If you were to summarize what Australians are like, how would you do it? How would you explain what Australians are like in a few sentences?
Recently, an Indian Call Centre offered training for its staff. The staff were Indian nationals ringing Australian homes trying to get them to change mobile phone contracts. This is what they were told.
“Just stating the facts, guys. Australia is known as the dumbest continent. Literally, college was unknown there until recently, so speak slowly […] Technologically speaking, they're somewhat backward, as well. The average person's mobile would be no better than, say, a Nokia 3110 classic. Australians drink constantly. If you call on a Friday night, they'll be smashed - every time. Oh, and don't attempt to make small talk with them about their pets, OK? They can be quite touchy about animals.”[1]
Well, there were a few howlers in that lot, weren’t there. But I want to pick up on one thing that the Indian call centre employees were told. Australians are touchy about animals. I think what they are getting at is that Australians are animal lovers. And they are right. Aussies are touchy about animals.
We after all, have an entire row in our supermarkets devoted to pet products. We have mobile pet grooming services. We have pet psychology services.
And some statistics back this up. In 2007, Australians spent $4.7 billion that year on their pets. In 2013, it increased to $6 billion per annum, including $2.2 billion on veterinary care.[2] One story in 2011 reported that Australians spend almost $1500 a year on their pets, outstripping many other average annual household costs, including electricity ($1440), eating out ($1460), alcohol ($1040) and public transport ($260).[3] The Sydney Morning Herald reported in 2013 that ‘Australians spend much more on their pets' health than their own’.[4]
Australians are touchy about animals. Now, about the Indians, we could rightly say it's a case of the ‘pot calling the kettle black’. After all, India is a Hindu country, where cows are sacred and worshipped. In some places its illegal to kill cows. Go to Bombay and I doubt you will find ‘Bombay Beef’, even though we eat it at the North Indian Diner.
Nevertheless, they’ve got a point. Consider these aspects of the new secular Ethics curriculum. Kindies discuss what animals need to live good lives. Years 1 & 2 discuss the differences between wild animals and pets? Is it OK to keep wild animals as pets? Years 3 to 4 discuss ‘is it right to keep animals in zoos’. They discuss whether it may be wrong to harm living things and why. Years 5 & 6 discuss killing animals for food. They discuss ‘Is it morally right to eat animals?’ And they will also discuss the topic: ‘Human Rights: do other animals have them?’ Notice what they say. ‘Do other animals have “human” rights.’ In other words, humans are animals, and are like animals. And to what extent, if any, should human rights be extended to other living creatures? Should animals have human rights?
That is a key part of the ethics curriculum. While of course, the curriculum doesn’t give answers, the very raising of the question gives an indication where they are going. Humans are ‘other animals’. Should we extend human rights to animals, given we are animals also?[5]
I find it interesting that the Ethics curriculum has not introduced the idea of ‘extending human rights to unborn humans’. Why haven’t they raised that issue with the children? After all, we are discussing ideas, we are raising issues, we’re in a free society, aren’t we? It’s all about discussing ideas, isn’t it? So why don’t we have a discussion of that idea, that unborn humans have human rights? ‘Unborn humans’ are ‘human’ after all, which animals are not. I’m sure it could be done in a kid-friendly way, just like the discussion of whether we should eat animals.
But here is why I think the secular Ethics curriculum won’t discuss that idea. They won’t discuss that idea because they have no wish to change the status quo from abortion on demand. A change from abortion on demand is not politically correct, it doesn’t conform to our modern feminist agenda, so we won’t discuss that or raise that. We discuss whether animals have human rights instead, because they have a pro-vegetarian, pro-vegan, and probably pro-buddhist agenda.
Think of the news stories over the last couple of years. It is the ABC that likes to show pictures of Indonesians slaughtering cows – always with the words ‘and a warning that this vision may shock or disturb some viewers.’ And then they say how outrageous it is that Indonesians don’t use Australian methods to kill their meat. It’s Get Up and Animal Liberationists that show the vision to try and get the beef or sheep industry to stop live exporting. And the inner city latte set get up in arms. I was in Newtown for a month studying. At the Vegan Butcher Shop, they had a cute picture of a baby pig like ‘Babe’, and Hugo Weaving’s picture saying ‘stop the killing of cute little pigs’. Of course, they won’t show the realities of abortion to stop abortion. But they want to demand that the Australian Government stop sending food to our neighbours and trading partners because they don’t like the way they kill their cows and their sheep that they bought with their money that they need to feed their people.
It’s Australia that takes Japan to the international court to stop them whaling. ‘What magnificent animals they are’, we say. How dare the Japanese kill them! Well cows and kangaroos are magnificent animals, too. Does that mean we shouldn’t kill them? Or is it just because whales are big? I can understand it if whales are endangered and the issue is one of management. But the argument based on ‘magnificence’ is not one based on the species being endangered. It is based on magnificence. But many animals are magnificent. Rabbits and Cane Toads are magnificent, especially how they populate and survive. Recently foxes were classed as pests. And they are. But they are also magnificent. What about the AIDS virus? Does the AIDS virus have a right to life? No? Why? Because we rightly consider humans more valuable than the AIDS virus. But I’m sure the AIDS virus has many wonderful qualities as a biological organism. So are we ‘size-ist’? If a life form is really small, do we think it’s OK to exterminate it, but not a big one, like a whale?
The fact is, that all people somewhere decide that human lives are more valuable than other lives, whether it is the AIDS virus, or the rabbit or cane toad plagues, or animals that we eat.
I have a friend who is second generation Chinese. He says the Chinese have a food law. ‘If it has four legs, with its back to heaven, you may eat it’, dog, cat, pig, whatever.
