This question is done with the perspective of "a sacrifice is something you give up", but the proper understanding of sacrifice is in the name, "to make sacred, to make something set apart for God". Now what would God want you to do with something you set for Him? depends on the context. The burned offerings were meant to be compensations, so nobody had them. The sacrifices that could be eaten by the levites instead in their essence are istances of God using what you gave Him to specifically retribute Levi, but more broadly to establish the proper hierarchy. The priests are in charge of the cult of God, and God reminds this to the israelites by sharing what's His with these people, right in front of the guy that gifted their offering to God. And lastly, God in certain occasions wants to use your gift to share something with you, so the Passover sacrifice and the peace offering are eaten by the offerer himself. It's like being invited to someone's house, bringing a bottle of wine and the host pouring a glass of it for you, it's a sign of friendship and covenant. And Christ's sacrifice is all those things.
Your reasoning from a practical application is spot on, being a share of their inheritance. In a spiritual application they are symbolic of believers who are spiritually sustained because of Christ's sacrifice and will share in His inheritance. Paul along with four other Jews did the Nazarite Vow (Acts 18:18, Acts 21:17-36, Acts 24:17-18) which included a male lamb for a burnt offering, a female lamb as a sin offering and a ram as a peace offering. The burnt offering was not consumed by any person, the sin offering the priests had a share of the meat, and the peace offering was to be shared among the priests and those presenting the peace offering alike. Strikes me as dishonest by Christians who try make excuses for Paul still doing animal sacrifices after the resurrection when the passages quite clearly state Paul (and Jacob) still believed in literal obedience to the Torah, especially for the Jews. What changed was their mindset, they realised it was symbolic and not a means to earn salvation. Now they performed the requirements in faith, trusting God for salvation coupled with a desire to be obedient, rather than the belief of salvation earned through works and a hard heart.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Samson was a Nazarite since birth, he learnt the hard way taking his vow not seriously, but his situation was somewhat different to Paul. But the Jewish custom was to cut one's hair short at the beginning of the vow, first for convenience sake because the vow could last a few years, and second to make it more meaningful when shaving it off at the end of the vow knowing that the full length was to be burnt and it didn't include some length prior to the vow being taken. Paul was doing everything in accordance to Numbers 6.
@@mattburns617 OK, I buy that, but circumcision wasn't a requirement of the Gentiles who became Christian. So, why does Paul criticize Peter for not eating/ socializing with Gentiles when the Torah keeping Pharasees who became Christian showed up ? It's not as black or white as U think.
@@davidjanbaz7728 David, I agree in the greyness of it, but Christianity has this assumption the Law is done away with when it is not. Ezekiel 40 to 48, Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 66 all say after Christ returns there will be a literal temple with priesthood and animal sacrifices. When God said He does not desire animal sacrifices He was not meaning they would be done away with and should not be done, rather He was simply saying their priorities were back to front. Christ had this argument numerous times, especially regarding the Sabbath. The Pharisees had emphasised obeying numerous biblical laws in accordance to their own interpretations, plus copious amounts of their own manmade laws (like washing hands before eating or not being allowed to pluck grain on the Sabbath), over the more important laws such as helping one's neighbour. They had suffocated the life out of the Sabbath whereas God wanted the Sabbath to about relaxing, helping each other and to fellowship with Him. Now regarding circumcision, there is no law in the Torah regarding circumcision for Gentiles unless for certain specific conditions. Paul realised that hence was not enforcing it among the Gentiles. If we read Acts 21:20-25 we find Jacob defending circumcision for the Jews in the diaspora. Circumcision will only be a requirement for a Gentile in the Millennial Reign of Messiah IF they go to visit the sanctuary (Ezekiel 44:9), a very specific condition. That Acts 21 passage is very revealing, Jacob refers to the letter they wrote to the Gentiles back in Acts 15. The four laws mentioned can all be found in Leviticus plus other places in the Torah, one of which is to not eat blood. Christians happily obey that law (because it is spelled out three times in the NT), but why not others such as keeping the Sabbath or not eating pork or commemorating the seven festivals? The NT tells us that to know what sin is we must read the Law of Moses, if we love Christ that we obey His commandments. Nevertheless, see it like this. The Jews are the sign bearers, not Gentiles. Us Gentiles are the audience, we watch the Jews performing the literal requirements of all the laws. We watch because God wants us to look deeper, to understand the laws from a prophetic and spiritual perspective. For example, what does it mean when the Levite priests eat the meat from the sin offering, what is their action symbolic of? The same mindset we apply to water baptism and communion is the same mindset to be applied to the whole of the Law, a symbolic reminder, an act done in faith with gratitude in Messiah's finished work, and not as a means to earn salvation. There are some laws us Gentiles can do, but most we are not called to literally keep, being for the Jews. And you are right, it is not black and white, hence God's mercy is vastly greater than we can imagine hence I do not get pedantic over it with someone who does not share the same interpretation, but the Law of Moses is not done away with. As long as a person is following Christ to the best of their knowledge then they are doing well.
