Leviticus 1

Leviticus 1

The offerings of Israel are also described by God. A broad outline had been given in Exodus 29 of the regular daily offerings. Here we deal with the special offerings of the individuals.

The burnt offering

The sacrificial offerings to be given for the burnt offering is from the livestock and not from the agricultural produce, because without blood there is no remission of sin (Hebrews 9:22). For the burnt offering it had to be a male animal and not female.

This offering is to be offered by one’s own freewill (vs 3). That means it is offered by a sincere desire to set right one’s relationship with God and not because the “Law says so.”

This burnt offering was meant to be an atonement for our sins (vs 4). When John the Baptist in John 1:29 says “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world”, he was possibly referring to this atoning sacrifice.

The laying of his hands on the sacrifice (vs 4) was meant to be a transfer one’s authority and self to the lamb, signifying that the lamb was his representative (accepted on his behalf). It is a mistake to see this as a transferring of sin.

Our sin warranted our death. In our place we offer the animal. This animal was fully burnt to signify our total surrender of our lives to Yahweh. It is a mistake to see this ritual as a cleansing or bathing process of cleansing from sin, but rather as a repeated surrender and reminder of our surrender in totality to Yahweh.

1 John 4:10 says that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. For this Jesus in baptism identified with mankind, and we in baptism identify with Jesus so that we die with Him and live with Him (Romans 6:4). It is a total surrender of our life to Jesus and the imagery is the same as in the burnt offering. As Paul writes in many places we now live for Jesus not ourselves. (2 Corinthians 5:15)

The life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) and the pouring of the blood at the altar (vs 5) signified the surrender of the life to Yahweh.

The offering was not burnt as one piece but was cut into pieces and burnt, probably to ensure that all of it was burnt and it took place quickly. This breaking symbolized our own brokenness before God. The exception was when the offering was a bird and it was burnt whole but partially cut (vs 17).

The entrails and feet were washed to make sure that no dirt and excreta are there (vs 9).

The skin was not burnt and was given to the priest according to Leviticus 7:8. There is probably no spiritual meaning in this apart from an income to the priest. We need to provide for the support of the workers in the ministry.

People who could not afford a bull could offer a ram or a he-goat (vs 10), and the very poor a dove or a pigeon (vs 14). Atonement was available to all. It was not to be priced out of their reach. The only cost was the surrender of self to Yahweh.

The Tabernacle faced east (Ex 27:9-15) and the burnt offering was killed to the right as one entered (vs 11). The waste was thrown to the east or towards the entrance probably for ease in clearing.

AUTHOR STIR

1. God made the ritual affordable to all. But the true cost was one’s life. Have you made the burnt offering of your life to Jesus? What does it involve?
2. What have you offered to the one who helped you in the process?

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:10 reference to angels

The reference to angels 1 Corinthians 11:10 has always been a problem to understand. One possibility which came to me seems to be a way out.

Hebrews 2:2 says “word spoken through angels” referring to the giving of the Law to Moses. There seems to have been a tradition that the Law came to Moses via angels. The same idea is given in Acts 7:53 “who have received the Law by the direction of angels” and Galatians 3:19 “(the Law) was appointed through angels”

This idea could have developed from Deuteronomy 33:2 “The Lord came from Sinai … with ten thousand of saints”.

Is it possible that the term ‘because of the angels’ in 1 Corinthians 11:10 refers to the giving of the Law?

In 1 Corinthians 14:34 Paul says that as per the LAW women were to submit to men. Is Paul making a similar appeal to the Law in 1 Corinthians 11:10 for women to show her submissiveness to men in public by covering their head?

In that case ‘because of the angels’ basically means because of the Law and is parallel to 1 Corinthians 14:34.

Can we separate works and faith always?

When we look at the teaching of Jesus we see that ‘works of faith’ are not shown as optional, or as a result of salvation, but as the basis of salvation. We see the same emphasis in James. In direct contrast to this we appear to see in Paul the absolute absence of works in the plan of salvation. This has been reconciled in various ways, but one point which struck me is that when Paul speaks of the absence of works he is speaking of the works of the Law and not the works of faith. In fact Paul uses the term ‘works of faith’ as an essential part of the Christian life and works of the Law as totally unnecessary at any stage of the Christian life.

