a passage, I am not actually getting the pure intention with which it was originally spoken.

But I think it is a dangerous to make oneself judge over which parts are genuinely from God and which parts should be cut out of our faith. To those that say that these passages are misinterpreted, or misattributed, or misunderstood, my reply is, “well, you may be exactly right…but what if God really did say this?”

If your testimony is dependent upon a particular reading of the Bible, and at some point you learn that your reading is false, does that mean that you no longer believe? If we can only accept God with the understanding that He did not order the destruction of these Canaanite nations, then must we reject Him if actually He did make that order? Is that the same conditional faith that we wish to inspire in others? To put their whole hearts and trust in God…well, as long as He didn’t order the destruction of the Canaanites?

Speaking for myself, I don’t know whether God really commanded the slaughter of innocents, but I seek to maintain my faith in Him regardless of whether He did or not. I seek to be able to trust in Him no matter if I understand His reasons or not. To that end, I choose to interpret these difficult passages as literal and accurate, so that I may work my heart into a place of believing no matter what.

Summary)

To be clear, I’m not saying that it is worthless to learn the evidence that lays behind these sorts of claims. I’m all for educating people to the fact that God may not have really commanded this thing. As long as that is not the end of the discussion, as long as there follows: “but even if He really did say to slaughter every man, woman, and child, I am still at peace because…”

Which is exactly what I hope to establish as I pursue this study. Thus, tomorrow I will continue by responding to the defenses that are designed to maintain faith in God regardless of Him ordering such a destruction.