Of course, the only consistent position, if all this is correct, is vegetarianism. Don’t eat any meat at all. In fact, if you shouldn’t use animals, neither should you use animal products. You need to be vegan. No leather shoes, no gelatine, no eggs, no milk.
And it was in this world, in a world of animal exploitation and death, that Jesus sent a host of demons into 2000 pigs so that the pigs drowned, and bogged up a local waterway, because one man’s life was worth more than 2000 pigs. It was Jesus who was speciesist, when he says to his disciples ‘you are worth more than many sparrows’. It is Jesus the animal eater, who Jesus ate the Passover lamb and who frequently feasted with other meat eaters on meat and fish. It was Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, God in the Flesh, who made every animal that ever lived, who said to the Apostle Peter in a dream, as the picnic blanket with all kinds of shrimp and lobster and prawns and crocodile and snake and pig and sheep and whatever else, it was the risen Lord Jesus Christ who said, ‘Get up Peter, Kill and eat’. So I am no vegetarian. Pass the meat!
Christianity says good management, yes. The bible says that the earth is precious because God made it, as well as a good gift for us to use. The bible teaches us not to waste, and that a righteous man looks after the needs of his animals, and that we mustn’t be greedy. But when all this is said, the bible also says, ‘Eat whatever meat is sold in the market without raising questions of conscience, for the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it'. It says, ‘Get up Peter, Kill and eat’.
In our squeamishness, in our inability to look at the reality of life in this world of death, in our desire to hide ourselves from animal death, so that we don’t have to see death, smell death, touch death, did you know that we still cannot stop death? We cannot stop animal death. Making a decision that no human will ever kill an animal won’t stop the problem of blood and guts and gore and death. For the real problem is still suffering and death. If we take humans out of the picture, animals still die. Every animal still dies a horrible death. It is a well known maxim of natural history that ‘it is red in tooth and claw’[6]. The law of the wild is not, ‘wow, isn’t it civilized out there’. It is ‘eat or be eaten’.
Have you ever thought about what happens to the bodies of dead animals? Here is the answer of science:
‘What must be stated, before anything else, is that the majority of animals find their final resting places in the stomachs of their enemies; the unchanging rule of eat or be eaten runs like an imperative through the natural history of the entire animal kingdom.’[7]
If it’s not you that eats the cow or sheep, it will be the foxes, the beetles, the rats, the flies, the worms, the ants, and the carrion birds. It all gets eaten, anyway. Animals don’t bury each other. Animals don’t cremate other animals. Where they fall, the scavengers slice, dice, cut up, carry away, and eat. Death and decay still happens.
But we don’t want to look at it in polite, civilized society, in the city. We get the vet to do a nice injection to put the dog to sleep, and cleanly dispose of the body. We get the council to take away road kill. We hide the abattoirs across the blue mountains, keeping death and blood and guts at a safe distance from us. And we don’t see what happens. Death and blood and those terrible smells are all kept away from us by the nice professionals in white coats, and the underpaid blue-collar labourers in our abbatoirs.
It’s been good for me to go for a walk around Silverdale or Mulgoa and I smell the putrifying flesh of roadkill. Why is it good? Because that is the reality of our world. Modern refrigeration and supermarket shopping has hidden all this from our sensitive eyes and soft hands. And we just take nicely pre-packaged and weighed out cuts of meat for granted, not realizing that behind every package of meat stands an abbatoir with humans killing animals, skinning them, draining their blood, and chopping them up. And by doing all this, those people aren’t doing anything wrong. They are doing what is good and righteous and fair and just. They are serving us.
Friends, the ancient Israelite didn’t have the luxury of being squeamish. Israel saw death, including animal death, all the time. And if it wasn't there for them to see, God shoved it in their face in Israel's worship.
In the bible, animals died directly as a result of human sin. For we read in the book of Genesis that after the first humans sinned against God, God gave Adam and Eve garments of skin to clothe them (Genesis 3:21). Abel offered animal sacrifice, as did Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Moses offered animal sacrifice in the book of Exodus. The Passover ritual involved the shedding of the blood of a lamb. And now, in the third book of the Bible, in Leviticus, God will command animal slaughter, blood shed, skinning the animal, butchery, slicing and dicing of the meat of certain animals, as part of the way his people are to approach him. The animal sacrifice is given by God to Israel to deal with the problem of human sin.
Today we start our nine-week series on the Book of Leviticus. In my time here, we’ve looked together at Genesis and Exodus. Now we get to Leviticus.
We saw in Genesis 3 that humanity rebelled against God. And that rebellion led to disaster for humanity. In Exodus, God rescues his people, the nation of Israel, from slavery in Egypt. God gives them his laws at Mount Sinai, summarized in the ten commandments. God gets his people to build the tabernacle, a small, but very ornate tent, with two rooms, made of gold, silver and fine fabrics. Symbolically it was King Yahweh’s residence among his people, with an outer courtyard for the priests, who are God’s bodyguards. The bronze altar is really an outdoor bronze BBQ for cooking and burning meat.
God promised to dwell above the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. The Ark was not Noah’s Ark. It was a gold box or chest that contained most importantly the two stone tablets on which the ten commandments were stored. God’s people will dwell near God. And the book of Exodus finishes with the glory of the Lord filling the tabernacle.
But there is a problem. Israel are just like Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. And their sin wasn’t just a once off. Israel kept on disobeying God. They are special, because God has chosen them out of his grace. But they are sinful, because sinful is as sinful does. And they just keep sinning. They are just like you and me, sinful to the core.
