Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 23:10-12

10 And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof:

11 But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.

12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

Today the laws of the sabbath are expanded and we are given the concept of a sabbath year, which is that after six years of working the field, then the field must be left to rest for the seventh. This is actually very practical, as sowing the same land over and over will take out all of its nutrients, and giving it a rest year to replenish those nutrients is better in the long run.

Of course, the land might naturally produce even without sowing. Vines and trees would continue to produce their grapes and their olives, and these were to be left for the poor and the animals. One can see why Jesus would later reprove the Pharisees for missing the point of the sabbath. From these verses it is clear that the sabbath was for the people, not the people for the sabbath.

Of course, for the owner of the field, having a year of no productivity would require an act of faith. When the Israelites were given manna they were told that God would allow them a double portion on the day before the sabbath, so they wouldn’t have to gather on the rest day. Once again, the owner of the field would have to trust that God would provide enough surplus in the six other years that he could rely on what he had stored up through the seventh. The Israelite might pursue his own wealth and ambition, but every seventh year he would be drawn back to remember his constant dependence on the Lord.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 23:9

9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

God had already commanded the Israelites not to vex or oppress any foreigner living among them, but now He repeats that directive a second time, and once again the reason given is that the Israelites had themselves been strangers in a strange land, and so they knew the heart of those that lived such a life.

This is an interesting logic, a sort of divine paradox, to say that because the Israelites were themselves oppressed when they were the foreigners, that they therefore must not oppress any foreigners themselves. Our human tendency is far more inclined towards “since you did it to me, I get to do it to you.”

Recall that when Israel departed Egypt a mixed multitude went up with them, which means foreigners in their midst. These may have been other slave nations that had served under Egypt, but it may also have been some of the Egyptians themselves. Furthermore, after they entered the Promised Land some immigrants of their own enemies would come live among them, such as Ruth who came from Moab. Thus, when God says to not oppress the stranger, He is including strangers that came from lands that were directly hostile to Israel. It would be absolutely natural to let their anger against those enemies loose upon the immigrants that came from them, but God required His people to take the higher road, to return kindness for offense.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 23:8

8 And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.

This verse continues with the laws that apply to the judges themselves, telling them how they should and should not perform their duties. Today we hear that God is aware of the danger of bribes and the judges shall “take no gift,” as that will lead them to blind their judgment and pervert their decisions.

Even judges who might receive their pay from the people should not see themselves as being subject to the people. They do not act as an agent of the plaintiff or the defendant, but as an agent of truth, an agent of God, Himself. To take a gift from a witness would be to make the witness the master, and that would frustrate the entire judicial enterprise. So, if there are to be gifts and rewards for a judge, let him receive them not from man, but from God, as the natural blessings that come to those who serve well.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 23:4-5

4 If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

We have already seen laws establishing the penalty for stealing a neighbor’s livestock, or for losing them while they were on loan, but today we see the responsibility of actually being a good neighbor, of going out of one’s way to help another in his time of need. Even when it is a neighbor that isn’t particularly liked.

If a person saw his enemy’s animal wandering, lost from its master, he was obligated to bring it back. If he saw it having collapsed under too heavy of a burden, he was obligated to relieve it. Not just encouraged, but obligated under the law. In fact, the phrase “and wouldest forbear to help him” suggests that if the thought arises in the person’s mind that he would rather not help his neighbor, then he is especially compelled to do exactly that! This is a good metric to gauge when our relationships with other people has gone too far astray: do we actively wish to not help them? And it gives us a good solution to turn things back around: then help them regardless!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 23:1-3, 6-7

1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

3 Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.

6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.

7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

We have had laws that the judges would enforce upon the general populace, but today’s laws now apply to the judges themselves, and the goings-on in their courtrooms. Thus we have rules not only of what to judge, but also of how to judge.

From verses 1 and 2 we learn that there is to be no false testimony. Every witness is to speak what is true, even if there is a large multitude that would pressure the witness to do otherwise. From this we see that the Truth itself is of higher status than personal or public interest. It does not matter what we want, or what the masses want, if it isn’t true it isn’t to be spoken.

Verses 3 and 6 make clear that every person is to be judged the same as every other. To “countenance a poor man” would mean to rule in his favor out of compassion, even though his case is weak, and that is forbidden. But neither are we to “wrest the judgment” against him out of disdain when his case is strong. The status of the person is not what matters, what matters is what is true and right in the case, with no regard for the status of the individuals being judged.

