God Had Certain Commands for the Israelites. Which ones make sense today? -- Study in Leviticus continues.

Leviticus 19:19-28 – Social Order Basics Part IV – Miscellaneous Orders

Day 14 of our 14-day self-quarantine. It is cold outside, but the sun is so bright (hadn’t seen him for a few days). I’m looking forward to carrying out some necessary errands tomorrow. Can’t wait. Today, there’s more work to do inside plus my continuing study of Leviticus. Read on.

The Passage

¹⁹ ‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

²⁰ ‘Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.²¹ He shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. ²² The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed will be forgiven him.

²³ ‘When you enter the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden. Three years it shall be forbidden to you; it shall not be eaten. ²⁴ But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. ²⁵ In the fifth year you are to eat of its fruit, that its yield may increase for you; I am the Lord your God.

²⁶ ‘You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying. ²⁷ You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. ²⁸ You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.

Thoughts on the Passage

The passage starts right off reminding us that we are to keep God’s statutes or commands. Then He gives us his next one and it has to do with mixed breeding – of animals, of plants, even of the clothes we wear. Last time I looked we seem to be doing all of those things. In the case of animals and plants, man is attempting to improve what God created. Matthew Henry reminds us also that when God made animals, etc., He made each “after their kind” and we are to keep them that way. Robert Jamieson suggests that there were physical reasons for this as mixing seed resulted in a weaker product, and perhaps even an unhealthy one.

Verses 20-22 deal again with sexual relations. One is not to have relations with another person’s slave that has not been given his/her freedom. Both are to be punished, but not to the point of death because the slave is to be returned to her/his owner. The other party is to make the appropriate offerings to the Lord, and he/she shall be forgiven.

Verses 23-25 deal with the appropriate way to plant a new orchard, but it also teaches us to be patient. In fact, God says, not having that patience and eating early of the fruit newly planted is totally forbidden. And if you wait the required time, the fruit becomes holy and an offering of praise to the Lord. Then you may eat, and in doing so, its future yield will increase for you. And I love that again God adds the reminder, “I am the Lord your God”. He is saying, “Trust me. There’s no other way.” I wonder if there isn’t some kind of investment lesson that we as Christians can take from these three verses. Matthew Henry writes extensively on this:

·       1. Some think this taught them not to follow the custom of the heathen, who, they say, consecrated the very first products of their fruit-trees to their idols, saying that otherwise all the fruits would be blasted.

·       2. This law in the case of fruit-trees seems to be parallel with that in the case of animals, that no creature should be accepted as an offering till it was past eight days old, nor till that day were children to be circumcised; see chapter 22:27. God would have the first-fruits of their trees, but, because for the first three years they were as inconsiderable as a lamb or a calf under eight days old, therefore God would not have them, for it is fit he should have everything at its best; and yet he would not allow them to be used, because his first-fruits were not as yet offered: they must therefore be accounted as uncircumcised, that is, as an animal under eight days' old, not fit for any use.

·       3. We are hereby taught not to be over-hasty in catching at any comfort, but to be willing with patience to wait the time for the enjoyment of it, and particularly to acknowledge ourselves unworthy of the increase of the earth, our right to the fruits of which was forfeited by our first parents eating forbidden fruit, and we are restored to it only by the word of God and prayer [I Tim. 4:5].

Finally, verses 26-28 here are commands regarding our own bodies. The no blood eating command is repeated, and because of its association with idolatry, it is grouped with the commands against practicing divination (seeking knowledge of the future or the unknown by supernatural means) and soothsaying (the art or gift of prophecy (or the pretense of prophecy) by supernatural means; fortune telling, foretelling, divination. prophecy, vaticination or prediction, prognostication - knowledge of the future (usually said to be obtained from a divine source). We cannot have fellowship with Christ while at the same time having fellowship with the things of the devil – yet, many of us try.

In verse 27, there is a strange command with respect to how (men, at least) trim their sideburns and the edges of their beards. Chuck Smith suggests this may have to do with not intentionally shaving our heads, perhaps like the Hare Krishna do. Perhaps that is why, David Guzik reminds us, that the Orthodox Jewish men have long, curly locks down the sides of their heads today.

