Posted on by Abe Austin

The Gospel and the Death Penalty- Summary

Who is Sovereign?)

This has been an interesting study to conduct, and I have learned several things over the course of it. The presence of the death penalty in the Bible is a controversial point, one that people use as justification in saying that the God of the Old Testament is a harsh tyrant who is eager to punish those that disobey Him. But that view seems based upon a perspective where one sees his own as sovereign and his right to life immutable, and not that God is the author of this mortal existence. Which is the first main principle that I found in this study: God is the author of our mortal existence and therefore justified in whatever bounds He sets upon it.

In my personal faith, I believe that we were premortal spirits who knew and lived with God, and to whom He offered an earth life as the way to cultivate our souls to their fullest potential. We who are on this earth are the ones who agreed to His plan and to His terms for it. As such, we entered life expressly so that we could fulfill God’s plan for it. When during the course of life we instead come out in strong rebellion, having God remove us from this life and back to the state that we were in before seems understandable and fair. But this is not the context that most people hold, and I understand why they therefore grapple. Many in this world view themselves as sovereign over their own lives, and this earth life as the ultimate reality. Both of those beliefs make a consignment to death a violation of what they see as a superior principle.

The Wages of Sin)

The second principle that I was reminded of is that it is not just some sins that warrant a death penalty, it is all of them. All sin is an act of rebellion against God and our better nature. It frustrates the cultivation of our souls and therefore provides the justification for removing us from this earth experience. We are not all executed at our first sin only because God has prepared a way by which we can repent and change over time, thus eventually fulfilling the purpose for which we were sent here.

So, it is wise for God to spare the sinner, but not necessarily for the most egregious acts of rebellion, and any time that He does execute justice it is fair and deserved. While we live in the hope of being perfected in Christ and receiving paradise, we must never lose sight of the fact that on our own we are worthy of death. That changes the perspective on God’s justice quite a bit.

Core Laws Never Change)

The third principle that stood out to me was that the fundamental laws of the gospel never change. Minor policies might change, such as the day for sabbath observance or the prohibitions against certain meats, but as we have already seen, the death penalty is inseparably connected to the principles of Law and Justice. Those have not changed and never will.

No matter how many sinners Jesus pardoned, it never dissolved the fact that sin demanded justice. It did not change that we all come in rebellion to God’s purpose for life. It did not prevent Paul from concluding that the “wages of sin is death.” All of that is still true, only now the justice, the death penalty, and the condemnation is executed upon the person of Jesus.

God gave the Ancient Israelites a stay of execution for minor sins, and now we have it for more major ones as well. But in all cases, it is only a stay, not a dismissal. In all cases justice does still happen, but now upon the Lamb of God.

Nothing New)

Laying out those three core principles, it became clear that I was repeating a very familiar story.

  1. God is sovereign over all and seeks to perfect our souls.
  2. Each of us instead goes astray and deserves judgment.
  3. But Jesus took that penalty so that we may repent and be redeemed.

There is nothing new in this, but perhaps by approaching that familiar story through something as difficult and controversial as the Old Testament death penalties, you have now seen it from a new perspective. I certainly know that I have.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Gospel and the Death Penalty- A Prisoner Set Free

A Different Pattern)

Thus far in this study I have noted that God created this earth life, defined its purposes, and introduced us to it as His gift to help us cultivate our souls to their full potential. Given all of that, He also has the right to determine when a person is so contrary to that purpose that they ought to be removed from this life. He also has the right to determine when the penalty is delayed to give the offender time to repent. He sets these bounds according to His wisdom, and wherever He does place them He is justified in so doing.

Looking at the scriptural record, we see that those bounds appear to have evolved from the Old Testament to the New. According to the Mosaic Law, adultery was one of the sins for which the death penalty would always apply. In the New Testament, Jesus seemed to make this law even more strict, proclaiming that anyone who “looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). So, did this mean that now the death penalty would apply to anyone who even had a lustful thought? One might think so, at least until the incident with the woman taken in adultery occurred.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery.

"Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned." 

Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

He said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?"

She said, "No man, Lord."

And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
-John 8:3-11, shortened

It is worth asking, why was adultery a sin punishable by death under Moses, but then when Jesus was presented the woman taken in adultery, he chose to extend mercy instead?

Reason for the Change)

I already spoke a little on this in the first post of this series and also in prior posts, but I think the important thing to realize is that Jesus didn’t, in fact, contradict the law as it was given. Nowhere do we hear him say that having death as a consequence of adultery was unjust. Nowhere does he say that his new law was “correcting” the old one. Instead, he told his disciples:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18).

Furthermore, Jesus’s statement “neither do I condemn thee” seems to suggest that he rightfully could. If Jesus, however, let the adulterous woman go without executing her, did a jot or a tittle of the law go unfulfilled? No. Because as it turns out, there was an execution carried out for her sin, only it was carried out in Jesus’s body and not her own. In that moment that Jesus let her go, he was assuming her place.

And this is not only for the woman in that one instance. Every adulterer, or blasphemer, or rebellious son ever since has been spared a death penalty. Not because the penalty was withheld, but because it was executed upon Jesus. When Jesus died on the cross, he stood in for the execution of all of mankind.

Change of Subject, not Policy)

The important thing to recognize here is that Jesus did not change what most people seem to think he changed. He did not change either the principles or the policies underlying the Law of Moses. The principle is that severe violation of the purpose of life warrants removal from that life. The policy is that a man must be killed for mortal sins. Now the principle and the policy still hold true, but the person is put to death in Jesus.

Mortal sins remain mortal sins, the wages of sin are still death, the law is still just as strict in imposing justice, all that has changed is the subject upon whom the punishment is exacted. By this, mercy can be offered to us without robbing justice one iota.

Note: I am aware that the authenticity of the story of the woman taken in adultery is debated. Even if it turned out that such did not occur, it is still clear that the Christian movement included deferment of the death penalty, and the reasons why remain the same.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Gospel and the Death Penalty- Dangers of Interpretation

The Wages of Sin)

In my last post I examined each of the categories of sin for which God prescribed a death penalty. During my study I noticed a pattern that the death penalty seemed to be associated with sins that particularly defied the purpose of life, which purpose is to cultivate our souls into ones that can receive paradise. When a person detaches themselves from that divine purpose, they are no longer participating in life as it is intended, and God has the right to rescind that gift of life.

But even as I drew those conclusions, I knew there was an important issue to address. I saw how this line of thinking could be used to justify a whole slew of harsh and merciless policies. At the end of the day, all sin is an act of rebellion against God’s plan for us. All sin is contrary to the purpose for us being here. So, wouldn’t that justify the death penalty for all sin? Well, according to Romans 6:23, yes: “For the wages of sin is death.” It does not say only certain sin, it seems to mean all sin.

Furthermore, I can say from my own experiences that as I have been convicted of my own sins, I have felt that any penalty that God chose for me would be warranted. Be it death or be it hell, if God were to call for it, I could not say that He was unfair in so doing. I was very grateful to receive mercy instead, but I wasn’t entitled to it.

So yes, the death penalty can be argued as the just response for every sin that there is. Does that mean I would support a nation carrying out executions for every stolen library book, every angry insult, and every lustful thought? Well, no. That conclusion would be an incorrect interpretation of scripture. It would be focusing on just one aspect of the gospel, while ignoring all others.

Balance of Purpose)

Let us not forget, the whole point of my last post was that the death penalty could be justified for those who were no longer in agreement with the purpose of life, which purpose was to cultivate our souls to be fit for heaven. But we are imperfect beings, and all of us sin. To kill us all at the first offense would also frustrate the purpose of mortal life by cutting short our opportunity to repent and cultivate our souls. There clearly ought to be a threshold. Lesser sins, though still deserving of death, should have that penalty deferred so that there is a chance for repentance, while those who more seriously detach themselves from the purpose of life could still face immediate judgment.