It could be that the poor man is impoverished due to no fault of his own, and is generally deserving of compassion. Or it could be that the poor man is impoverished because he lives a foolish and hedonistic lifestyle, and is generally deserving of consequence. And yes, a sense of compassion and a sense of justice are both virtues, but they are not higher virtues than the Truth. They do not justify us in coming near “to a false matter.” If anything is clear from today’s verses, it is that there is a hierarchy of virtues, and the Truth sits atop them all.

Posted on by Abe Austin

When the Light is Extinguished

When the light is fully extinguished
Nothing ‘fore us will be distinguished
Then anything might take form in the dark

Posted on by Abe Austin

Striving Together vs Striving Against

I have noticed two different types of conversation that I have had with friends and loved ones who hold different perspectives and principles from my own. One type has been far more fruitful than the other. Let’s take a look at each.

Shared Foundation)

In some cases the conversation has seen us first speaking from our shared convictions, reinforcing the points that we agree on, and then from that shared foundation explaining the reasoning that has led us to the perspectives that are different from one another. Seeing the two different chains of logic that led us to different places allowed us to question the process that one other took and offer alternative reasoning.

In my experience, this approach worked very well. It felt that we were working together to figure something out that we both wanted to understand. Seeing the motivations behind the conclusions, we each had understanding of where the other was coming from. I and the other person had multiple instances where we each said something along the lines of, “That’s a good point. I’d never thought of that before.” We actually seemed to be changing one another’s mind!

Split Foundation)

The alternative, of course, is when I have had conversations where I and the other person established no shared foundation between us at all. The two of us started by focusing on the differences between us. We didn’t explain the logic that led to our conclusions, except when doing so worked into our critique of the other person’s position.

The result, of course, was far more divisive. The conversation was more prone to devolve into an actual argument, and moments where either of us thought the other person had something insightful to offer were rare.

I think this difference of outcome is very telling. Furthermore, I know that the difference isn’t simply based on the person that I was having each conversation with, because I have had both types of conversation with the same person! In some cases, people might just be belligerent, but at other times it may be the structure of the conversation that invokes one outcome over the other.

Conclusion)

If one only ever experiences the more confrontational form of conversation, he may very well come to assume that the entire enterprise is pointless, and that he should give up trying to seeing eye-to-eye and divorce himself from the other. This would be a very tragic conclusion, particularly since it doesn’t have to be that way.

It is only natural that when we want to encounter a difference of opinion that we would go straight to the matter of contention, but that is the most likely to have us at loggerheads, accomplishing nothing. Though it feels counterintuitive, spending the majority of our conversation on what is shared, building up connection, and only then venturing out into the fringes certainly yields much better results. When two people focus primarily on what they share, they will gravitate to a unified opinion much faster than if they focus on the differences. When we have our shared perspectives as common foundation, securing greater truth becomes the goal of all participants, and we are partners in its discovery. Then, and only then, will that greater revelation be given to us, for then, and only then, will we be ready for it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:29-31

29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.

31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.

In these laws the people are reminded of their obligation to offer their firsts to the Lord. The first of their fruit, of their liquor, of their oxen and sheep. Even offering the firstborn of their sons as priests.

The general understanding among scholars as to why verse 30 says the firstborn cattle would remain with their mothers for a week is so that they could give their mothers relief by drawing the milk from the udder. It would also allow them to be stable, strong, and clean before being brought to the Lord.

Verse 31 is a quick aside that tells the people that they must not eat carrion. Late on we will hear more on the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic law, but the carcass of even a clean animal would not be fit for human consumption, only for the feeding of one’s dogs. This is, of course, a very practical law, one that would safeguard the Israelites from consuming spoiled or infected meat.

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 22:25-27

25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

26 If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:

27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.

The special considerations for the poor and vulnerable continue in these verses. Usury means interest, and so God is stating that any money loaned to a poor man must not carry any interest. The poor man would pay back the same amount that he borrowed, no more. Why would anyone give a loan without interest? Presumably as an act of aid and kindness. If a person wanted to be kind, why not simply give the money in full? Perhaps to protect the honor of the borrower, or because having one’s money returned back allows for helping even more people with the same resource over and over.

It is further stated that if a neighbor offers his cloak as collateral on something, you must not keep it from him overnight. He will use it to keep warm through the night, and presumably give it back as continued collateral in the morning until he has returned the goods or money that it stands for.

In both of these laws, we see compassion, not greed, as the basis for loaning to the poor and one’s neighbor. It is to let someone be helped out for a little bit with what you have, at no loss to them. These laws show that even if we are not doing a full-blown charity, we can still help, expecting nothing in turn.