So how can this sinful people, Israel, come near to the holy God and great King, Yahweh, that now lives in their midst? What is the etiquette you need to follow to come into God’s presence? What are the rules of meeting royalty in the Old Testament? That’s what Leviticus is about. Leviticus tells us the rules of engagement of approaching the Holy God.
We understand there are rules when you approach special people, like royalty. Imagine if the Queen were to come to church. It could happen. Two weeks ago her grandson visited the Cathedral, so it’s possible.
Unless you are the Queen Mother, and she died in 2002, if the queen comes into this building, we should all stand in her presence, until she sits down. We should all be appropriately dressed, modest dresses for the ladies. Ladies you can keep your hats on, but gentlemen, your hats should be taken off. Don’t introduce yourself. Don’t offer a handshake or speak, unless you are spoken to. The Queen takes the lead in everything. If Her Majesty approaches you, ladies, you can curtsey. Gentlemen, you can bow from the neck. The Queen quite appreciates this. But none of us must touch the Queen, or any member of the royal family. Do not touch the royal person, like Paul Keating did. The Queen offers a handshake if she wishes, you do not offer your hand. If the Queen offers you her hand, you should lightly take it in your right hand, but do not shake it up and down, and don’t take it with both hands. You hold Her Majesty’s hand lightly and promptly let go when she withdraws it. It is to be a short and delicate handshake. We can have training after the service if you need practical demonstrations.
The correct form of address is ‘Your Majesty’, and after that, it is Mam, as in ‘jam’, not Marm, as in ‘calm’. No one else should be called ‘Your Majesty’, only the queen. If Prince Phillip or Prince Charles joins her, we are to call each of them, ‘Your Royal Highness’. If the Queen speaks to you, you are to politely answer. You must not change the subject. You can initiate only to say ‘Is Your Majesty enjoying the weather?’ You must not ask about her personal life, or other members of the royal family, or politics, or anything controversial. It is not the time to crack jokes. And when she leaves you, you can say ‘Thank you, Your Majesty’. There are the rules of engagement of coming into the presence of the Queen of Australia.[8]
Michael Fagan did not listen to any of this. As a 32 year old, in 1982, with some experience in break-and-enters, Fagan climbed the 14 foot palace wall, shinnied up a drainpipe, and went in a window. After viewing the paintings, he entered the Queen’s bedroom. It was quarter past seven in the morning. The Queen was disturbed as he peered behind the curtains into her four-poster bed. The Queen was in her nightie, and she immediately left and called for security. That wasn’t the first time Fagan broke in. He had done so undetected a month before, trying out the royal thrones, drinking half a bottle of wine.[9]
The British public were outraged. You don’t just plop down on the Queen’s bed, and say, ‘Hi Lizzy, let’s have a chat’.
And if you should not come before Queen Elizabeth any way you like, neither should you come before God the way you like. You come to God the way He says. And the way God says to come to him, as revealed in the New Testament is to come through Christ, through his blood, through his sacrifice on the cross. And the way God said Israel was to come to him in the Old Testament was through the blood of bulls and goats.
And that’s where the book of Leviticus comes in. Leviticus shows us, the sinful New Testament people of God, how the sinful Old Testament people of God came before him. A sinful people cannot come into the presence of a holy God how they like. You cannot come into God’s presence empty handed, without your sacrifice. You must bring your sacrifice with you when you come to God, because of your sin. For God is a holy God.
But for a squeamish people like us, the first five chapters of Leviticus are pretty shocking. They require the ABC’s advisory, ‘and a warning, some scenes viewers may find disturbing’. For sinners to come before God demands messy, bloody, sacrificial death. In the very first verses of this book, God says he wants dead animals and blood. Leviticus chapter 1 verses 2 to 5.
When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock. 3 "`If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting so that it will be acceptable to the LORD. 4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. 5 He[the worshipper] is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. (NIV)
Leviticus chapter 1 outlines the process for one of the types of animal sacrifice, the ‘whole burnt offering’.
If you are an Old Testament believer in God, a member of Israel, and you worship God, and you want to show God you love Him, this is what you do. You worship God by slaughtering an animal in his presence. The worshipper is to bring the best animal of his herd or flock. You can use a bull, a male sheep or goat, or if you’re poor, a bird. It must be a male without defect. It must be a perfect animal, the sort of animal that wins the ‘best in show’ award. The worshipper is to place his hands on his prize animal’s head. So the person symbolically identifies with the animal. The animal will take the place of the worshipper. God will accept that animal on behalf of the sinful human.
The whole things says, ‘You are the sinner, but God will accept the animal’s death instead of yours, to make atonement for you.’
Then the worshipper is to take a large knife and slice the animal’s throat. The bronze altar had horns on it, probably to tie the animal up. So the worshipper slaughters the animal, if it is a bull, sheep or goat.
While the blood spurts out from the fatal neck wound, the priests at this time are very busy. The priests are all dressed in their fine white robes, and white turbans, and if the High Priest is there, he has his beautiful multicoloured robes on, and 12 gemstones on his breastplate, and the gold plate saying ‘Holy to Yahweh’. They’re job at this stage is to catch the blood as it spurts out of the animal’s severed artery. They have bowls made of precious metals for the task. You can imagine they started the day all white. But they finished the day looking like a butcher or surgeon. And after catching the blood, they then spatter it on the sides of the altar.
