Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 4:22-26

22 When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty;

23 Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:

24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord: it is a sin offering.

25 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.

26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

We’ve already seen how the sin offering applied to a priest and to the congregation, now we read how it applies to a leader also. In this instance we see the same pattern play out exactly as before, except with one particular changed. While atonement was made for the priest and the congregation via a bullock, the leader would make his offering from a young goat.

A bullock was a more substantial offering than a goat. Thus, atonement for a congregation or for a priest was weightier than that for a leader. All Israelites engaged in the same sin offering, coming to the Lord equally and following the same pattern, but slight variances like these show that there was still a hierarchy in play. A leader, such as a king, was not weightier than the nation or a priest, something that has been forgotten at times in history.

SacrificeEligible oblationStepsExplanation
Sin offeringBullock, young goatSacrifice for sin
The same performance for an individual, community, priest, or leaderAn equal path to God for all
Hands placed on head, slaughteredAnimal takes the place of us
Blood placed on horns of the altarA heartfelt plea to the Lord for mercy
Fat and kidneys burned on altarCleansing our behavior and desire
Skin, dung, and flesh burned beyond the campThe sinful behavior purged out of us

Full table.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 24:1-2

1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off.

2 And Moses alone shall come near the Lord: but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him.

Today’s verses show a hierarchy being created. All of Israel is to worship from afar while Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu will ascend into the mountain with Moses. Those three priests would only come part of the way, though, with Moses alone fully entering into the presence of the Lord. Thus there is a triangular hierarchy with the prophet standing beside God at the top, the priests a step down from there, and the general populace down at the bottom.

Understanding hierarchies like this requires nuance and care. It is all too easy to turn a hierarchy into a competition, to feel ashamed of oneself if you are not high enough in the structure. In my church we often hear over the pulpit that the pastor is no more important than the nursery teacher, that each is performing an equal duty in the eyes of God, but it seems that the parishioners struggle to actually believe that.

Hierarchies are necessary for the management of a large people. If we had many leaders and few followers then there would be a constant change in direction and not enough workers to get things done. By necessity there must be fewer at the top and more at the bottom, but each half needs the other or nothing gets done at all. Every part, rightly balanced, is essential. Neither are expendable.

One other note from these verses is that Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu ascending the mountain with Moses calls to mind Peter, James, and John accompanying Jesus into the Mount of Transfiguration. Interestingly, one of the angels that conversed with Jesus in that mountain was none other than Moses. This same pattern of three accompanying witnesses was repeated again with Peter, James, and John as they followed Jesus into the Garden of Gethsemane at the beginning of his Passion. There seems to be a principle of three witnesses observing the divine moments of the leading prophet, so that they may bear testimony of it afterward.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:28

28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

This notion that the Israelites should not revile “the gods” may be surprising, since we know that they would be many times commanded to break down the groves and idols to the false gods, driving their influence out with extreme prejudice. The general consensus among scholars is that the translated word “gods” is not accurate here, and that mortal rulers and leaders were originally intended, which indeed is matched by the second half of the verse, “nor curse the ruler of thy people.”

The word that has been translated into “the gods” is elohim, which is accurately translated as “gods” throughout the rest of the Bible, but perhaps it is used here to emphasize that the priests, judges, and teachers are stand-ins for God, his representatives, the plurality of God that extends from the one. As such, their station and their mantle is to be respected as the divine, though they themselves are just men.

There is evidence that this was the original intention of this commandment in the book of Acts, chapter 23. Here, Paul is teaching to the people and the High Priest orders him to be struck on the mouth! Paul shoots back an angry retort and the people are shocked at him, pointing out that he is speaking ill of the High Priest himself! Paul immediately apologizes, explaining he did not know the man was the High Priest and that he certainly wouldn’t have said what he did if he had known. He even references this exact verse in Exodus in his apology. Thus Paul, an ancient Israelite, certainly seems to have taken this verse to be speaking about local leaders, not idolatrous gods.

