deja' vu

Leviticus is a tough book. The first 3 chapters simply describe how to perform different sacrifices. There isn't even an explanation why - just blood and fat and flour and oil and a pleasing aroma. Without context (and reading it from a completely different one) it can be difficult to understand or even care about. But, there are some things that seem oddly familiar mixed in.

The first one that jumps out is leaven (yeast). Just a few chapters back, the Israelites were commanded to bake bread without leaven because they would be in such a hurry to leave Egypt that they wouldn't have time to let the bread rise. Now, unleavened bread has become a staple. They are forbidden from offering anything with leaven in it as a sacrifice. We see leaven again in the New Testament. Jesus uses it as a simile for how things (incorrect teaching for example) spreads amongst those who are exposed to it.

Another that catches the eye is salt. The opposite of leaven, the sacrificial instructions say that nothing should be offered up without salt. When Jesus comes back to salt, he says that it is something we all need to be. We are the salt of the earth.

You can't possibly read Leviticus without encountering copious amounts of blood. (This could really catch on with all those Twilight fans.) It is poured out on the altar, splashed on the sides of the altar and even at one point in Exodus sprinkled on the people. Blood is everywhere - but it cannot be ingested. There are copious amounts of blood in the new testament too, most surrounding the sacrifice of Jesus.

His blood was poured out when he was whipped, when they nailed him, when they pushed down the crown of thorns, when his side was pierced. The similarities are undeniable. But at the last supper, Jesus flips it all upside down. He passes around the cup and everyone has their drink. Then he says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." The one thing that was forbidden about blood was to ingest it.

The duplicity of knowing better

Paul writes to the Corinthians that in the past he has told them not to associate with sexually immoral people - but that does not mean the people of the world who sin. If they tried to do that they would have to leave this world.

This is exactly what some Christians try to do. No, not leave the world. They try to stay far away from anyone who they see as a sinner. They hide away, only associating with church people, only listening to church music, only reading church books, watching church movies, attending only church events. Given Paul's rhetorical style, I'm willing to wager he would say they should go the whole way and lock themselves in the church.

Paul writes to help his readers in their understanding, "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolator or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

If you are trying to follow Paul's advice on proper associations, the church may be the most dangerous place to hang out.

A Different Perspective

I can't help but listen. I'm really trying not to. But, one of the boys they're talking about is name George and it is impossible to ignore.

It seems to be a single dad and the manager of a nanny service. They are discussing the situation Dad is having with his nanny (Anne). She wants more money or less hours so she can get another job. That's not a big deal. $50,000 nannies with 401(k)s and benefits is a different world than the one I know, but still not a big deal.

What is a big deal is the role this nanny plays in Patrick and George's lives. She's the one who knows what homework is due, she's the one who plays tennis with them. She's the one they want to go to the lake for the weekend with. She's the one they have a relationship with. She's the one to whom they offer incentives so she won't leave until Pat and George leave for college.

Dad (and the nanny whisperer) know that it is important to have consistency for their kids (plus, "You have to go through the work of finding a new one. You know this is my third?"), but it is not important enough for them to provide it themselves.

I don't know these people and I am sure that I am making gross assumptions, but where is the love here? What will these kids think about having a paid-for role parent? What is truly important for these kids - providing them with everything they want in life and a house big enough to hold it all or providing them with what they need?

Oblivious

"It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms;

but they did not realize it was I who healed them.

I led them with cords of human kindness; with ties of love;

I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them."

There's no such thing as a self-made man.

There are only people who don't acknowledge the help they have received.

Twofold

"Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap the fruit of unfailing love, and break up your unplowed ground; for it is time to seek the Lord, until he comes and showers righteousness on you."

"But you have planted wickedness, you have reaped evil, you have eaten the fruit of deception. Because you have depended on your own strength..."

Sin has twofold consequences. The Lord comes and showers righteousness on us, erasing the cosmic legal punishment we deserve for the things we do wrong. What he doesn't do is erase the physical consequences we face here and now. We we sow sin, we reap pain - for ourselves and for those around us.

Why doesn't God, if he is so all-powerful, erase those physical ramifications of sin too? Why doesn't he just clean up our messes for us? Why doesn't he make the lions lie down with the lambs here and now?

Then what would we do? What would our mission be? Where would we find our joy and fulfillment? Our twofold job is to Love God to address the legal ramifications of our sin and to Love People to help each other deal with the physical ramifications of our own sin and theirs - together.

If we aren't loving people through their tough times, we're missing our mission. If we are depending on our own strength, instead of relying on the God-provided strength of others, we're interfering with their mission.

Caution

So, there was a Riot in Ephesus, fueled by the loss of profits from the sale of Artemis statues because people were leaving the worship of Greek gods to follow Paul's preaching and worship Yahweh. Some of Paul's companions were seized and taken into the public theater, where mass confusion ruled. The crowd of people shouted and screamed, but some of them didn't even know why they were there. It had become a riot for the sake of having a riot.

In the midst of this, Paul wanted to get up and address the crowd. He wanted to let his voice be heard, talk some sense into them, witness to them, preach the good news. He wanted to reason with an angry mob. A mob who had just accosted two of his companions. A mob that didn't even remember why they were there, just that they were angry and shouting.

Heads cooler than Paul's prevailed.

They talked him out of rushing into a bad situation.

Do we always let the same thing happen?

Do we see a situation or a problem and rush in, or do we listen to the council of others?

"I can handle this, I've done it before, just let me try..."

Do we see what we are good at as the solution to every problem?

"I'm really good with this hammer; I bet I can use it to drive in this screw..."