Posted on by Abe Austin

The Richness of Scriptural Symbolism- Barabbas

Earlier in this study I noted that every good symbol has constant reenactments following it. Every symbol that connects with the human core is seen again and again and again.

Today I want to illustrate that symbols are not only deep, though, they can also be broad. Some of them not only have multiple meanings over time, but also multiple meanings in the very first moment. I will illustrate that today with the example of Barabbas.

The Story of Barabbas)

Barabbas was a prisoner in Israel at the time of Jesus. He had quite the list of offenses. From John 18:40 we hear that he was a robber, and from Mark 15:7 we learn that he was also a seditionist and a murderer. It is most likely that he was condemned to death, waiting for his execution to be carried out when fate intervened to set him free.

His turn of fortune came as a result of Pilate seeking to spare Jesus, who he could sense was innocent any crime. It was the Passover, when it was customary for one prisoner to be released, so Pilate tried to save Jesus by stacking his freedom against that of deplorable Barabbas. If the Israelites really wanted to condemn Jesus, they would have to instead free a person who might literally kill them! Shockingly, that is exactly the choice that they made, and Pilate had to release the murderer. Jesus, of course, did go on to be killed that very same day.

Two Symbols of Barabbas)

The freeing of Barabbas is a powerful symbol, one with two immediate meanings. First of all, the release of Barabbas is symbolic of the mission of Jesus Christ and its effect upon all mankind. We are each of us Barabbas, sinners worthy of death, set free because Jesus was condemned instead. As the prophet Isaiah foretold, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

Here we have a bright and hopeful symbol in the release of Barabbas, but there is also a dark foreshadowing in it as well. For just as much as it stands for the liberation of all us sinners, it also stood for the impending decimation of the Israelite people.

Within just forty years of Israel choosing Barabbas over Jesus, the entire nation would be devastated, with an estimated hundreds of thousands of Jews being slaughtered, maybe more, and the survivors scattered to the winds. But wasn’t this what they had chosen? They had had the choice between the literal Prince of Peace and a man of violence, and they had selected the latter! Hear their words as recorded in Luke 23:18, “And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas.” Release unto us the killer…and that was just what they received.

Split Symbolism)

Barabbas’s release isn’t just a symbol with two different interpretations, it is a symbol with polar opposite interpretations! One of restored life, and one of consignment to death. It may seem remarkable that it can have both of these connotations, but it turns out that this is actually fairly regular in the scriptures. The cross is simultaneously a symbol of man’s greatest cruelty and God’s greatest love. Also, the serpent is used as a symbol of the Devil in the Garden of Eden, and of Christ when Moses raised the healing bronze serpent on the stick. The rainbow both stands as a reminder of God’s flooding the world, and His promise that He won’t do so again.

I believe that part of the reason for polar opposite symbols is because many of the deepest spiritual notions are also two-sided in profound ways. Is justice a principle of punishment for the wicked, or of exoneration for the innocent? Does God’s glory purify us or condemn us? Is the work of man creation or destruction? The answer to all of these is both. Good symbols recognize that there is a good side and a bad side to our reality, and they manage to represent both at the same time.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Narrowing of Privilege- Part Two

A Word Maligned)

With my last post I began my exploration of “privilege,” a word that has come to have a particularly negative connotation in recent years. I gave three definitions and uses of the word that defy that narrow connotation, though, showing three positive aspects of privilege. In short, those conceptions of privilege were:

  1. A joyful obligation
  2. The reward for hard labor
  3. A gift handed down by the honest labor of one’s forebearers

Today we will look at two more definitions of privilege, then finally conclude our analysis of the word.

Two More Forms of Privilege)

Fourth, each of us are born with certain advantages built into us, certain talents and proclivities that are innate within us, things that neither we nor our ancestors made happen for us, but which give us an advantage in life. It might be a girl born with a beautiful face, or a boy born with a sharply analytical mind. It might be a rich child with an unusually charitable disposition, or a poor child born with uncharacteristic determination. These are gifts that bestow opportunities beyond one’s first demographic.