Paul’s attitude, and the imperative within this verse, reflect a strong level of respect for authority, one that is hard to imagine in our culture today. To show reverence to our leaders requires great nuance. On the one hand, we must hold to our testimony of the truth, even when those in authority are misaligned and advocate for lies, yet we also need to respect those who stand imperfectly as God’s representatives. Perhaps it is the difficulty of this nuance that so often leads us to fall to one side or the other, either continuing with evil leaders no matter how low their depravity sinks, or else making open mockery and ridicule of leaders who are genuinely trying their best. The true disciple will seek a way to respect lower leaders who have gone astray, even while having their first allegiance to God and the truth.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:13-14

13 And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?

14 And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known.

Moses’s arc had brought him to see the suffering of the Israelites and take action to save one of them. After having slain an Egyptian guard to save one of his brethren, one might think he would be frightened to return, but this was not the case. Having ventured into the trouble of the Israelites once, he then came back a second time. Apparently, the first visit had only encouraged him to continue.

On the second visit, he made an entirely new observation. Whereas he was already acquainted with the abuse that the Israelites suffered at the hands of the Egyptians, now he saw two Israelites striving among themselves, no Egyptians involved whatsoever. In this we see a representation for how the Israelites were divided among themselves. They might have been universally oppressed, but that pressure had not fused them into one. They needed a leader, not only to protect them from an external enemy, but also from themselves.

And, as before, Moses saw this as an opportunity for him to step up and fill the need. He approached the two men and tried to mediate between them. He did not rush to make an accusation or a judgment, he began by asking them for their testimony…but immediately everything went awry. The two had absolutely no respect to him, they did not see him as their leader, and in fact they viewed him with suspicion and hostility. This, unfortunately, would be a reoccurring theme in Moses’s dealings with the Israelites. Though his intentions were pure, at every turn they would doubt and accuse him. Assuming the mantle of their leader was going to be a difficult and heavy burden, and in this instance, he was only having the smallest sampling of that fact.

Even worse, Moses now learned that his deeds from his last sojourn among the Israelites were known. Presumably neither of these two Israelites were present when he slew the Egyptian guard, and if they already had heard about it, then soon everyone else would.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:12

12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

I already covered this verse with yesterday’s post, but as I was researching other commentaries I discovered a different read on it that I thought deserved some individual attention. When I first read the verse I only interpreted the phrase “he saw that there was no man,” as meaning Moses was checking for any other Egyptian guards who might witness and report his actions to the Pharaoh. However another interpretation that others have considered is that he was checking for any Israelite who was going to rise to the occasion and save their persecuted brother.

It could be that this verse is describing Moses coming to the realization that there was a void of leadership among the Israelite people. Perhaps he was realizing that they needed someone to fight in their behalf, and if no one else was going to fill that role then he would. This, of course, is another trait of great leaders. They do not elect themselves to greatness, rather they see a people in need, but none of them willing to stand up and do what needs to be done, and so the leader takes that responsibility out of necessity.

So which is it? Was Moses looking side-to-side out of caution, ensuring that he wouldn’t be caught, or was he merely looking to see if anyone else would help, and finding no one took the mantle upon himself? Frankly, I cannot tell, and in the greater scheme of things it probably doesn’t matter, but both interpretations do offer interesting possibilities for Moses’s development of character.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:11-12

11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

Moses “went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burden.” Before Moses could be a force of change for his people, he first needed to understand what their afflictions were. This, again, is a type for Christ, who came personally to Earth and “hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Isaiah 53:4, Alma 7:12). It is also a hallmark for any good leader. If the problem is going to be fixed, if the situation is going to be improved, first one must care enough to really understand the nature of things as they currently are.

Moses then illustrates the second step of leadership that follows curiosity and concern. Attention to injustice naturally causes a compulsion to act. Having come to see the suffering, Moses saw a particularly egregious abuse occurring right then and there, and he was compelled to rush forward and slay the tyrant. Though, it should be noted, he was not perfectly bold. He did first pause to look “this way and that way,” and only acted “when he saw that there was no man.” Moses’s heart yearns for these people, but he has yet to grow into the totally fearless protector that he will ultimately become.

One final thought from this passage is that I wonder whether Moses knew at this point what his true lineage was. Did he go out to see the plight of the Israelites because he knew that they were his real people, or did he believe he was a genuine Egyptian, and was merely curious about these unfortunate people? The Biblical record never tells us when Moses first became aware of his true heritage. One thing is clear, though, even if he already knew where he came, he still had yet to throw in entirely with them. He was already a good man of conscience, but he had not arrived at his full destiny yet.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 40:1-4

1 And it came to pass after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker had offended their lord the king of Egypt. 

2 And Pharaoh was wroth against two of his officers, against the chief of the butlers, and against the chief of the bakers. 

