10 And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
11 And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.
The priest was to arise in the morning, put on the clothing of his office, and collect the ashes off the altar. Then he had to change his clothes and carry the ashes out of the camp and dispose of them. This seems unusual. Why two different sets of clothes for the same chore? The general understanding is that the priest could not interact with the holy altar without wearing the official clothes of his office, but also he could not leave the tabernacle while wearing those holy garments. Thus, he wore the holy garments for the part that involved the altar and then had to wear his everyday clothes for carrying the ashes out of the camp.
This, of course, is not to say that we are meant to be two-faced disciples, faithful and religious in church, then carnal and sinful when we leave. But there is a special gravity when we commune with the Almighty, which is absent in our other business. We should have a seriousness in our sacred works, and a levity in our mortal labor. The two parts are connected, and each affects how we show up for the other, but they are also distinct.
9 Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it.
Today begins a new section of ritual instructions. This part is related to the perpetual burnt offering that the priests were to offer through the whole night. At the close of the day, after the needs of the common Israelite had been seen to, the priests would make one more overnight burnt offering.
This is presumably a repeat of the command we already read in Exodus, in which a lamb was to be offered each night, and another lamb each morning. There are multiple meanings and symbols to be found in this practice. In my previous post on the subject, I noted how the perpetual offering can be seen as representing the path of the disciple, largely defined by its daily, quiet surrender to the Lord.
Another symbol is that even when the world would go dark, the perpetual flame of the Lord’s altar would still be burning, still providing a mark and a guide to God’s people. So, too, when the world becomes confused and apostate, the Spirit of the Lord can still guide us through the dark.
A third symbol is the sacrifice of a lamb closing one period of time and also ushering in the beginning of a new one. This seems to echo the change from the Old Testament to the New, where John the Baptist, the last Old Testament prophet, was slain at the close of one era, and Jesus was slain to usher in the next.
It is only when we are able to do what is right when we stand to lose the most that we gain full ownership of the virtue. At this point, no one can deny that we live and die by that truth. So long as the maintaining of our virtue is untested, it isn’t fully ours.
And so, if we are ever to truly own our virtues, each must be tested in the most trying of circumstances. God does not give these trials to hurt us; He gives them so that we can fully own something good.
It’s not uncommon to wish that the people in our lives would treat us better than they do, even that they would treat us as well as we know we ought to treat them. We wish our friends would be the ones to reach out instead of us, that our spouse would say “sorry” first, and that our enemies would forgive us before we forgive them. But we know that we’re supposed to do the right things on our own, regardless of what the people around us do. This can seem unfair, as it might see us always being the bigger person first, always doing for others the things that we wish were done for us.
But really this is only a limited view. If we widen our perspective, we realize that before we ever showed unreciprocated good to someone else, Jesus did so first to us. Jesus was the bigger person who fought for our hearts when we didn’t deserve it. Jesus was the one that took the high road when we were selfish and sinful. Jesus was the one who loved us before we loved him. Thus, any lopsided good that we now put out into the world is only paying it forward.
Some might say that maturity is being willing to do what’s right even when there isn’t any reward, but deeper wisdom is recognizing the reward was already given long before.
2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:
4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.
6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
A few days ago we started examining what I have called the “higher trespass offering,” and the offenses described for it seemed ambiguous. I mentioned in that initial post that the descriptions become much clearer in this chapter. Here we see that if an Israelite cheated something away from his neighbor, in any way, that would make him guilty of having “deceitfully gotten,” and he would remain guilty until this higher trespass offering was made.
There are many ways in which a man might be guilty of this, and the verses go at some length to describe them, but what is most important is that principle of “deceitfully gotten.” In whatever way you managed to acquire your neighbor’s possession, if it was “deceitfully gotten,” you are in the wrong.
It is interesting to note that a cost was applied to the sin itself in how the perpetrator must “add the fifth part” of the item’s value to its restoration. This is different from the laws of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” where the restitution was meant to be exactly equal to the offense. The key difference between those laws and these is that “an eye for an eye” applied to the destruction and replacement of another person’s property. In today’s case, no permanent destruction took place, so the original item could be returned without replacement. If that was the end of it, then there would be no consideration for the inconvenience to the victim or the ill-gotten benefit of the perpetrator. By telling the perpetrator to “add the fifth part,” you essentially turned the theft into a pricey loan, and the victim gets a rich return.
I have included these first seven verses with my analysis of Chapter 5 because they clearly belong with the second half of that chapter. Verse 8 begins an entirely new subject, and so ought to be considered the true beginning of the next chapter. Thus, I will take my usual intra-chapter interlude here and resume my scriptural analysis next week.
Sacrifice
Eligible oblation
Steps
Explanation
Higher trespass offering
Ram, money
Restitution for taking from one’s neighbor. Possibly other special cases also.
17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.
19 It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord.
At the start of the chapter we were shown smaller offenses, primarily sins of omission. Here at the end, it now talks about the actual breaking of the commandments, which would be a sin of commission, though still done in ignorance.
Perhaps an example of this would be when we are caught in a shameful situation and immediately minimize it out of a self-preservation instinct, only realizing later that we have told a lie. Or perhaps we bore witness that we actually thought was true, only to learn later that we had propagated falsehoods. Or we might have a culture that insists that fornication is common, expected, and shameless, and it is only after reaping the painful consequences of such choices that we start to realize that we have sinned.
There is an important lesson here: intent is not all that matters, sometimes an act is just wrong. That isn’t to say that intent does not matter at all. Malicious harm is worse than accidental harm, but both are harm either way. We can both give special weight to intent, while also acknowledging the fundamental wrongness of the act regardless of intent. And that is what the sacrifice in these verses seems to be for. Atoning for the act, even in absence of intent.
