3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,
4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair,
5 And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and shittim wood,
6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.
God had just offered the Israelites the opportunity to make an optional offering, and today we learn it was to be an offering of all the valuables of the world. Precious metals, stones, cloths, animal skins, wood, oil, and spices. Some of these things are precious for symbolic reasons, such as gold which is a pure metal and does not mix with other alloys. Some are precious for aesthetic reasons, such as spices that pleased the senses. Some are precious for their rarity, such as purple cloth, which was a notoriously difficult color to get dye for.
The people are being asked to give that which is rare, functional, beautiful, and symbolic. Of course, in many cases the value of these things is arbitrary. Whatever man decides to assign his greatest value to, those are the same things that he must be willing to part with. Gold is not required because it has great value to God, but because it has great value to man.
And why must man be willing to part with the things of greatest value? Because that is how we show what our highest ideal is. If we don’t give the most to God, then He isn’t actually our highest ideal. If, for example, we retain the best for our own selves instead, then there is nothing more important to us than the self, which precludes any genuine worship of God. Sacrifice of our greatest riches is a necessity for us to engage in worship of the almighty, just as sacrifice of His own Beloved Son was a necessity for God to engage in condescension to us.
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.
The Israelites had committed to following God’s law, and this covenant was sealed by making solemn sacrifice. Every tribe had their own altar, and all of them ritually dedicated themselves to following the word that God had given.
Let’s take the time to be specific about exactly what those rituals were, and what their significance was. There are three rituals being described here.
The burnt offering. The formal description of how this offering was to be made is given in Leviticus 1.
Performance: The Israelite who was making the sacrifice would give up an entire animal which would be cut into parts, cleaned, and then the entire thing was burned on the altar.
Significance: This was a constant and regular sacrifice in the Israelite tradition. The burning of the entire animal obviously represents the giving of the whole self to the Lord, turning one’s entire life to His will. It is therefore a fitting symbol for those who are ready to make penance for past transgressions and willing to commit themselves back to the Lord.
The peace offering. The initial description of this offering can be found in Leviticus 3, though there are some details that are only explained later, such as in Leviticus 19:5-8 and Deuteronomy 27:7.
Performance: The Israelite would once again offer up an entire animal. This time, though, only the fat and specific organs would be laid on the altar and burned. The rest would become a meal that the Israelite would eat that day and the next, with any leftovers being burned upon the third day.
Significance: This was a sign of fellowship and friendship. The Israelite making the offering would essentially be sharing a meal with the Lord. The Lord’s part of the meal came from what was burned on the altar, the Israelite’s part from eating the remaining flesh. Also of note was that the parts burned on the altar were forbidden for the Israelites to eat anyway (fat and blood), so God was taking the portion that was not right for the Israelites and leaving for them what was good, just as He takes from us our sin and leaves us with a new heart. This sacrifice is a fitting symbol for those who are living in union and harmony with God, sharing a life and a purpose with Him.
The sprinkling of blood. Some of the most thorough details of this ritual are actually the ones given here in these verses. However, there are some additional details of this event included in Hebrews 9:19-22.
Performance: This ritual was attached to the other sacrifices. There is no sprinkling of blood without the burnt and peace offerings. The priest would take the blood from the offerings, mix it with water, and divide it in two. Half he would sprinkle over the altar, its instruments, and even the book of the law, and the other half would be sprinkled upon the person(s) making the offering.
Significance: The blood was sprinkled over the instruments and word of God, and also upon the people. It covers them both, binds them together, and seals their covenant. In Hebrews 9 the assertion is made that every testament/covenant requires the death of the testator to be in full force. Frankly, that is a logic I don’t understand at this point. I don’t yet know what fundamental, universal truth makes it so that death is necessary to empower a commitment, but apparently there is one, and so that sprinkled blood was the activating agent in the covenant between God and His people.
