Saturday, March 20, 2010

The 5 Kinds of Sacrifices

Parashat Vayikra

    I wonder why it is that this portion is the one that a child would be taught from the beginning of his teaching at the age of three? Leviticus is usually the first book that is read to a child when he begins to learn the Torah. At first glance, the idea of bringing sacrifices to a Temple may seem secondary to properly worshipping the L-rd; however, for the Jewish people, it is central to the daily devotion of Adonai. The reason for this should become clear.

First, one must understand the meaning of each of the Hebrew terms which are all short-changed by the term "sacrifice." When English speakers think of a "sacrifice," they typically think of giving something up. "I am going to sacrifice eating meat for a week so I can lose weight." "My son sacrificed his life so that we can maintain our lifestyle here in the U.S." Neither of these examples really brings across the meaning of the terms as they are used in Leviticus. Without properly understanding the sacrificial terms as used here in Leviticus, it is hard to understand what G-d required of Israel, why G-d was angry with Israel regarding the sacrifices, and ultimately, the nature of what Yeshua did when He died as a sacrifice.

Here are the names and the meanings of the Hebraic terms related to the sacrifices:

Hebrew Term

English terms

Meaning

Korban

Sacrifice

Literally, it means "gift" or "offering"

This is the generic term for all of the other sacrifices. All of the following terms are korbanot.

Olah

Freewill/whole burnt offering

"to draw near" derived from "going up"

This offering was brought by the worshipper of his own free will. He brought this for some personal expression to G-d.

Minchah

Meal/grain offering

Literally, "a gift" or "a tribute" or "an offering"

This offering was brought by those who were poor; it was also brought along with many of the other meat offerings. It is an olah, too.

Shlamim

Peace offering

Literally from the term "Shalom," or Peace. Shalom does not mean "freedom from conflict" but rather "completedness."

This offering is brought to express happiness with Adonai. It is brought in order for Adonai and His people to express their completedness with G-d.

Chatat

The sin offering

This is the sacrifice that was bought for sin. It was brought individually and for the nation. This offering ONLY covers UNINTENTIONAL sins. There is no offering for intentional sins.

Asham

The guilt offering

This sacrifice is often brought alongside the chatat. Guilt is the residual effect on a person's soul as a result of sin, it is not the sin itself. Often, this offering is brought by someone who is uncertain of having sinned in order to cleanse one's conscience. The offering of the leper is like this. A sin was committed because all mankind has sin; but the specific sin is unknown, yet the guilt is present; thus, the guilt offering serves the purpose to remove the guilt, and not the sin.


 

Once it is understood what the meaning of these offerings were for, then a study can be done as to the application of each occurrence throughout the Torah. Which korban was brought for the Shabbat? Which one was brought for Passover? Which was brought for Yom Kippur? Once these questions begin to be answered, then the ultimate question comes: which one(s) did Yeshua's death fit? It is unlikely that the death of Messiah was meant to fulfill each item of these korbanot. If this is true, then the death of Yeshua the Messiah did not abolish these sacrifices mentioned. In fact, we still maintain these sacrifices every day in the form of prayer. When Jews pray in the synagogue, or when they pray specific prayers on special occasions, these sacrifices are in the background as the antecedent to each of the prayers. The sacrifices are what the prayers refer to. This will not be laid out here, but it is sufficient to say that we will have much to learn when Messiah returns and again the sacrifices are laid out upon the altar. (See Ezekiel 40 through the end of the book.)

Sunday, March 14, 2010

The week of March 14-20th

Vayikra - ויקרא : "And he called"
Torah : Leviticus 1:1-5:19
Haftarah : Isaiah 43:21-44:23
Gospel : Luke 1-3       (Note: the readings for Luke are much longer than in Mark.)

In this week's portion, we learn about the sacrificial system. First, name the 5 different types of sacrifices. What are they? What are their Hebrew terms, and what English terms do we use with them?

It is important to note that the generic term for the English term "sacrifice" in Hebrew is the term "Olah." The term "Olah" has a different connotation than "sacrifice" does. An "Olah" refers to the process of drawing near to the L-rd. "Sacrifice" in English can range from pagan practices of killing animals and even human sacrifice. Also, we think of "sacrifice" when one gives up something for another. The ultimate sacrifice one could think of is when a person fights on behalf of another, even to the point of death. We often say that our military soldier "sacrificed their lives" for our country.

