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.

One of the Most Mind- & Heart-Altering “Churchview” Books I’ve Read This Year

Sustainable Church: Growing Ministry Around the Sheep,

Not Just the Shepherds

Author: Walt Russell

Published by: Quoir, Orange, California, 2016

This is a book from within the Christian, and dare I say “evangelical”, church movement that is bound to cause any serious follower of Jesus Christ to rethink how best he/she can be part of Christ’s Church and help fulfil the Great Commission He left it. Russell’s book may well rock everything you’ve ever worked for in your local church as it deals head on with issues many of us have time and again struggled with, but remained silent about, inside the church. But at the same time, it will confirm your Christian worldview.

Walt Russell has done it all – campus missionary, church planter, university professor, and author. While he has many credentials, including his Ph.D., he also boldly says none of them are necessarily the credentials that the church needs. My wife put it nicely recently when she said, “I would rather listen to bible teacher who has no formal training but is anointed by the Holy Spirit, than to one who has three Ph.D.’s and is not.” And that is precisely one of Russell’s points – it’s all about the God-inspired, Spirit-given “grace gifts” given to believers.

A thread throughout the book that Russell keeps referring us back to is his use of two churches – The First Evangelical Non-Organic Church and The Last Evangelical Organic Church. The former is not sustainable simply because its adherents are shallow (some unknowingly perhaps). And that shallowness to a large extent stems from the fact that they are not “released to minister” and “equipped to use their grace-gifts” in every aspect of their lives including the church.

Russell reports that 63% of those who say they have heard of spiritual gifts have not been able to apply this information to their lives “because they either don’t know their gifts (15%), say they don’t have a spiritual gift (28%) or claim that spiritual gifts are not biblical (20%).”

And then he starts addressing the causes. To begin with, he grasps our attention with this statement: “…the body of Christ is not fundamentally about authority, but relationships.” And sooner or later that leads him to take us through a serious look at the terms “laity” and “pastor” – both the words themselves and their meanings, based on Scripture.  The former he calls “a horrifying misnomer for the vast majority of God’s people” preferring instead ‘disciples’ or ‘saints’ as prescribed in the New Testament. The use of the word ‘laity’ he says introduces an “unbiblical hierarchy” into God’s people.”

Russell believes the Word of God calls for a church where all minister and he unfolds that biblically and clearly, ending with a list of what we lose by ignoring that approach. The cost is dear. He shows us historically how the church came to be run the way it is today (a fascinating account that makes sense) and also takes us very carefully through the meaning of each of the grace-gifts, including discussions on how many there are, and whether some have ceased or not.  You’ll find his take most refreshing. The author is very good at tackling opposing views, as well as treating them fairly.

There’s also a very helpful chapter on how one, along with his/her church, can discover and/or ascertain one’s grace-gifts. But one of the most interesting aspects of his contribution to this field is how we have corrected or rather misunderstood and thus falsely applied the “Jesus Model of Discipleship” by making others “our disciples” or the disciples of Father Brown, etc. Russell’s point, supported by Dallas Willard and others is that, “All Christians are disciples of Messiah Jesus, not of fellow believers.” That very nicely segues into a discussion of “whose name goes on the church sign if we all minister?” and the fact that when looking at leadership we focus on skills and gifts, rather than character, contrary to what the Bible emphasizes. He also takes on the “Moses Model of Leadership” arguing that only Christ can take that on in the New Testament, not us. And Russell believes that “By training pastors to be CEOs, we ironically end up training them to lead in exactly the same way as the ‘Gentiles’ lead.” Finally, he deals with the whole issue of elders, their qualifications, and whether they should be paid or not, and much more.

Now you have to understand that as one who has spent close to four decades of my life as a Human Resources specialist and Church Consultant, some of this was difficult for me to accept – but I could not argue with Russell’s ability to show me, from Scripture, why I may well have been mistaken.  This book will challenge you if you’re a pastor. It will challenge you even more if you’re an elder or simply a disciple of Christ’s – you’ll want to pray about how to approach your pastor with it.

If Russell missed anything in this edition of his book, it is on the topics of actually setting compensation and benefits practices for “elders” and how to deal with discipline within the body. But then, again, that was not what he was trying to get across. His purpose, in his own words, was “to call the church to build her ministry sustainably around the sheep, rather than unsustainably around the shepherds.”  He succeeded with me. Highly recommended.

·       Ken B. Godevenos, President, Accord Resolutions Services Inc., Toronto, Ontario, September 18, 2016. www.accordconsulting.com

n  Get the book here: http://astore.amazon.com/accorconsu-20

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’s Laws Regarding Theft -- Exodus 22:1-5

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.  If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account.  But if the sun has risen on him, there will blood guiltiness on his account.  He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.  If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.  If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.”

Exodus chapter 22 begins with laws on how those that are involved in various types of theft are to be treated. To begin with, contrary to what liberal minds may think, stealing is not a God-given right regardless of one’s circumstances.  Responding in forgiveness may well be encouraged, but the activity that initiates the need for forgiveness, is not.  The Bible calls for some restitution or repayment for theft.