15 If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering:
16 And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
In the last post we talked about the disagreement Bible scholars have as to which infractions were connected to the special trespass offering, and we didn’t really have time to discuss the ritual itself, so today we will address that. This offering required bringing a ram, presumably to be slaughtered in a way similar to what we have seen before, but also a measure of money. The exact amount of money, it would seem, was proportional to the magnitude of the offense. Since, as we discussed previously, we’re not entirely sure the nature of that offense, it is uncertain exactly how and why this fine was calculated.
As already mentioned, the two prevailing theories were that this offering was for cases of violation against the holy things of the tabernacle, or for causing property damage to one’s neighbor. Presumably if the offense was of the first type, the money portion of the offering was added to the temple treasury, then to be used for the maintenance and affairs of the tabernacle. If the offense was of the second type, then verse sixteen seems to be saying that the full price of the damages would be given to the injured party, and then an extra 20 percent. Thus, the money might have been a punitive fine, or it might have been a way of restoring damages. The ram, meanwhile, would have been for spiritual cleansing. Thus, this offering included both spiritual and terrestrial atonement.
15 If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering:
16 And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
We already spent most of this chapter talking about various minor infractions a person might be guilty of, such as failing to bear testimony in a trial, or touching a carcass, or making a promise and not following through on it. And for all of those, a small offering was proscribed to make things right again.
So why, now, are we hearing about trespass offerings requiring a different sacrifice, one that is more substantial? Most scholars conclude that what we are reading now is actually a new section of law, one that is still related to the trespass offerings already covered but is a special or more egregious case.
And there the similarities end. Different commentaries give considerably different interpretations as to what the exact offense being described is.
Some have focused on the phrase: “in the holy things of the Lord,” which comes from the single Hebrew word: קֹדֶשׁ (qodesh), which means a sacred place or thing. Some have therefore assumed that this is describing an offense against something sacred, such as failure to pay tithes and offerings, or misuse by a priest of those funds. It could also be describing when a person who was already in a compromised state (from any of the acts described at the start of this chapter) entered the tabernacle without recognizing that they were “trespassing” on the sacred space of the Lord.
Still others have focused more on the phrase: “the harm that he hath done,” and supposed that this must mean when an Israelite caused property damages to his fellow man. This interpretation gains more credibility in chapter 6, whose first verses more explicitly describe that situation.
At the end of the day, I am not sure exactly which situation that is being described. In fact, it is entirely possible that verse 15 is giving one example of offense, which is related to the misuse or trespass of sacred things, and verse 16 is giving another, which is related to the harming of a neighbor’s property. In any case, it is clear that this amounts to a special situation, one that requires a different method of purification. I will look over this new purification method tomorrow and update our sacrifice table accordingly, being specific on what parts are clear, and generic on what remains ambiguous.
11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.
12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it is a sin offering.
13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as a meat offering.
We already examined these verses yesterday, but I noticed something more in them that I wanted to take time on for today. Yesterday we noted how there was an option to sacrifice a bird or to sacrifice flour, and how each were related to reestablishing a positive relationship with God. If the offering was a bird, it was given in a burnt offering, in which the animal was killed, it’s blood drained, and the body burned upon the altar, representing the giving of one’s life to the will of the Lord. If the offering was of flour, it was given in a meat offering, in which a portion of it was shared with the priests.
It occurred to me that between those two: the spilling of blood and the sharing of bread, we see an early form of the sacrament that Jesus would institute with his disciples in the last supper. There he blessed and brake bread, and blessed wine, and shared it with his apostles. The wine brings to mind the blood of the burnt offering, the bread the flour of the meat offering, the sharing with the apostles the sharing with the priests. In one ritual, we see Jesus offering his life to the Father and entering communion with Him. We see him laying down his life for his friends and inviting them to join him in the feast of heaven.
Truly, the New Testament does not eradicate the Old. It completes it. The Old Testament is the walls of the building, and the New Testament is the roof that crowns it. Both are important, both point to the same conclusions.
Sacrifice
Eligible oblation
Steps
Explanation
Trespass offering
Lamb, young goat, two turtledoves, two pigeons, flour
For minor offenses and mistakes
One bird for a sin offering, one for a burnt offering
Giving up of offense and recommitment to the Lord
Some of the grain for a sin offering, some for a meat offering
Giving up of offense and shared communion with the Lord
11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.
12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it is a sin offering.
13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as a meat offering.
As with before, we see that there is an even cheaper and more accessible option than bringing two birds, wherein the offeror could provide some flour for a sin and meat offering. Yesterday we heard about this ritual being made with two birds, and there is an interesting similarity and difference between that method and this one.
With the birds, one was offered for a sin offering, and with the flour, some of it was also offered for a sin offering. That is the similarity. But then the second bird was given for a burnt offering, and the rest of the flour was given as a meat offering and shared with the priests.
In both cases, the first offering represents purification for sin, and in both cases, the second offering represents some form of connection with the Almighty. In the burnt offering it was the commitment of one’s life to God, and in the meat offering it is sharing a meal with the Lord.
One theory for why the second portion of grain was not given as a burnt offering was because that it was not an animal, therefore had no life to give, and therefore wasn’t fit for that symbol. But given that it was good for eating, it was fit for a symbol of sharing communion with the Lord.
In any case, in each form of this offering, we see that we need purification from that which is wrong, and then reunion to God in one way or another.
Sacrifice
Eligible oblation
Steps
Explanation
Trespass offering
Lamb, young goat, two turtledoves, two pigeons, flour
For minor offenses and mistakes
One bird for a sin offering, one for a burnt offering
Giving up of offense and recommitment to the Lord
Some of the grain for a sin offering, some for a meat offering
Giving up of offense and shared communion with the Lord
Spiritual Wanderings 