All this was very expensive. But don’t worry, if you were poor, you could still sacrifice. You might have noticed from the bible reading a sliding scale of sacrificial gifts. If people were rich, they could bring a bull or a ram. But if people were poor, they could provide God with a gift of birds. They can sacrifice a dove or pigeon. God always stipulated a gift that was affordable, but it was still costly… costly for the bird. Leviticus chapter 1 verses 14 to 17:
14 "`If the offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon. 15 The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. 16 He is to remove the crop with its contents and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are. 17 He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. (NIV)
Sacrifice is affordable, but very costly. Birds were everywhere. You could go out and catch a bird for your offering. But God demanded that the bird’s life be violently ended.
When the sacrifice was a pigeon, the priest kills it, rips off its head, rips out its guts, tears it almost in half by the wings, and then burns it. The RSPCA might get upset, but not God. God will accept the sacrifice and God’s anger is turned away from the worshipper. God is pleased with the offering, the aroma goes up from the altar as the animal or bird is burnt up, and it is pleasing to the LORD. The worshipper is accepted by God.
That was how you worshipped God under the Old Covenant. It was not like a modern church service, was it? Imagine the question, ‘You went to church, Oh, how was worship today?’ Oh it was great, we had lots of blood and guts and smells. Old Testament worship was an abattoir, meets butchery, meets barbeque al fresco. If we did this in our churches, we’d have the ABC and the animal liberationists and the vegetarians putting their cameras in here to say how cruel we are. We’d have the Greens getting up in Parliament saying, ‘No one can sell their animals to these people anymore’.
You know, when Jesus was born, his mother and step-father were righteous Israelites. And Jesus had this sacrifice made for him on his birth. As a baby of just six weeks, Jesus had these sacrifices of two young pigeons made for him. Birds were torn open for him. This happened not because Jesus was sinful, but because Jesus was born under the law, and even as an infant, Jesus taking on our responsibility to obey all God’s law he gave Israel.
These Old Testament sacrifices served three purposes.
First, the sacrificial system allowed for atonement. Atonement is the process of reconciling the holy God to sinful humans. Atonement involved restoring the relationship between God and humans after human sin has broken the harmony of that relationship. Sin separates people from God, and sacrifice is required to restore people to a right relationship with God. Sacrifice was necessary to bring forgiveness.
Second, sacrifices were gifts to be given to God. God is rich, and he doesn’t need our gifts. But God graciously receives the gifts of his people. Similarly, the Queen or Princess Kate don’t need our flowers. Both have dozens of servants who could get them much better flowers than any of us could give them. But the Queen and Princess Kate graciously receives flowers from the people who go out to meet them. Likewise, God doesn’t need anything from our hand. But as a mighty King, God is pleased to graciously receive the gifts we bring to him.
The third purpose was fellowship. The sacrificial system was the way people in the Old Covenant had Holy Communion, or the Lord’s Supper. The sacrificial system involved communion between the priests and the people. Part of the sacrificial system was a sacred feast, a holy party, where both priests and restored people would have a holy meal together. It was not just bread and wine, although there were bread and wine offerings. In addition, certain parts of some sacrifices had to be eaten by the offeror and the priest, there, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, in God’s presence. And it wasn’t just a tiny square of bread and sip of wine. It was a feast and a party, that ministered to both body and soul, for the offerer was assured that they were forgiven, and in a right relationship with God.
Sacrifices made atonement, they were gifts given to God, and provided fellowship. That’s the three purposes of the sacrifices.
Now there were five types of sacrifice in Leviticus chapters 1 to 5. And each sacrifice had a slightly different function. The sacrifices operated together, so that a person in coming to the temple to worship God usually offered at least three of these sacrifices in one visit to the tabernacle or temple. We’re not going to read all of chapters 1 to 5, but just flick through it with me.
The first three sacrifices were voluntary, though they were required by human sinfulness. In other words, you didn’t have to do the first three sacrifices if you didn’t want.
In the same way, you don’t have to go and see the Queen, if she ever comes back to Sydney and decides to go for a walk down George Street. But if you did go to the temple or tabernacle, this is how you better come.
And the last two sacrifices, you had to do for specific sins. And when you did them, you then had to do other sacrifices as well, that accompanied them.
Leviticus chapter 1 is about the ‘whole burnt offering’. The NIV calls it the ‘burnt offering’, but it’s better to call it the ‘whole burnt offering’ because the whole thing was burnt up, unlike other sacrifices. It was an atoning sacrifice for dealing with general sinfulness. If you wanted to come before God, you had to sacrifice something for your sinfulness, even if you hadn’t done anything particularly wrong such that you had to offer a sin or guilt offering. This was the ‘whole burnt offering’.[10] As we saw, it had to be a male bull, sheep or goat, or a male bird, if you couldn’t afford a bull, sheep or goat. And the sacrificed animal was completely burnt up on the altar. It was not eaten at all. In this way, the ‘whole burnt offering’ also expressed wholehearted devotion to God, because all of the sacrificed animal was burnt up. None of it was eaten. The priests skinned it and got to keep the skin. But then the priests cut up the animal, washed the pieces, and then burnt it up.
It would be like buying a Farrari, cherry red, glistening and perfect, and then giving it to the Youth Group with crowbars and telling them to destroy it. It was taking a costly thing, and from the human point of view, wasting it. But it was more than that. A Farrari is not alive, but a sheep or bull is. Forgiveness involved bloodshed, the death of an animal. The whole burnt offering taught that sin was costly, and required blood and death to be dealt with.
Even when you weren’t dealing with a particular sin, you still had to deal with your general sinfulness. It was a bit like our general confession, that we say every time we come to church on Sunday. We confess that we are sinful people, though we are not confessing any particular sins. In the same way, the ‘whole burnt offering’ was commanded to be offered every morning and every evening in the temple. That was in addition to when individual Israelites wanted to offer it as a sacrifice.