In verse 28, the Israelites were forbidden to cut their bodies, especially in mourning for the dead. As one pastor I heard said, “it really doesn’t do the dead any good.” We also don’t need to wail at funerals like many of my own people from Europe do. But the verse goes on to command that we do not make any tattoo marks on our body – something that many Christian, including some pastors have ignored under the argument that all those laws in Leviticus were only for Israelites.  Perhaps they were, but also perhaps, the Creator, also had His own reasons for not wanting us to do certain things. We with our own wisdom, have chosen to think of ourselves as wiser.  We do so at our own peril, because as He reminds us at the end of this passage as He did at the beginning, “(He is) the Lord.”

So, what are the take home lessons here for us? These are real issues that each Christian today has to deal with him-/herself. They can cause division for sure. The secret is that they should not divide our own self. We need to decide for ourselves, what we will do and how we will view these matters.  And we are not, in my opinion, to expect everyone to adopt our thinking. We must, however, be free to share our thinking and to listen to the rationale of others. Be right with your God.  

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Yes, Let Me Say It -- Some are held to higher standards.

Understanding Why Priests Could Eat a Portion of Some Offerings, But Not Others

Leviticus 6:14-23:

¹⁴ ‘Now this is the law of the grain offering: the sons of Aaron shall present it before the Lord in front of the altar. ¹⁵ Then one of them shall lift up from it a handful of the fine flour of the grain offering, ^[a]with its oil and all the incense that is on the grain offering, and he shall offer it up in smoke on the altar, a soothing aroma, as its memorial offering to the Lord. ¹⁶ What is left of it Aaron and his sons are to eat. It shall be eaten as unleavened cakes in a holy place; they are to eat it in the court of the tent of meeting. ¹⁷ It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their share from My offerings by fire; it is most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering. ¹⁸ Every male among the sons of Aaron may eat it; it is a permanent ordinance throughout your generations, from the offerings by fire to the Lord. Whoever touches them will become consecrated.’”

¹⁹ Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ²⁰ “This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the Lord on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a ^[b]regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening. ²¹ It shall be prepared with oil on a griddle. When it is well stirred, you shall bring it. You shall present the grain offering in baked pieces as a soothing aroma to the Lord. ²² The anointed priest who will be in his place ^[c]among his sons shall ^[d]offer it. By a permanent ordinance it shall be entirely offered up in smoke to the Lord. ²³ So every grain offering of the priest shall be burned entirely. It shall not be eaten.”

Thoughts on the Passage

In this section, we first learn about the law of the grain offering. A portion of the grain belonged to the priests so that they and their family ate it as a holy gift. There was also a particular grain offering that was part of the anointing and the consecration ceremony for a priest and it was not to be eaten, but rather wholly burned before the Lord.

(Although referred to as a grain offering, the offering described here is also labeled a Meat Offering.)

Matthew Henry says, the priests got the greatest part of this offering as their compensation for all their work and efforts.

Again, the priests and their families were to eat unleavened – what was offered to God must have no leaven in it, and the priests must have it as the altar had it – to maintain sincerity and truth.

Verse 16 tells us it must be eaten in the court of the tabernacle (the holy place). Henry tells us it was a great crime to carry any of it out of the court.

The actual words of verse 18 are, “Every male among the sons of Aaron may eat it. . ..” But does that translate to no female members of the priest families may eat it as Henry suggests? Again, the answer must be ‘yes’ since it had to be eaten in the holy-place and if I remember correctly, that was only for the priests themselves.  And furthermore, those eating it became consecrated or holy (vs. 18).

In this section in verses 19-23, we read of the priestly “consecration meat-offering” offered for the priest themselves and of which no part of it was to be eaten and all of it was to be burnt. Henry tells us that the Jewish writers say “that by this law every priest, on the day he first entered upon his ministry, was bound to offer this meat-offering.” He goes on, “the high priest was bound to offer it every day of his life.”

What are we to take away from this section?  Perhaps it is the fact that God has advanced some to be above others in certain aspects of the work or in power.  But those so appointed are to understand that He expects more from them than from others – yes, let me say it – He holds them to higher standards.  Henry says “the meat-offering of the priest was to be baked as it were to be eaten, and yet it must be wholly burnt. Though the priest that ministered was to be paid for serving the people, yet there was no reason that he should be paid for serving the high priest.” Priests were to take pleasure in serving him “pro bono”.

