Vayikra 1:1
– 5:26 (Leviticus 1:1 – 6:7)
“He called”
Day 1 – 1:1 – 13 Day 2 – 1:14 – 2:6 Day 3 – 2:7 – 16 Day 4 – 3:1 – 17
Day 5 – 4:1
– 26 Day 6 – 4:27 – 5:10 Shabbat – 5:11 – 26 (6:7)
In looking
over the parashot for this week,
I would
like to concentrate my comments in regards to the first parasha.
In
the closing of last week’s parashot the cloud was covering the tabernacle and
the glory of HaShem filled the tabernacle.
A thought that comes to mind regarding this is that man looks upon the
outward, but HaShem looks upon the inward man (I Sh’mu’el 16:7b). The tabernacle, following its dedication, was
filled within and covered without by the essence of The Holy One. It was holy, and it is no stretch to project
that that holiness within and without was also been evident in Yeshua’s life in
the form of a man as He tabernacled among us.
In
the following verse, Shemot (Exodus) 40:35, we were told that Moshe was unable
to enter the tent of meeting “because the cloud remained on it, and the glory
of Adonai filled the
tabernacle.” It is for that reason that
this week’s readings begin with the following phrasing, “Adonai called to Moshe and spoke to him from the tent of
meeting.” Moshe is no longer able to
meet with HaShem within the tabernacle.
Though the Lord will continue to speak to Moshe, He will do so from
within the tent of meeting, and Moshe will be outside the tent.
This
is similar to what we find in the book of Esther when we are informed that no
one may enter into the presence of the king unless he calls for them. For anyone to enter presumptuously means
certain execution, unless the king holds out his scepter as a sign of
acceptance of the petitioner. Our King
only holds out His scepter on Yom Kippur, and only to one individual per
year. Moshe is not that individual;
Moshe is not the kohen hagadol, the high priest.
What
I find most compelling in this parasha are verses four through nine, though
verses eleven through thirteen are basically a repitition.
Permit
me to go delineate the process of this sacrificial offering as presented
here. The offerer is to place his hand
(singular) upon the head of the animal.
This makes it a acceptable offering for his drawing near to the
Lord.
He
is then to kill the animal. One hand is
upon the animal’s head and the other is slitting the throat in the prescribed
manner. The priests did NOT sacrifice
the animal; the offerer did. After all,
it was for His atonement, His need to be able to draw near to HaShem. What did the priest do? He caught the blood and sprinkled it about
the altar.
Next
the animal was to be flayed, skinned and cut into pieces. As I read verse six, it is the presenter who
is to perform this task. The sons of
Aharon were preparing the altar to receive the gift being presented (vs. 7).
Following this, the priests then took
the parts that had been flayed upon the altar in the proper fashion.
Meanwhile, the “common person” who
brought the free will offering was not done with his task. He still had to wash the legs and the innards
of the animal prior to their having been burnt upon the altar. It seems from a human standpoint that the
question could be asked, “Why wash the inward parts if they are just going to
be burnt to a crisp on the altar anyways?”
My
only response is that the animal, in “representing” us, is to be cleansed
within and without. And with that in
mind, it takes me back to my introductory paragraph regarding the tabernacle. At the same time, it has been revealed to me
that the offering of a bullock or lamb was a messy task, but not a messy as
what our Redeemer went through in order to draw us near to HaShem through the
cleansing of His blood.
I
mentioned earlier that the process dissected above was essentially repeated in
verses eleven through thirteen, and it is.
The only difference in these two is that the first one is in reference
to the sacrifice of a bullock while the second one refers to the offering of a
lamb. Other than the type of animal
involved, the steps of the process are identical.
The
events of Luke 2:41 – 52 come to mind whenever I read this portion, and
specifically verse 42. It is my
understanding (a teaching from Ray Vander Laan, I believe) that when a you man
had been bar-mitzvaed, he had the honor / responsibility of offering the next
Pesach sacrifice at the Temple. I know I
am presuming at this point, but I do not find it unlikely that this selection
in Luke fits this pattern.
So
let’s assume that this is the case.
Yeshua is presenting a sacrifice to HaShem, but it cannot be a sacrifice
for sin, or for His sin anyhow.
Sacrifices were meant as a means of being able to draw near to our
heavenly Father. If a sacrifice, any
animal sacrifice, could be sufficient for the remission for sin(s), there would
then be no need for the willing sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, for an animal
could give us the same result.
This
is an issue that I feel many of our Christian brethren do not comprehend, and
to be honest, neither did I for quite a long time. However, once my eyes and understanding were
opened to this, I had and maintain to this day, a much different view of the
purpose of the sacrificial system.
May His Name be blessed as we read,
attempt to understand, and live His Word.
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment