Leviticus 9:1-10:20

Ever have one of those days where things just did not go according to plan?  Not necessarily a bad day (in fact, it ended very well), just... not remotely like you'd hoped.  I could go into the details of the day, but that's really my other blog.  Suffice it to say that it's after 10:00 and I'm just now sitting down to do my reading for the day.  I am definitely going to do better tomorrow.

I could just say, "I read my reading for today" and sign off.  But I don't really want to do that too much.  This is my time to "chew the cud", if you'll excuse the expression, and I don't want to miss out on that if I don't have to.  So, though my bed is softly calling my name just behind my back, my pillow inviting me to lay down and catch up on the sleep I missed last night, I am steadfastly and doggedly committed to this post.

I'm actually rather glad that these two chapters were read together on my schedule, because they're a very good juxtaposition.  In chapter 9, we see Aaron just after his consecration beginning to enact the sacrifices that the Lord has commanded, and we see a constant refrain: "as the Lord commanded Moses."  Holy fire from the Lord comes out and consumes Aaron's offerings, and this is almost as a benediction, or a sign of approval.  They've been accepted.  Then, just after this in chapter 10, two of Aaron's sons offer fire before the Lord.  And the Lord's holy fire blazes again: but this time it consumes Aaron's sons, killing them.  This is not a blessing; this is not approval.  They have been executed for offering unauthorized fire before the Lord.  Could what they did truly have been that bad?

That seems to be the statement the Lord is trying to make.  The essence of the Law is to follow it: word for word.  Aaron's sons defied God's Word when they offered a fire before Him that was not lawful and was not holy.  They sinned before the Lord, whether out of carelessness or pride or what have you; they sinned.  And the Lord cannot abide with sin.  It may seem a spectacular judgement, to consume them with fire, but in the context of the passage, is it really that outrageous?  We have already mentioned that God used fire to show approval of the sin, peace, guilt, and grain offerings just given.  Is it any more unreasonable to show disapproval in a similar manner?  It certainly caused people to stop and consider the consequences for being flippant or for disregarding the Lord's instructions.  I would certainly have thought twice, if I had been Aaron or one of his surviving sons, to be careful to follow the Lord's instructions in all matters.

A side note: this reminds me of a comment that one of my professors in Bible college made.  He noted once that when God is starting a "new phase" in His plan that it is often accompanied by some spectacular events.  The promise to Abraham: Abraham and Sarah give birth in the old age.  Bringing Israel out of Egypt as a great nation: the parting of the Red Sea, the manna from Heaven, the Pillar of Cloud and of Fire (the list can go on and on here).  The beginning of the sacrificial system: Nadab and Abihu being consumed by fire; Christ's advent, His ministry, His death and resurrection.  The miracles that accompanied the beginning of the church, and Ananias and Sapphira. What this means, I can't say that I'm the expert to tell you.  Maybe this is God's way of showing He's really at work here, I don't know.  But it is interesting to note.  (How's that for a LONG and committed post?)

Tomorrow's Reading: Leviticus 11:1-47

Leviticus 8:1-36

Experiencing technical difficulties with Blogger, so I'll just note that I read this passage on the consecration of the priests.  Hopefully this will post with little difficulty.

Tomorrow's Reading: Leviticus 9:1-10:20

Leviticus 6:8-7:38

It seemed a bit harsh to me, at first, that if someone was unclean and ate of the sacrifices that they should be completely cut off from Israel (Lev. 7:19-20).  What if that person didn't have time to go through the whole ritual before being there at an appointed time?  What if something happened on the way?  I could think of a half dozen excuses why this might happen.  Was it necessary to completely shun them?

But then I began to think of the full implications of such actions.  God had commanded that no person who had touched uncleanness take part in the sacrifices.  Period.  Being clean before the Lord was a condition of sacrifice.  Everyone in Israel knew this.  So no matter what had happened prior to a sacrifice, one who had touched uncleanness had a perfectly good excuse to abstain, and no reason not to.  It struck me: this isn't really an issue of being ceremonially clean before the Lord, but a matter of the heart.  God wanted people to be clean before they came to Him; uncleanness and sin were the very things that separate us from God.  Making sure one was ritually and spiritually clean was a part of the preparations for sacrifice and worship before the Lord.  It was a matter of the heart being right.  Could you really say that someone who heedlessly went forward with sacrifice before being cleansed truly had a heart right before God?  If they were were completely ignoring His commandments?  I don't think so.  It was necessary to be ritually cleansed, not only to fulfill the Law, but to prepare the worshiper for worship.

How many of us do that today?  How many of us actually take a moment to cleanse and purge ourselves of our sins before standing up to sing in church?  Before partaking in communion?  Offering?  Listening to the sermon?  All of these are forms of worship.  All of these are part of the things we do in order to focus on God and to attribute to Him His worth.  Have we ever taken so seriously the preparation to meet our Lord in worship?  What would it look like if we did?  How many of us would need to step back from worship in order to deal with some things that needed to be cleansed from our lives, from our hearts?  And are we truly worshiping God if we allow sin to fester in our hearts, disregarding His command to be clean before Him?  This bears some serious thought, because while the answers seem obvious, they're not necessarily pat, are they?

Tomorrow's Reading: Leviticus 8:1-36

Leviticus 5:14-6:7

This is a passage that actually gave me some difficulty last time: mostly because I couldn't see the difference between the sin offerings and the guilt offerings, at least on their condition of being offered.  It again boils down to, it would seem, unintentional sin.  After reading some commentaries, they point out specific differences, such as the guilt offering deals with the Lord's "holy things" (I would assume Tabernacle articles), the Lord's commands, breaches of faith between man and God, etc.  Also, you might notice that restitution was to be made in full to the injured party as well as an offering to absolve the guilt of the sinner.  The Teacher's Commentary pointed out one thing that I have been concerned about: as all of these offerings are for unintentional sins, sins even when maybe the sinner only suspects their guilt rather than knows if for sure, there is no provision for those who willfully sin. 

The question, then, is: if you have sinned intentionally and willfully, does that mean there is no forgiveness for you, no means to be made right?  I don't think Scripture supports that.  After all, there is the promise in 2 Chronicles that if God's people would humble themselves and pray and turn to Him, He would forgive them and heal their land (2 Chronicles 7:14).  Rather, it seems that the sacrificial system was to be specifically used by those who have turned or softened to the Lord.  So, perhaps it was necessary for the sinner to be softened to the Lord, to desire repentance, and understand that it would not be an easy road to turning their life around that the sacrifices would fulfill their purpose.  But it definitely seems that there is no easy sacrifice for the person who sins and wants absolution so that they can go out and do more of the same.

Tomorrow's Reading: Leviticus 6:8-7:38

Leviticus 4:1-5:13

Ever played that game, "One of these things is not like the other"?  Did you notice which paragraph/passage it was here?  Tucked between paragraphs of "If X sins unintentionally, comes to know of it, and confesses his sin, then he shall offer..." there is a portion that actually gets a little more specific.  I was struck with that among any unintentional breaking of the law by priest, leader, congregation, or common person, there are instructions for uncleanness.  Why, might I ask, is that?  Why are instructions for becoming unclean by touching an animal carcass, human uncleanness (I particularly thought of bodily fluids and excrement here), and various ways to make oneself, well, unclean included among the offerings of unintentional sin?  It rather drives home the point that sin makes us unclean, doesn't it?  That is essentially what it does.  I still think of the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF) explanation for sin: anything you think, say or do that does not please God.  Sin is anything that does not please God, and sin is what makes us unclean, unrighteous, unholy.  If you even break the smallest part of the Law, you are guilty of breaking the entirety of it.  That included touching foulness and carcasses and offal, etc., even if it was necessary.  After all, didn't the priests have to cleanse themselves after burning the carcasses of the offerings?  It seems like such a little and simple thing, but the gravity of it is real.  We are all unclean because of our sin.  Thankfully, Christ came to fulfill the Law: we are now made clean by His blood, not an animal's, and His cleansing is permanent.  Praise be to God!

