Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:22-24

22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.

23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;

24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

The passion in God’s words is palpable in these verses! We have been hearing of laws and penalties that were to be applied by the Israelite judges, but now God is claiming judgment and retribution in this matter for Himself. The widow and the fatherless are not to be afflicted “in any wise,” and God will be actively listening for their cries of distress and punishing anyone who raises his hand against them.

As has already been noted in the rules related to the betrothal of women and the treatment of servants, God’s law shows a keen understanding of which people are in the most vulnerable of positions, and He is fiercely protective of them. In verse 24 He promises that He will raise up foreign armies to kill any Israelite men who abuse and take advantage of the widow and the fatherless.

And why would He do that? He explains it is to make the wives of those men widows, to make the children of those men fatherless. It all goes back to the principle of justice and retribution. If you would hurt or profit over those who lack a husband and father, then your own family will be made to lack a husband and father. Not only should we do unto others as we would have others do unto us, but also do unto others as we would have others do unto those under our care.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:21

21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

The next several verses speak against harming those who are most vulnerable and indefensible. Today’s verse in particular focuses on the stranger, or foreigner, who lived among the Israelites. Someone who was a part of the population, even if they were not themselves Hebrew. And though this person had chosen not to follow the doctrine of the Lord, still that person was put under the Lord’s protection. God required that such a person be not vexed or oppressed, the reason given was because the Israelites were also a strange people in Egypt, and Egypt did oppress and vex them.

This is an early indication of the flip side of an eye-for-an-eye, which is the golden rule that would later be taught by Jesus, “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Because Israel would like to have been treated fairly while in a strange land, they should also treat their own strangers fairly also.

The logic of the golden rule is completely sound. Indeed, the best metric to consider the fairness and justice of any social policy is, “would this behavior destroy its own advocates if wielded by all other parties?” If one party has a principle that allows them to denigrate and destroy others, then that same party would also be denigrated and destroyed by other parties holding the same principle. Thus, the principle is self-defeating. A party that holds a principle of respecting the liberty of strangers, on the other hand, would see that same party having their liberty respected by all strangers who shared the same principle. It is therefore self-affirming. Thus, only the policies that meet the metric of “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” are logical.

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 22:16-17

16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

These verses deal with what should happen if a man seduces a maiden. Interesting to note is that while there is an option for the woman to not become the man’s wife, it is not to be available to that man. He has already committed himself by his own indiscretion, and he does not have the option to surrender his duty. It was the woman’s father who may use his own wisdom and experience to refuse the marriage if he deems the man to be an unworthy husband.

If the marriage is declined, though, the man who seduced the young woman must still pay a dowry, because once again, he has already committed himself by his indiscretion. And, once again, contrary to modern notions that the Bible is sexist, notice that the law is skewed to the benefit of the more vulnerable woman in this situation. Knowing where life presented more challenges to a particular group, God balanced the scales by tilting His laws in their favor. If anyone had to be shrewd and careful now, it was the man, for he could find himself sleeping with a maiden who he thought he would marry, only to discover it was all a scam to get a dowry from him, and then she could go on to seduce another man thereafter.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:13-15

13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.

14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.

15 But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

These verses conclude the matter of a man’s goods being lost, stolen, or destroyed while loaned to another man. Verse 13 is still speaking specifically for an animal that is loaned and then destroyed. It states that if the animal is torn to pieces by a wild creature, producing the remnants of the body shows that the borrower of the animal has not stolen, sold, or butchered the animal. It has been utterly wasted, with no profit to the borrower, and so that man is guiltless. It is the same as if the unfortunate act had destroyed the beast while still under the original owner’s care.

That idea is further advanced in verses 14 and 15, where it is pointed out that if one man is borrowing the animal, but at the time of wounding or death the original owner is also present, then there is no restitution to be made. This makes sense, as the original owner’s interest over the creature and protective sense to it would still be in force, even while the other man was borrowing it, and so if the animal was compromised anyway it was either because the original owner was being neglectful or because there was nothing that could have been done to prevent the harm. If, for example, the borrower wanted to make a beast of burden carry a particularly heavy load, and the owner was there and allowed it, and then the animal collapsed, it would be the owner’s fault for allowing it to happen. But if the owner is not there, then it was solely the borrower’s poor judgment that is to blame, and so he must make restitution.

The nuance and breadth of provision in these laws is very impressive. They show a deep understanding of human life, and the many different manners and forms in which misfortune occurs, and a clear recognition of where blame rests for each instance. While there will always be unique, in-between situations, a simple examination of the two laws that stand on either side of that situation would give the judge the proper limits of justice. He could then exercise his personal judgment between those bounds, and the potential for malpractice would therefore be limited.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:10-12

10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:

11 Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.

12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.

Yesterday’s verses mentioned how a judge would have to decide between two conflicting testimonies, trying to find the truth of the matter according to his own observation and reason. Thus, there would be a human element in matters of justice, which means there would be flawed results. Surely, sometimes the guilty would be deemed innocent and set free, while the innocent would sometimes be deemed guilty and unfairly punished.

Today’s verses answer this dilemma. They state that if a man is accused of causing the death of an animal that he had on loan, that he could defend his innocence by making a solemn oath to the Lord. This appeal to the divine is the ultimate endpoint of every legal system. While we will always have lawsuits and trials where the truth cannot be verified, where lies prevail, where the wrong judgment is administered; the sense of justice yet finds its answer in the divine. If a man would make a lying oath before the Lord, then it would become the purview of the Lord to administer justice Himself. Until recently, my own country’s court system similarly required those that testified to swear on the Bible, invoking a divine oversight upon their words. From that point on, a person may yet lie and deceive, but it is most assuredly upon their own head.

