Comparing the Compensation of Clergy in the Old Testament Israelite Congregation to The New Testament Church Today.

Numbers Chapter 18: Remuneration of the Priesthood

Numbers 18:1-32

Day 70. Ten weeks of “please stay at home” and “we’ll shut down everything just in case.” As I posted earlier today, “If ever there was a doubt about whether or not politicians can solve the world's problems, it has totally disappeared. They can't.” Neither can doctors. Of course, lawyers will always be around to make a good dollar from the messes that politicians and doctors make. And we just had a black man named George Floyd killed by four police officers in Minnesota with initial video showing the murder. They only got fired. And of course, there’s an outrage. Only God can solve this kind of mess, this kind of hatred. And He will unite us – in His good time and in His good way. But of course, that may be too late for some who reject Him now. In the meantime, we keep on studying. I was encouraged again today by a reader who appreciates how we try to simplify the passages here. Thank you, K.B., but I assure you, I too am benefitting from this. So much to learn and take in.  Keep on trucking.  Please comment on blog, share it, and/or ask questions that arise. Now let’s turn what God said about compensation for priests.

The Passage

This chapter (in verses 1-3) clarifies the duties of Aaron and his sons (the priesthood) verses those of the Levites (their assistants). Aaron and Sons are held responsible for any offenses related to or in connection with the sanctuary and the priesthood. But their brothers, the rest of the tribe of Levi will serve them in their duties, but they cannot go near the furnishings of the sanctuary and the altar, or both Aaron’s family and the Levites would die.

Verse 4 says that no outsider may enter the tent of meeting or go near Aaron or the priests. Verse 5 says this division of duties is intended to eliminate the wrath of the sons of Israel (the whole congregation).

In verse 6, God assures Aaron that the men He has given them as helpers are a) a gift, and b) dedicated to the Lord, for the purpose of performing their work. Verse 7 informs us that God is giving Aaron and Sons the priesthood as a bestowed gift, or honor, or present.

Then in verse 8 God continues talking to Aaron and up to verse 20, the chapter reviews the ‘remuneration’ of Aaron and Sons – that is, what they get to keep for their services that they may share with their families. And this was to go on perpetually in the future. Verse 10 tells us that the food portions of their compensation are to considered holy and eaten. In verse 12, God says He is the One giving Aaron’s family the fresh oil, fresh wine, the grain, and the first fruits.

In verses 14-15, God says that every “devoted” thing in Israel would belong to the priests. That includes all firstborns. But the firstborn of man they will need to redeem.

Verses 16-19 give more instructions about the redemption price, and what is not to be redeemed; as well as how to deal with the blood of the firstborn of an ox or a sheep or a goat.

And God reminds Aaron (in verse 20) that he and his sons are not to have any inheritance in their land nor own any portion of it, as He [God] alone is their portion and inheritance.

Then in verse 21, God turns His attention to the sons of Levi that were to help Aaron and Sons in their work. He indicates He has given them “the tithe” for their service. That tithe comes from the Israel of Israel (the whole congregation). That is their inheritance and they have no other inheritance among the sons of Israel.

Finally, in this chapter, God speaks again to Moses (verse 25). Moses was to tell the Levites that when they get the tithe from the rest of Israel, they still have to tithe on it to the Lord – a tithe of the tithe (vs. 26). They were to give the Lord the best of the tithe, and the rest was theirs (verse 31) for themselves and their families. This was their ‘compensation’ for their services in the tent of meeting.

The chapter ends by telling the Levites that doing what God asks here will clear them from any guilt or sin with respect to receiving or taking this tithe from the people. However, they were not to treat these gifts from the people as though they were common in any way. Doing so would mean they would die.

Thoughts on the Passage

After God proved to the sons of Israel that Aaron and family were indeed the divinely-appointed priests and that the Levites were to only help them, He then went about to eliminate any further wrath by specifying their separate areas of operation, their duties and responsibilities, and the process by which they were to be compensated. He also indicated what the penalty was for both the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi if they messed this up – they would die.  Here’s the first point – God never assigns anyone any “authority” without assigning them a corresponding “responsibility”. Take note when God give you an assignment – there is no option as to how well you apply yourself to it.

The very desire of God to eliminate the wrath of the people tells me a lot about God. Not only does He give us instructions, but He cares about psychologically and emotional states. He didn’t want His people to be angry, or furious, or annoyed. That’s God’s “father-side”. As parents, we sometimes not only decide disputes among our children, but we also then try to work with those that feel they got the short end of the straw. Why do we do that – because we love them. That’s our God.