Taken as a whole, we can see that Israel was sacrificing their old lives and giving themselves wholeheartedly to God by the burnt offering. Then they were recognized as His partners and shared meal with Him via the peace offering. Finally, this new union was sanctified by the sprinkling of the blood.
These were not random rituals, each one served a function and a purpose, with deep spiritual meaning behind them. They were being used to properly initiate God’s people.
10 And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians.
11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.
12 And Jethro, Moses’ father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father in law before God.
When we first were introduced Jethro we were told he was a priest in Midian, and I had wondered whether he was priest of the Lord. Today’s verses suggest that this was, indeed, the case. He praises God, making exclamations such as “blessed be the Lord,” and “now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods.”
Another reason to assume that Jethro was a priest of the Lord is the priestly function he then serves in verse 12, making sacrifices that were apparently acceptable before the Lord. It is interesting to note the foreshadowing of this verse. Jethro performs the ritual offering with Aaron present, and of course Aaron and his sons will soon be called to function in the same office. I see in these verses a sort of passing of the torch. Jethro had maintained the faith in Midian while Israel was held captive, and now that they were free he came to show them the rituals and formalities of worshipping God.
Jethro and his flock in Midian must have had a story of their own, but they would fade, while the Israelite story would continue for thousands of years. This reminds me of John the Baptist diminishing so that his cousin Jesus might increase. Jethro and John seem to have been righteous men that magnified their callings and fulfilled their purposes, yet they were willing to make way for the chosen ones that came to take the center stage.
It is common to despise our “worst self.” This is the self that is lazy, selfish, overly-indulgent, and perverse. That self always gets us into the worst trouble, imitates the behaviors we most resent in others, and frustrates all of our plans for self-improvement. I have listened to many addicts share their hatred for their “worst self,” going so far as to wishing that they could kill him!
But the thought has occurred to me that my “worst self” has also done the bravest and noblest things that I have ever done. It was while I was firmly in the gutter of shame and depression that I decided to ask for help from my addictions. It was while I was a sinner that I made the decision to repent. It was while God seemed farthest from me that I tried to follow Him most.
The “worst self” has its downsides, but when transformation does occur, it is necessarily that self who decides to make it happen. The “worst self” chooses to let itself die so that the “whole self” may emerge, and we owe it a great debt of gratitude for repeatedly making that sacrifice.
14 And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:
15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.
16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt.
Verse 15 makes it clear that the purpose for which the firstling flocks were to be sanctified to the Lord was for sacrifice. They were not going to become the priests’ flocks, they were not going to be used by the community, they were simply being offered up as a sacrifice to God.
And what is the point of making an offering to God anyway? Why is it good for a person to destroy some of his resources, thus harming his personal status and also his society’s economy? What is the benefit in deliberately giving up a benefit?
To comprehend this paradox we must recognize that the act of sacrifice, in and of itself, naturally increases our connection to the sacred. It is good for us to take that which we have and give it away to the Lord, as doing so simultaneously debases the value of that worldly thing and elevates the value of God in our hearts. It is in our nature to respect and revere the things that we give away our resources to, as doing so signals to our minds that those things must be worth more than what we have given up. Thus, even today, while the Christian is not expected to make an animal sacrifice, he is expected pays his tithes and consecrate his time in worship services. If he does not do those things, then he is sending a signal to himself that God is not worthy of respect or reverence. What is more, he sends the same signal to his children and that sows a terrible future for them.
No wonder then that in these verses it is again made clear that the rising generation is to see and hear what sacrifices their parents are making to God and why. Again it is stressed that these rituals and traditions are to be a “token upon the hand, and for frontlets between the eyes” of the children. Their minds and their spirits are to be trained by these offerings, bringing them to have the proper estimation of God in their hearts. They are to impress upon the children just how mighty that “strength of hand that the Lord brought them out of Egypt” must have been that their parents would still mark it years afterward by offerings up every firstling of their flocks. The benefit of the sacrifice was how it would orient the children to the divine instead of the mundane.