Leviticus chapter 2 outlines the ‘tribute offering’.[11] The NIV calls it a grain offering, which was part of what was offered, but it’s not a good name to call it, because it doesn’t tell you what this sacrifice was about. A better name is the ‘tribute offering’, because its name in the original means a gift offered by a subject to their great King. A tribute offering might have been given when one nation’s army was beaten by another. The tribute was a token of loyalty to the victorious King by the defeated people.
So in the tribute offering, Israel humbly approached their great King in humility and asked for mercy. The offeror is saying to God, ‘You are the boss, and I’m the vassal, your humble servant. I give you my respect, loyalty, love and obedience.’
The offering itself is of fine flour, which might have been baked into cakes. If it is flour, the priests take a portion, a handful, and put oil, incense and salt on the grain offering. This was the memorial portion, the portion given over to God and burnt up. It is to be burnt up. They are to salt the sacrificed portion. The salt survived the fire, and thus symbolized God’s covenant. God’s word and his promise lasts forever, just like the salt is not destroyed by fire. The memorial portion is to be wholly burnt. It was a pleasing aroma to the LORD.
But the rest of it, the biggest portion, was given to the priests and their families. This was part of the provision for the priests as their pay.
No yeast or honey was to be added to this sacrifice, the tribute offering. This was probably because yeast or honey represented fermentation, and thus death and decay.
What did this ‘tribute offering’ teach the people? What was communicated by this sacrifice?
Now, of course, God doesn’t need food. God has no body that requires feeding. But the tribute offering reminded the people that God was the one who provided everything we need for life.
The sacrifice had cost the worshipper either labour, or money. But it was not beyond anyone’s means to provide. Anyone who had food to eat could provide the tribute. The symbolism said, ‘I am the slave, God is the master. I owe God everything. I will bring God his tribute offering, And I will offer myself again to God, to give him my humble service, such as lies within me.’
It is little Pippin saying to Denethor, Lord of Minas Tirith, whose son Borimir was killed defending him: ‘I offer my service, such as it is, in payment of this debt.’
Sometimes people think that God is there for us. God exists to make our lives better, like an ATM. God is a dispenser of good things on request. God owes me because I’ve condescended to become a Christian.
That is not the way God is. That is not reality. The real God, the God who is there, is the Lord of everything, who could dash us to death in an instant. By his mercy, he keeps us alive. And so we are simply his humble servants, who after we have done everything must say, ‘I am an unworthy servant, I was only doing my duty’.
The old hymn, ‘Praise Him, Praise Him’, got it right: ‘To his feet our tribute bring.’ God doesn’t owe us anything. God doesn’t exist to serve us, but we exist to serve him.
Leviticus chapter 3 outlines what the NIV calls the ‘fellowship offering’, but it is better called the ‘peace offering’.[12] The ‘peace offering’ brought ‘peace’ or ‘wholeness’ to a person. The peace offering brings peace, fellowship and harmony. People keep falling out of fellowship with God because of their sin. They don’t have peace with God because of sin. The peace offering restores peace with God, and re-establishes fellowship with God
It was offered along with the ‘whole burnt offering’ and ‘tribute offering’. This sacrifice was a religious banquet, a party with char-grilled meat, a joyful celebration of forgiveness. The priest celebrated with the worshipper, and they feasted in God’s presence at God’s house.
It could have been a male or female cow or sheep or goat, but it had to be without defect. But unlike the whole burnt offering, the whole animal wasn’t burnt up. Only the fat and certain internal organs of the ‘peace offering’ were burnt up. The fat and specified internal organs were placed on top of the ‘whole burnt offering’ and burnt up.[13] That was offered to God as the pleasing aroma.
Neither fat nor blood were to be eaten by the worshippers. The fat and blood belonged to the LORD. The fat was the richest part of the animal. That belonged to the LORD, and was not to be eaten. And that was probably a good thing too, for the sake of the Priest’s cholesterol. The fat was to be all burnt up and not eaten.
And the blood was not for eating either, it was for atonement, so it was not to be eaten. It was to be splattered on the sides of the altar for atonement.
But once the fat had been given to God, and the blood had been poured out for atonement, peace had been established. And it was time to feast and party with spit roast meat. The priest received the breast as a ‘Wave offering’ before the Lord (Leviticus 7:30, 34), and the right thigh (Leviticus 7:32, 34)
The worshipper, there in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, eats the animal and the priest eats it with the worshipper. It’s kind of a sacred meal, and ritual spit roast. Fellowship with God is symbolized by the worshipper’s fellowship with God’s priest over the roasted meat they are eating.
Isn’t that the appropriate response when somebody repents? Feasting? Celebration? Party?
Jesus says there is more joy in heaven when one sinner repents. We had to celebrate, because my son was dead, and is now alive again, was lost and is now found!
Why do you think Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, and was called a glutton and a drunkard? Because Jesus brought forgiveness, so he partied alot. He was always saying, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven! Whoever has been forgiven much loves much. Daughter, your faith has saved you, go and peace’. And when there is repentance and forgiveness, partying is proper. Feasting is right. Slaughter the fattened calf, because this brother of yours was dead, and now is alive again. So when Zaccheus repented and gave away half his property and offered to pay back 4 times what he had cheated anybody, Jesus partied with him. And the Old Testament priests were supposed to do the same sort of partying with God’s penitent Old Testament people. Once sinfulness had been properly dealt with and forgiven, it was time to party.
