Leviticus 3: Peace Offerings

In my post on Leviticus 2 I speculated that chapters 1 and 2 provide procedures to be incorporated into other kinds of sacrifices and offerings. In chapter 3, we seem to get the sort of offering that might incorporate the chapter 1 laws about burnt offerings of animals. But the combination strikes me as uncomfortable.

The main feature of chapter 3 that makes me wonder if it is meant to incorporate the rules in chapter 1 is its specificity. It doesn't say, "When bringing a peace offering, bring a male or female without blemish from the herd or flock, or a male or female goat without blemish, and offer it as a burnt offering." Instead, specific instructions are given for cows and bulls, lambs (but not sheep), and goats, and the instructions are almost exactly the same for all three. One is to lay one's hand on the head of the animal, kill it at the entrance to the tent of meeting, splash the blood on the sides of the altar, cut out the kidneys and half the liver with their fat, and burn them as a food offering on the altar. Now, these instructions are consistent with the instructions given in chapter 1, in the sense that one could carry out both sets of directions simultaneously, but they partly overlap in odd ways. For instance, if the peace offering instructions were meant to supplement the chapter 1 instructions, why say in chapter 3 that one must lay one's hand on the head of the animal, which was already instructed in chapter 1? But, one is apparently allowed to offer male and female sheep as peace offerings, but instructions are only given for offering lambs (v. 6). This suggests that one should use the chapter 1 instructions when giving sheep as peace offerings (since no other instructions have been given). Unfortunately, it is not clear how this affects our interpretation of the rest of chapter 3. The lack of instructions for sheep could suggest that the instructions given for goats and herd animals are alternatives to the chapter 1 instructions, or it could suggest that since the chapter 1 instructions are used in one case, they should be used in the others as well. The final difficulty is that it is not really clear when one is supposed to give a peace offering. Presumably it is to establish peace, but after what kinds of conflicts? If answers to these questions start presenting themselves, I will have to make a supplemental post.

I also find it interesting that the smell of the burnt offerings is called, "a pleasing aroma to the Lord" (v. 5, 16). My assumption is that what is offered on the altar is not cooked to be eaten (see v. 16-17), but burned until it will burn no longer and in my experience burnt food products produce rather off-putting odors. There would also be blood all over the place, what with animals being butchered and blood being splashed on the sides of the altar. While I haven't been sniffing puddles of animal blood lately, I imagine it doesn't smell great. (As an aside, I'll bet the priests also had a rough time trying to keep the place clean.) So why say the aroma is pleasing? Well, this could mean at least two things. One is that the smell itself of the offering is pleasant, and the other is that it is pleasant that the smell of the offering is being produced. I find the latter interpretation more plausible. First, the notion of God smelling the offering seems clearly metaphorical. God isn't a material being like us, and while I don't know what sorts of senses God has, they probably aren't like ours. Thus, He is likely communicating metaphorically using images we can relate to. Furthermore, the second interpretation places the focus on the purpose the offering--to make peace--rather than the offering itself. So on the second reading, what pleases God about the offering is the relational restoration. It's not like He just wants to smell burning fat and organs, He wants restored relationships. And since that is what the peace offering accomplishes, its smell is pleasing.

If I am right about why the aroma of a peace offering is pleasing, there is also an interesting juxtaposition of pleasant and unpleasant. The process of sacrificing an animal is bloody and dirty, smelly, and disgusting, whereas the outcome is good and pleasant, cleansing, and restoring. It's occurred to me before in reading Deuteronomy that one lesson of the Law might be that once some kind of injustice has been committed, we're already way outside the realm of pleasant solutions even when good outcomes are still possible. I suspect we'll see similar ideas playing out in Leviticus.

Well, I guess that's enough for now! I hope you have a wonderful Christmas Eve, and God bless you, every one!

Leviticus 2: Grain Offerings

Today I will be writing about Leviticus 2, and I will begin by clearing up two small questions that occurred to me while reading. To lay the groundwork, chapter 2 is all about grain offerings, which are called food offerings (firstfruit offerings are also mentioned, but are not the main focus). Essentially, the instructions are to bring fine flour mixed with oil, and frankincense. One may cook the flour with the oil in a number of ways so long as no leavening used. Then, a handful of the offering, called the memorial portion, is burned on the altar and the rest is left for Aaron and his sons. Oh, and the offerings should be seasoned with salt.