We note in verse 1, that God calls for different amounts being paid as restitution for a stolen (and killed or sold) ox versus the amount paid for a stolen sheep.  Expositor John Gill (who preached in the same church as C. H. Spurgeon over one hundred years earlier) says this about the reason for the difference:

“ . . . because the one was more valuable than the other, as well as more useful, and also more easily stolen, and therefore the greater mulct or fine was laid upon the theft of it, to deter from it: the Targum of Jonathan expresses the reason of the law thus; five for oxen, because the theft of them hindered from ploughing, or made to cease from it; and for sheep but four, because there was trouble in the theft of them, and there was no tillage or agriculture by them: and Saadiah Gaon observes, that the damage that comes to the owner of the ox is more than that by a lamb, because with it, the ox, he ploughs, which is a creature that was used in those countries to be employed in that service, as well as in treading out the corn: Maimonides accounts for it thus:

“The restitution of the theft of oxen is increased by one, because the theft of them is easy; sheep are fed in flocks, and are easily kept and watched, and can scarcely be taken away by theft but in the night; but oxen are fed scattered here and there, and therefore cannot be so easily kept by the herdsmen; hence also their theft used to be more common:”

“Fourfold restitution was in use with the ancient Persians, with whom it was a rule,

“Whoever took any substance of another, in retaliation they took fourfold from him, and if he restored it, he gave fourfold of the same.''”

The text then turns to a matter of great debate of late.  What happens when the owner of the property kills the thief during his attempt to steal?  Or put another way, “do I as a guardian of my home and family, have the right to attack and perhaps kill an intruder in my home or on my property who is clearly stealing?”  I do not venture to answer the question from a legal standpoint – as I not a lawyer.  I will leave that to my friends.  But the Bible clearly states that in such a case, “there will be no blood guiltiness on his (the dead thief’s) account”.  John Gill explains it this way:

“There shall no blood be shed for him: as for a man that is murdered; for to kill a man when breaking into a house, and, by all appearance, with an intention to commit murder, if resisted, in defense of a man's self, his life and property, was not to be reckoned murder, and so not punishable with death: or, "no blood" shall be "unto him"; shall be imputed to him, the man that kills the thief shall not be chargeable with his blood, or suffer for shedding it; because his own life was risked, and it being at such a time, could call none to his assistance, nor easily discern the person, nor could know well where and whom he struck.”

This interpretation of the verse goes far into outlining some of the key considerations one must look at today in such cases, including: What would have been the intention of the thief if and when his/her action was resisted? Was anyone’s life at risk? Was other help available? Did the one that kill the thief know what he was doing? Etc.  (I am reminded of the case of Oscar Pistorius, the famous “Blade Runner” who is charged with killing his girlfriend in the bathroom because he thought the person in there was an intruder. He went to prison for five years at the end of 2014.)

Matthew Henry on the other hand, suggests the following on the interpretation of verse 2:

“He that does an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so likewise of that which follows to himself. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.”

But God’s rules on this now add another dimension – that of time of day.  If the attempt to steal took place during the day, the “blood guiltiness” referred to above would be paid by him (supposedly the owner of the property, or perhaps a servant) who killed him.  The idea is that we must be considerate of all life, even of those who we know or believe to be evil.  Our reparation must not come from our vengeance, but from the legal system, and especially for Christians, from our God.  When we take the law into our hands beyond that, we start to stand on shaky ground.

So, where possible, we are to “catch the thief” but not kill him.  And then in that case, as he is still alive, he must make restitution for all he has stolen.  And if he can’t afford it, he then is to be sold (one assumes into slavery) and the money goes to the owner of the property he stole.

And still more twists to the law: if he stole animals and they are found alive, that is the thief is caught red-handed with the goods, he shall pay double the amounts he otherwise would have paid.  Interesting, but why? Matthew Henry explains it like this:

“Thus he must both satisfy for the wrong and suffer for the crime. But it was afterwards provided that if the thief were touched in conscience, and voluntarily confessed it, before it was discovered or enquired into by any other, then he should only make restitution of what he had stolen, and add to it a fifth part, Leviticus 6:4,5.”

So, there is clearly an advantage to admitting and pleading guilty if indeed it is a true confession, rather than a forced confession.

Finally, we are told that if one simply uses things that are not his to use, without permission (a form of stealing one might say), then he repays from the best of his own possession or equivalent.  I live with two of my granddaughters.  They borrow each other’s stuff (clothes, accessories, etc.) without each other’s permission.  Needless to say that the volume of discourse rises greatly depending on whether the owner wanted to use it that day herself, if the borrower misplaced it, or if the borrower damaged it or worse still, lost it.  Whereas my solution would be to ban all so-called “borrowing”, God’s approach seems to indicate that the ‘owner’ could then help herself to the best of the ‘borrower’s’ goods.  But then again, my ways are not necessarily His ways.

For us, the facts remain: we are not to steal, we are to know how to deal with those that do, and in all cases, we are to make restitution for things we have taken or misused or lost that belong to others.

- -  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.