The fourth type of sacrifice was used for the specific occasion of unintended sin. This was the ‘sin offering’[14], described in Leviticus chapter 4 and the beginning of chapter 5. This was God’s provision for someone who had unintentionally broken God’s law. That person had to be restored to a right relationship with God. The ‘sin offering’ dealt with not only ethical breaches of the law but also ritual uncleanness in the normal course of life. But this ‘sin offering’ only covered inadvertent sin (Leviticus 4:2ff).
Different ‘sin offerings’ were stipulated for different members of the community. For the High Priest’s unintentional sin, a bull without defect was required, and the same for the whole community unintentionally sinning. For a leader, a male goat was stipulated. For an ordinary Israelite, a female goat or lamb without defect was demanded, or if they cannot afford that, two doves or two young pigeons, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering (Leviticus 5:7). Or even if they can’t afford that, they could offer a small amount of fine flour (Leviticus 5:11). Community or individuals, rich or poor, all had a sin offering appropriate for their means (Leviticus 4, 5:11-13). And the most elaborate and expensive sacrifice was demanded if the High Priest sinned.[15]
Importantly, there were safeguards protecting against ‘intentional accidents’. The priests were not to benefit from their own unintentional sin. Instead of keeping the hide or any of the flesh for the sacrifice for their sins, the priest was to burn it outside the camp. But if the priest offers a ‘sin offering’ on behalf of others, he had to eat that sacrifice.
And Leviticus Chapter 5 tells us what these sacrifices can be used for. You can use the sin offering for not speaking up when you should have, or if you touched an unclean animal or human uncleanness, or if you thoughtlessly take an oath, even if you are unaware of it. Ignorance is no excuse with these sins. If you’ve done it, you are guilty. And you must give a sin offering. But remember, God has made it affordable, though it is costly.
But the most important thing about the sin offering is, it works! The sin offering brings forgiveness. Thus, Chapter 4 verse 20:
In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven. (NIV)
Or chapter 4 verse 26:
In this way the priest will make atonement for the man's sin, and he will be forgiven. (NIV)
Or chapter 4 verse 31:
In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven. (NIV)
God forgives. That is what the sin offering teaches. Whether you bring the animal, the bird, the grain, or the bull, whatever you can afford, when you bring it, and the priest makes atonement, you are forgiven, pardoned, and let off from your sin. God is not going to punish you, like you deserve, for your sins.
The sin offering is all about forgiveness. It is costly, but not costly beyond what the person can afford.
All these animal sacrifices provided a vivid lesson. They taught how serious it was to sin against God. If you had to kill your animal because of your sin, you would never think that you could be good enough for God. You only were still alive because your animal took your punishment in your place.
But these sacrifices also made you realize how merciful God was. God accepted the sacrifice. The atonement is paid and you were forgiven.
And finally, the ‘guilt offering’, is described at the end of chapter 5.[16] Of all the sacrifices, it was probably only this sacrifice which was able to deal with deliberate sin that was confessed and repented of, although it may be that some sins could not be atoned for under the Old Covenant sacrificial system. Sins with a high hand, that is, deliberate covenant breaking sin, it would seem, could not be atoned for by the animal sacrifices. So David says after he had committed adultery and murder, ‘You do not desire sacrifice, or I would bring it […] the sacrifices of God are a broken Spirit, a broken and contrite heart, O Lord, you will not despise’. God had to go beyond the Old Testament law to deal with David’s covenant breaking sin.
Nevertheless, at least some deliberate acts could be atoned for. These were generally property offences where the harm could be measured.
The guilt offering is a debt offering. When we sin against God, we owe God. We are in God’s debt. So the Lord’s prayer says, ‘forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.’ Sin puts us into God’s debt. But this sacrifice is a way of paying back to God, compensating God for the injury we have done to him, and providing restitution. So if a person violates God’s holy things, like tithes or firstfruits, by not paying what they should, they had to compensate God. The sinner had to pay the priest what he owed God plus 20 per cent. There has to be restitution to God. The ram offered gets valued, and the sinner who has defrauded God make restitution to God.
It was also provided for sins like fraud, stealing, lying, extortion, taking lost property, false swearing or perjury. Such sins demanded restitution or reparation, which involved paying back what was taken by the dishonesty to the person from whom it was taken, and also penalty, paying 20% more than what was taken as payment over and above the loss incurred by the sin. Pay back what you took, plus a 20% ‘sin tax’. And then more of a penalty had to be paid, in the sacrificed animal.
Regarding the ‘guilt offering’, the fat again was burnt, but the meat was given to the priest and his male family members to eat.
It is right to make restitution. If you hurt people, you owe them. That is what the guilt offering does. The guilt offering makes restitution to man and God. Our sins make us debtors to God and others. You can only pay back this debt by death.
But the sacrifice also reminded you of God’s grace. God doesn’t need the farm animals. Like our kids wanting stuff and saying that they will pay us back. How will they pay us back? By the pocket money we give them. It is a vivid lesson of grace, but costly grace.
These were the five sacrifices. The first, fourth and fifth, the ‘whole burnt offering’, the ‘sin offering’, and the ‘guilt offering’ emphasized atonement. The first sacrifice, the ‘whole burnt offering’ was for sinfulness in general, and devotion to God. And the fourth and fifth, the ‘sin’ and ‘guilt’ offerings, were for dealing with specific consequences of specific sins. And the other two, the ‘tribute’ offering and the ‘peace’ offering, were given because the other three worked and brought atonement and forgiveness. Because forgiveness and reconciliation had been won, the worshipper could then give God a gift because God is the great King. Because of forgiveness and atonement, the peace offering could be enjoyed, and so assured forgiveness could be celebrated in fellowship with God’s priests and in God’s presence.