Generally speaking I read from the ESV translation of the Bible, and in its rendition of chapter 2 it says that, however the grain offering is prepared, the main ingredient should be fine flour. So I wondered if 'fine' means 'high quality', or 'ground especially thoroughly'. I looked at a few other translations, and the NIV uses the phrase, 'of the finest flour', which strongly suggests the fine means high quality reading. I also don't know much about frankincense. It turns out that it's made from tree sap and smells especially nice when it burns. Also, it is not edible. So (as verses 2 and 16 suggest) all the frankincense would be burned while only a handful of the flour and oil would be burned.

Moving on to more substantive matters, two things struck me about chapter 2. One is that no quantities are specified. There are no instructions given about how much flour, oil, or frankincense to bring, nor any instructions about when or why they are to be brought. Unfortunately, I don't have any deeply insightful thoughts here. My one idea is that chapters 1 and 2 are not laying out burnt offerings and grain offerings as distinct kinds of offerings, but that they define procedures that will be commonly used in other offerings (e.g. sin offerings or peace offerings). That there is a memorial portion of the grain offering could support this reading since there is no mention of what is being commemorated. So we will just have to wait an see if later chapters bear out this interpretation.

The other interesting point is the specification that the portion of the offering for Aaron and his sons is "a most holy part of the Lord's food offering" (v.3,10). Why this clarification? First, it looks like the text is emphasizing that the whole portion is the offering, not just the portion burned on the altar. This strikes me as useful since, even just imagining being there, it seems like it would be easy to think that only the burned portion is the holy offering, not the rest. Interestingly, if one remembers that the whole portion is the offering to the Lord, one is prevented from thinking that one is buying a service from the priests. Of course, they are performing a service, but technically they not taking payment from the offering givers. They are (supposedly) serving others only because God told them to. The Lord receives the whole offering and He is the one who uses some of it to provide for the needs of the priests. Instead of "proper transaction," it's gifts all around. One last thought about the phrase quoted above is that it emphasizes how a thing can be holy even if it is used for mundane purposes. Presumably Aaron and his sons are just going to bake and eat the flour and oil, and it seems natural to me to think that if something can be used in so ordinary a way, then it can't be holy. But evidently not. Even the ordinary can be holy. Perhaps the idea is that, when something is given to the Lord, it is sacred no matter what it is used for, and He can command that it be used for apparently anti-climactic ends.

As always, there is much more to say, but I think that is enough for now. Have a wonderful day, and God bless!

Leviticus 1

Leviticus 1 begins to introduce the sacrificial law, and a couple of interesting things jumped out at me. The first is how gruesome the laws are. For bulls, for instance, one is to bring it to the tent of meeting, lay one's hand on its head, then cut it's head off, splash the drained blood on the sides of the altar, flay it, and burn it. That seems really harsh, especially for something that's doing morally significant work in one's place (chapter 1 seems to be in the context of guilt offerings). In addition to this apparent brutality, a number of procedural requirements seem very arbitrary. For instance, when one is offering a sheep as a burnt offering it has to be killed on the north side of the altar, but only when it's a sheep. Why the north side? Why only for sheep? It's very specific and doesn't obviously symbolize anything. Of course, I might simply be unaware of what the symbolic import is, but I'll set that aside for now.

So I was wondering why the person bringing the offering needs to engage in so much bloody gruesomeness, and why the laws are so particular in a way that is not obviously symbolically or practically useful. About the gruesomeness, my thought is that it could be meant to impress on the offerer the seriousness of what the sacrifice is being offered for--in this case, it seems to be guilt. It is the one offering (say) a bull who has to make a connection with it by laying hands on its head, and then kill it by slitting its throat and letting the blood drain out. One thought is that this is supposed to tell the person who brought the bull just how fortunate he is to have the animal taking the penalty for guilt for him. But you might be thinking, "Aaron, these people lived in an agrarian society. They would have been used to killing animals and probably would not have thought much of it. And even if someone did find it gruesome to sacrifice an animal the first time, what about 50th time? Surely everyone would get used to this kind of thing." And this leads me to my thought about the apparently useless, but very particular, instructions. My thought is that they might be there to curb an inclination toward brutality that might come out of repeatedly killing things sacrificially. I think it is pretty clear that humans can acquire a taste being brutal, and by making sacrifices very particular and very procedural, one might think that this inclination would be curbed. Even if one does not find it remarkable to slaughter an animal in the manner prescribed, hopefully one will at least not come to really enjoy killing that way simply because it is a ritualistic hassle to do so. By making the instructions so exacting, God might be attempting to remind the Israelites that they are performing God's ceremonies for God's purposes.

I'm sure there is much more to say about chapter 1, and much more going on, but I hope you enjoyed my little tidbit on it! Have a wonderful day.

DragonForce

So there is this totally cool band called DragonForce.
http://www.dragonforce.com/df/downloads/dragonforce-media
Now, the coolest thing is that I got to see them in concert yesterday. :D They put on a FANTASTIC show, and their all amazing musicians. Their two lead guitarists in particular are amazing. Interestingly, their bassist is also a fantastic guitar player, but since this band is hogging all the talent in the world he's relegated to playing base. lol Anyway, so that was super cool. Unfortunately, I'm rather tired today since I didn't get back home until about 1AM. Also, the clothes I was wearing smell terrible. lol But yeah, it was super cool though and I'm totally glad I went.

The Owner, Heirron

Update

Hello again, and sorry it's been so long since I've posted anything. I've been feeling somewhat abused by life of late, and have not had a whole lot of time, and therefore haven't thought of posting.

The lake has, of course, opened up by now, and I have seen a couple of boats out already, mostly fishermen. Though reportedly, my mother was a skier in the last week or two, though it may not have been on Waubesa. But on that subject, we now have the pier, and the boat hoists out, which is incredibly exciting! I am simply bouncing with anticipation of things warming up enough to start using the lake again. Way, long, long ago, back in September I think it was, you may recall that I got a new wakeskate and only got to try it once. It has been sitting in the basement ever since just begging to be used. Todd and I are also going to be doing some experimenting with wakeskating behind the fishing boat. That likely means nothing to you, but I thought I'd say it anyway. ;)

I have been keeping up with my fencing, though I have not been able to make it to any competitions in a while, which is too bad, especially since looks like I'm going to have to miss the one coming up on May second. However, I have been taking private lessons for a couple of months now, and I feel like I just made a very significant break-through in my technique. I won't try to describe what it is since it would be hard enough to do in person, and I fear the significance of it would be lost on those who do not fence. For me, however, it was tremendously exciting. :D

I have also had a great many piano events going on recently. Since the beginning of the year, I have been in two masterclasses, one recital, and one competition. Also, in May and early June, I have another competition coming up, my teacher's piano recital, and my very own Senior recital. I don't know if you attended, or remember, Lydia's recital, but this one will be along the same lines, though in a different venue.

There are only a couple of things more that I would like to mention before I go. I just got myself signed up for a missions trip in August. I think it's going to be a great deal of fun, and a spiritually enriching time as well. The other thing I wish to mention, which is entirely unrelated, is that the book, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Robert Lewis Stevenson, is absolutely fantastic. If you haven't already, you should totally read it. :D

So, with all that being said, I shall be signing off, hopefully for a significantly shorter period of time than before. :)

The Owner, Heirron

A Simple Snowflake

That is the title of the latest of my poems. Fortunately, most of the real snowflakes have melted, and despite what you read in the poem I don't mourn the loss one bit. :) I can't wait for summer! Anyway, the poem is pretty self-explanatory as far as meaning goes, though something to think about, what might the snowflakes spoken of in the second stanza symbolize, and how would the effect the meaning of the last two lines? Anyway, enough dithering from me. Here's the poem!


A Simple Snowflake

The day is cold, but I am hot,
For I have shoveled quite a lot.
Though all at once from toil I stop
To watch a snowflake on my mitten drop.
I bend and closer look I take
And instantly my job forsake;
On my mitten all serene
Is beauty like I’ve never seen!
A surging geyser of delight
Tells me, “Jump with all your might!”
But I won’t move
For it would behoove
My rapturous heart at once to break
Should I damage my dear snowflake.

I sit and ponder what I see;
A perfect, shapely symmetry.
I know that every single flake
Is different in its form and make.
But how when they’re so bountiful,
Can each one be so beautiful?
Their beauty is in difference,
And in their difference wonder;
That each one is so much the same
But different from any other.
Yet here’s my snowflake crystalline,
Its symmetry divine.
A spir’d pattern, without a doubt,
Repeated round about.

Finally with gaping jaw
I see a lesson filled with awe:
Beauty is to be unique,
But shapely meaning still to seek.



The Owner, Heirron

Sublime Sleep, or Something Like That

I was tired when I wrote this. 'Nuff said.


Slumber Sweet
Drifting, dreaming, fading away;
A mind that leaves behind the day
Is wafting up while body slumbers
To where time has not its numbers.

High in lofty dreams the mind
Does gleefully its play unwind,
As the body, in sweet repose,
No sign of disturbance shows.

Yet still, in such a restful place,
The mind must sometimes dark things face.
But after turmoil does ensue
Peacefulness the more rings true.

Blessings on your golden sleep,
May’t be always lush and deep.


The Owner, Heirron