Posted on by Abe Austin

Always Right

It is often easier to accept that God’s laws and principles were right for ancient people than to accept that they still apply today. So much has changed since the time of chariots and slings. Jesus and his apostles never had smartphones or cryptocurrency or space travel or AI. Can words of scripture from thousands of years ago truly never expire?

This is the testimony of all true believers.

Faith in God includes faith that His way was right in 3000 BC, 34 AD, and even in the 21st century. While the situation surrounding man is in constant flux, the word of God is rooted in something eternal, something that runs from before our root and extends beyond our end. So long as we remain human, God’s way will always be right.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Inside Out- Internal Control

Yesterday we talked about the external influences that society puts on us, molding us into decent and productive citizens. We talked about how there is great good in this, and that we ought not to do away with it. However, we also discussed the limitations of external influence. How it can allow for a society of moral behavior, but inwardly immoral people. How it can be eroded, and when that happens, horrors follow.

Internal Control)

True stability in society requires internal control. It requires people to be inwardly converted to the principles of morality and civility, who will self-govern themselves, no matter what the laws or social norms say. Thus, laws of the land may be important, but laws of the heart even more so.

Consider how Jesus’s words align with this. “Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man,” (Mark 7:18, 20). We can infer that the opposite of this statement is also true, it is not that which goes into a man, but comes out of him, that justifies him and proves him good. It is the choices from the inner place, not the outer, that truly matter.

Notice, then, how sensible the work of missionaries and proselytizers is. They do not go to change public policy, to lobby for laws, to influence the external controls. They go to the individual, convict them of moral sin, reintroduce God to heal what is broken in the heart, and leave a soul that is personally committed to doing what is good. It is hard work and is only effective on those who are open to it, but it is the most important work to maintain the fabric of our societies, let alone the saving of souls.

A Warped Priority)

You would think that we as a people would have learned the importance of this work. That we would trust that as we focused on the individual soul, that the collective society would improve. That as we fixed what is inside, all of the outer peripheries would correct themselves on their own.

As one who gave two years of my life to missionary efforts, I can tell you that that is not the case at all. Opposition to proselyting efforts, and a desire to banish them is everywhere. Both from governments and individuals. Not only this, but we live in a time where people who do have a strong moral compass are often ridiculed or considered suspect. Instead, people crave more legislation, more external control, more outer force, particularly on those they disagree with.

As discussed yesterday, this is a very dangerous attitude to take. The more society discourages and tears down internal control, the more its people will be uprooted from true morality, the more wildly they will start to swing, and eventually they will surely fall to debauchery, perversion, and destruction.

In summary, this question of inner or outer moral convictions may seem a small and simple thing, but its long-term implications are far-reaching. All of us should be sharply aware of our own reliance upon internal or external controls, and also our society’s. And for both ourselves and others, the most important work is to heal the heart within, connect God to the inner man, and establish internal moral control.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 34:19-20, 25-26

19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

God continues to re-establish His original commandments, now detailing the requirement that every firstborn of their flocks was to be an offering to the Most High. These instructions are all things that we have heard before.

It is interesting to note that the laws that God is re-establishing were originally given clear back at the start of Israel’s journey out of Egypt. These are not the instructions that He gave the first time Moses met with Him in Mount Sinai, which included the ten commandments, nor is it the instructions that He gave during Moses’s second visit to the mountain, which included the details for building the tabernacle.

Of course, we will see throughout the rest of the Old Testament that the Israelites observed all of the laws given at all of the prior times of instruction, even if we don’t hear them all being reimplemented here. Moses was up in the mountain this third time for another forty days and forty nights, so it is entirely possible that the Lord did, in fact, restate all of the previous commands during this visit, even if only the first portion of His words have been transcribed into our present-day Bible.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 34:1-3

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.

God and Moses are concluding their discussion in the tabernacle, but they have to meet again on Mount Sinai. As I suggested in the last chapter, I suspect that this means that the meeting in the tabernacle was only a sort of preliminary or planning stage for how God and Israel would proceed forward together, and now Moses needed to come into the mountain so that he and God could formalize His contract with the people.

Indeed, things are going to even be put in official writing, and Moses is to bring two new tables of stone for the Lord to etch His law into as He did the last time Moses went up into the mount. The first tablets, of course, were broken by Moses when he saw the idolatry that the Israelites had got up to during his absence.

Note that this story is allegorical for a common aspect of the human experience. All the time we are breaking a moral law, then relying on God’s grace to re-establish the broken contract. Christians play out this pattern when they regularly partake of the bread and the wine, the idea being that we regularly stray from Christ, so we must regularly recommit ourselves to him. When we do this, it is humbling to reflect on the fact that we are playing out something that goes all the way back through humanity, even to Moses and his stone tablets from Mount Sinai.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 24:12

12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Moses is called up into the mountain again, this time for the Lord to write His laws and commandments upon tables of stone and give them to Moses. Of course, the Lord already had given His laws, at least His preliminary ones, and Moses had written them in a book, but it would seem that the Lord wanted to establish His word with something more permanent.

There is obviously symbolic significance in etching the law of God into the stone. As already mentioned, there is the permanence aspect of it. Words on a page could be torn, blotted out, smeared, stained, burned, and washed away. Ink creates its forms for a time, but negligence, misfortune, and malice can all destroy those forms. A table of stone, however, would be immune to all of the methods of defacing mentioned above. So, too, God’s law was not meant to be smeared or crumpled by the philosophies of man, but to withstand all such attacks.

Though it should be noted, tables of stone are not indestructible either. Though they may withstand much more abuse, they can still be broken, ground into dust, and eroded. God’s law is absolute and eternal, but any form of it here on Earth is subject to degradation. Every earthly attempt at permanence is ultimately in vain and ultimately mankind will always depend on the Lord to refresh His words and His law after we have all gone astray.

Though, there is a counterpoint to this that is also symbolized in the Lord carving His law into the rock. This is the Lord putting His words into nature itself, carving His principles into the very face of the mountain. This suggests to us that even if our structures and edifices to God may deteriorate and grow dim, there are infinite other chapels to Him on Earth that will never cease. His law is written right into the layers of our rock, the fibers of our trees, and the lettering of our DNA. All the Earth is secretly imprinted with Him and His word, and those truths can be drawn out by the truly observant in every age.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 24:3

3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

Back in Chapter 19 the Israelites had been informed that God wanted to make a special covenant with them, wherein they would be required to follow His commandments and He in turn would make them His peculiar, chosen people. In response, “all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.”

This preliminary agreement having been reached, Moses then went up into the mountain, and throughout the previous three chapters we have heard the law that they Lord laid down for the people. Now we reach the other bookend to this event, where Moses delivers the law to the Israelites, and once again, “and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.”

Thus, first the Israelites agreed to receive God’s law, then they agreed to obey it. And as we will see in the following chapters, Israel’s acceptance of the law here is preliminary to them receiving further instructions, wherein God will give the command for them to build a tabernacle which He will fill with His presence.

We clearly see in this that we come into alignment with the Lord by degrees. First we open ourselves just to hearing His word, then we commit ourselves to actually following it, then we receive the gift of His spirit in our home. He does not ask us to commit to things unknowingly, but instead invites us to hear exactly what we’re committing to, and then we decide whether to move forward or not. He does not invade us with His presence right off, He offers it and we must accept it. What we know of the Lord, and how deep our connection goes with Him, is limited only by our willingness to accept each new commitment He offers us.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:13-15

13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.

14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.

15 But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

These verses conclude the matter of a man’s goods being lost, stolen, or destroyed while loaned to another man. Verse 13 is still speaking specifically for an animal that is loaned and then destroyed. It states that if the animal is torn to pieces by a wild creature, producing the remnants of the body shows that the borrower of the animal has not stolen, sold, or butchered the animal. It has been utterly wasted, with no profit to the borrower, and so that man is guiltless. It is the same as if the unfortunate act had destroyed the beast while still under the original owner’s care.