The term we use for "sacrifice" and "offering" in Hebrew has 5 specific terms, and 1 overarching term. We do not have enough words in English do properly translate the Hebrew terms, much less their connotations. We must be careful not to oversimplify the concepts described in these passages. We must also recognize that the purpose of these offerings did not bring about eternal effects, but were only temporary acts of worship. They were progressive actions that over time taught the Israelites what the consequences of their sins were, but they did not affect their eternal status in the eyes of G-d. Only the condition of their hearts and their acceptance of G-d (Elohim) as their L-rd (Adonai) produced an eternal effect. They were forward-looking toward the future redemption through Messiah. One must understand that even Yeshua brought these prescribed offerings as acts of obedience. These sacrifices were still being done during the writing of the book of Acts by the believers. Only when the Temple was destroyed 40 years after Yeshua's resurrection did these sacrifices end. So to connect Yeshua's death and resurrection with these sacrifices listed here misses the point of the sacrifices. Temple sacrifices were not acts of salvation, they were actions of discipleship. When the Messiah returns and the Temple is rebuilt, these sacrifices will be done again. (See Ezekiel 43-44, 46.) On the other hand, each sacrifice may very well allude to eternal actions of Messiah's death, but one must not extend their meanings beyond the literal meanings of the text.

Check back later for some more details about each of the significances of the sacrifices.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Week of March 7-13th

Vayakhel / Pekudei - ויקהל/פקודי : "He gathered/Countings"
Torah : Exodus 35:1-40:38
Haftarah : Ezekiel 45:16-46:18
Gospel : Mark 15-16

These last two portions are usually read together, except during certain leap years.

The portion begins with a short addendum to the celebration of Shabbat: Six days you are to work, and on the seventh day, you should rest. The punishment of death is added here. But the other addendum which we find in this passage is the command not to light fire on Shabbat. There are two common interpretations, which lead to very different applications. The first interpretation is more literal. One should not light fire, for cooking, for light, or for any other purpose. The only exception would be the fire that was kept lit at the altar for sacrifices. This is often interpreted by the more Orthodox Jewish to include prohibitions of cooking on Sabbath on one side, to not even turning on electrical appliances or light switches on another side. There are many reasonable explanations as to why this should be prohibited, but for many who are striving within the American context, this application of not cooking is neither easy to do nor does it really teach any particular Torah truth. Turning on or off a switch or pushing a button on an elevator does not exert a great amount of effort or work. At some point, it becomes more likely that this turns into a legalistic application whereby one who doesn't turn on and off switches holds his status higher than those who do not.

A more interesting explanation is that this "fire" (ESH, in Hebrew) refers to conflicts and fighting between men and women (and by extension, all family and community functions). The way that this was determined is by the letters that make up the word "fire" in Hebrew. The word man (ISH) contains an Aleph, Yod and Shin. The word woman (ISHA) contains the Alpeh, Shin, and He. When the yod and the he are removed (YAH, or Adonai) from the man and woman (which also means "husband" and "wife") then all that is left is the Aleph and Shin, which spells the word "Fire" (ESH). The application here seems to allude to a deeper meaning, which for all of us contains many more applications: Don't fight with people on Shabbat, especially your spouse and/or children.

I would love to say that this has been applied in my personal life, but in fact, the opposite has generally been true. Because of the pressures of the other six days, the Shabbat becomes a day in which my family can catch up. In turn, it is also the day that many of the conflicts which have remained undiscussed are at that time discussed. If they were not, then they never would be, either. Not only that, but I have seen this to be true in other families as well; and I have seen this problem in many of the Shabbat-meeting congregation as well. Whenever people get away from the Torah discussions, and other practical topics are discussed, there is often some heat or some fire.

Should we as congregations of believers try to uphold this standard of not fighting on Shabbat, and refrain from conflicts? Does this include heated, yet helpful Torah discussions? What would be the parameters of acceptable discussions or what would be outside these parameters? It is important to understand how these applications are determined within Judaism. If a beit din (a local Jewish court) existed within a Jewish community, these elders/judges would determine the boundaries as described by Torah. As a community, we would be bound by Torah to accept their decision. Without beit din, we as believers do not have this authority structure. Often, believers will say that "the Holy Spirit will guide me." However, in my experience, when people attribute their actions to the movement of the Holy Spirit or G-d, they most often are attributing whatever their opinion is to G-d and not really having any rationale for their statements. Let us be honest, when people say "the Holy Spirit told me____" they are usually lying for their own gain. This is not universally true, but it does seem to be more true than not.

The answer to such a discussion in and of itself is a discussion that will lead to some "fire." Nevertheless, it is an interesting practice of interpreting Scripture. Ultimately, we are each accountable for how we keep the Shabbat holy, and as we each are individually convicted of our need to be free from conflicts on Shabbat, then we must each take the first step: we must take apply our self-control, and fruit of the Spirit, and we must engage this person we have a conflict with in love. Does that mean there is not fight? Or does that mean that whatever the fight is, that the resolution will bring about peace (shalom) to each other? Each circumstance is different, but if we act in love, apply self-control, and the result is shalom, then we may be onto something about not lighting fire on Shabbat.

Continue having a good week!

Saturday, March 6, 2010

The Idolatry of the Golden Calf: Exodus 32

Thesis: The story of the golden calf does not teach us about the types of idolatry that we often associate with paganism. The idolatry of Israel at this point in time needs to be contrasted with the texts regarding the tabernacle. By doing so, it can be understood that what Israel did was not an act of paganism, but in actuality yielded a much more offensive insult to Adonai.

  1. What do we think of when we think of paganism?

In today's English terminology, the concept of paganism has a couple of different connotations. First, there are people who are involved in the modern practice of wicca, or witchcraft, the sort that makes Harry Potter look rather tame. We find examples of this type of worship in various pockets around the US. In Haiti or Mexico, the practice of the witch doctors or "burjaria" is often a model of what we are talking about. In the vaguest of senses, the Masons and Ararat Shriners could also be classified into some sort of paganism. The basic notion in these occult practices is that they recognize some sort of a "Mother" or "Father" in their practices. The worship of their deity is often included with HaSatan and demons. A second sort of paganism is the sort that we think about when we think of ancestral worship. This type of paganism is exemplified by different religions that make shrines to the dead. The different forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and other Far Eastern religions do this. The ancestral worship is also associated with different Native American practices as well. In what is classified as the "Classic era" of world civilizations, the Romans, the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and many others has worshipped some sort of a polytheistic realm of deities. This sort of polytheism has evolved in many ways into something else. In reality, these polytheistic religions have mostly faded from existence. However, many of the practices have syncretized into different practices that appear in other religious faiths, including Judaism and Christianity. It must be noted that Buddhism and Hinduism are classified as "monistic" and are not to be confused with "polytheistic" religions. However, it is unimportant for the purpose of this article to make the distinction between those who believe that there are realms of deities that we answer to, or if the whole universe is itself the deity, and all of nature including us are one with the deity. The point is that these "theologies" are a rejection of the reality that "the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One."

Now, if the G-d of Heaven, the G-d of Israel, is the Creator of all things, how was it that all of the different culture and religious groups in the world came to a conclusion that there were other gods to be worshipped? Remember back to Genesis. Many things occurred, even at the beginning of the story of humanity, which led people away from G-d's presence. From Adam's fall to Cain's exile from the rest of humanity, mankind has been moving in a direction away from G-d.

Here is one historically speculative example; however it exemplifies how paganism evolves over time: Most people are familiar with the three Great Pyramids in Cairo, Egypt. Actually, there is one Great Pyramid, and two lesser Pyramids. In secular studies, these pyramids were built by King Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt around 2100-2000 BCE. This took place a number of years after the building of the Tower of Babel, which is dated to around 2250 BCE. Now, the name "Egypt" in Hebrew is "Mitzraim." The father of Mitzraim was Ham. Mitzraim had a brother named "Cush." We often associate "Cush" with Ethiopia; however, it would be a fallacy to associate any of these ancient names with the modern societies and cultures which carry the same name. Remember also, during the age of Noah and his sons, people often lived several hundred years. At some point, Ham, Mitzraim, and Cush all die.

One of the religious (non-secular) theories about these pyramids is that one of the later kings might have been paying homage to their great patriarch, Ham. (This would not be the name found in hieroglyphics because the names in the Bible were given in Hebrew, and the ancient Egyptian language would not necessarily sound anything like its transliteration.)

In any case, when the patriarchs died, the people who remembered them, i.e. their family, would have mourned them. They might have even made yearly pilgrimages to visit their dead relative, even to contact his spirit in some way involving sorcery. Over time, the name of the patriarch becomes associated with another name, such as Ra. This ancestor is said to be watching over them from the heavens. In fact, perhaps this patriarch is the one who provides the sun, and moon, etc. It is their grandfather who is in fact a diety. Thus is born a new pagan religion. It is necessary to note that the people were not intentionally disregarding the One True G-d, it is just that their natural tendency to worship one they knew, a relative who has passed, was stronger than their knowledge of G-d.

In most of the ancient priest-based religious systems, the religious leader holds a great deal of political power. For example, in the story of the Exodus, Pharaoh was thought to be a god in his own rights. He was above the priests only because he himself could control the heavens. With this type of socio-religious system, people had to accept the pharaoh-is-god scenario in order to function within the society. If someone rejected Pharaoh as the deity of Egypt, imagine how difficult it might have been to own a business, to farm the fields, to trade goods, etc. Being religious was just a means to an end, their end being survival.

Does any of this sound different than our religious systems today? In many ways, Christianity resembles many pagan religious systems simply because the power structure that exists does not affect the worship of G-d, nor the people who are seeking G-d. Rather, the religious system in some way benefits a political structure, most frequently where the religious leader/priest is overly elevated above the people. Mainstream Jewish and Messianic Jewish circles are not exempt from this type of religious downfall into paganism.

Having explained what paganism looks like, both in the ancient and the modern sense, the question can be asked, was the Biblical account of the building of the golden calf similar to lapsing into paganism (or idolatry)?

  1. What the Biblical text says about the incident with the golden calf

In order to establish the context of the fall of Israel at the sin of the golden calf in Exodus 32, one must first remember the experiences of Israel in Exodus 19 and 20. In Exodus 19, Israel had "seen" and come to "know" G-d. Each Israelite could have easily remembered the experience of the great thundering, the shofar-like blasts, the voice from heaven, and the physical and spiritual presence of G-d. Unlike any other generation on Earth, the Israelites experienced G-d in a unique way. Furthermore, in Exodus 20, each of the Israelites heard G-d say each of these commandments. In response, the Israelites say, "all that G-d says, we will do." At some point, the Israelites negotiate with G-d about their process of negotiation. The people were afraid that if they continued to hear G-d directly, they would die. So, they agree to allow Moses to mediate between G-d and Israel. This is highly relevant to the story of the golden calf, since its building was instituted not because of the removal of G-d's presence, but because of the lapse of time regarding Moses' being on the mountain.

This brings us to the text. The story could be summarized like this: The people felt that had waited too long for Moses. Some of the people ask for gods that can lead them. Aaron acquiesces and asks people to give them their gold rings that belonged to the women and children. (Imagine that Aaron was asking them to remove wedding bands and special jewelry given to children in order to make this idol. The purpose was to cause the Israelites to think again.) Yet, the people brought this gold quickly.

Seeing that the people were determined, Aaron again acquiesces, and forms the golden calf. The Midrash explains that Aaron's intentions were to make something unrecognizable, yet because of those from Egypt who had been practiced in sorcery, through demonic means they caused a calf to come out. Or, perhaps Aaron formed the calf because the first letter of the Hebrew alef-bet is alef. The shortest spelling of G-d's name, Adonai, begins with alef. Thus, by creating a calf, Aaron is reminding the Israelites that G-d is their God. Certainly this is a poor excuse; however, it is clear that Aaron is never held accountable for the act of creating this calf. In can be concluded that Aaron's intentions were to delay the people's intent on this style of false worship, but he alone was not wise enough to stop the people from their evil desire.

Once the golden calf is made, the text says that they offered elevation-offerings and peace-offerings. This is significant. There are no pagan practice that includes these kinds of offerings. To be more specific, the purposes of the elevation-offering (the olah) and peace-offering (Shlamim) were to bring Israel close to G-d and to worship Him. Both of these offerings were free-will offerings, and not required offerings for a sin. The odd part of this Scripture is that somehow, this causes the people to revel (L'tzachaikh). In Hebrew, one might make the connection between Isaac's name (Yitzchakh) and this term, which both come from the same root. Both the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon and the sages agree that this term is used to imply idolatry, adultery/fornication, and perhaps murdering. The plain meaning here is absurd, but we have to work this out: The people were in a lewd way in order to worship the L-rd. This whole scene is outside of most Christian and Jew's understanding. As a result of this event, we are not used to thinking in these terms, but these people thought that their worship would somehow be accepted and be pleasing to G-d. It is NOT what we think of when we think of paganism, nor is it what we think of when we properly worship Adonai. The idolatry at the golden calf was NOT that they were worshipping a FALSE god, but rather, they were worshipping The G-d in a FALSE way. Read the rest of this passage, and it is clear that G-d was NOT pleased with this manner of worship.

  1. What is the application for us today?

G-d is often NOT pleased with how we worship Him. Clearly, we cannot recreate the tabernacle nor the Temple out of mere desire to do so. Nor can we worship the Messiah Yeshua at the Temple or in Jerusalem. This is because there is no Temple, and Jerusalem is not under the control of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua.

Consider how churches or synagogues go about worship today. Perhaps there are songs. Perhaps there is a sermon. Perhaps there are liturgical prayers, both from Scripture or man-made prayers that have survived the ages. There is nothing wrong per se with these acts of worship. At the same time, G-d never prescribed them in the Scriptures either, at least in regards to format of a worship service. Does simply attending a weekly service qualify as an act of worship of the Almighty, especially if no other part of our week exemplifies our worship of G-d? Or perhaps the worship service we attend was designed to glorify the actors on a stage, perhaps a choir, or band, or the cantor, or the preacher, or the priest, or the rabbi? The worship service is merely a show that allows the actor(s) to be on a stage. Some churches or synagogues are simply a place with a particular political persuasion, and G-d is not even mentioned. Whatever the case may be, G-d has prescribed in Torah the kind of worship that He desires. The Israelites had tired of waiting for Moses, they wanted something now. But G-d always desires patience, and when those who worship Him "jump the gun" so to speak with what G-d wants, they often find ourselves in a situation like the Israelites, just doing whatever feels right at the moment, without regards to what G-d is asking. As we see in the Exodus 32 passage, this may have consequences greater than what people may think.

The reason that this golden calf incident is book-ended between the giving of the instructions of the tabernacle and the actually building of the tabernacle is because G-d wants it to be clear that He has established a prescribed way of being worshipped. Now, in defense of many churches and synagogues, G-d is willing to have fellowship with His people, even when they do lapse into brining man-made forms of worship into His presence. Many elements in the synagogue/church worship style, including singing, praying, playing musical instruments, and other actions were all things that were done in the Temple. So, if a person has a place he/she enjoys worshipping, certainly this is something G-d desires. However, if the worship is lifeless or too chaotic, it is likely that the people have lapsed into their own calf-like idolatry.

In conclusion, the story of the golden calf needs to cause us to consider our worship experiences. Is the place where you attend dry and lifeless? Or, is it too chaotic in which people seem to be reveling? One must be very careful not to be persuaded by some who say, "I heard G-d tell me…." Or, "The Spirit was talking to my spirit today…" And the classic, "...Thus saith the L-rd…" Be wise, and do not follow these groups. When G-d brings about His judgment upon these groups, as He does often and frequently, one does not want to be involved in that process. It is usually messy and heart-breaking for families and friends. Not only this, but also it seems wise to investigate carefully any Messianic/Jewish roots groups as well. Sometimes, one's zealousness for Torah reaches beyond what G-d has ever asked, and then individuals or small groups of people lapse into legalism regarding Torah. These groups go beyond what Torah says in order to force everyone into the same belief system and practical system, with very little acceptance of people who have differing interpretations. These, too, one must be aware of. Yeshua said it best when He warned about wolves coming around in sheep's clothing. Be careful, be wise, and always pray!