Even if a man makes no formal pledge before God, it is still essential that the people believe that God still sees and knows all, and that the unresolved wrong runs contrary to His nature, and that He will make it right in this life or the next. If such were not the case, then there would be times where evil would surpass good, where lies would triumph over truth. It would mean that if one were clever and bold enough, they could wrest the universe to their will to the harm of others, and there would be no justice to ever set things right. And if that were the case, then the entire concept of law, and right and wrong, and justice, would all be vain illusions.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:5-9

5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.

6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.

8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.

9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

The first two verses address the restitution if one man is indirectly responsible for the destruction of another man’s crops. Whether the perpetrator left his beast to feed in the other man’s field, or if he kindled a fire that burned the crops down, he must make restitution. What is notable, however, is that he must make the restitution from the best of his own vineyard. This might be in part because the quality of the destroyed crops can no longer be ascertained, so the courts will just assume the highest value of destruction, and it may be in part a punishment for being so careless as to cause the destruction in the first place. If this penalty is skewed in any way, it is skewed to the benefit of the victim.

Verses 7 through 9 have to do with if a thief steals items or livestock that were being loaned from one man to another. If the items were stolen, and the thief is known, then obviously the thief will have to make restitution. But what if the person who was borrowing the things is only claiming that they were stolen? And what if the neighbor who loaned the things doesn’t believe that story? Then it really is a matter of one man’s word against another, and we are told that it rests upon the judges to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. This is the first time we have seen in the law the need for testimony and investigation. There is always going to be a need for some human judgment to resolve uncertain matters, which means there will be the potential for incorrect ruling. This is a necessary shortcoming that has applied to every law ever made. Law is still a good thing as a general concept, but we must recognize that it is never perfect.

Or, at least, it is imperfect for now. There is an eventual perfect solution as it turns out, which the Biblical record will turn to in tomorrow’s verses.

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 22:1, 4

1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

In the previous chapter we heard all the laws related to killing. These laws covered both the killing of people and of livestock, and both the intentional and the unintentional variances of each. Today’s verses now shift from killing to stealing, and there are some interesting moral lessons to be gleaned here.

The first that stands out to me is that the penalty for the deliberate theft of an animal is substantially greater than the penalty we already read for the accidental killing of an animal. It is a key moral principle that the penalty is not based only on what the outcome was (the loss of the animal), but what the underlying motivation behind that outcome were. The penalty is according to the man’s guilt more than the deprivation that was suffered.

Also, note how in the second verse it says that a thief found with the animal still alive is required to return the creature, and then one also of his own. We already heard the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and this is consistent with that. Since this man had sought to reduce his neighbor’s livestock by one, now he shall experience what it is to have one of his herd reduced by one instead.

And finally, note how the penalty is even worse if the thief has already sold the creature away, or killed it, before he is caught. Now, instead of returning the creature and being out one of his own, he must now give up four or five of his animals. I assume the significantly more severe punishment is because the thief stole with the intention to destroy. He didn’t just take from the rightful owner, he took it out to where it could not ever be given back to the owner. That is a darker sin than to have taken, but to have left the door open for remorse and restoration.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Christian Conception of Evil

A Shallow View of Evil)

Great divisiveness in a culture tends to form ideologies with a naïve and overly-simplistic perception of evil. Festering hatred lures people into a mentality where they conceive of evil itself as propagating outward from “those people” over there. Strict ideologues believe that if they could just convert or destroy “those people,” then the evil would be gone, and society would be a perfect Utopia.

This narrow view of evil is a powerful tool for focusing and concentrating the passion of the ideologues. It progressively motivates them to disparage, dehumanize, and destroy their enemies. Mankind has fallen into the routine of dividing, declaring the other side to be the bastion of evil, and then destroying them for as long as we have a historical record. Yet if the problem of evil is so simple, then why has this pattern never succeeded in the eradication of evil? Why haven’t we finally killed it already? Why do we keep facing it in every generation?

The Christian View of Evil)

For an answer, let us consider the Christian conception of evil instead, taken directly from the words of the Bible.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. -Genesis 6:5

There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. -Mark 7:15

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. -James 1:14-15

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. -Galatians 5:17

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. -Romans 3:10, 12

This view of evil is far more mature, nuanced, and difficult to solve. Instead of saying “evil comes from that group over there,” the Christian perspective maintains that “evil emanates from us all.” It is in me, in you, in everybody. Evil is a super-entity, one that pervades through all of us.

And yes, maybe certain ideologies have a deeper fealty to evil than others; perhaps some dark trains of thought really should be arrested and ceased; perhaps some collectives need to be disbanded; but the true Christian knows that even these efforts will not bring about the perfect Utopia. The true Christian knows that the eradication of “those people” is not the final solution to the problem of evil because even if we stamped all the evil out in one place, it would still seep out from within our own ranks. Eventual corruption is the rule of the world.

The Solution)

Obviously, this conception of evil is much more daunting to wrestle with. If evil will emerge anew in every heart, than what can be done to have victory over it?

Ultimately and universally, nothing.

God will have to claim the victory there because it will always be beyond us. However, on a more individual level, there is something we can do.

This Christian conception of evil, that it arises in every heart, is the very reason why Christianity has always taught that every man ought first and foremost to address his own personal evil before that of the world. That isn’t to say that we don’t concern ourselves with the greater evils of the world, or that we don’t give our energy to curtail it, but our primary concern is to first plug the well of evil in our very own heart. If all of us could just do that, could just get control of the darkness that is within, then that would be the greatest blow against evil we could ever achieve.

It may seem paradoxical, but the fact that evil is so universal means that it can only be remedied individually. It is up to all of us to each do our part.