And where should that threshold lie? How should we be able to tell when someone is in enough rebellion against the purpose of life to warrant death? These are questions that I do not need to answer. It is not in my jurisdiction. Life is created by God, and it is up to Him which penalties should apply to which violations. This is one of the reasons that the law was even given to Moses: so that God could answer these questions and His people would not have to make imperfect judgment calls of their own.

In summary, there is a justification for the death penalty for any sin. God would be justified wherever He applied that penalty, even for the most minor of offenses. It would be justified, but it would not be ideal for the accomplishment of His purposes. Wisdom therefore requires a threshold to allow both an opportunity for repentance and preservation of the natural order. It is God’s prerogative, and God’s prerogative alone, where that threshold should then be set.

Acknowledging the justification for the death penalty is not a carte blanche invitation for human authorities to kill all sinners. It does mean, though, that God has a field of choice in where to place the bounds of mercy and justice. He may even set one bound at one time, and adjust it at another, and that would be acceptable and appropriate. Which, of course, God appears to have done. He assigned the death penalty for adultery under the Law of Moses, but in the case of the woman taken in adultery, Jesus chose to extend mercy instead. Did something change? We will turn to that question in our next post.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Gospel and the Death Penalty- Why Death?

Death Penalty Categories)

I have spent the last two posts addressing different categories of people who would be opposed to God’s use of the death penalty in the Old Testament. Today, I am going to take up the other side. Why would God use the death penalty? Are there justifiable reasons for its application to the situations described in the Bible? Let’s start by considering what those situations are.

God’s application of the death penalty falls under five general categories:

  1. Sexual perversion: adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, etc.
  2. Violence: murder, kidnapping, etc.
  3. Idolatry: performing witchcraft or wizardry, worshipping false gods, leading others astray, etc.
  4. Disobedience to God: blaspheming God, working on the Sabbath, disobeying the priest, etc.
  5. Disobedience to parents: cursing parents, striking parents, stubbornly rebellious child, etc.

If I were to abstract this further, I think the category of sexual perversion could be called actions against nature, the violence category could be called retributive justice, and all of the other categories could be summed up as open rebellion. I believe that abstracting these categories is useful for understanding the principle of offense at the heart of them, the core thing in each that God is so opposed to. Let us look at each of these three abstracted categories in turn.

Three Underlying Principles)

The first category is sins against nature. God has created the world with a natural order. Each species reproduces with its own kind. Family units progress from one generation to the next. Everything fulfills God’s original command to be fruitful and multiply. Our nature is one of life and propagation. Therefore, sins that go against the natural order are actions oriented towards death and termination. The end of reproduction, the end of a family line, the breaking up of the natural order…each of these is a small death, and if adopted by a significant portion of the species would spell the end of it very quickly. Thus, those who engage in sins against nature, particularly through sexually deviant acts, are already agents of death, and it is fitting for a death penalty to be assigned to them. It is God recognizing the ends that these acts are oriented towards and enacting that end immediately.

The second category is retributive justice. These are sins that deprive another of life, and therefore it is only fitting that the penalty for it is also death. This obviously includes murder, but kidnapping and selling into slavery are also forms of taking another’s life, just in a more symbolic way. Even leading others astray from the faith is a sort of killing: the killing of the soul. That sin fits in this category just as well as the next. To require the life of those that commit these killing acts is nothing more than basic justice. It is an eye for an eye. You were willing to deprive others of life, so your life is required as well.

The final category is that of open rebellion. As with the first category, God gave us another natural order of hierarchy and power. Children are subject to parents. Citizens are subject to leaders. Humanity is subject to God. Instructions and care flow down one direction of the order, fealty and obedience flow the other way. When one comes out in rebellion, they deny their proper place in that order. They hold themselves as the highest authority and sever their link from the chain. Not only have they cut themselves off, but they make themselves an enemy to the established order. They wrest for control, which makes them a direct antithesis to the order. No order can continue if its subjects can defy it unabated. When rebellion begins, it must mean the death of the order or of the rebel. God has prescribed the death of the rebel.

