Posted on by Abe Austin

The Richness of Scriptural Symbolism- A Modern Reenactment

My last post was about Jacob and Esau, and how they unwittingly reenacted something deep and eternal and fundamental to the destiny of us all. The hope of us all on judgment day was manifested in their little family drama. They were expressing a symbol of something that didn’t even know lived within them. In my last post I also promised that I had another example of this, a personal one, and today I will share that with you.

Passing on the Way)

This story takes place when I was twenty, serving as a missionary in the country of Guyana. My companion and I spent each day under the blistering Caribbean sun, meeting people on the street, sharing messages in homes, and helping run the affairs of the local branch. Our days were always very full, and one morning we were zipping along the streets on our bicycles, hurrying to our next appointment.

“Hello, Brother Ravi!” we waved as we zoomed past a member of the local congregation. He smiled and called out “good morning,” to us, then went back to slowly pulling himself along the road by his toes. Brother Ravi, you see, was in a wheelchair, too weak in the legs to stand, and too weak in the arms to push the wheels, so he was left to dangle his feet onto the dirt and gravel road, grip with his toes, and inch his way forward at a snail’s pace.

My companion and I turned down two more streets before suddenly we stopped and looked at one another.

“What are we doing?!” I said.

“Why didn’t we help him?!” he responded.

We immediately turned around and raced back to help Brother Ravi get home. As we approached, however, we found that someone else had already stepped in to do it. It was a man who looked extremely ragged. His hair was unkempt, his clothes were full of holes, and his legs wouldn’t bend at the knees. By putting his weight on the handles of the wheelchair, he barely managed to keep his balance, awkwardly shuffling down the street with Brother Ravi. Both the stranger and Brother Ravi were in good spirits, though, happily chatting to one another, with Brother Ravi giving directions to his home. It was clear from their conversation that this was their first meeting, the man was a stranger who stepped in simply because he saw a need.

Even though we were younger and more fit, it didn’t seem right for us to take over this stranger’s kind act of service. With a sense of guilt, my companion and I turned our bikes and continued on our way.

A Story from Long Ago)

It was only when reflecting on this experience that I realized we had reenacted a story that I’d already heard many times before. Brother Ravi, the stranger, and us two missionaries had all unwittingly taken part in the story of the Good Samaritan. Brother Ravi was the man in need on the side of the road, the stranger was obviously the Good Samaritan who went out of his way to help another, and my companion and I had played the unfortunate part of the priest and the Levite, two men specifically called to help those in need, but who had instead hurried on their way. We had abandoned our rightful duty, and it had fallen to another to fill that gap.

There is much that I have learned from that experience, but for now let us consider how the story of the Good Samaritan is full of symbols that manifest themselves in our lives, even without us realizing it at the time. As it turns out, humanity is full of examples of those who should help falling short, leaving strangers to take over the responsibility instead. I won’t go into the details on all of these, but you can see these themes among The Kindertransport, The Righteous Among Nations, and The White Helmets. These were all volunteers who stepped in to help when official aid was lacking or absent.

An important lesson from these symbols having so many applications is that we should never read these stories and say, “This is the one thing that that story is supposed to represent.” Because if it is a truly good symbol, it hasn’t finished representing all that it is meant to represent. There is no one, single, interpretation. Was Jesus’s story meant to symbolize the state of ancient Israel at the time? Yes. Was it also meant to represent me and my companion passing by Brother Ravi? Yes. And a thousand other instances of this pattern as well. It is a story that has played out through the past and will surely play out again in the future.

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.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- Judge Not

Matthew 7:1, 4-5:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

In my last post I considered one of the passages typically used to say that Christians should not judge others, today I am looking at another.

“Judge not, that ye be not judged,” Jesus said, and so, we are told, it is not our place to call out the behavior of another as sinful or in need of censure. Admittedly, when looking at that verse in isolation, that could be a potentially correct interpretation of the passage. But how, then, does that hold up when three verses later Christ talks about removing the beam from your own eye so that you can remove the mote from your brother’s? How are you even to determine that there is a mote in your brother’s eye, and help him to pluck it out, if you have not “judged” that something about him is amiss?

And surely, even the staunchest critic of Christian judgment must admit that they, too, believe in renouncing some forms of evil. Can we not call a murderer, a child abuser, or a rapist wrong? Would anyone really make the case that with such crimes we must simply shrug our shoulders and say “well, it’s not my place to judge?!”

Obviously, any coherent interpretation of “judge not, that ye be not judged” must be consistent with Christ’s other words and also consistent with common sense. So what could a more fitting interpretation of this phrase be? Well, let us consider that our English word “judge” has multiple meanings. There is the sort of “Judging” with a capital “J,” such as when I am convicted by a court of law for a serious crime. There is also “judging” with a lower-case “j,” though, such as when my neighbor thinks I am lazy for leaving my Christmas decorations out until Easter.