3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
God had instructed the Israelites to follow a new calendar, now He instructed them on a special feast to be held on the tenth day of the first month. This, of course, would be the Passover. The significance of this event would soon be made apparent, and every year afterward the tradition would be used to remind the Israelites of the events that came on the first Passover.
God instructed the Israelites that they must each kill and eat a lamb in its first year during the Passover. Aside from this, the requirements for this offering were quite lenient. It could be one lamb for each household, or one lamb for two households, and it could be a lamb of the sheep or of the goats. Given that this lamb would be a key instrument in God’s redemption of the Israelites, it seems appropriate that His instructions were very gracious and accommodating, fitted to the convenience of His people.
A lamb in its first year would mean that it came from the previous calendar year and it would not live to see the next. It was therefore a lamb “of the year,” and every lamb in every year would be a potential candidate for the sacrifice. Thus, each lamb’s fate would hang in the balance until their first Passover, at which point their fate would be sealed one way or the other.
This lamb was being used as a food, as the main item of the Passover meal, and that seems to be representative of how God’s grace provides the earthly nourishment that people require to survive. He lends us our breath, our water, our sources of food. The fact that this Passover nourishment came by means of the creature’s death seems to represent that there is a real cost and a real sacrifice behind God’s grace. It is not just some magical reserve that comes from nothing. God genuinely gives up something to provide for us. What exactly that is will only become more evident as we continue the analysis with tomorrow’s verses.
To control the behavior of others is far less remarkable than to control the behavior of oneself.
Any simple tyrant can exert control over others without any personal inconvenience whatsoever. Controlling the self, on the other hand, always requires enormous sacrifice and self-abnegation.
Yesterday I addressed that we might not have the capacity to do all of our daily tasks, but we might be able to use some techniques to get through them anyway, such as shifting some to an every-other-day cadence, or quickly knocking out high-effort tasks that then become low-effort maintenance.
I acknowledged, though, that even this may not be sufficient for everyone. It is possible to simply not have the resources to do all the things that we need to maintain balance, no matter what strategy we employ. An example of this would be if one didn’t have enough income to pay off even the interest on their debt. Or perhaps if one suffered an injury that prohibited exercise. Or of one’s need for education and a regular day-job were mutually exclusive.
In situations like these, more drastic strategies are required. But as a prerequisite to any of these strategies, we first have to accept that we aren’t going to be able to do all the things that we want to do. Any solution at this point is going to require sacrifice and a change of expectations. Coming to terms with this disappointment is painful but necessary if we are ever to make the most of a hard situation.
Once we have made this peace, then here are two options to consider.
Ask For Help)
I am certainly one that wants to take care of everything myself. I want to prove that I have the strength and wherewithal to take care of everything on my own. Part of me feels that I would rather live a broken life by my own power than a fuller life by the power of others. But that part of me is simply pride, and now that I’ve tried both options I can tell you definitively which one is better,
For years I remained entrenched in my addiction because I insisted on taking care of it on my own. But the more I tried to handle it on my own, the more it became apparent that I simply couldn’t. My deficit wasn’t time or money, it was spiritual strength, and I had to finally accept that I didn’t have the wherewithal on my own and that I needed to reach outward for help.
I finally did so, and I have leaned on the strength of dozens of people since. My therapists, my group members, brothers in recovery that I’ve met along the way. I have an entire village of supporters who help me to do what I couldn’t by myself, who help make up for my spiritual strength deficit and then some.
The principle is the same if you’re talking about financial shortcomings, or scheduling conflicts, or simply not having enough time to do everything. If you really can’t do it by yourself, then can you swallow your pride and surrender some part of this plan to the care of another person? We are born into families and raised in communities for a reason. The resources are almost certainly there if we’re willing to just look outside of ourselves.
Make the Hard Cuts)
I have an entrepreneurial and hobbyist mindset. I always have a number of projects and developments that I want to work on, both so that I can learn new things and also create new sources of income. These endeavors seem justified by the fact that success in these areas would make me a more skilled individual and bring greater stability to my life. So I prioritize working on these projects, even trying to progress several of them at a time.