That idea is further advanced in verses 14 and 15, where it is pointed out that if one man is borrowing the animal, but at the time of wounding or death the original owner is also present, then there is no restitution to be made. This makes sense, as the original owner’s interest over the creature and protective sense to it would still be in force, even while the other man was borrowing it, and so if the animal was compromised anyway it was either because the original owner was being neglectful or because there was nothing that could have been done to prevent the harm. If, for example, the borrower wanted to make a beast of burden carry a particularly heavy load, and the owner was there and allowed it, and then the animal collapsed, it would be the owner’s fault for allowing it to happen. But if the owner is not there, then it was solely the borrower’s poor judgment that is to blame, and so he must make restitution.

The nuance and breadth of provision in these laws is very impressive. They show a deep understanding of human life, and the many different manners and forms in which misfortune occurs, and a clear recognition of where blame rests for each instance. While there will always be unique, in-between situations, a simple examination of the two laws that stand on either side of that situation would give the judge the proper limits of justice. He could then exercise his personal judgment between those bounds, and the potential for malpractice would therefore be limited.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Basis for Following the Commandments: Part One

There was a time when the morals of traditional Christianity were more or less in harmony with the Western world as a whole. Even those that didn’t consider themselves religious had essentially the same ethical code, with a shared understanding for what behavior was acceptable and what behavior was not. Times have changed, though, and principles that once needed no explanation are not only debated, but outright rejected by millions.

The question naturally arises: do the commandments really matter? What are the underlying principles that have to be considered when determining whether one should pursue every selfish appetite or not? Is it reasonable to think that living outside of traditional Christian ethics is evil, or is it not?

As I’ve considered these questions, I find that the answer rests on three essential premises. In order to excuse oneself in violating the commandments taught in tradition Christianity, they must overcome at least one of these three pillars upon which the Judeo-Christian commandments stand:

  1. Is the Judeo-Christian God real?
  2. Are the words of scripture His real commandments?
  3. Are His real commandments essential for happiness in life?

If God isn’t real, then who cares what His pastors say? If He is real, but the words of scripture are not actually His, then why would we follow them? If He is real, and the words of scripture contain His actual commandments, but one can disobey that law without any consequences, then why not take advantage of that situation?

With the rest of this series I will explore these three points in greater detail. I will leave it to the reader to search his or her own heart, and determine whether the answer to all three points is “yes,” and if it is, whether there can remain any justifiable reason to disobey the traditional Christian moral code.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:23-25

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

These verses contain the root of what might very well be the most famous phrase in all of Hebrew law: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” As we see here, though, that is only the beginning of the saying. Hand, foot, burning, wound, stripe, and even life all are to be returned in equal measure upon the afflicter. Any harm that a man causes to another, shall be caused back on himself in return.

This is a good and fair law, it is consistent and equal to all. It is designed to deter the guilty, protect the innocent, and provide justice when all else fails. As I have stated elsewhere, when Jesus taught the higher law of turning the other cheek, he was not dissolving this principle of fair recompense, but rather teaching the other side of the same concept. Moses gave the half of justice that condemns the guilty, Jesus gave the half the exalts the holy. We need both.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:12-14

12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

We now transition to laws of murder and capital punishment. Verses thirteen and fourteen makes a clear distinction between manslaughter and murder. The description of a man not lying in wait, but having another delivered into his hand by God, is generally understood to mean killing another by happenstance, not by malice aforethought.

We will read later how a man guilty of manslaughter could still legally be executed, but there were certain cities of refuge he could retreat to where it would be illegal to kill him. Thus, he was a man with a foot in two worlds, not entirely guilty but not entirely innocent, and the law was designed to reflect that nuance. But if the man was guilty of premeditated murder, not manslaughter, then there was no question what his outcome would be, the Lord commanded that such a man should be put to death.

This covers two of the most common forms of killing, but not all. What about killing another man in self defense? Verses 18-19 of this chapter, and also verses 2-3 of the next chapter, will give some more details on lawful and unlawful killing, but nothing concrete on self-defense. From the verses in the next chapter it seems like a man might have been justified in slaying an intruder who came into his abode during the dark of knight (when murderous intent was more likely), but not during the day (when thievery was more likely).