And, as it turns out, this same strong/weak form is also found in the original Greek word that is used in today’s passage. The word that is being interpreted as “judge” is κρίνετε (krinete). This word is used at various points in the Bible, in a weaker form, being written as “judge” with a lower-case-j. In it’s strong form, however, it is more similar to our English word “condemn.” In fact, it is translated exactly this way in other verses, such as in John 3:17 where it states, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”

Do Not Condemn)

In the King James Version of the Bible, Matthew 7:1 is translated as “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” but another valid interpretation, and one that I think might be more accurate to our current vocabulary, would be “Condemn not, that ye be not condemned.” And this sentiment I fully agree with. If anyone tells me that it is not the role of an individual Christian such as myself to “condemn” another person, they are absolutely right. I am not sitting in final judgment for anybody. I cannot comprehend the sinner’s whole life story, where they are coming from or where they will go, and I cannot state unequivocally that they deserve hell fire. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, it just isn’t my place to say.

But that doesn’t mean that I cannot judge their behavior. That does not mean that I can’t stand in opposition to the act of sin and renounce it emphatically.

Put another way, Christ’s words compel us not to condemn the sinner, for that is a child of God, but we absolutely should condemn the sinful behavior, for that is the work of the devil. I am, myself, a sinner, and everyone should condemn my acts of selfishness and meanness, just as I do. But also, I am a Son of God, and because of that fact no one should write me off as a completely lost cause. It is possible to do the one without the other.

This is exactly what Christ is describing in the passage above, hating the mote in the eye, but loving the brother enough to point it out so that it can be removed. Not only are loving our enemy and renouncing evil compatible with one another, in most cases they are one and the same thing! Like God’s Son, let us not condemn the world, but let us use righteous judgment to help save it from the condemnation that it is already in!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 12:24-27

24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.

25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.

26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?

27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

The notion that the yearly observation of the Passover was meant to remind the Israelites of what God had done for them is not up for debate. God explicitly instructed His people that when their children asked for an explanation of the ritual that they should tell the story of how He had delivered Israel from Egypt. God gave the symbol, and also the interpretation of it. He did the same when He gave the prior Pharaoh the vision of the cattle and grain, and then gave Joseph the interpretation of it. Christ, too, would teach by parable, and then explain its meaning to his disciples.

That isn’t to say that God’s works are single-dimensional, there are many combined lessons and symbols that can be found in them, but we should be careful when we look for these extra interpretations. There is always the danger of reading things into the text that we personally want, making them our story to teach our principles and not His. Indeed, the only times that I feel I have found a new and valid interpretation of a scripture story is when I feel that interpretation coming to me by revelation. There are many other times that I have ideas as to what a scriptural story could mean, but I recognize that they are only that: ideas. Genuine interpretation of scripture is given only by the divine author of it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 40:9-13

9 And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, In my dream, behold, a vine was before me;

10 And in the vine were three branches: and it was as though it budded, and her blossoms shot forth; and the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes:

11 And Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand.

12 And Joseph said unto him, This is the interpretation of it: The three branches are three days:

13 Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thine head, and restore thee unto thy place: and thou shalt deliver Pharaoh’s cup into his hand, after the former manner when thou wast his butler.

There are all manner of positive signifiers in the chief butler’s dream. For starters there is new life: a budding vine with blossoms growing, and clusters that bring forth good grapes. There is no mention of death or decay, and no ominous sigil. Then there is the other good sign of turning the grapes into wine, and giving that wine to Pharaoh. This clearly represents him being returned to a position of trust with his former master. For if a ruler will receive a drink of another man, that means he trusts that other man to have not poisoned it!

And so, frankly, the interpretation of this dream seems fairly obvious. As we will see, though, this is the first in a procession of three dreams brought to Joseph, and each is more inscrutable than the last. One might accuse Joseph of simply making the obvious connection in this dream, but the interpretation he is about to give to the baker and afterwards to the Pharaoh will be far more impressive.

In any case, Joseph does not only give the basic interpretation to the butler, but he also even elaborates on the finer details, such as how the three branches represent three days’ time before Pharaoh will elevate the man. That is a boldly specific declaration, but as we will see, he is exactly right in it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 40:5-8

5 And they dreamed a dream both of them, each man his dream in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, which were bound in the prison.

6 And Joseph came in unto them in the morning, and looked upon them, and, behold, they were sad.

7 And he asked Pharaoh’s officers that were with him in the ward of his lord’s house, saying, Wherefore look ye so sadly to day?