If we look at the teachings of Jesus more closely – for instance the judgement scene in Matthew 25, the people are not judged by the works of the Law but by the love and generosity in a Christian heart and the works of faith. So there is essentially no contradiction between Jesus and James and Paul as they all speak of ‘works of faith’ as the essence of the Christian life.

But there is a problem. Traditional Protestant thinking have held even ‘works of faith’ as a part of the sanctification process which takes place AFTER salvation and so it does not affect our salvation at any stage. But the teaching of both James and Jesus would appear to contradict that not only in the judgement scene of Matthew 25 but also statements like Matthew 6:15, 18:21-35 and James 2:18-19.

Can this contradiction be resolved? One solution is to give up the artificial separation between salvation and sanctification and see them as a part of the same process which cannot be divided. This means that once salvation has begun so has sanctification and some parts of sanctification is immediate, especially those connected with the love for the material. Why is this so? Because salvation begins when we turn away (repent) from the material and turn to God. This turning away from the material results in the generosity becoming a part of the Christian life style. The second is the love that is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit which we receive when salvation begins. James 4:1 says that wars come from chasing mat3erial things. If repentance – the step before salvation – is repentance from our love for the material, not only should generosity set into the life of a believer at salvation but also the disappearance of hatred and war.

There are various sins that rule over a person’s life and these are dealt with over a period of time, but there are some sins that seem to be dealt with immediately – love of money and hatred for people. The putting of love of money and hatred for people into the sanctification process post salvation and not as a part of the salvation process represented by repentance is not supported by the plain teaching of scripture.

Is persecution a blessing?

I am sure that you will love this alternative translation I found in a book. I am giving the basis for the translation from Strong’s Concordance. I like it.

Matthew 5:10 reads as follows:-

Blessed <G3107> are <G9999> they which are persecuted <G1377> for <G1752> righteousness' <G1343> sake <G1752>: for <G3754> theirs <G0846> is <G2076> the <G3588> kingdom <G0932> of heaven <G3772>.

The word persecute translates the Greek word dioko which means to chase or pursue and so could imply persecution. See the extract from Strong’s dictionary below:-

G 1377 dioko -- pronounced: dee-o'-ko

a prolonged (and causative) form of a primary verb dio (to flee; compare the base of 1169 and 1249); to pursue (literally or figuratively); by implication, to persecute: KJV -- ensue, follow (after), given to, (suffer) persecute(-ion), press forward.

But of we translate as chase or pursue we get this interesting alternative.

Blessed are those who pursue righteousness for theirs Is the kingdom of heaven.

In fact if we translate righteousness by the alternative justification (see extract from Strong’s below) we get blessed are they who pursue justification or salvation.

Then how do we explain verse 11? He suggests that the third person is used throughout the beatitudes but in verse 11 it is the second person used indicating that this is a later addition, either by Matthew or someone else. The Beattitudes logically and strucuturally ends with verse 10.

An interesting theory which makes a lot of sense.

The multitudes that followed Jesus - what does it mean?

I got the following from Understanding the Difficult words of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard.

Robert L Lindsey writes that when he tried to translate the Gospel of Mark from Greek to Hebrew he found that the syntax of the Greek and the word relationships were as would be found in Hebrew, which could indicate that it was originally translated from Hebrew. (Could it be just a Hebrew writing in Greek - my comment).

Multitudes translates the Greek word "ochloi". Lindsey mentioned in class when teaching on day that 'ochloi' is an odd word since multitude did not fit most of the contexts. An Israeli girl in the class said that the Rabbi's used the word 'ochlosim' to mean the people living in a locality.

So when reading the gospels if you change the work multitude into the 'the people living in the locality' it may make more sense.

Ephesians 4:11-12 What is my gift and what is my call?