God also assures Aaron that the helpers God has given him and his sons are hand-picked, fully qualified to do the work – they’re a gift from God and dedicated to God. When God assigns you a responsibility, He knows what help you need and how much. In fact, in this case, those helpers are to be perceived by Aaron as a gift, an honor. We could well ask ourselves how we view our helpers, our workers? Do we see them as God’s gift and treat them in the appropriate manner, encouraging them, developing them, and so on?

Just to make this a little clearer:
-- Aaron and his family were part of the tribe of Levi – but only his family was given responsibility for the priesthood.
-- the Levites were one of the tribes of the congregation of Israel (or the sons of Israel) and they were given assignments as helpers to the priests.
-- the whole congregation or Israel were the ones that would go to the priests with their sacrifices and their offerings.

And then of course God has a lot to say about how Aaron and Sons, as well as the Levite helpers are to be compensated then and into the future. What’s important here is that we are to see our compensation as being provided to us by God (verse 12).

In verse 20, we see God saying to Aaron and Sons that they are not to have any other inheritance except what He provides for them as per His instructions. How do we transfer that idea over to our compensation of pastors or clergy today? I remember some time ago being part of a church board that had hired a new pastor. One issue that arose was whether to allow he and his family to stay in a house belonging to the church, or to enable him to buy his own house with reduced or interest-free loans, etc. I opted for the latter, thinking more of the pastor’s long-term needs, even past retirement. Although, studying this passage, I’m open to the possibility that I was wrong. Why did God say they were to have no other inheritance, especially land?  On the other hand, we did read earlier in the book of Leviticus, chapter 25, verse 34 that the Levites were given lands to dwell in (they just didn’t own these outright). And even after retirement, they remained contacted to the tent of meeting, and would benefit from the gifts received by the younger, active priests. Since that is not the case for our pastors today – we don’t usually keep them until they die, perhaps encouraging them to own their own property as a retirement investment isn’t such a bad idea.

David Guzik reminds us that the concept of tithing was practiced and honored by God before the Law of Moses was given as indicated in Hebrews 7:5-9.

It’s also interesting that God tells Moses, not Aaron, that the Levites had to tithe on their tithe. That wasn’t Aaron’s job to tell them. It was Moses’ responsibility. And it had to be driven home. I like the idea of a title on a tithe. I know that some churches and some charities I have been involved with take a tenth of their tithes and pass them on to other more needy organizations in observance of this idea. I like it.

[Having said that, I would point out that there is no evidence that priests themselves (Aaron and Sons) had to tithe on what came into the tabernacle. Guzik believes that it was unlikely that they would have to tithe on what they got because “because what belonged to the priests was considered holy, and not to be used by others outside the priestly families.” How do we resolve this issue then of should pastors tithe? Pastors, in my humble opinion, are not required to tithe if they are considered part of the ‘priesthood’ as we understood Aaron and Sons to be. On the other hand, if they are seen as “servants” in God’s house, then they would be required to tithe. While, for Christians, Jesus Christ is our one and only High Priest, then pastors are clearly not the present-day equivalent of Aaron. On the other hand, the New Testament in I Peter 2:9 says we are all “priests”, so either we don’t have to tithe (which is clearly not the case) or pastors are like us and they too have to tithe. No one said that the model of the Old Testament Israelite Congregation and the model of the New Testament Church would match perfectly. Thank God for that.]

One other comment I would make here is that it appears, generally speaking, that Aaron and Sons got the offerings from the sacrifices and the Levites got the tithes. However, in those days, I believe the source of both was the people of Israel. Tithes were more closely related to “first fruits” and offerings were more closely related to the various sacrifices that were required. In the modern church – we have moved away from the idea of the various sacrifices and/or the first-borns being dedicated to God’s service.  Instead, we made the idea of the “tithe” the basic donation of a believer – 10% of their earnings and even then, we argue about whether it is net or gross. [I personally believe it should be gross (before taxes) because I want to give back to God first, before I give to the government; but hey, that’s just my take – you have to decide for yourself.] And then over and above the tithe, we have our “offerings” unto God when we feel Him say, “I want you to support this or that cause.”  The matter is further complicated when we put everything in the same collection plate as we take up an “offering” – although some churches or pastors specifically refer to this so-called offering as being composed of our “tithes and offerings”.

Finally, the chapter ends by saying to the Levites that if they did what God instructed – that is, a tithe on the tithe – they would be clear of any guilt or sin with respect to them being accused of taking this ‘tithe’ from the people.  And that is why I love it when a pastor can say (in an appropriate way without bragging or shaming others, but as a means of being a role model) that he and his family are also tithing and when God directs them, are giving ‘offerings’ as well.

