Who Defines Restoration In The Case of A Wrong?

Leviticus 6:1-7:

¹ Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 

² “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord, and deceives his companion in regard to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he has extorted from his companion, 

³ or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins in regard to any one of the things a man may do; 

⁴ then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him or the lost thing which he found, ⁵ or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full and add to it one-fifth more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt offering. 

⁶ Then he shall bring to the priest his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt offering, 

⁷ and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he will be forgiven for any one of the things which he may have done to incur guilt.”

Thoughts on the Passage

The beginning of chapter six (first seven verses) offers us more instances where the guilt offering is required. (It could easily have been included in chapter five.) And then the rest of chapter six and all of chapter seven deal with instructions on administering the various offerings (The Burnt Offering – 6:8-13; the Meal Offering – 6:14-23; The Sin Offering – 6:24-30; The Guilt Offering – 7:1-10; and The Peace Offering – 7:11-36). The last few verses of chapter 7 (verses 37 and 38) give us a neat Summary of the Offerings.

But our current passage is still talking about other occasions when the Guilt Offering is to be made.

God, through Moses, turns His attention, to business inter-relationships between people.  There is to be no lying between seller and buyer; loaner and borrower; between the person effecting fraud and the victim; etc. The deception can be as a result of one self-admitting it or when on is caught-lying. Confession, restoration (full amount plus 20%), and then the guilt offering is required. Then the forgiveness is guaranteed.

However, I note in verse 7 that the phrase is “forgiven for any one of the things which he may have done to incur guilt”.  It is possible that if I have cheated someone, or stole several things from someone, etc. – that is, I committed several acts of this kind of sin referred to here – then I have to confess each one, make restoration plus 20% for each one, and offer a guilt offering for each one.  This seems to go along with earlier thoughts that God does not just want us to say “forgive me, I have sinned” but He wants us to be fully aware of our specific sins and to repent in each case.  People come to us, especially children, and say, “I’m sorry.”  What is our natural response?  “What exactly are you sorry for?”  And God, in whose image we are made, is like that too.

Matthew Henry points out that we need to observe that while these types of sins relate to our neighbor, they are rightly called sins “against the Lord”. The neighbor suffers the immediate consequence, but the offence is against your neighbor’s Maker – regardless of who your neighbor is what he thinks or does not think of God.

Henry also suggests the concept of the extra 20% to be paid back is to get across the idea that restoration is not restoration until the person receiving it feels his/her loss has been restored.

What is the lesson for us? Well, we know what restoration looks like when we have been wronged, but do we think about what restoration looks like when we wrong others?

Similarly, we as human beings cannot dictate to God what He accepts as ‘restoration’ for our sins agains Him. Only He can set the terms.  And in this case, we can’t meet them.  So, He provided another Way through His own Son.

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.

God Specified A Range of Acceptable Sacrificial Animals – Why?

Leviticus 1:10-17:

¹⁰ ‘But if his offering is from the flock, of the sheep or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer it a male without defect.

¹¹ He shall slay it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar. 

¹² He shall then cut it into its pieces with its head and its suet, and the priest shall arrange them on the wood which is on the fire that is on the altar. 

¹³ The entrails, however, and the legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it, and offer it up in smoke on the altar; it is a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

¹⁴ ‘But if his offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering from the turtledoves or from young pigeons. 

¹⁵ The priest shall bring it to the altar, and wring off its head and offer it up in smoke on the altar; and its blood is to be drained out on the side of the altar. 

¹⁶ He shall also take away its crop with its feathers and cast it beside the altar eastward, to the place of the ashes.

¹⁷ Then he shall tear it by its wings, but shall not sever it. And the priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar on the wood which is on the fire; it is a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

Thoughts on the Passage

This passage seems to be repetitive, but on close examination, we notice some interesting differences. You will note that in verse two, the offerer had a choice of bringing an offering of animals from the herd or from the flock. Verses 5 to 9 of this chapter describe what is to be done when the offering is a young bull or an animal from the herd. Verses 10 to 13 describe the process when the animal is from the flock of the sheep or goats. And verses 14 to 17 describe the process for an offering of birds.

David Guzik says, offering animals from the flock of sheep or goats, “was essentially the same as that for offering a bull, except that a sheep or a goat was not skinned. Since the entire animal was to be burned, only the impurities of the entrails had to be washed before the sacrifice was burnt. A bull presented as a burnt offering had to be skinned. . ..”

Robert Jamieson suggests that one reason for the difference may have been that some Israelites were not able to afford a sacrifice of a bull and could only offer a ram. I assume that those who were poorer still and could not afford a ram could offer a bird. The procedures were basically the same.

David Guzik points out that it was not any kind of bird that God would accept. It had to be a turtledove or a young pigeon. The key thing is that God had a range of animals – bulls, sheep, goats, birds – that He accept as a sacrifice. The point is that God is interested in the heart of man than in the actual ability of man to afford a particular way of sacrificing to Him. But still, even the less costly sacrifices had to follow God’s prescribed manner. Guzik, with Jamieson’s support, even suggests that it was wrong for a rich man to offer a bird. Matthew Henry says what is important is that we note that “God, in His law and in His gospel, as well as in His providence, considers the poor.”

Robert Jamieson tells us the fowls were always offered in pairs although it is not clear to me from this passage as to where he got that idea. He goes to point out, and correctly, that while the turtledoves had no age restriction, the doves did. The reasoning behind this was that turtledoves were favored by man for eating at any age, while older pigeons would be rejected for consumption. God did not an offering of an animal that was first rejected by man.

Matthew Henry, reflecting on verses 15 to 17:

“’This sacrifice of birds,' the Jews say, ‘was one of the most difficult services the priests had to do,' to teach those that minister in holy things to be as solicitous for the salvation of the poor as for that of the rich, and that the services of the poor are as acceptable to God, if they come from an upright heart, as the services of the rich, for he accepts according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not, [2 Corinthians 8:12]. The poor man's turtle-doves, or young pigeons, are here said to be an offering of a sweet-smelling savor, as much as that of an ox or bullock that hath horns or hoofs. Yet, after all, to love God with all our heart, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, is better than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices [Mark 12:33]."

Two takeaways. First, are we sacrificing in accordance with our economic ability? Second, to we have as much respect and consideration for the poor among us in our services and worship as God does?   

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