Im happy to be one 💯💪🏾
That's some context for the story of the Levite and Micah in Judges
This question is done with the perspective of "a sacrifice is something you give up", but the proper understanding of sacrifice is in the name, "to make sacred, to make something set apart for God". Now what would God want you to do with something you set for Him? depends on the context. The burned offerings were meant to be compensations, so nobody had them. The sacrifices that could be eaten by the levites instead in their essence are istances of God using what you gave Him to specifically retribute Levi, but more broadly to establish the proper hierarchy. The priests are in charge of the cult of God, and God reminds this to the israelites by sharing what's His with these people, right in front of the guy that gifted their offering to God. And lastly, God in certain occasions wants to use your gift to share something with you, so the Passover sacrifice and the peace offering are eaten by the offerer himself. It's like being invited to someone's house, bringing a bottle of wine and the host pouring a glass of it for you, it's a sign of friendship and covenant. And Christ's sacrifice is all those things.
Love your videos: and this is off topic but a channel called viperkeeper run by a couple that are your doppelgangers .
Who knew!
🤷♂
@@ancientegyptandthebible check it out: I am not kidding ,very similar personality and wife filming.
But you must like Snakes?
Was the book of Leviticus primary written to "deEgyptian" the Israelites? The sexual laws seem very targeted for that purpose.
Doesn't it tell you why in the bits that also say that they can eat the food? I find the question odd as it is plainly explained in the text.
Your reasoning from a practical application is spot on, being a share of their inheritance. In a spiritual application they are symbolic of believers who are spiritually sustained because of Christ's sacrifice and will share in His inheritance. Paul along with four other Jews did the Nazarite Vow (Acts 18:18, Acts 21:17-36, Acts 24:17-18) which included a male lamb for a burnt offering, a female lamb as a sin offering and a ram as a peace offering. The burnt offering was not consumed by any person, the sin offering the priests had a share of the meat, and the peace offering was to be shared among the priests and those presenting the peace offering alike. Strikes me as dishonest by Christians who try make excuses for Paul still doing animal sacrifices after the resurrection when the passages quite clearly state Paul (and Jacob) still believed in literal obedience to the Torah, especially for the Jews. What changed was their mindset, they realised it was symbolic and not a means to earn salvation. Now they performed the requirements in faith, trusting God for salvation coupled with a desire to be obedient, rather than the belief of salvation earned through works and a hard heart.
U don't cut your hair 4 keeping the Nazarite vow : ask Samson how that went!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Samson was a Nazarite since birth, he learnt the hard way taking his vow not seriously, but his situation was somewhat different to Paul. But the Jewish custom was to cut one's hair short at the beginning of the vow, first for convenience sake because the vow could last a few years, and second to make it more meaningful when shaving it off at the end of the vow knowing that the full length was to be burnt and it didn't include some length prior to the vow being taken. Paul was doing everything in accordance to Numbers 6.
@@mattburns617 OK, I buy that, but circumcision wasn't a requirement of the Gentiles who became Christian.
So, why does Paul criticize Peter for not eating/ socializing with Gentiles when the Torah keeping Pharasees who became Christian showed up ?
It's not as black or white as U think.
@@davidjanbaz7728 David, I agree in the greyness of it, but Christianity has this assumption the Law is done away with when it is not. Ezekiel 40 to 48, Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 66 all say after Christ returns there will be a literal temple with priesthood and animal sacrifices. When God said He does not desire animal sacrifices He was not meaning they would be done away with and should not be done, rather He was simply saying their priorities were back to front. Christ had this argument numerous times, especially regarding the Sabbath. The Pharisees had emphasised obeying numerous biblical laws in accordance to their own interpretations, plus copious amounts of their own manmade laws (like washing hands before eating or not being allowed to pluck grain on the Sabbath), over the more important laws such as helping one's neighbour. They had suffocated the life out of the Sabbath whereas God wanted the Sabbath to about relaxing, helping each other and to fellowship with Him. Now regarding circumcision, there is no law in the Torah regarding circumcision for Gentiles unless for certain specific conditions. Paul realised that hence was not enforcing it among the Gentiles. If we read Acts 21:20-25 we find Jacob defending circumcision for the Jews in the diaspora. Circumcision will only be a requirement for a Gentile in the Millennial Reign of Messiah IF they go to visit the sanctuary (Ezekiel 44:9), a very specific condition. That Acts 21 passage is very revealing, Jacob refers to the letter they wrote to the Gentiles back in Acts 15. The four laws mentioned can all be found in Leviticus plus other places in the Torah, one of which is to not eat blood. Christians happily obey that law (because it is spelled out three times in the NT), but why not others such as keeping the Sabbath or not eating pork or commemorating the seven festivals? The NT tells us that to know what sin is we must read the Law of Moses, if we love Christ that we obey His commandments. Nevertheless, see it like this. The Jews are the sign bearers, not Gentiles. Us Gentiles are the audience, we watch the Jews performing the literal requirements of all the laws. We watch because God wants us to look deeper, to understand the laws from a prophetic and spiritual perspective. For example, what does it mean when the Levite priests eat the meat from the sin offering, what is their action symbolic of? The same mindset we apply to water baptism and communion is the same mindset to be applied to the whole of the Law, a symbolic reminder, an act done in faith with gratitude in Messiah's finished work, and not as a means to earn salvation. There are some laws us Gentiles can do, but most we are not called to literally keep, being for the Jews. And you are right, it is not black and white, hence God's mercy is vastly greater than we can imagine hence I do not get pedantic over it with someone who does not share the same interpretation, but the Law of Moses is not done away with. As long as a person is following Christ to the best of their knowledge then they are doing well.
Well said. Bible believers should keep Torah, Yahweh's holy law.
The Levites also didn't do any of the fighting that got the land.
like hand to hand combat?