Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 5:14-16

14 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

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.

SacrificeEligible oblationStepsExplanation
Higher trespass offeringRam, moneyFor special trespass cases
Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 5:11-13

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.

SacrificeEligible oblationStepsExplanation
Trespass offeringLamb, young goat, two turtledoves, two pigeons, flourFor minor offenses and mistakes
One bird for a sin offering, one for a burnt offeringGiving up of offense and recommitment to the Lord
Some of the grain for a sin offering, some for a meat offeringGiving up of offense and shared communion with the Lord
Posted on by Abe Austin

Discussing Spiritual Differences- 2 Timothy 2:14, Matthew 22:38-39, Doctrine and Covenants 121:41

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

COMMENTARY

Strive not about words to no profit
When you find yourself needing to express a moral conviction to someone else, what is your motivation behind doing that? To get them to change their behavior for your benefit? To get what you want from them? Because if so, then you are not testifying of truth, you are having an argument or a debate. And in some circles argument and debate might be fitting, such as in academia, but as this verse makes clear they are of no use when testifying of the truth. Ultimately, when we are trying to influence the religious perspective of another person it should never be motivated by a desire to receive something from them.

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
The motivation for expressing our moral convictions and exercising an influence over another person should only ever be one of love. Rather than asking them to change for our own benefit, we should be inviting them to change for their own benefit. We should be making our case because we care for them and truly believe that their lives will be happier with this piece of enlightenment.
Recall the example of Daniel that we just examined. He was petitioning the prince of the eunuchs to let him eat a diet that conformed to his religious convictions, but he only made any headway when he illustrated how this approach was also going to help the prince of the eunuchs get what he wanted as well. When those we teach can feel that we sincerely seek their own good, and are not just trying to mold the world to our own preferences, they are far more likely to care about what we say.

Influence ought to be maintained only by love unfeigned
But remember that our display of care and concern for the person we speak with must be “unfeigned.” We must not pretend to care for someone just to coerce them into doing what we want. The account of Daniel also made clear that the compassion between him and the guards was sincere.
So do change those around you, but only do it because you sincerely love them and just want to help them.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Influence and Persuasion- Personal Example #1

Previously I spoke of the contention that arises when two egos strive together, versus the unity that arises when two hearts do. And I actually experienced a recent example of both sides of this.

The most difficult disagreements to navigate are the ones where each side feels a moral conviction. It is very easy to entangle pride and ego with your personal sense of right and wrong, and to feel insistent that your way is objectively correct.

The example I saw of this recently was when my wife and I were discussing the question of tithing. We’ve always subscribed to that practice, but there is definitely some room for interpretation within that law. Does that ten percent come before or after taxes? Does it come before or after benefits? If you realized you forgot to tithe a previous sum do you go back and cover that, or do you just let it go?

And generally I would say “do what your conscience tells you, and don’t worry if it is slightly different from someone else. So long as you are sincere in trying to follow the law, God will approve.”

And if my wife and I had separate incomes, I could tithe mine in the way that made sense to me, and she could tithe hers how it made sense to her. But we share an income, and when we received a sum that fell into that tithing-gray-area we each felt “right” about a different course of action to take.

And for the first while, each of us tried to convince the other of why we were right, and each of us felt a little ruffled about that. It did not become a very hostile situation, but there was definitely some friction in the moment. It was easy for each of us to feel unheard and judged.

Ego against ego. There was never going to be a mutual outcome from this.

Eventually we took a different approach, though. Instead of trying to “solve the problem,” we backed away and spoke about our stung feelings. We admitted to pride and frustration, to feeling unimportant and unprioritized.

We bypassed ego, and started taking heart-to-heart and spirit-to-spirit.

And then we didn’t feel like we were on two sides anymore, we felt like we were on one side together. It wasn’t important to me that we use my solution anymore, and it wasn’t important to her that we use hers. Neither of us had to be the one that won. Now, at last, we could kneel down together and ask God what to do about the matter.

And each of us came out of that prayer with a shared feeling, a warm assurance about the right thing to do.

And it wasn’t what either of us had been recommending. It wasn’t “my way” or “her way.” Nor would I say it was a compromise between our two extremes. It really felt like a third choice. A shared choice. Shared between me and she and He.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Sacrifice and Consecration- Isaiah 1:11, 1 Samuel 15:22, 3 Nephi 9:19-20

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings
And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

COMMENTARY

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? I delight not in the blood of bullocks
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams
And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood. And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
Sacrifice is important. When we are laden with sins the only proper action is to sacrifice them, to give them up forever. When we have vain desires and idle habits, these too need to be sacrificed. Sacrifice is how we remove all of our distractions to make way for the work of God.
But after we have done this we come to a higher form of offering, one that evidently gives God even greater pleasure than sacrifice. This is consecration, the act of spending our hearts, spirits, and actions in the service of God.
Sacrifice is, necessarily, a dead offering. By this process something is destroyed or made inactive, something worldly that has kept us from being in alignment with God. Consecration, on the other hand, is a living offering. By it we create something or perform some action, something that is in harmony with God.