8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

Joseph was an attentive servant, and paused to ask the men under his care what the cause of their sadness was. As soon as he heard that they had strange, uninterpreted dreams, he immediately offered to translate the visions for them.

Frankly I envy his confidence in the matter. In my own path of discipleship I often feel anxious about my spiritual “performance.” I strain to bear my testimony better, to discern another’s feelings more deeply, to magnify God’s light more brightly. Just a couple days ago I had a spiritual conversation with a brother, and I found myself racking my brain, trying to come up with something insightful and meaningful to say, like I had an obligation to provide something of substance.

And the thing is, I know perfectly well that I’m doing this wrong. I know that I need to surrender making it my work and let it be His work. I need to stop worrying about whether I can come up with the right answer and leave it up to Him to provide it instead. Or leave it up to Him to not provide the right answer, and in that case not feel like I have to fill that void with myself.

I imagine Joseph was able to speak with confidence because he really knew that “interpretations belong to God,” and thus there was no pressure on him to personally rack his brain and figure out the correct meaning. God would provide it…. Or maybe He wouldn’t. Joseph didn’t actually promise that he would be able to provide an answer or not, just that he was willing to listen to the dreams and then listen for whether God had anything to say on the matter. And that was enough.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 37:9-10

9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

I wanted to look at Joseph’s second dream a little more before moving on. I mentioned yesterday that Jacob interpreted the sun and moon and stars in Joseph’s dream as representing Jacob, Rachel, and all of Joseph’s brothers. And if this interpretation is correct, then the doubling of Joseph’s dreams, first with the sheaves of wheat and second with the heavenly bodies, likely signified the two times his family would make special obeisance to him. The dream with only the eleven sheaves would be indicating the first time that Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt, asking for grain, and bowing before Joseph. This second dream with the stars and the sun and the moon would be indicating later when Joseph had revealed his identity and all the household came to live under Joseph’s protection.

But that being said, I’m not entirely sure that Jacob was correct in his interpretation. The fact that he says “I and thy mother” seems to suggest that this dream was given when Rachel was still alive. But by the time that Joseph came into power his mother was long since dead. Rachel was never present to see, and make obeisance, to Joseph as an Egyptian prince. Perhaps the sun and the moon could instead represent the two nations who depended on Joseph for survival: Egypt and Israel.

Of course, that other interpretation depends entirely on whether Rachel was still alive at this point or not. We know that she died during the birth of Benjamin, but we do not know how old Joseph was when his younger brother was born. Is it possible he never knew the boy before he was sold off to Egypt? If that were the case, then eleven stars would have seemed strange to the family, as Joseph would have only had ten brothers so far.

Which perhaps means that Benjamin was already born, Rachel had already passed away, and if the sun and moon really did signify Jacob and Rachel showing reverence to their son, perhaps it was meant in a spiritual sense instead of physical.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 6:1-2

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

There has been some debate as to what is meant by “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” Proposed theories are as extreme as “sons of God” meaning fallen angels, that coupled with human women (daughters of men) to produce a race of demigod giants. Which, if true, holds many unsettling implications.

I personally find far more believable, and far more fitting in the context of the previous two chapters, the theory that the “sons of God” refers to the male Sethites, or those who believe in God and followed His precepts. Meanwhile the “daughters of men” would refer to the female Cainites, or those who had rejected God.

And this interpretation would also align today’s verses with a common theme in the bible: how intimacy with the things of the world turns mankind from God. It is seen in Adam receiving the fruit from Eve, in the Israelites chasing after false gods of the heathen, and in the Jews being so caught up with their embellished law that they could not recognize the Savior when he stood before them.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 3:16

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Let’s face it, this is a hard verse, and it has implications that can be very hurtful. It has been used as the justification behind some truly atrocious customs, customs that have made a staggering number of women live as second-class citizens. And if all that oppression was solely the cruelty of man, that would be one thing…but does this verse suggest that it is also the will of God?!

Well, to answer that I consider my personal experiences, and I must conclude that such a notion is entirely incompatible with the God that I see loving my wife and daughter. The God that I see has just as much passion for them as He has for me and my son. He is remarkably devoted to them, He fiercely fights for them, He is near to them at every moment. I have never seen in Him a desire to subjugate them to another, but rather to free them.

So how do I resolve verses like these? I think the natural response would be to try and apologize for it, to give some interpretation that makes all of the inconvenient elements go away. And frankly yes, a number of such possible interpretations do occur to my mind, and perhaps one of those could be the correct interpretation….but also perhaps none of them are.

If I started to preach any one of those ideas as the truth, I would be putting words in God’s mouth, which I do not have any right to do. Only He can provide the perfect clarification, and thus far He has not provided that to me. And so I must conclude that I do not know how this verse is meant be read…but I do know that God loves his daughters, and that He loves them just as much as His sons.