The Final Abstraction)

Looking at all of these categories as one, another final abstraction emerges. God created this world for the cultivation of His children, to place them within an order and nature that encourage growth, development, and ultimately for them to achieve their greatest potential. That is the whole purpose of us being here. Each of these categories of sin directly frustrates that plan. They are inherently opposed to the continuation and cultivation of God’s children. When a system has been created for a purpose, then any subject no longer interested in participating in that system does not belong within it. If one does not wish to participate in the purpose of life, then being removed from life is understandable. Yes, that analysis is clinical and cold, but I think it is also logically sound. We are here for a reason, and if we no longer fulfill that reason, why we expect to remain here?

Of course, that raises some questions. Where is the line between simply being imperfect and not being aligned to our purpose for being here? Could the arguments that I have made today be used to justify terrible atrocities? It is also worth asking, if this is the system and the order that God has designed, then why was it removed after the coming of Christ? Why do we not follow this same logic today? We will dig into these sorts of questions in my next post.

Posted on by Abe Austin · 1 Comment

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 18:24-28

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 

25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 

26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 

27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 

28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

In my last post I mentioned how the deepest evils that God expressly forbade in this chapter are associated throughout the Bible with nations that are soon to be destroyed. And, as it turns out, God makes that point explicit in these verses. He directly points out that these are the practices that the current inhabitants of Canaan are ripe with, and that is why He will drive out those perverse people with the armies of Israel. He even dramatically describes the earth “vomiting” out those people who engage in such wickedness within it.

As we know, eventually the Israelites would also fall to these and other works of wickedness, and they would indeed be spued out of the land as well. In fact, it would occur to them more than once. It is not entirely clear whether this pattern that God is describing applies to all people in all places, or only to specially sanctified lands, such as Canaan. The Book of Mormon does make similar language about the Americas. At the very least, after the ministry of Jesus Christ we know that all the world became the field of spiritual harvest. We also know that in the last days all manner of wickedness will prevail and the earth will vomit out those depraved actors in all places as a result.

Thus, whether it was the case in ancient times or not, at least now it seems clear that every people and every land are under this threat of destruction and expulsion for engaging with these sins. There does seem to be a time of ripening before the sword comes down, and that delay can give people a reason to deny the correlation, but the wise will heed the word of God and see the pattern for what it is.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 18:1-5

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God. 

3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. 

4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God. 

5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.

Over the next 3 chapters we will have a long series of evil practices explicitly forbidden by God. These will include some of the darkest and most corrosive behaviors that man can engage in, from sexual immorality to child sacrifice to occult practices. Of course, these lists of sins should not be considered as exhaustive, as man ever finds new and ingenious ways to desecrate the sanctity of one another.

That is, indeed, what the sins described in these chapters largely are: desecrations of the divinity in one another. Elsewhere God has forbidden behaviors that desecrate our relationship with Him. Sins that are contrary to the first great commandment: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” In these next chapters He will now forbid those relative to the second great commandment: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

It is popular in today’s culture to point out that some of the Mosaic Laws do not apply to Christians today, such as the wearing of mixed threads, and thus why are other laws, like those against homosexuality, “arbitrarily” chosen to still be in force? These arguments are made in ignorance (sometimes genuine, sometimes willful) of how these laws are actually separated in the text. Over the next few chapters, we will see both of these commandments, and it will be clear that those against homosexuality are located in the midst of the most extreme sins, the ones focused on the desecration of one another’s sanctity. Meanwhile, the ones of wearing mixed threads are in a totally separate section of symbolic anti-mingling laws. There is an explicit revocation of those symbolic anti-mingling laws in Acts 10, and absolutely no precedent for any of the laws against the desecration of one another ever being rescinded, and for obvious reason! The laws against the desecration of one another will remain in force so long as the members of the human race are children of God, carrying a divine spark within them that must not be violated.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Judgmental

I grew up in a generation where accusing Christians of being judgmental reached its peak. It got to the point that even asserting the mere existence of divine truth was seen as exclusionary and hateful, and for a long while now, any mention of commandments and sin has been called judgmental. This mentality prevailed in the culture war and became assumed correct as a general rule, but we have since seen that those so concerned about Christian judgmentalism are themselves more judgmental than anyone else. The difference is that they secularize the religious terminology, but that doesn’t change that it is judgmentalism even so.