These five sacrifices worked together as an interlocking network.[17] No one ever brought just one of these sacrifices. People brought at least three of them if it was a voluntary sacrifice: the whole burnt offering, the tribute offering and the peace offering. Most people at least had to take at least two sheep, or two birds, along with the grain and wine offering, the salt and incense[18], for even the voluntary sacrifices. For other worshippers, those who also had to perform other sacrifices, they might have to bring four (such as the one for unintentional sin, a non voluntary sacrifice required by a particular sin (compare Numbers 7:16-17). Perhaps some worshippers had to bring five. And sometimes, if it was a wealthy person, they had to bring lots more.
So suppose someone thoughtlessly takes an oath. They falsely swear something at a trial, and it becomes known that the have perjured themselves. It would seem that such a person would have to bring all five sacrifices. The ‘sin offering’ dealt with the specific sin of false swearing in its Godward aspect (Leviticus 5:4-5). The particular sin against God needed to be dealt with. For the harm to others caused by their sin, they had to bring the ‘guilt offering’, which ensured restitution was made within the community (Leviticus 6:5). Then the ‘whole burnt offering’ atoned for general sinfulness and healed the breach in the relationship with God, and also expressed total consecration to God. Once the sin was dealt with, the ‘tribute offering’ represented a gift given to royalty. The grain or bread was accompanied by the incense, the salt and the wine offering. And, after all of this had been done properly, and relationship with God and neighbor had been re-established, then the ‘peace offering’ could then celebrate the restoration of communion and fellowship with God and with others. And the priests were there, ministering God’s forgiveness, and assuring the person of God’s love and kindness.[19]
The sacrifices of Leviticus seem strange to us, violent, bloody and messy. But we need to remember that this is the same God with whom we must deal. God is holy. We are still sinful. God still will not tolerate sin. The penalty for sin remains death. And God hasn’t changed his mind since the book of Leviticus. God still has demanded a sacrifice so that we can come into God’s presence. Without sacrifice, we cannot enter God’s presence. As the author to the Hebrews says, ‘Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins’.
The New Testament tells us that Jesus’ death was the sacrifice that answers the pattern of Leviticus. Jesus’ death was exactly the kind of sacrifice that we need.
Jesus’ death is like a diamond that shines from many angles. And Leviticus illuminates for us different aspects of Jesus’ death.
First, Jesus’ sacrifice fulfills the pattern set by the ‘whole burnt offering’. Jesus death in the New Testament is said to purchase us, redeem us, and buy us back. Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Jesus death was our propitiation, the sacrifice of atonement that turned aside God’s anger and wrath from us, by wiping away our sin (Rom 3:21-26). Jesus death was like the ‘whole burnt offering’ in Leviticus. Jesus made atonement for us. In Christ we have the burnt offering.
Second, Jesus offered to God on our behalf a tribute offering. Jesus’ death was an act of humble obedience to God (Philippians 2). Jesus became obedient to death, even death on a cross. Jesus offered perfect loyalty and respect and love and obedience to his Father. In Christ, we have the tribute offering.
Third, in Christ we have the peace offering. Jesus has made peace with his blood shed on the cross. In fact, he is our peace.
Fourth, Jesus death is our sin offering, because Jesus’ death brings forgiveness and pardon. God won’t hold our sins against us. In Jesus, we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins (Ephesians 1:7). Today, as then, the only way our sin can be forgiven is through sacrifice. Our sin incurs a debt with God that can only be repaid with sacrifice. Since 70AD, no one offers these sacrifices that God commanded. The temple has been destroyed, and the sacrifices cannot be offered. So the Jewish people cannot do the vast majority of what God commands them to do in the first five books of Moses. Even our unintentional sins, and the sins we are not aware of, make us unworthy of God’s presence. But in Christ we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. He is the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
Fifth, Jesus death is our guilt offering. Jesus often speaks of cancelling debts (Luke 7:41-42). In the Lord’s prayer, we pray that God would forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who sin against us (Matthew 6:12). We haven’t given God the love and obedience we owe him. And this sin puts us in God’s debt. Through the death of Jesus, our compensation to God is paid. In Isaiah 53:10, Jesus’ death is described as a guilt offering.
What Jesus has done is rich and multifaceted. So what do we need to do? What should our response be?
Leviticus can help us make the appropriate response. We need to lay our hand on the sacrifice. By faith, we need to say to God the Father, ‘Please accept Jesus as a sacrifice on behalf of me.’ We come to God empty handed only because God has provided the sacrifice for us. And that is why we don’t have to sacrifice to God. Jesus has been sacrificed in our place. Jesus sacrifice fulfills the patterns of Leviticus.
Let’s pray.
[1] http://www.news.com.au/national/what-indian-calls-centres-are-really-told-about-australians/story-e6frfkvr-1226100495649
[2] http://www.smh.com.au/money/planning/paws-for-thought-on-pet-care-cost-20130413-2hsad.html#ixzz2sPzzuS5V; http://www.acac.org.au/pdf/PetFactBook_June-6.pdf
[3] http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/australians-spending-up-on-pets/story-e6frfmd9-1226151433811
[4] http://www.smh.com.au/money/planning/paws-for-thought-on-pet-care-cost-20130413-2hsad.html#ixzz2sPzk3TIz
[5] http://www.primaryethics.com.au/K-6curriculum.html
[6] The line comes from Alfred Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A. H. H., 1850, Canto 56 and refers to man
‘Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed’.