Of course, things of substance never come quickly or easily. The cost of doing this work gets higher and higher, other untested fields start to look more promising, I try dividing my focus into even more areas, and even my basic self-care starts to evaporate as I pour more and more time and effort into all these ventures.
Many times I have had to give myself a sharp reality check. I realize that optional projects have become obligations, hobbies have become jobs, and ambition has become obsession. At this point, letting these projects go feels like cutting out some of the essential parts of my life, but really they’re not. At some point I have to decide what genuinely is essential and what only feels like it is.
Obviously this is a problem of my own making. More difficult to deal with are the demands that have been put on us by duty and necessity. The principle remains the same, though. If you really can’t maintain everything that you want to, and you can’t get enough external help to make things manageable, then sooner or later you have to accept that some things need to go.
Maybe you really just don’t have the capacity for a relationship right now. Maybe you really do have to declare bankruptcy. Maybe you can’t maintain every friendship. Maybe having a clean house just isn’t in the cards for today. Maybe you just won’t be in shape to run the marathon this year.
None of these are happy sacrifices to make, but at least we can have the dignity of letting them go ourselves, rather than watching them shrivel from neglect. It’s better to throw the food you won’t get around to eating away than to let it grow moldy on the shelf. Better to stop making half-measures that accomplish nothing and preserve our strength for full-measures on what we can actually accomplish.
Conclusion)
Strategic management, asking for help, and making sacrifices, it certainly seems that everything would be nicer if we didn’t have to do any of these things, but these are the realities of life. All of us will need to take all of these steps many times through the years. Sooner or later we can have to make our peace with imperfection and make the most that we can of it.
If we do make our peace and move forward, we still may not accomplish everything we wanted in the way that we wanted, but I do believe we will all accomplish more than enough. Life can still be whole, even when it’s parts are broken.
32 For thy servant became surety for the lad unto my father, saying, If I bring him not unto thee, then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever.
33 Now therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren.
34 For how shall I go up to my father, and the lad be not with me? lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father.
Judah has explained how returning home without Benjamin might kill his father for grief, but it is his plea at the end that I find most moving. Judah does not rage against Joseph, he does not stubbornly insist that they’ve got the wrong man, he doesn’t even ask Joseph to let the matter go for pity’s sake.
No, humbly and selflessly, Judah only asks that he be punished in place of the lad. If there is a price that must be paid, let it be taken out on him, and let the boy go free. The symbolism here of the Savior is obvious, and it seems particularly fitting that Jesus would be descended of Judah, who was willing to sacrifice himself that his brother might be restored to his father.
A little while ago we saw a picture of Judah that was far less flattering. He had abandoned his covenant, sullied himself through lust, and was mired in a tawdry family drama. At the end of it came a hint of redemption, though, when he started to acknowledge his folly and accept its consequences. That spark of maturity seems to have continued to grow in him until this time, finally making him ready to fully surrender himself for the good of others.
6 And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, We came to thy brother Esau, and also he cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men with him.
7 Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed: and he divided the people that was with him, and the flocks, and herds, and the camels, into two bands;
8 And said, If Esau come to the one company, and smite it, then the other company which is left shall escape.
Jacob received an update from his messengers, and it did not sound promising. Esau was coming with four hundred men, an army, more than enough to kill Jacob and his entire household. And this isn’t all. Apparently, Esau did not provide Jacob’s messengers with any response that might set his brother at ease. He set out with unspoken intent, leaving Jacob to assume the worst.
In this dire situation Jacob came to a most heart-wrenching solution. He would divide his camp in two, so that if Esau came with violence half of the camp could try to flee as the other was consumed. This would mean saving half of his home, but only at the sacrifice of the other. At least in that case he wouldn’t have to decide which would be the surviving half, chance would decide that for him.
Spiritual Wanderings 