They don’t call it “righteous,” they call it “being right.”
They don’t call it “being a sinner,” they call it “being on the wrong side of history.”
They don’t call it “orthodoxy,” they call it “being informed.”
They don’t call it “repentance,” they call it “taking accountability.”
They don’t call it “heresy,” they call it “misinformation.”
They don’t call it “excommunication,” they call it “cancellation.”
They don’t call it “doctrine,” they call it “values.”
They don’t call it “blasphemy,” they call it “hate speech.”
They don’t call it “commandments,” they call it “policies.”
They don’t call it “words of scripture,” they call it “experts say.”
They don’t call it “moral law,” they call it “social contract.”
They don’t call it “confession,” they call it a “public statement.”
They don’t call it “church,” they call it “community.”

Fancy terminology aside, we see a society that believes more than ever that there are commandments and laws, and that those who stand against them are morally wrong, and they absolutely condemn those who don’t fall in line.

Indeed, the severity of that condemnation is the most shocking aspect of all. People are absolutely obsessed with being right, with winning debates, with finding surveys and studies that side with them, with proving other people wrong. People absolutely hate people that don’t share their views, and they are very open about it. They are so anxious to be surrounded with “rightness” they will cut off their own immediate family for daring to have “wrong opinions.” They will tell them to “f–k off” and never speak to them again….

But they will still be scandalized that you hold a faith that is so “judgmental.”

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- The Folly of Condemning

Illogical Condemnation)

It is a strange experience listening to the predominant criticisms of my faith, the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most critics make it a point to express that we are not sinful or selfish people. They acknowledge that we tend to be a kind, caring, sacrificing, serving, and loving community. In statistical studies we regularly rank at the top for charitable giving, family cohesion, Biblical knowledge, and clean living. When our own people of Grand Blanc, Michigan were slaughtered in their pews for their faith last year, our community contributed heavily to the family of the shooter who also died in the tragedy. Everyone seems to agree that our behavior is exemplary, that our attitude is in great alignment with what Christ exemplified.

So, what then is our great evil that requires such a drastic intervention of evangelists coming to break our faith and convict us of our damnable state? Wrong-think.

Our loudest critics respect the sort of people our beliefs have cultivated us to be, but they still intend to crush those beliefs so we can finally be saved. They want to chop down the “evil” tree, even as they admit to it bearing good fruit. It is a paradox that they cannot reasonably explain, they only know that they want to kill this tree regardless of the good it serves. They do not consider whether the fruit will wither if the tree is dead.

In the end, their intention is the same as Thomas Sanford, that shooter who slaughtered our congregants in Grand Blanc, Michigan. It may be a quieter version of that spirit, but they still hold that same intention to destroy. They show a complete ignorance and utter lack of respect for the thing they want to kill, but kill it they must.

Sinful Condemnation)

If it wasn’t clear already, I’m pretty fired up about this topic. I believe that the disrespect for the sincere beliefs of another is a grave stain in our society, especially when the subject of that disrespect is otherwise a commendable citizen and neighbor. The sin that is being performed here is playing God.

At the end of the day, even the best of us are idiots, and idiots have no place condemning a brother. That is rightfully only the Lord’s position, and the rest of us should leave judgment to Him. Playing God is wrong, no matter which of us do it, but when the people doing it are condemning those who are statistically more moral, it is particularly backwards and infuriating.