And, let us not forget verse 32 that indicates they had to treat that whole ‘tithe’ as special, belonging to God. Failure to do so, and misusing it in any way, would mean death.

So, here’s my questions: Have we thought about how God would have us compensate our pastors? Have we thought about what provisions we should make for them and their families now and in the future?

And if we are the ones being compensated, can God say of us, “You are clear of any guilt with respect to your compensation?”

The gems in Numbers continue to be found.  Although I do admit this was a difficult chapter. Thanks for hanging in there. Would love to have your comments on social media (if you got here by there) or preferably on the blog itself.  And if you have questions, let’s discuss them. Thanks. Until next time.

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.

Borrowing Has Its Risks -- Exodus 22:14-15

“And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it is injured or dies while its owner is not with it, he shall make full restitution.  If its owner is with it, he shall not make restitution; if it is hired, it came for its hire.”
 

Two verses dedicated to borrowing rules.  You borrow it, use it, and if you break it or harm it (or kill it if it is an animal), you do so at your own expense and you will be responsible to compensate the owner for it. Unless of course, the owner was with you when this happened.

Here’s an example of how this may work out today:  “Yes, you can borrow my extra pair of skis while we ski together this weekend, and if they break, no problem.  But if you borrow them again to go skiing with your friends when I can’t and they break, you have to replace them.”

Chuck Smith suggests that the last two phrases of this passage, namely “if it is hired, it came for its hire,” are, because they are part of the whole last sentence implying that if someone borrowed or hired you and your equipment or animal (to till the ground or for any other purpose) and the equipment or the animal is damaged or ruined (or killed), then that was a known inherent possibility in the deal and since the owner was present, the borrower or the one that hired you and your equipment or animal is not responsible.  Again, if I borrowed your pick-up truck to move some furniture, and it broke down – I have to fix it.  But if I asked you (or hired you) to bring your truck and help me move some furniture, and it broke down, I am not responsible morally to pay the costs of fixing it.  (Unless, of course, I go over and above what the law says.)  When the owner is present, the user is not as responsible.

Bottom lines continue to be: Lender, be aware of the risks.  Borrower, be responsible when the risks occur.

- - 30 - -

 [Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

 

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

A Word of Caution Regarding Construction Projects -- Exodus 21:33-34

-->

“And if a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his."
 

A few years back my family took on a building project. We were replacing my parents’ home built in 1953 with a new one that we moved into in 2009.  I learned a lot during that process.  Getting permits for various aspects of the job was a monumental exercise in patience and determination.  As I now study this passage, I realize it may well have been the origin of all of today’s rules, regulations, by-laws, and restrictions that are in place when someone tries to build anything that alters or involves the earth we dwell on.

So whether we are doing new construction, or repairing an old structure, or adding on to an existing structure, this verse and today’s laws apply.  If we are negligent in the way we do so and that negligence causes harm to others, we are liable for legal consequences.

Our Exodus verse talks about an ox or a donkey falling into uncovered pit.  Many of us do not use oxen or donkeys these days, but the principle is the same.  In the days of Exodus, an ox or a donkey could well mean the difference between having a living and starving.  These animals were the means to a livelihood for many.  Injure or kill their animals and they have no means of income.  And then the owner of the pit or the “construction site” needs to make financial amends to the owner of the animal for any loss in terms of the ability of the animal to do its job.  And so it is with today’s laws and lawsuits involving injury where someone has been negligent in the process of the construction they are carrying out.

Of course, in current day situations, this gets a little more complex.  Who is the actual owner of the “pit” at the time – is it the owner of the property or is it the owner of the construction company?  Is it the worker or workers operating the backhoe or the excavator?  Well, it does not matter – an injured party, trying to play it safe, sues everyone involved and the courts have to determine who was really to blame and what portion of the payments due would be assigned to each.

The later portion of verse 34 does require some closer examination.  Why would God give the “dead animal” to the owner of the pit after he pays the original owner of the animal for the harm caused?  The reason is that there is value in the carcass of a dead animal – either for their skin value, or possibly as fodder for other animals.  The original owner cannot have full compensation for his loss as well as maintain the residual assets of the animal.  David Guzik suggests that this is original “you break it, you bought it” principle that we find in many stores today.

Matthew Henry sums it all up nicely when he suggests that this passage alerts us to the fact that it is not enough “not to do mischief” or wrong.  He suggests that we are also to “contrive to prevent mischief, else we become accessory to our neighbors' damage. Mischief done in malice is the great transgression; but mischief done through negligence, and for want of due care and consideration, is not without fault, but ought to be reflected upon with great regret, according as the degree of the mischief is: especially we must be careful that we do nothing to make ourselves accessory to the sins of others, by laying an occasion of offence in our brother's way.”  But we’ll save that last point of Henry’s for when we study Romans 14:13.

