Here God sets up the rules for the various offerings the Israelites were expected to bring. I commented in an earlier post about how offerings are up to us and our own consciences, but these were required by God and so in that respect they were not really offerings. It's difficult to know what else to call them though. 'Demands' makes God sound like a diva or petulant child. 'Duties' would possibly be better, but I will stick to the Biblical word 'offerings'. However, it is worth remembering that these were written into the law and the covenant, and were compulsory if one wanted to obey God and remain under His provision and protection.
First comes the burnt offering. A young male animal, without defect, was to be taken to the Tent of Meeting. The person offering it would place his hand on its head, so that it could make atonement for him; then the priest would kill it, sprinkle its blood on the altar, and burn it as "an aroma pleasing to the Lord". So why make this sacrifice? The key is in the business about laying hands on the animal so it can atone for the person. No mention is made yet of sin and so this is not atonement for any particular wrongdoing. It is perhaps better understood as purification - through the sacrifice, the person was made clean in order that he may address God. It seems that this ritual was performed each time a person needed to talk with God, as a sort of introduction. Like shaking hands and giving your host a bottle of wine. But what about the sacrifice itself? I always presumed God wanted male animals because they were considered superior, but I now think it more likely that it is because they were more disposable - a herd could survive with only a few males for reproduction, but it needed many females to bear and suckle young. God was kindly making sure that the sacrifices didn't kill off the livestock. He did want the best though - not because He's selfish, but because He deserves it. And what of the "pleasing aroma"? Well, I guess the point is that this was not just about ticking boxes to get what you wanted, it was about satisfying God.
Next is the grain offering, which fulfilled the same purpose as the burnt offering, but replaced the animal with a mixture of flour, oil and incense. It is not made explicit in the text, but my Bible commentary tells me that the grain offering was considered a suitable substitute for those too poor to afford livestock. The old covenant can often seem very strict and unforgiving, and it was certainly tough justice, but it was not unbending. God sees our situation and He makes allowance accordingly. He only asks that we give from what we have and He never asks for more than we can afford, even if it may be more than we want to give.
Then there is the fellowship offering, which comes in three forms - the thanksgiving offering, the vow offering and the freewill offering. I think they all speak for themselves, really. This offering is similar to the burnt offering, except that the sacrificial animal could be male or female, suggesting this kind of sacrifice was less frequent and therefore they could afford to sacrifice a female; the thanksgiving offering also required a gift of several types of loaves; and while the innards and fat of the animals were burnt as an offering to God, the meat was eaten as part of a meal shared by the person making the offering and his family and friends. That brings us nicely to the purpose of this offering. The three types of offering are lumped together under the heading of 'fellowship' because they all involved a communal meal. Think of it like this. You've had some fantastic news, or you want to seal a deal, or you just feel like enjoying a good meal with some friends, so you organise a little get-together. But it's not a real party unless God is invited, so you go to His dwelling place to offer Him some of your meal before you get stuck in. It's an over-simplification maybe, but I love the idea of inviting God to the the party. I think we should that more often.
Now comes the sin offering, which is what people are really thinking of when they think of sacrifice. If a priest, a leader, an individual or the whole community sinned and did "what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands", even unintentionally, they had to make a sacrifice to God as atonement for their sin in order to be forgiven. If the sin was unintentional and unknown, the person could only make atonement once it had been brought to their attention and because of this, it was incredibly important that the people held each other accountable. I think it still is important. That doesn't mean judging or criticising each other, it means gently bringing attention to dangerous or inappropriate behaviour for the good of the other person, not for our own gratification or amusement. But onto the actual offering. Different sacrifices are specified for different people - priests must give a young bull, leaders a male goat, and individuals a female goat or lamb (although again, exceptions are made for those who cannot afford that). I'm not entirely sure why this was the case, but my guess is that individuals were called to give a female animal because a sin offering required a more costly sacrifice, but leaders and priests were exempted from this higher tariff because they did not have their own livestock and so it would be unfair for someone else to lose out on their behalf. That's jut supposition though, and I'd be grateful if anyone either knows any more information on this or knows where I can find it. Anyway,moving on. In the second half of this section, a list of specific sins is given. It is not an exhaustive list, but it includes sins which are accidental and sins of omission - the sort of sins that it is all too easy to try and excuse. I think the point of mentioning these specifically is that no sin is excusable and we can't try and wriggle our way out of the consequences.
Then there is the guilt offering, which sounds like it should be the same as the sin offering, but is slightly different. Whereas the sin offering covered sins against other people, the guilt offering was to do with sins against God. A person is called to bring a guilt offering because he has sinned "in regard to any of the Lord's holy things" and he must bring a ram from the flock and make restitution for his sin, adding one fifth of the value. My best understanding is that this refers to the defiling of sacred objects, and I presume that restitution was necessary as well as sacrifice because the guilty person had to compensate the priests for the loss of the defiled item, which could no longer be used because it was no longer holy. A person also had to bring a guilt offering if he did "what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands". This is the same phrase used in the passage on the sin offering, but here it is appended with "he has been guilty of wrongdoing against the Lord", so again I think it refers specifically to a sin against God - maybe blasphemy or breaking the Sabbath.
It's maybe worth asking here why animal sacrifices were necessary at all. Well, the law had already established that if you aggrieved someone, you had to make reparation - an eye for an eye, the full bride price, double what was stolen, and so on. Sacrifice was a way of making reparation to God. He is a spiritual being and doesn't need anything material, so nothing we could give would really be suitable, and therefore we may as well give anything. I think meat and grain were chosen because they are essentials, and so giving them up was a real sacrifice. It meant something to the person giving it.
Also included are some rules about what the Israelites were and were not allowed to eat. Fat and blood were forbidden, seemingly because they were God's share. Just as he asked for males because He knew the people needed the females more, He now asks for the fat and the blood because He knows the people need the meat. Again we see that He does not take what we cannot afford to give, and He makes sure we have what we need. Suddenly the offerings don't seem like such a burden.
This section concludes with the details of the priest's share (it has already been alluded to earlier on in the passage, but for the sake of clarity I left it until now to discuss it). A certain portion of each offering, be it grain or meat, was allotted to the priests for their food. This doesn't appear to have been a purely ceremonial thing. It is described as their "regular share" and it is my understanding that it was through this system that the priests were sustained. Their duties meant that they were unable to farm or keep their own livestock, so God legislated for this and made sure that they would not go without. But it all depended on the people giving their offerings - the priests relied on the community and the community had a responsibility towards them. The same goes for us now. We can't all do everything, and so we must support each other where we can and allow others to support us.
You may ask why we need to study these laws when they no longer apply. Well, they may not be part of the new covenant, but to appreciate the new we must first understand the old. When Jesus died, He took the place of each of these offerings, and so we can only understand the true meaning of His sacrifice in the light of these laws. Then there's the fact that some ideas - like accountability and responsibility for others - do still apply. And of course, whether a passage seems immediately relevant or not, it still reveals something of God. And isn't that the main point of the exercise?
No comments:
Post a Comment