It is infuriating when I do it. It is infuriating when you do it. And worse than infuriating, it is a sin. Jesus explicitly forbade it in Matthew 7:1-2. “Condemn not, that ye be not condemned. For with what condemnation ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Those who love to tell me how stupid I am for believing Joseph Smith is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and most importantly who tell me that I’m going to hell because of these beliefs, are condemning me where they have no right to do so. Their condemnation of me has no effect on the state of my soul, that remains strictly between me and God, but as Jesus explained in those verses, their condemnation does have an effect on the state of their own future judgment. I pray that they will seek forgiveness for their condemning spirit.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 12:6-8

6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

7 Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Yesterday I started examining the purification rites surrounding childbirth and discussed why I don’t think they are so shameful as some assume. Certainly, a shameful interpretation can be read into these verses, but it is a personal choice to do so. It is also possible to see no shame in the event, only an acknowledgement of the inherent gravity and mortality in birth. I explained what such a perspective looks like for the purification period of a mother in yesterday’s study, and now we will do the same for the sin and burnt offerings described in today’s verses.

Whether the child was a son or a daughter, the offerings were both a sin offering and a burnt offering. As we have already seen, a sin offering was meant for the absolution of sin, and a burnt offering was about dedicating one’s life to God and His purposes. The burnt offering is not controversial, but many have taken the need for a sin offering at birth as meaning that a child is born sinful; conceived by a sinful act, issued forth in a sinful state. But I don’t believe that view is necessary. I believe this ritual could be pointing to the common curse of mortality, without reflecting on the individual moral guilt of the child.

It is certainly a fact that we live in a fallen world. We all experience tragedy, we all experience suffering, and we all experience death. Every one of us is doomed by this fate and need to be saved from it via resurrection. Separate from this, though, is our own individual guilt when we commit our own sins. Sins where we had a knowledge of good but choosing to do evil. Thus, we have a universal mortal demise, and we have a personal spiritual demise, each of which must be overcome in Christ.

I believe the sin offering for an Israelite child’s birth was to acknowledge that the mother had brought her child into this universal, mortal, deathly reality, and that grim fate could only be overcome by the sacrifice of a lamb. This sacrifice is symbolic of Christ’s promise that his death and resurrection will conquer the tomb for all of us. Whether that resurrection will also redeem us from personal sin depends on whether we seek his forgiveness and enter into his covenant, but redemption from death, at least, is guaranteed.

So, it is true that there is a deep gravity to the fallen state into which we are born, but I don’t hold that we are also born in sin. We are born into the consequences of Adam and Eve’s transgression, but not into the guilt of their transgression. We only become guilty when we personally disobey. And in both cases, mortal death and spiritual sin, the sacrifice of the lamb shall overcome.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 11:36-40

36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.

37 And if any part of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean.

38 But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you.

39 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even.

40 And he that eateth of the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

Today’s verses continue on the rules we saw yesterday, explaining the corrupting effect of dead unclean animals. Larger sources of water would not all be corrupted. Presumably, there would be enough clean water that any untoward elements would dissipate to only trace levels. A dead carcass on a seed was fine, the plant was still shielded within, but if the seed had been watered already, and had begun the process of growing and sprouting, the actual plant was corrupted and now unclean.

The next verses talk about touching or eating a clean animal’s carcass. This obviously means an animal that died by natural means, not one that was slaughtered for the express purpose of eating. In these cases, any who touched the carcass would be unclean, but all he had to do was wash his clothes and he would be clean again the next day.

Logically, there had to be ways in which the transference of uncleanness would cease. If an unclean carcass made a vessel unclean, which made the person who touched that vessel unclean, which made anything that person touched unclean…obviously at some point everything would be unclean. And, well, now that we are aware of germs and viruses, there is some truth to that model. The fact is, we all carry unclean things in and on us, and none of us are pure, and none of us can become so. That is why sacrificial atonement remains necessary for us all.

But in our day-to-day lives, we do find that God has provided us a buffer that prevents infinite corruption. Yes, diseases pass through us, but they do eventually die out. Filth transfers from the ground to our hands to our food to our insides, but usually in small enough quantities that our body passes it through without issue. Or, if we do get ill, we almost always quickly recover. And speaking spiritually, every day there are evil influences that tempt us and our sins beget guilt, but we do move on and feel ourselves restored again on the next day. And where our sin is more serious, still with a period of washing and waiting, we are able to move forward again. God has built resilience and restitution into us, allowing us to bounce back from the constant uncleanness of the world.