Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 4:22-26

22 When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty;

23 Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:

24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord: it is a sin offering.

25 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.

26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

We’ve already seen how the sin offering applied to a priest and to the congregation, now we read how it applies to a leader also. In this instance we see the same pattern play out exactly as before, except with one particular changed. While atonement was made for the priest and the congregation via a bullock, the leader would make his offering from a young goat.

A bullock was a more substantial offering than a goat. Thus, atonement for a congregation or for a priest was weightier than that for a leader. All Israelites engaged in the same sin offering, coming to the Lord equally and following the same pattern, but slight variances like these show that there was still a hierarchy in play. A leader, such as a king, was not weightier than the nation or a priest, something that has been forgotten at times in history.

SacrificeEligible oblationStepsExplanation
Sin offeringBullock, young goatSacrifice for sin
The same performance for an individual, community, priest, or leaderAn equal path to God for all
Hands placed on head, slaughteredAnimal takes the place of us
Blood placed on horns of the altarA heartfelt plea to the Lord for mercy
Fat and kidneys burned on altarCleansing our behavior and desire
Skin, dung, and flesh burned beyond the campThe sinful behavior purged out of us

Full table.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 3:6-11

6 And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering unto the Lord be of the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish.

7 If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before the Lord.

8 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar.

9 And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the Lord; the fat thereof, and the whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,

10 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.

11 And the priest shall burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord.

Yesterday we heard of cattle being acceptable for the peace offering, and now we read that sheep were also. Tomorrow we will hear about goats. The descriptions of how each should be offered were virtually identical to one another. One thing that is unique in today’s passages is that the sheep had to be a lamb. Neither cattle nor goats are described with that same young age requirement.

We do not have a clear explanation for this difference. Perhaps there actually was no difference, and a young animal was the expectation for all animal types. If that was the case, then either it was simply understood in that culture, or the original records were more explicit than the ones we have today.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps there really was only an age requirement for the sheep, which may have been done to help define a hierarchy of sacrifice. We saw in the last chapter that for some sacrifices fruit of the field could be an acceptable offering, but more often it was a living sacrifice. In the chapter before that, we saw how sometimes a bird could be the animal sacrificed, but more commonly it was a livestock animal. And of all the livestock, sheep were the quintessential sacrifice animal. And among sheep, obviously the lamb is the most pure and unblemished. Indeed, in some cases a lamb was the only sacrificial option, such as when the Israelites used its blood on their doorposts in Egypt to dispel the angel of death.

Thus, if there was an age requirement for sheep only, it might have been part of this hierarchy: belonging → animal → livestock → sheep → lamb. This hierarchy shows a clear progression, one that naturally draws the mind one step further, to the ultimate sacrifice, even the Lamb of God.

SacrificeEligible oblationStepsExplanation
Peace OfferingCattle, LambGratitude for reconciliation
Animal is slainGiving up old life for one of unity with another
Fat burned on altarGiving up old plans, passions, and drives

Full table.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 24:1-2

1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off.

2 And Moses alone shall come near the Lord: but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him.

Today’s verses show a hierarchy being created. All of Israel is to worship from afar while Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu will ascend into the mountain with Moses. Those three priests would only come part of the way, though, with Moses alone fully entering into the presence of the Lord. Thus there is a triangular hierarchy with the prophet standing beside God at the top, the priests a step down from there, and the general populace down at the bottom.

Understanding hierarchies like this requires nuance and care. It is all too easy to turn a hierarchy into a competition, to feel ashamed of oneself if you are not high enough in the structure. In my church we often hear over the pulpit that the pastor is no more important than the nursery teacher, that each is performing an equal duty in the eyes of God, but it seems that the parishioners struggle to actually believe that.

Hierarchies are necessary for the management of a large people. If we had many leaders and few followers then there would be a constant change in direction and not enough workers to get things done. By necessity there must be fewer at the top and more at the bottom, but each half needs the other or nothing gets done at all. Every part, rightly balanced, is essential. Neither are expendable.

One other note from these verses is that Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu ascending the mountain with Moses calls to mind Peter, James, and John accompanying Jesus into the Mount of Transfiguration. Interestingly, one of the angels that conversed with Jesus in that mountain was none other than Moses. This same pattern of three accompanying witnesses was repeated again with Peter, James, and John as they followed Jesus into the Garden of Gethsemane at the beginning of his Passion. There seems to be a principle of three witnesses observing the divine moments of the leading prophet, so that they may bear testimony of it afterward.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Reasons for Disbelief- A Confused Hierarchy

Different Hierarchies)

I was debating with another person about a social issue, and what the correct, moral stance on it should be. As we explained our disagreements I started to recognize that it wasn’t that we had different morals in general, but that we held them in a different hierarchy. I told the other person, “The difference between you and me is that I believe that the truth matters more than other peoples’ feelings, and you believe that peoples’ feelings matter more than the truth.” And the person agreed.

Which raises the question, “is there a correct hierarchy?” Is it appropriate to set some principles as superior to others, or should they all be equal to one another? Or, if I choose one principle over another and you invert the order are both perspectives equally right?

The answer is no. There really is a correct hierarchy and it really does matter. Remember how the Pharisees tried to trip up Jesus on this very point? “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” they asked, and he had a clear and definitive response for them: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matthew 22:36-39).

When it comes to moral questions, Jesus doesn’t leave us any doubt. Loving God comes first—and surely that includes loving his laws—and then comes loving our neighbors. We may do everything to support and please our neighbor up to the point of offending God, but then our loyalty to Him must surpass our loyalty to the neighbor.

The List)

One way to represent our hierarchy is to put it in terms of the different authorities in our lives. Whose voice carries the most weight when we make our decisions? I’ve examined myself, and I find that I try to follow this hierarchy of authority:

  1. Divine revelation
  2. Scripture
  3. Personal feelings
  4. The opinions of others

At the bottom is the opinions of others. I grow and learn from hearing outside perspectives. Other peoples’ insights can reveal truths to me that I would not find on my own. However, I know that there are false teachers also, so the things I take from others has to first be filtered by each of the higher standards.

Next comes my personal feelings. Not the feelings of what I want, but what I feel in my gut is right. These generally lead me rightly, but they are at times susceptible to immaturity and compromised motives, so they must also be subject to higher authorities.

Scripture comes next, which is the divine word of God. His voice must trump all earthly babble. I actually had an experience just recently where I was hearing an opinion from others that started to turn my personal feelings; I was becoming converted to that message, but then I reminded myself of the passage in the New Testament that stood as a clear rebuke to that line of thinking. I conformed myself to the scripture’s teaching, because I simply did not have the right to override it.

Finally, there is Divine Revelation. I believe the scriptures to have originated from the pure word of God, but the reality is that thousands of years and numerous translations stand between the original utterance and the words on the page today. Some of those translations disagree with one another, and some of them are difficult to understand correctly with our lack of ancient context. I therefore have as my final authority the revelation of God given to my mind and heart, purifying and brightening that which might have become muddled and faded.

Worship of Man)

The most concerning shift that I see in society is the progressive elevation of either “Personal feelings” or the “Opinions of others” above all other authorities. Many of our social divides are based around this transformation. Personal opinions and group interests take precedent over the divine words of God, and utter confusion follows. Not only are God’s morals trampled under foot, but everyone starts to fracture and divide from one another. Loyalty to God, Country, and Community are superseded by Loyalty to the Self or Loyalty to the Mob.

So what is Reason for Disbelief #2? A hierarchy authority that places anything above God. One simply cannot believe in a God when their hierarchy forbids compliance with Him.