'Tooth and claw' was already in use as a phrase denoting wild nature by Tennyson's day; for example, this piece from The Hagerstown Mail, March 1837: "Hereupon, the beasts, enraged at the humbug, fell upon him tooth and claw.": http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/red-in-tooth-and-claw.html
[7] http://www.freewebs.com/ktdykes/kosmosdeadanimals1923.htm
[8] http://www.news.com.au/world/etiquette-the-dos-and-donts-of-meeting-her-maj-queen-elizabeth-ii/story-e6frfkz9-1226381152846) https://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/GreetingamemberofTheRoyalFamily/Overview.aspx
[9] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/michael-fagan-her-nightie-was-one-of-those-liberty-prints-down-to-her-knees-7179547.html
[10] The ‘whole burnt offering’ (Heb ‘olah’ from the verb meaning ‘to go up’ or ‘ascend’, also called ‘holocaust’) was, except for the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, the most important sacrifice at Israelite festivals. The procedure for this sacrifice is described in Leviticus 1 and 6:8-18. The offeror identified with the animal or bird without defect by laying his hands on its head. This was not just a gesture of ownership, but that the victim was a vicarious substitute for the offeror, or the offeror’s sins were symbolically transferred to the animal[10]. He then slaughtered the animal. The priest collected the blood and sprinkled it against the side of the altar. After careful preparation, the priests burned the whole animal completely on the altar (except for the hide, which belonged to the priest: Lev 7:8). Peterson argues that this sacrifice not only made atonement for the offeror but also expressed complete consecration to God. The smoke ascended or ‘went up’ (thus olah) to YHWH as an aroma pleasing to him. The fire on the altar was not to go out, but kept burning continuously, even overnight. The ashes were to be removed to a ceremonially clean place. The priests also offered a ‘whole burnt offering’ of a lamb without blemish each morning and evening (Numbers 28:1-8), and at yearly festivals. See also Peterson, Engaging With God, 38-40.
[11] The ‘grain offering’ (NIV; ESV) is more accurately the ‘tribute offering’ (from the Heb minhâ meaning ‘tribute’ or ‘gift to a superior’; compare LXX doron thusian, ‘gift sacrifice’). It accompanied the ‘whole burnt offering’. The minhâ seems to have been a gift from a vassal to an overlord. Though in Leviticus 2 the minhâ was a grain offering, Abel’s sacrifice in Genesis 4:4 shows that minhâ may also denote a bloody sacrifice. In Leviticus 2, the minhâ was either raw grain or baked bread. While a handful of the grain with incense or the ‘memorial portion’ of the loaves were burned in the fire, the largest part of the minhâ went to the priests, to provide for their families (Leviticus 2:2-3,9-10). These gifts as provision for the priests were equally considered as gifts to God. No yeast was to be added (Leviticus 2:4, 11), probably because yeast or honey represented fermentation, and thus decay and death, which was inappropriate as an offering for YHWH. Moreover, salt was added as a reminder of the covenant (Leviticus 2:13; Numbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5). Salt does not burn but survives the fire intact, and thus was a reminder that YHWH’s covenant endures forever. Because God had no need of food, the ritual of the meal provided for God reminded the offeror that God is the sole giver of human necessities.
[12] The ‘fellowship offering’ (NIV) or more accurately, ‘peace offering’ (ESV: from Heb shelem related to shalôm, meaning ‘peace’ or ‘wholeness’) was usually offered along with the ‘whole burnt offering’ and ‘tribute offering’. This sacrifice was essentially a religious banquet, a joyful celebration where priest and worshipper feasted in God’s presence. It thus was the appropriate response to the restoration of peace, shalôm, that follows once sin had been dealt with. Leviticus 3 and 7:11-36 outlines this sacrifice. The preparation of this sacrifice was similar to that for the ‘whole burnt offering’, but while in the ‘whole burnt offering’ the entire animal was burnt except for the skin, in the ‘peace offering’ only certain internal organs and the fat around them were burnt. These parts were placed on top of the ‘whole burnt offering’ and burnt as an offering to Yahweh. Longman argues that the placing of these items on the ‘whole burnt offering’ shows that atonement preceded peace. Neither fat nor blood were to be eaten. However, the rest of the animal was eaten by the priests and worshippers together, There were three types of ‘peace offerings’: one a ‘thank offering’ offered to thank God for something, another a ‘vow offering’, which accompanied making a vow to Yahweh, and the third, a ‘freewill offering’, just because the offeror wanted to (Leviticus 7:11,16).
[13] The order of ‘whole burnt offering’ and then ‘peace offering’ placed on top of it suggests that atonement and dealing with sin is the foundation of fellowship and peace with God.
[14] The ‘sin offering’ (from the Hebrew verb meaning ‘to miss the mark’ so ‘to sin’) was God’s provision for someone who had broken God’s law to be restored to right relationship with God. The ‘sin offering’ dealt with not only ethical breaches of the law but also ritual uncleanness in the normal course of life such as emissions of semen or menstruation (Leviticus 15:13-15, 28-30).
[15] The High Priest was to slaughter a bull and sprinkle the blood on the inner curtain, the horns of the incense altar, and the rest of the blood was poured at the base of the sacrificial altar (Leviticus 4:5-7). Then the fat was removed and burned on the altar (Leviticus 4:8-10). The rest of the bull, including the hide, was burnt outside the camp in a ceremonially clean place (Leviticus 4:11-12).
[16] From Hebrew asham, meaning ‘guiltiness’ or ‘trespass offering’, described in Leviticus 5:14-6:7, 7:1-10.
[17] As shown in Leviticus 8-9.
[18] The very poor could take a tenth of an Ephah of fine flour for their sin offering.
[19] Peterson, Engaging With God, 39.