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).

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:7-11

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

There were manservants who were purchased to perform the labor of household, but there were also maidservants who were betrothed to be married to the master of the house or one of his sons. Obviously, since the woman was to be a wife, she would not “go out as the menservants” after six years, she would remain a permanent fixture of the dwelling, and she was to be treated the same as a daughter who was born naturally under that household.

If, however, the master of the house changed his mind, he was very limited in what he might do about his marriage contract. If he wished to take another wife, he could, but he could not decrease her own inheritance. Or, he could release her back to where she had come from, but in that case he would receive no return of the price he had paid for her betrothal. It would only come at a loss for him.

I suppose that this arrangement could make an honest man vulnerable to women of ill intent. A young lady could behave kind and charming in order to secure a betrothal from a wealthy man, but once she entered the man’s household she could deliberately make herself bitter, frustrating, and unreasonable until the man just wanted to be rid of her. Then she could be released from her betrothal and play the scam again. However, it makes sense that if there was any asymmetry in the law that it would be tilted in favor of the weaker sex. It was up to the man to be prudent and shrewd, knowing that the woman would be the most protected by the law.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:1

1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

After giving the ten commandments, God goes on to clarify other aspects of His law. The things that we are going to read now are going to look much less like the transcendent, eternal principles of the ten commandments, and more like the nitty-gritty terms of judicial law, meant to help the judges when ruling over a dispute.

And for this study, it is essential to remember that the people and time that the Lord is providing a law to is not the same as the people and time of today. In our next study’s verses we will examine the rules related to servants belonging to their masters. Some of these practices may sound shocking to us, but that is with the lens of today’s unprecedented upwards mobility. We did not live at this time, we did not have the same problems, we did not need the same solutions. It is too shallow, too simplistic, to just dismiss these parts of Jewish law out of hand, and call them unjustifiable in every time and place, and never admit that in actuality we just don’t really know. Most of us don’t even try to study the day-to-day life of these people, and even those who do have never had to face it firsthand. We just don’t know.

And so, if some of these rules feel out-of-place in today’s world then they probably are. That’s alright, because these aren’t eternal commandments that we’re reading about now. These are merely the legal rules and definitions that applied to the local scope that they belonged to.

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

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 12:48-49

48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

In these verses we have the first instances of God providing a path for a any person, even one who was not a direct descendant of Abraham, to become a part of His covenant people. Previously, God had chosen specific individuals to extend His promises to. Isaac was chosen and not Ishmael, Jacob and not Esau. Now, though, any outsider could enter into the fold of God through the sign of being circumcised. Then they would be “as one that is born in the land.”

“As one that is born in the land” means to receive the same rights, privileges, and covenants that chosen people enjoyed. They would receive the same promises that God had given to Abraham, with all of its accompanying blessings, both in this life and the next, culminating in the promise of eternal salvation. This was the most generous and hopeful gift imaginable, a path to salvation for all, an opening of the doors that Jesus would expand further many years later.

But it was, of course, necessary for the outsider to sincerely take on the Hebrew covenants and obligations to receive these promises. Too often it is argued that since the gospel is freely offered to all people that it cannot then have any requirements of those people. But the thing that is being freely offered is a law, while obtaining the positive outcomes of that law depend on it being followed. The gift from God is the opportunity to first accept His terms and then receive His rewards.

God reinforces this in verse 49 when He says “one law…to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” One law, but God has described two different outcomes: one where a person becomes a part of the covenant through circumcision and one where a person remains a outsider by declining God’s offer. God is not contradicting Himself by stating “one law,” but with two outcomes, as every law necessarily separates people into different categories. Having a legal age limit to drive, for example, is just one law, but it dictates two outcomes depending on a citizen’s age. So, too, God’s law is freely given to all, but that doesn’t mean that the positive side of it is in force for all, only for those who meet the terms for it. That is still a gift, though, because it is a path for us to claim God’s greatest blessings, where otherwise we would not have any means to do that.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 12:15, 17-20

15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.

20 Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.

God stressed multiple times the feast was to run for seven days. He said the feast was to run from the 14th day of the month to the 21st, that the bread was to be unleavened on the first day of the feast up through the seventh, and that the whole thing was to run for seven days. By describing His requirements for the duration in multiple ways, there could not be any chance of ambiguity or misunderstanding.

God also made repeatedly clear that the bread of the feast was to be unleavened, and if anyone violated this commandment it would be a grievous offense and they would be cast out of the community. He even instructed them to dispose of all the leaven in their homes, presumably so that no accidental consumption of it occurred.

I find myself wondering whether this example of God requiring the people to throw out the leaven was seen as a justification for the Pharisees to later “build a hedge” around the laws. By the time that Jesus was born, the spiritual leaders of Israel had added all manner of extra requirements around God’s laws, so as to further protect people from breaking the commandments. These “hedge laws” were often treated as if they were as sacred as God’s actual word, resulting in distraction and division from the truth faith, and Jesus had to spend much of his time correcting this matter. There is, of course, quite a difference between a buffer that is dictated by God and a buffer that is required by man.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Optimism in a Falling World- Luke 9:52-56

And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

COMMENTARY

And they did not receive him, and when James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Yesterday I considered Jonah’s desire to destroy the wicked. Today we see an example from Jesus’s own disciples to do the same. Because Jesus and his followers were denied access to a city, James and John sought to kill all the inhabitants with fire.

But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.
James and John might have believed they were serving the spirit of justice, yet Jesus avowed that they were serving another. What they sought was simply vengeance, and Jesus’s purpose was not to bring vengeance, but salvation.
I believe that many of those who hope for the destruction of the wicked take their cues from the stories of the Old Testament. It is in those early books that we read accounts of the earth being flooded, of fire and brimstone consuming cities, of the armies of the Lord stamping out other nations. In these stories there is a definite immediacy between evil actions and divine retribution. One could not go to war against God without quickly enduring the consequences of that action. But what is forgotten is that this was the Old Testament and the earth was in a fundamentally different situation than it is now. Mankind had been expelled from the Garden of Eden and the atonement had not yet been made. Things were far stricter, and there was little to buffer between sinful acts and the holy justice administered in return.
But Jesus Christ had come to be that buffer. Jesus Christ had come so that the immediate justice for evil works could be born out in his own body instead. Divine justice still applies, even to this day, but now it is executed in him, while mankind is given a second chance.
Thus today we now live under the New Testament. And that means that if we look at the evil in the world today and crave punishment for the guilty, we are denying the fact that that punishment was already endured by our Savior. We are therefore looking for a double punishment, one carried out upon Christ and one carried out upon those he died to save. That isn’t justice at all. Like James and John, we are not comprehending what manner of spirit we are of. It is a cold, cruel, and evil spirit, one that has nothing to do with Christ.