Leviticus 3:1-17

This may seem very shallow, but I was struck by the commandment that the Israelites could not eat the fat of meat.  I knew they were not to eat blood, as it is the life of a creature (human or animal).  But I hadn't realized the fat (I know, I realize I know little about kosher Jewish food).  My main thought was, "Man, that sure takes the flavor and enjoyment out of eating meat!"  Yes, I'm a good gentile.  There is a spiritual lesson here, though, isn't it?  It's a good lesson on giving the best to the Lord.

I watch Food Network.  I'm a fanatic.  I know my palate is too narrow to be really considered a good foodie (as well as my budget too small) but I love and am fascinated by food, and wish I knew more about ingredients, especially quality ones.  I know from my education from said network that the fat is where the flavor is.  Want a good burger?  Have at least 80/20 fat ratio in your ground meat for juiciness.  I've learned these things.  Here, though, in Leviticus 3, all fat belongs to the Lord.  Not just the fat of the peace offering, though that does seem to be the main components of the peace offering, but all fat.  It says so in v.16: all fat is the Lord's.  Israelites are not to eat fat.  It boggles my mind a little (no wonder pork isn't kosher).  But here, you see that the best is given to the Lord, and going without any fat is a remind of it.  How good those peace offerings must have smelled when being offered to the Lord!  (Suddenly, how decadent lardo, an Italian dish of herb-cured fatback, seems!)  It would be a daily, thrice-daily!, lesson in remembering that God deserves and should have the best of anything we can give or want, as everything is from Him, all of our blessings, necessities, all from Him.  What a humbling lesson.  How hard might it have been to keep one's attitude in check on something like that and be glad to sacrifice the best flavor to please the Lord?

Side note: note that the peace offering could be a male or female animal offering.  The burnt offering in ch.1 could only be male.

Leviticus 1:1-2:16

I had a bit of a chat with the Lord before plunging into Leviticus again.  It went something like, "Ok, God, there's no way I am going to really understand Leviticus without your help; in fact, I may still be too thickheaded to really get it then.  But I want to know and understand Your Word, so I would greatly appreciate it if You'd sit by me and help me to at least glimpse into what You wanted us to know here."  I always encourage those that study the Bible with me to ask for the Lord's help and blessing before plunging in.  After all, He wrote it because He wanted to communicate things to us, right?  If we're willing to listen, He's willing to open His words for us.  This will be my constant prayer throughout Leviticus and through the rest of this Bible reading plan.  I have to say: I'm a little excited to be back.  A little intimidated to be sure, as I know I've already failed once, but I can't wait to read God's Word and hear the things there are for me to learn.

I have nothing really spectacular to say.  I still don't understand the why's and wherefore's like I wanted to the first time through.  But maybe it is not so important to know why you can't present a grain offering with honey or why you discard the crop of a bird in the ash heap, but that if you want to be right before the Holy God this is what is required of you.  If it really came down to it, if I was standing before the Holy God, not right and not covered by His forgiveness, would I really quibble about the why's when performing these actions is what came between getting zapped or not?  I'd hope not.  Wouldn't I much rather do what is required to please Him?  I should hope so!

One thing that did intrigue me and may require some further study is this idea of the covenant of salt in Leviticus 2:13.  I'd never noticed it before.  It's mentioned just two other places in the Bible (that my cross references show): Numbers 18:19, and 2 Chronicles 13:5.  Both talk about the offerings given to the Lord as a covenant of salt.  In Numbers, it says it is their due, and here in Leviticus it talks about their offerings should never lack salt as part of this covenant of salt.  Of course, there are lots of implications from salt: salt's ability to cleanse, to preserve; in the NT we are encouraged to not lose our saltiness just as we are encouraged to be lights in the world: our saltiness is our righteousness in the metaphor.  I need to do some digging to make sure that similar implications are here in this covenant of salt, but it seems likely, doesn't it?  I am intrigued.