Note that this still isn’t the sort of definition that is more and more commonly used as a pejorative in our society. For these are not systemic, socially-constructed advantages, but virtues given by God. They are gifts that we do not control the placement of, and which are sprinkled across all demographics and all walks of life.

Finally, with our fifth definition, we do come to the meaning of the word “privilege” that is intended to humble the proud. Some people have a privilege that is based upon no virtue, no effort, no obligation, and no gift from their forebearers. In every land and in every time, certain people have been exalted above others, giving them advantages for no other reason than their identification with a favored group. No population has been innocent of this sort of preferential treatment, and through the push and pull of society, the pendulum has swung to favor each side in turn. Though all may get their time in the light at one point or another, it isn’t fair that it is isolated to one type of people at a time.

Conclusion)

The main point that I wanted to call attention to is how “privilege” is a complex word, that is actively being pared down to only a fraction of its original meaning. It is becoming nothing more than an epithet, which makes us all dumber by removing our ability to have alternative and nuanced meanings.

Beware the trends that seek to flatten, twist, or erase words. The maligning of a language might seem an inconsequential thing, but our minds are in large part made up of the language we speak, and so it is our own selves who end up being flattened and twisted and erased.

As it stands, I’m grateful and proud for the vast majority of the privileges that I enjoy. I’m proud of the happy obligations I take on to provide for my family, and proud of the rewards I receive for my hard labor. I’m grateful for the gifts given to me by the sacrifices of my forebears, and grateful for the gifts God has seen fit to bestow upon me. The only privilege I feel askance towards is anytime I benefit absent any of the channels mentioned above, when I receive something just because I belong to some group identity.

I thank God that I at least have enough nuance left in me to tell the difference.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Narrowing of Privilege- Part One

A Troubling Narrowness)

I was recently in a Sunday School class where the teacher asked for a definition of privilege. It was a surprising request, given that our Sunday School classes usually steer clear of social commentary. In any case, the definition that was ultimately given to us was that privilege means to have an unearned advantage.

This was a single passing moment, and I didn’t think too much about it at the time. In hindsight, though, I’ve realized that I don’t hold with that definition at all, and I believe it represents a troubling narrowing of the definitions we have for words. I call it a narrowing because the word “privilege” means several different things, and not all of them match the strictly negative connotation that modern society tries to limit it to. Today we will go through three valid applications of the word “privilege,” tomorrow we will cover two more, and then make our final analysis.

Three Forms of Privilege)

For example, as a husband and a father, I make great effort to provide and protect for my family. It is the primary function of my life to consecrate my time, effort, and resources to keeping those that I am responsible for fed, clothed, sheltered, enriched, and protected. If any of those under my care express gratitude for my sacrifice I have but one response: “it is my privilege.”

This is a common sentiment among fathers, and one that doesn’t line up at all with the idea of unearned advantage. Yes, I consider it a gift and a blessing that I get to provide for those that I love, but it isn’t like I am receiving this “privilege” at no cost to myself. From this definition, the word privilege means something along the lines of “a joyful obligation.”

A second definition of the word comes to mind when I think of my father-in-law, who built a successful company from scratch. I have heard stories of the many years and long nights spent getting a foothold in the industry, slowly but surely building a solid foundation that only yielded fruit far, far down the road. Now, decades later, my father-in-law is finally ready to retire, and selling his company has meant being wined and dined by prospective buyers who are eager to receive the keys to his little kingdom.

Does that wining and dining constitute a privilege? Absolutely. But is it a privilege that was unearned? Absolutely not. Yes, it is a reward that most people won’t attain in life, but it’s one he did the work to receive. What the word privilege means in this context is: the reward for labor.

A third definition of privilege takes place downstream of the “joyful obligation” and the “reward for labors” mentioned already. Many of us enjoy gifts and opportunities that we personally did nothing to earn, but which our forefathers sacrificed greatly for. My ancestors fought to make my country a free nation. They left their homes and crossed the plains to obtain religious freedom. They fought a war to bring liberty to all the people of this nation. They toiled before the sun and the furnace to grow crops and build infrastructure. They innovated and invented to create convenience and security. Did I earn all the benefits I now enjoy because of their labors? Absolutely not. But that doesn’t mean that they weren’t unearned!

