Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 32:33-35

33 And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

34 Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them.

35 And the Lord plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

The Lord assured Moses that those who had betrayed Him would be blotted out of His book, and there seems to be implied with that, “…but not those that didn’t.” Thus, Moses’s offer to receive the same punishment as all the rest of the people was declined. Presumably, being “blotted out” would mean, at the very least, to be cut off from being one of the Lord’s chosen people, and potentially to be mortally destroyed.

Those that had demanded the calf had specifically chosen to not have the Lord for their God anymore, even after they had seen Him save them with mighty miracles. They had already blotted themselves in their hearts, so the Lord was simply synchronizing His records with their decision. Those that want to live a godless life shall receive their wish. If they insist that the Almighty is not a part of our lives, they will find that indeed He is not, for they will have created a bubble around them where He does not exist.

This sense of getting the consequences that one wishes for is perhaps most clear in the last verse of the chapter. Israel wanted to worship idols like the Egyptians, so now they received a plague just like the Egyptians had. They had witnessed this exact pattern firsthand. They had been kept safe, while they saw exactly what ramifications came upon those who came out in opposition to the Lord. And yet, in spite of all this firsthand knowledge, they followed the Egyptians’ pattern all the way to the exact same conclusion. The plague could not have been more predictable.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 31:12-14

12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.

14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

This chapter changes its subject at the end, now becoming a reminder from God that the Israelites are not to break the sabbath day. God’s words reiterate the same requirements that were given with the ten commandments, the key feature being that there must be no work done on that day. It is to be holy, and therefore free of the crass pursuit of worldly wealth and resources. It is to be a day dedicated to rest and worship.

In verse 13 God calls this commandment to keep the sabbath day holy a “sign between me and you throughout your generations.” Other commentators have noted that the word used for “sign” here is also applied to the law of circumcision. Depending on the translation it may be called “token,” but it is the same Hebrew word in both cases (אוֹת). Thus, keeping the sabbath was going to be an identifying sign and token, something that set the Israelite apart from all the rest of the world, just as circumcision was.

In verse 14 God gives the penalty for those that break the sabbath, which is death. God further explains that this is because such a person’s soul is already “cut off from among his people.” That person has already made himself an outsider, a non-Israelite, and physical damnation was to immediately follow the spiritual.

Today this sounds extremely harsh, though even the modern Christian living under the new law will still testify that sin brings upon us the death of the soul. We also say that the loss of the soul is far more tragic than the temporary cessation of life in the body. Thus, there are many modern Christians that are scandalized by physical death as a punishment yet maintain belief in a far worse fate. This is a contradiction caused by a lack of conviction in the true value of the soul.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:18-20

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

We now shift back to a series of rapid-fire laws, which feel more akin in tone to the ten commandments. In fact, in tomorrow’s verses we will hear the Lord speak in the first person, making promises of divine punishment for transgressors of certain laws.

All of the crimes mentioned in today’s verses carry a death penalty. Two of them have to do directly with forms of idolatry. The witches mentioned in verse 18 were female mystics who would use strange mutterings and sell enchantments as an alternative to relying upon the Lord, and obviously anyone sacrificing to a god other than the Lord was abandoning the true faith to pursue false deities. The other commandment that warrants a death penalty, having sexual relations with a creature, might have also been related to pagan rituals.

But why do these commandments warrant the law’s ultimate punishment? Why the death penalty as opposed to a fine or expulsion? We have already seen some death penalties, but they were reserved for the most extreme transgressions against other people. In every one of today’s laws, however, they are transgressions against God and nature. The target of the offense, I believe, is the reason for the harsh penalty.

Of course, there are those who choose to interpret the Old Testament’s strong punishments upon the heretics as evidence that God is insecure and narcissistic. If God is the Supreme Being of the universe, then why does He get so bent out of shape when we mock him? I think that these arguments are erring on the side of making God too personified. Not to say that it is wrong to think of God in a personified way, but that shouldn’t be the only way we conceive of our creator.

God is also synonymous with truth and right and good. Perhaps it becomes easier to understand the harsh penalties given in today’s commandments when we think of God in these more abstract terms. The people being described in these verses are acting in defiance of truth itself. They are trying to destroy the truth, to pervert it, to replace it with a lie, and it is hard to imagine a faster way to bring suffering and destruction to a people than declaring war directly on the truth itself. The laying of lies and idolatry at our foundation corrupts things at such a fundamental level that it can claim far more lives and souls than any other crime, hence the strong motivation to cut that trend off immediately.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:2-3

2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

These verses explain the laws relating to a burglar. The phrase “breaking up” is more often translated as “breaking in,” meaning the thief is coming directly into one’s home to commit his foul deeds.

A burglar presents far more danger than a thief who picks a pocket or grabs something unattended on the streets. Breaking into a home in the dead of night significantly raises the likelihood of encountering the victim in his most vulnerable position, and so deadly force is more likely to transpire. Accordingly, the law states that a man who strikes a burglar such that he dies shall have no punishment upon him, so long as this did occur in the night. Verse 3 states that if the burglary occurs in the day, lethal force against the intruder is not permitted, presumably as the situation is far less uncertain and dangerous.

If, however, the daytime burglar is captured, there will still be a punishment upon him. As with the prior laws of theft, he must return what he stole twofold. Of course, the man may not be able to pay that fine. He may be able to return what he stole, but not the same value again a second time. In such an instance, we are told that “he shall be sold.” Presumably this means that he will be sold as a servant, but the payment that would normally go to him or his family for his service will instead be given to his intended victim. If he is an Israelite, or converts to the Israelite faith, presumably he will be freed after six years as per the previously stated laws.

I would imagine one side-effect of the Mosaic legal system is that there was much less need for prisons than in our current system. Murderers were put to death, and thieves were only fined, or else served their time as servants in other households.

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 21:22

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

We are told that if a pregnant woman was struck and lost her child, that the man who caused the miscarriage would now be punished, both by the demands of the husband and the judges. The exact penalty was therefore determined on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a single, predetermined sentence. In any case, it seems like death would not have been the typical punishment.

Some may take this lesser penalty as evidence that the child growing in the womb was not considered a spirit-quickened soul, but such a conclusion isn’t certain at all. It could also be that the penalty was less because the situation described in these verses would be an accidental death. It tells of two men who are struggling with one another, who in the course of their struggle accidentally shove up against the woman. This would therefore amount to manslaughter at the most, and not murder, and we have already seen how the Lord took a more lenient view towards manslaughter than murder.

What would be more conclusive is if we had a law relating to the intentional causing of a miscarriage, but that particular situation isn’t spelled out in the books of Moses. Perhaps to the ancient Israelite that situation was considered to have already been covered by the other laws we have read.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:18-21

18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:

19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Today we have rules for a killing that was not directly intended, but which did arise from violence. The killer was not so innocent as if he had carelessly dropped a brick off a roof when a man walked underneath, but he was not so guilty as if he had carried out a premeditated murder.

Forceful violence always has the chance of causing death, but it is not a sure thing. So, too, the attacker’s fate would remain unsure until the outcome of his actions fully played out. If the man that he struck survived, then the attacker would have to pay to cover the man’s lost time and see him thoroughly healed. If the victim should die, though, then the attacker would be put to death, the same as a murderer, for that is what fate determined him to be.

These same punishments are then echoed for a master who beat his servant. Note that verse 20 only says that the master would be “punished” for killing a servant, without specifying what that punishment would be. In the Talmud, though, it is specified that the punishment was still death, the same as against a free man. Also, since the servant or his family would have already been paid for his service, then the master would simply eat the cost for his own brutality. The servant would not lose any earnings for the missed days’ labor.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Turn the Other Cheek

I spoke yesterday about two sides to God’s Justice, one that condemns the wicked and one that exalts the pure in heart. One of the scriptures I quoted was Jesus teaching his followers to “turn the other cheek.” I wanted to explore that sentiment even more, but my comments were becoming large enough that I decided pulled them out into this separate post. To help us get into it, let’s pull up the relevant verses:

Matthew 5:39-40:

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.

Imagine if Christ has said “whosoever shall smite thee on they right cheek, do not strike him back,” or if he had said, “if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, just let him have it.” If those were the things that he had said, then this would already be advocating for an unexpected, unnatural behavior, one that is much more mild than we are accustomed to. What Christ would be asking of us in this case would be a sort of passive pacifism, a call to inaction.

But those are not the things that Christ actually said. He took it a step further and said “turn to him the other [cheek] also” and “let him have they cloak also.” This is not passive inaction at all, but active action. We are actually being told to do something. Specifically, something that deliberately causes greater harm to our own self!

I don’t think it wise to assume that Jesus was just exaggerating when he said these things, to suppose that he just really wanted to hammer home the point of non-retaliation. The more I’ve thought about, the more I think he really meant that when someone does you harm you, should actively double up on it!

Christ is not calling for non-retaliation, but rather a sort of reflected retaliation. When one cheek is struck, justice requires that another cheek be struck in return. Christ’s advice does not dissolve that justice, but rather states that we should have that recompense be met upon our own person. He is calling us to take the retribution of justice and absorb within our self! We are taking the punishment for their own crimes, and that terminates the cycle of harm right there.

And this, of course, is the very thing that Christ did for all the world. In his atonement he was unjustly condemned, which to be balanced out would require his persecutors to be justly condemned by God. But Christ accounted for both the initial offense and the recompense in his sacrifice. In submitting himself to his condemnation, Christ took not only the direct pain of what they were doing to him in the moment, but also the pain of what the Father would do to them in return, paying the price for their sins that they might go free. They were both condemned and redeemed in the single act of Jesus’s death.

Christ is the end of the back-and-forth nature of justice. He takes the never-ending cycle of harm and self-closes the loop in his own person. And in his injunction to “turn the other cheek,” he is asking to us to do the same thing in our own small way. We can be the cul-de-sac where the road of affliction turns back on itself and dissolves.

Of course, as with Christ’s atonement, it is still up to the offender to accept the grace that is offered. You have done your part to preserve peace in the world, but the world still has the choice whether to take that peace or not. And if the world rejects that opportunity, then it is doubly condemned for having struck the innocent twice!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 5:4-9

4 And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? get you unto your burdens.

5 And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens.

6 And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people, and their officers, saying,

7 Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves.

8 And the tale of the bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish ought thereof: for they be idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God.

9 Let there more work be laid upon the men, that they may labour therein; and let them not regard vain words.

Pharaoh’s second response was much more vicious than the first. In verse 4 he shows great indignation, essentially questioning what right Moses and Aaron had to even be here and he attempted to emphatically put them back in their place as mere slaves: “get you unto your burdens!”

But Pharaoh didn’t stop there. He called them idle, accusing them of having an excess of time since they were requesting to use that time to make sacrifices to their God. Thus, he took their labor of making bricks and significantly increased its difficulty. Straw was an essential ingredient for creating bricks, serving as the lattice that held the clay together, enabling it to hold it’s shape as it dried into a brick. Making bricks without straw simply wasn’t an option, so the Israelites would have to take the time to get it themselves.

Pharaoh’s words in verse 9 seem to be directed more to the general Israelite populace than to Moses and Aaron: “let them not regard vain words.” Clearly, he is trying to get the slaves to renounce Moses and Aaron as their representatives. He wants the Israelites themselves to censure the voices that would seek their freedom. If the Pharaoh had been able to get what he wanted from the people, it would have shown that they were absolutely demoralized, biting the very hand that offered them freedom, and thus becoming their own chains. And is this indeed how the Israelites responded? We will soon find out.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 44:7-10

7 And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing:

8 Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks’ mouths, we brought again unto thee out of the land of Canaan: how then should we steal out of thy lord’s house silver or gold?

9 With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord’s bondmen.

10 And he said, Now also let it be according unto your words: he with whom it is found shall be my servant; and ye shall be blameless.

I find it very interesting that Jacob’s sons are so confident in declaring their innocence. Yes, they know that they have done no wrong, but they also didn’t put the money into their sacks the first time they came to Egypt, yet there it was even so. I would think an abundance of caution, and suspicion of treachery would be warranted, but apparently it doesn’t cross their minds that they might be walking into a trap.

For if it did cross their minds, why on earth would they stake their very lives on the matter? Their own suggestion is that if one of them has committed the crime then that brother should be killed, and all the others will be made into slaves!

The steward cools down their fervor somewhat. They won’t all be punished if only one of them has committed the crime, and the thief won’t be killed, but he will have to become Joseph’s slave. Given that they are willing to the higher punishment, the brothers are agreeable to this lesser one as well. And so, they willingly commit themselves to their own ruin.