Finally, there is some great significance in the fact that while the priests could eat a portion of the offerings made on behalf of the people, they could not eat any of those offerings made on behalf of the priests.  Why? Henry says because in the former case, the sins of the people were typically transferred to the priests (signified by their eating of their offerings). Likewise, the sins of the priests must be typically transferred to the altar, and it was the altar that had to ‘eat up’ all those offerings.  No one, priests and non-priests alike, could be comforted or have any hope of forgiveness if we were to bear our own iniquities.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

What Should Happen When Your Whole Church Sins?

An Offering for Congregational Sins

Leviticus 4:13-21:

¹³ ‘Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error and the matter escapes the notice of the assembly, and they commit any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and they become guilty;

¹⁴ when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd for a sin offering and bring it before the tent of meeting.

¹⁵ Then the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the Lord, and the bull shall be slain before the Lord. 

¹⁶ Then the anointed priest is to bring some of the blood of the bull to the tent of meeting; 

¹⁷ and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, in front of the veil. . ..

[The rest of the process is very similar to that described in the earlier passage.]

Thoughts on the Passage

The first part of the chapter dealt with the sins of priests. This second part deals with the congregational sins of a whole assembly.  (Later parts discuss the sin of leaders and then the common people.)

It is possible for a whole congregation to sin out of ignorance and everyone caught up in the cause misses the fact that the process or means of their good work was flawed in the eyes of God. When that happened to the Israelites, they were required to make this sin offering. This was an offering that followed the same procedure as the offering for the sin of the priests, but it is important to note that it is mentioned here to remind us that sometimes our collective sins need forgiveness. I can think of many times when the majority of a nation sins (Germany comes to mind), or a whole state (California comes to mind), or city (Hollywood comes to mind), or council, parliament, political party, congress, etc. There comes a time when these sins need to be admitted and confessed.

David Guzik points out one main difference in this offering compared to others.  Here, the elders of the congregation (not the offerers, nor the priests) laid their hands on the head of the bull, representing the whole collective body of those who sinned.

The offering was also to take place as soon as the error or sin was discovered – and that discovery could be by others or by those that committed the sin.

Matthew Henry applies this passage to us today by saying that while God intended to have a church on earth, nowhere does He state that it would be perfect.

Oftentimes today, when one of us sense that our local church leaders as a whole, or the congregation as a whole has sinned, we simply move on, as hard as that is, to a new church or worse still, we give up on church. Woe is us and the church. Blessed, I believe, is the man that can calmly and humbly state his case before the elders. And more blessed, I believe, are the elders or the congregation, that can admit error and ask God for forgiveness. I hope you go to, and more importantly if you are a pastor or an elder, I hope you lead a church like that.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Although He Promised Them a Land Flowing With Honey, God Wanted None of It In Their Sacrifices -- Why?

The Grain or Meal Offering

Leviticus 2:1-16:

This chapter covers the Meal Offering, the second of four main types of offerings God required of the Israelites. Again, there are instructions and requirements to be followed. And there are some key differences between this offering and the first one – the Burnt or total offering, which left, at least in Leviticus chapter 1, nothing for the priests.

Thoughts on the Passage

In the Burnt offering what was being offered was the work of the Creator. In this second offering, the Meal offering, God is to be presented with the work of man – fine flour, mixed with oil and frankincense and made into dough, put on a fire to bake unto the Lord. Chuck Smith goes on to ask, “where did he get the flour?” And of course, the answer is “he had to till the soil, plant the seed, harvest it, thresh it and grind it into flour itself.” So, it is the work of man’s own hands.  Smith does the same with how the oil used here came about.

It is so much the work of man, that in this offering man is giving to God his service, “dedicating the work of [his] hands unto God.”  Thus, this too was a sweet-smelling savor unto the Lord. (Nothing smells better than home-baked bread.)

Some translators may use the word “meat” here rather than the word “meal” or “grain” to refer to these offerings. Robert Jamieson says that “meat” is improper for us today than it did at the time of early English translations. He says, “It was then applied not to ‘flesh’, but ‘food’, generally, and here it is applied to the flour of wheat.”