Ephesians 4:11-12

“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”

In 2009 I retired from Haggai Institute. It had been my life for 20 years. My time there had been fruitful and blessed. The organization had dealt with me extremely well, practically pampering me. Dr. John Haggai had been an exemplary boss to work with and Haggai Institute and exemplary organization to work in. I had the sense of satisfaction that God had used me and my life had been worthwhile.

Many asked me if would not miss working for the organization that had been my life for 20 years and had made me what I am not only spiritually but in my knowledge, personality and overall growth as an individual. Oddly I did not, and that made me concerned, but not unduly.

After a year of my retired life I found that this ‘retired’ phase was now the happiest part of my life, and that made me wonder whether I was just lazy and undisciplined and so enjoying the freedom or was it something deeper. I slowly began to realize that I was happier because I was now doing what I enjoyed which was teaching and that too Bible teaching. I was involved in weekly theological classes, fortnightly bible studies, Sunday school, one-to-one counselling and mentoring, things I could never do while in Haggai Institute.

Was my time spent in Haggai Institute wrong? No! Emphatically No! For one I could not teach with the authority that I do now if it was not for my experience in Haggai Institute. My calling was Haggai Institute but my gifting was teaching. Though I had taught the distinction between calling and gifting for some time before retiring from Haggai Institute, the difference hit me with a bang now.

We use our gifting wherever we have an opportunity, just as I taught whenever I could in Haggai Institute and used my teaching gifts in vision creation in volunteers and donors. But my calling was to serve Haggai Institute in whatever responsibilities they gave me.

Our call is to serve the community among whom we are placed. The local church, the organization we work with, the community we live in. This is quite distinct from the gifting I may have.

In Acts 6 Stephen had the gift of signs and wonders and of teaching but served the church in looking after the orphans and the widows. He continued to use his gifts as opportunities arose, and probably did many signs and wonders among the orphans and widows.

In Ephesians 4:11-12, verse 11 is the gifting and the position given to me and verse 12 is the call given to me. This is the same concept Jesus makes in Matthew 20:25-28 where he says leadership is a position and gifting given to me to do the calling of a servant to the people.

In Ephesians 4:11-12 the gifting is related to the call, but often, especially the natural gifts I have (which are as important as the spiritual gifts) may not all be used in all the areas of calling I have.

Today I serve the church we worship in, especially the young people and also others in the church. In a way I am extremely busy so that my use of the term ‘retired’ is seen as a joke in my community. I serve the believers in my city with whatever responsibilities they give me. Since they mostly ask me to teach, I had entered the happiest phase of my life, but if I have to live my life again, I would spend my 20 years with Haggai Institute again.

Prayer: Lord, help me to be focused on ‘ministering to others’ and not so much on using MY gifts. I believe that through this your power and strength would be glorified through me and people will be blessed. I am at the most effective when I am where you place me and not where I can use my GIFTS to the maximum, like Joseph was the most effective as a slave and prisoner getting ready to be a governor. Amen 

Edify means to build a person or the church?

Paul in Romans 15:2 and I Corinthians 14:3, II Corinthians 10:8 and 13:10 uses the word edification. The root for this word is oikodome which is the house or building and means building the house. Oikodomos is the steward who looks after the house. Oikos is the house. Oikos is used in I Peter 2:5 for the spiritual house we are being built into and in I Peter 4:17 for the house of God.

So when Paul uses the term edify or oikodome in Romans 14:19, I Corinthians 10:23 and I Thessalonians 5:11 is he speaking of the individual being built up or the church being built up or both? I think oikodome one another means to build each other into the church, and just not a spiritual message building the individual in his faith.

This is what is contrasted in I Corinthians 14:3-4, “For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God: for no man understands him; howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries.  But he that prophesies speaks unto men to edification (oikodome), and exhortation, and comfort.  He that speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself; but he that prophesies edifies the church.”

The person who prophesies is building the church but he who speaks in tongues is building himself (in a negative sense i.e. is proud).

Unfortunately the meaning of the word edify has changed from building a building to building a person so that we miss the impact of what Paul wrote.