-- 30 --

-->

 [Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

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

God Knew We Would Be Fighting Physically -- Exodus 21:18-19

“And if men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed; if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.”
 

I find it interesting that God knew His creation so well.  He knew we would fight physically as well as in many other ways.  It is a result of our sinful natures.  We could be filled with His Holy Spirit or we could allow our sinful nature to rule us through the influence of Satan, God’s enemy.  When my own nature and the Devil are in control, my natural inclination is to fight, or to fight back.  Fortunately, in my own life, it has only escalated to physical combat just a handful of times, and thankfully almost every one of them while I was still becoming an adult.  I have, however, witnessed, the physical fighting of other adults and it is not a pretty picture.  We do not have to watch too much of the evening news or read too many pages of our newspapers to see that men (and women) are fighting physically and hard enough that people get seriously hurt, or even die.

Our text refers to “men” but as we have indicated previously, often the message is intended for both genders.  And while verse 18 refers to striking someone with a stone or a fist, we would be foolish not to apply it to any form of undesirable physical contact or impact.  Two modern-day areas of law to consider in relation with this text come to my mind.  One is the area of automobile accidents.  The other is the area of non-consensual sexual activity.  But hold those thoughts for the moment.

The next thing we notice here is that the text seems to suggest a distinction between punishment and payment for one’s violation of the laws under consideration. We read that if the victim survives, the attacker shall go “unpunished” but shall still have to pay for certain things.  Clearly, God’s preference is that we do not fight one another.  Laws are put in place to deal with those individuals that contravene what is that preferred or desired behavior of He Who created us.  Neither God nor man creates laws for things that we do for actions or behavior preferred or desired by the maker of the law.  For example, we do not have a law that says, “Be it decreed that a person who loves his/her wife or parents or children, must . . .” and then describe the remedy for such action.

So clearly laws almost always are put in place for doing something that is in contravention of the desired or preferred action in the eyes and mind of the lawmaker.  And in this case, God is saying, “Do not strike another person.  But if you do, here is how you must be dealt with.”  Then He explains that if the victim dies, the striker is to be put to death (see references earlier in Exodus chapter 21).  But here God is saying, “If the victim survives, you will not be punished (assumedly by death) but you will have to compensate the victim for a number of things.”  Thus the difference between what you may otherwise have deserved (since striking may well lead to death) and what you are allowed to get away with since God did not allow the one you struck to die.

And what is the nature of the compensation that one is to pay if the victim survives?  Well, for starters, God says the aggressor will pay for the “victim’s loss of time”.  This is the idea we have today in our legal system of damages for loss of alternative opportunities.  If you lame me to the point where I cannot work, then the courts help us come to a settlement of what opportunity for me to earn wages you deprived me off and then assign you the responsibility to pay me for the equivalent amount.

God also says here that the aggressor is to pay for the victim’s costs of living until he is completely healed.  Here we get the idea of rehabilitation costs, or damages, which in our justice system have been broaden to include the legal costs the victims incurred in going after the aggressor in the courts.

And before we return to our two areas mentioned above – that of automobile accidents and non-consensual sex – allow me to comment on one other area of broadening of this whole principle that God outlines in these verses.  Our society has taken “striking” and given it many more meanings today.  While God spoke of physical striking here, our society has taken this much further, and perhaps rightly so.  We now include defamation of character, slander, mental anguish, wrongful dismissal in employment, and so much more.

Finally, we can see now how what God outlined to be the course of action for one who strikes another person (keeping in mind all the modern day equivalents of that) if he were to survive, formed the foundational principles for what our justice system often requires today.  That is, compensation of the aggressors in terms of making the victim as “whole” as possible.  Understanding that while one can never get back what they lost – a leg, their reputation, the mental health, etc. – the aggressor is required to compensate them in a way that allows them to have as much of a life as possible.

As we study this book of Exodus, we cannot but marvel at how much our entire legal system and society depend on God’s original thoughts on both punishment and compensation.

I can also see threads of similarity here between how God wants violators of His laws dealt with and how God Himself applies these same ideas to our sin against Him.  We have sinned and deserve to die.  But He wants us to live.  The penalty or compensation for our sin, however, still needs to be paid and He arranges for that payment to be made by His own Son dying on the cross in our place.  The wholeness of God’s Holy nature as far as His willingness to call us sons and daughters because of His love for us has been kept in tact, and we can have a relationship with Him for eternity.

________________________________________________________________________

[Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

________________________________________________________________________

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