A Complex Picture)

Here we have seen three definitions of privilege that have nothing to do with the more negative uses of the word. These definitions describe people who are dutiful, hard-working, and with a noble heritage. Tomorrow we will look at two more definitions, the last of which will acknowledge the more negative aspect of the word. It should already be clear that this word is much more nuanced and deep than modern rhetoric would have us believe.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 16:31-34

31 And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.

32 And Moses said, This is the thing which the Lord commandeth, Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations; that they may see the bread wherewith I have fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt.

33 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to be kept for your generations.

34 As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept.

Moses commands that a single portion of manna be gathered into a pot and preserved for future generations. It is interesting to note that the portion is an omer, exactly the amount that was meant for one person for one day. It almost seems as if it is being stored in anticipation of someone yet to come to receive it, much like how the Jewish people always leave one open seat for Elijah at their seder.

In time, the pot of manna would be placed within the ark of the covenant, but obviously that had not been constructed at this time. Sometimes God does not give His blessings in linear order. Sometimes we receive something that we do not fully understand, and only later receive the perfect place that it was meant to belong to. God giving His blessings in this way shows that it is all according to a plan, based on a perfect knowledge of what will be.

Verse 34 introduces us to a word that we have not yet encountered in the Bible. “Testimony,” as translated from “eduth” in the Hebrew, only appears 25 times in the Bible, all of them in the books of Moses, and almost all of them (21 of the 25 instances) in Exodus. In all 25 instances it is used exclusively as a reference to the laws and rituals that Moses delivered to the people. There are refences to the “tablets of the testimony,” the “ark of the testimony,” and the “tabernacle of the testimony.” These are the physical evidence of God’s blessings and commandments, a visual reminder of the Lord’s unseen spirit.

But “eduth” is not the only word that is translated to “testimony” in our English Bibles. There is also the Hebrew word “ed,” sometimes translated as “testimony” and sometimes as “witness.” Interestingly, these two Hebrew words are actually the same word, “ed” being the masculine form and “eduth” the feminine. This does raise the question why it is the feminine word for “testimony” that is used exclusively for the physical representations of God’s law. As mentioned before, the tablets, ark, and tabernacle of “testimony” were the material manifestation of the unseen God, which mirrors how a woman grows the unseen progeny into a material person in her womb. Another reason might be that these feminine testimonies all had to do with the law that was meant to nurture the newly-reborn Israelite people, cultivating them through their spiritual infancy, just as a mother nurtures and cultivates her child.

In any case, throughout the rest of Exodus we will see twenty more instances of the feminine “testimony,” always in reference to the physical tokens of God’s providence to His people.

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

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- Turn the Other Cheek

Matthew 5:38-40, 43-44:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

There are a few passages of scripture that are often used to to argue that Christians should not judge others. Today I am looking at the first, which is Christ’s teaching that we should “turn the other cheek.”

We all have a basic sense of justice within us that when a person insults us we want to insult them back, and when they strike us we want to strike them back. But Christ compelled his followers to suppress that natural spirit of retaliation, and instead invite another rebuke from them! This is extraordinary, and it certainly asks a great deal of every disciple, but we should note that there are certain requirements attributed to this sermon that Jesus never actually called for:

  1. Nowhere does Christ say that the offender is to be absolved of their guilt. Turning the other cheek is not the same as justifying what the other person has done. If anything, our invitation to be struck again doubly condemns the offender! Also, note that while verse 44 calls on us to love, bless, pray for, and do good to those that harm us, Christ does not ever say for us to approve, justify, or defend their crimes. We can both love our enemy and turn the other cheek, while still maintaining that their behavior is wrong.
  2. Christ gives examples of how we would accept relatively light forms of physical violence and the loss of an article of clothing. These are both small infractions, and both related to the loss or harm of earthly, physical things. It is not right to take this instruction and apply it to wrongs of a greater severity, such as another person trying to kill you and your family, or of a different type, such as another person trying to spread lies in your community. Nothing in this passage suggests that there is never a time to defend or push back.
  3. In each example, Christ is only talking about the disciple accepting a personal slight. There is a great difference between allowing wrongs to be perpetrated against the self and allowing wrongs to be perpetrated against others. Christ does not say, “whosoever shall smite your child upon the cheek, turn to him your other child’s also!” That would be passivity to the point of cruelty to the innocent. We do not only refute the evil of the world for our own sake, but for the protection of the weak and the innocent also.

What Christ teaches in these verses has real weight and meaning, and calls for a real change in his followers. But we should limit the lessons that we take from this to the ones that were actually intended, and not mis-attribute other lessons upon it as well. Christ is calling us to do something very hard, but only on a personal level and for particular sorts of offense. Nowhere in these verses does Christ say that we should allow others to take every liberty against our person, or call evil good, or cease to preach repentance to the wicked, or fail to protect the innocent. We can do all of those things while still being totally consistent with the instruction to turn the other cheek.

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 31:26-29, 31

26 And Laban said to Jacob, What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unawares to me, and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword?

27 Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me; and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth, and with songs, with tabret, and with harp?

28 And hast not suffered me to kiss my sons and my daughters? thou hast now done foolishly in so doing.

29 It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt: but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.

31 And Jacob answered and said to Laban, Because I was afraid: for I said, Peradventure thou wouldest take by force thy daughters from me.

In these first verses Laban sets out a strong case that Jacob has behaved in a way that is consistent with a liar and a thief. Why did you steal away so secretly? Why have you carried away my daughters as if they were captives? Certainly, Jacob’s behavior is that of one who is trying to hide something.

But people do not hide only because they are guilty of some crime. They hide because of fear. In some cases, that might be a fear of their guilt being exposed, but in other cases it is only a fear of the other person harming them. And as it turns out, that is exactly Jacob’s situation. He comes clean with exactly what his fear was: that if he was forthright about his intentions, Laban would wrest his household from him by force.

Fortunately, God had intervened to calm this volatile situation. The expression God said to Laban, repeated now in verse 29, is commonly translated as “from good to bad,” and it is a Hebrew expression that means to not try to turn or prevent another. Thus, Jacob was emboldened to be forthright by the knowledge that God had commanded Laban to not do the very thing that Jacob had been so afraid of.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 26:7-11

7 And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon.

8 And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.

9 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die for her.

10 And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.

11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.

Isaac repeats the same pattern as Abraham, informing the people of Gerar that Rebekah is his sister (technically she is his first-cousin-once-removed) instead of his wife.

When I first read this passage, I noted that the king here was named Abimelech, the same as when Abraham passed through this land. I thought it amusing that he would have been tricked twice by Abraham and his son, however, a little research reveals that Abimelech was a common name among the Philistines, also being the name of another king in the time of David. Thus it could be another king with the same name, or perhaps the name was actually a title, much like “Pharaoh” for the Egyptian kings.

I also assumed that the phrase “Isaac was sporting with his wife” was a euphemism for some sort of physical intimacy. But as it turns out, the word used in the original Hebrew is צְחַק or tsachaq, which means “to laugh.” So, it seems more accurate to say that Isaac and Rebekah were laughing, joking and/or playing together, in such a way that he could tell they were closer than just siblings.

Something else interesting is that the Hebrew word tsachaq is the same word used to describe when Sarah laughed after God said that she would bear a son in her old age. And then, when Isaac was born, he was named after that moment. His name in Hebrew is Yitschaq. Here is how the two words (tsachaq and Yitschaq) are written in the Hebrew language:

צְחַק
יִצְחָק

Isaac’s name literally means “he laughs,” and this phrase about him sporting with Rebekah can be read as “he-laughs was laughing with his wife.” It is an amusing sentence.