In verse 11, we read that no leaven and no honey was ever to be included in the mixture of the flour for this dough. Leaven, in Scripture, always represents sin. Leaven causes decay, making things artificially sour. Honey makes things artificially sweet and was also used, according to Guzik, in the pagan sacrifices to idols. God wants us to offer ourselves [and our service to Him] “just as I am”.

On the other hand, salt had to be added every time (verse 13). Salt has the opposite effect of putrefaction (rotting or decaying). It was used as a preservative.

David Guzik points that only a portion of what the offerer brought was offered unto the Lord, the “remainder” (verse 3) went to the priests for their own use in making bread for themselves and their families.

This Meal offering was a “bloodless” sacrifice (unlike the Burnt offering) which God accepted as an expression of thanksgiving, not as an atonement for sin. In what ultimately was an agricultural society, this had special meaning. So, this offering, to me at least, could be thought of the original Thanksgiving practice.

We also note that the Meal offering was to be prepared in one of three ways: in the oven; on a flat griddle; or in a covered pan. But always prepared at home. Guzik sees the symbolism here – the expression of devotion to God begins at home.

Another writer, Harrison (as quoted by Guzik) says the covered pan worked like a modern deep fat fryer and that some authorities suggest the cereal offering cooked in it would look rather like a modern deep-fried donut.

In verse 12 we have the “offering of first-fruits”, a version of the Meal Offering. This was to be offered to the Lord but not burned on the altar. It too had to include salt, which spoke of purity, preservation, and expense.  Our offerings to God should reflect these qualities – offered with a pure heart, sincere and lasting, and costly to us.

The well-known preacher Charles Spurgeon (and some commentators) refer to salt as the ingredient that holds a relationship together. For example, Spurgeon speaks of the ‘covenant of salt’ when he says, “By which was meant that it was an unchangeable, incorruptible covenant, which would endure as salt makes a thing to endure so that it is not liable to putrefy or corrupt.” God wanted our sacrifice to be about our relationships with Him, reminding us of their everlasting quality.

Verse 12 also tells us that first-fruit meal offerings were to be presented differently than grain offerings. First-fruit offerings (be they of the harvest or of the livestock) involved a certain financial and practical risk for the offerer, as there was no guarantee that the harvest or livestock would keep on producing. Yet, they were to go to the Lord. In fact, later in Scripture, in Proverbs 3:9-10 we are told that if we honor the Lord with our first-fruits, he will keep our barns full.

Oil and frankincense were to be added to the grain offering (verse 15) to sweeten the sacrifice and to make it costlier.

Matthew Henry suggests that while there were some offerings that were accompanied by drink offerings, etc., this second chapter of Leviticus focuses on meat-offerings [or grain-offerings] that were offered by themselves, whenever a man had the urge to express his devotion to God. And the first example of that was when Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering (Genesis 4:3).

Henry says this offering served two purposes:

1.     It made it possible for the poor to be involved (vs. the offering of more costly animals).

2.     It was an acknowledgment of the mercy of God to them in their food and a testimony to their dependence upon Him, their thankfulness to Him, and their expectations from Him as their owner and bountiful benefactor.

Matthew Henry also draws our attention to the fact that these ‘green ears’ [of corn] must be dried by the fire. He writes: “If those that are young do God’s work as well as they can, they shall be accepted, though they cannot do it so well as those that are aged and experienced. God makes the best of green ears of corn, and so must we.” Perhaps a call that we recognize youth on our team for God’s service.

The chapter ends by stating that these are offerings “by fire to the Lord”.  Again, Henry says the fire denotes the fervency of spirit which ought to be in all our religious services. “In every good thing, we must be zealously affected. Holy love to God is the fire by which all our offerings must be made; else they are not of a sweet savor to God.”

No one expects us to set up an altar in our homes today, or even in our churches, and make such sacrifices.  Rather God wants us to give Him sacrifices of spiritual devotion, service, trust, and obedience. He wants us to live in a way that has us be ever conscious of what He has done for us through His Son, Jesus Christ, and what we can do in the service of our fellow man.  But in all our deliberations in so doing, the principles God established in these animal and/or meal offerings can still be applied, and must not be ignored, if we want our spiritual sacrifices to be accepted.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.