3 And he put them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound. 

4 And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he served them: and they continued a season in ward.

I never noticed before that the two men Pharaoh consigned to prison were not just “a butler” or “a baker,” they were “the chief of the butlers” and “the chief of the bakers.” These men were not mere servants, they were officers, overseers of a band of workers, responsible for entire sectors of the royal household. It might even be that it was not these two men who offended the Pharaoh, but some of their subordinates, and they were being held responsible for not managing them better.

These men’s higher station might also explain why in verse four it says Joseph “served them.” It would seem that even in prison they retained a more exalted state than the rest of the prisoners. In the last chapter it sounded as though Joseph was an overseer of the other prisoners, but when the captain of the guard needed someone trustworthy to be a servant, Joseph was the one to fill that role as well.

This, of course, reminds me of the example of the Savior, who taught his disciples the idea of a servant-leader. Though he was the undisputed head of his followers, Jesus also washed their feet. This combination of roles requires one to have great capability and power, but also great humility and care. As we will see in the following verses, Joseph did indeed show great care to these men, concerning himself with their trouble and helping them with it as best he could.

The fact that Joseph was in a position of service to these men might also explain why the butler failed to remember him after he was restored to Pharaoh’s house. Perhaps in the pride of his lofty station he failed to give the proper space in his mind for the plea of his lowly servant Joseph.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Influence and Persuasion- Personal Example #2

I mentioned in a previous post how as a child I wanted my younger siblings to follow my lead. I wanted them to take my instructions as law, but they didn’t respect me, because I had not put in the time to earn that respect. And if that meant they didn’t want to play what I wanted that was one thing, but they would even stage mini-rebellions when I was just being the messenger for Dad and Mom.

“No!” I would say. “You have to listen to me. Dad and Mom said we have to clean this up, so you have to help me do it.”

I felt that my authority was absolute in this case, but they would ignore me all the same. Not because they didn’t respect Dad and Mom, but because they didn’t respect me as their emissary. And no matter of invoked authority was going to make them view me in the same light as the parents.

In those moments I felt an intense aggravation. They needed to do what I was saying, and I had to find a way to make them do it. And that resulted in all manner of shouting and threatening and shaking by the shoulders.

Then one day I realized something. If you need to make someone do something in that very moment…then you’ve already lost. I realized that the campaign for someone’s loyalty is won out long before the moment of need. It has to be sown long in advance.

So if you haven’t already put in that time beforehand, you don’t stand a chance. Then you will be tempted to force them to comply through fear and anger, which might get you what you want in the moment, but will make them resent you even more, and they will be all the less willing to comply next time.

I’m glad to say that after realizing this I started to treat my siblings differently. I stopped trying to make them respect me, and instead got them to know that I liked them. I played with them, I made things for them, I taught them how to ride the bike. I learned how to be nice with no strings attached. I won their hearts at quiet times when I didn’t need a single thing from them.

And then, when I was the emissary for Mom and Dad, and I told them we had been commissioned to do some chore and needed to work together, they happily agreed.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Influence and Persuasion- Matthew 20:26-27, Doctrine and Covenants: 121:46

But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

COMMENTARY

Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant
Yesterday I examined some verses that spelled out the divinely approved method for obtaining influence over others. And they were full of words like persuasion, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, and kindness. Which honestly sounds like a great deal of work! In fact it doesn’t sound like the work of a leader at all, but that of a servant.
And as it turns out, this is exactly the same methodology that Jesus taught to his disciples. It seems a paradox, but his process for gaining power over others was to just serve them. He assaults us with love until at last he wins our hearts.

Thy dominion shall be everlasting, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee
And going back to those verses from yesterday, after they conclude detailing the service we ought to employ as our means of influence, they then provide a promise. We are told that our dominion will just flow unto us. After we have sown love, loyalty will flow back to us of its own accord. It will come without “compulsory” means.
Maintaining power is the exact opposite for tyrants that rule by intimidation and force. Nothing flows to such leaders, they must go out and hunt for every ounce of control they have. They must domineer every servant at all times, and if ever they slack off then their power is gone.
Virtuous leaders invest themselves in their people. They plant their own goodwill, and reap the loyalty that naturally grows from that seed. There is no domineering and no forcing, just service flowing out and then flowing back in, pulsating, like the rhythms of a heart.