Today's Text - Sacrifice To God!

by Divergent 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • Divergent

    Sunday, August 14

    If she cannot afford a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons.—Lev. 12:8.

    According to the Mosaic Law, the Israelites were to offer specific sacrifices. (Lev. 9:1-4, 15-21) The sacrifices were to be unblemished because they pointed to Jesus’ perfect sacrifice. Moreover, with each type of offering, or sacrifice, a specific procedure was to be followed. For example, consider what was required of the mother of a newborn child. Leviticus 12:6 states: “When the days of her purification for a son or a daughter are completed, she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to the priest.” God’s requirements were specific, but his loving reasonableness shines radiantly in the Law, as shown in today’s text. Though poor, this worshipper was loved and appreciated just as much as the one bringing a more costly offering. w14 11/15 3:11

    10 IMPORTANT points that I thought about:

    1. Read the preceding verses of the text. If the child is a male, the mother would be proclaimed for 7 days. If the child is a female, she will be unclean for 14 days. Who created sexism? God did!

    2. If the child dies after the sacrifice is made, the parents would suffer double loss - that of their child and the value of the offering. God does not provide refunds

    3. God does not accept sacrifices of animals with defects, but allows children to be born with defects. Go figure!

    4. I could never understand why God ordered the killing of animals to be offered up as sacrifices to him. Totally pointless, unloving, and utterly wasteful!

    5. I never understood the need for a ransom sacrifice either. Or for the need of the tree that produced forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden and allowing a powerful spirit creature who has existed for aeons to tempt an immature human couple in the first place!

    6. Adam lost his perfect human body AND his life PERMANENTLY. Jesus sacrificed his human body BUT retained his life. If God requires a commensurate sacrifice, how could this unequal "sacrifice" be deemed equal???

    7. If Jesus's sacrifice has ALREADY been made and the "ransom" PAID, why is human suffering still prolonged unnecessarily???

    8. How meaningful can sacrifices be when they are COMPULSORY and FORCED???

    9. "God's... loving reasonableness shines radiantly in the Law"

    Can't help laughing when I read this. It sounds exactly like something from a North Korean propaganda article praising the "Dear Leader" who is in actual fact a ruthless dictator and tyrant

    10. "Though poor, this worshipper was loved and appreciated just as much as the one bringing a more costly offering"

    TRUE love would mean NOT burdening people to make unnecessary sacrifices which involve the killing of innocent & defenceless creatures!

  • Crazyguy

    How else are the temple priests going to eat? Come on , get with the program.

  • hoser

    You are exactly right crazy guy.

    I don't know why more Jws can't figure that out. The priests demanded the sacrifice so they wouldn't have to work to feed themselves. Lazy

  • Sliced

    Great breakdown of the text- I really appreciated all the points you brought out! ;)

  • EndofMysteries
    Today's Text - Sacrifice To GodThe Governing Body!

    Fixed that for ya! Don't want to confuse people with what the articles are really talking about do we?

  • ambersun

    Totally agree Divergent, especially point 8. For a *loving* God to decide it is a good idea to force people to destroy their most precious possessions for no good reason other than to cause immense suffering and loss, and possibly starvation for that person and their family just to prove how powerful he is, should raise questions in anyone's mind if only they allowed themselves to think about it.

  • darkspilver

    Let's not forget Blondie's summary of this from January last year....

  • jwleaks
    Though poor, this worshipper was loved and appreciated just as much as the one bringing a more costly offering. w14 11/15 3:11

    That's right folks. The JW governing body will take your ice-cream money, even though you are poor, and they will also try to take your inheritance money, the more costly offering made by your dying JW relatives.

  • stuckinarut2

    And of course the GB tell us that the mosaic law is no longer valid, and was replaced when Jesus came.....yet, whenever possible, they will still use sections from the mosaic law to try and prove some modern day point!

    Either it is superseded , or it is not!

  • Scully

    If she cannot afford a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons

    This just occurred to me: How many JWs find that going to conventions or going Door-to-Door™ or Meetings™ take away from opportunities to build a better life/future for themselves? How many would love to get a better education so they can provide for their families more easily? How many have no retirement savings?

    With this scripture in mind, it seems to be acceptable (to Jehovah™, at least) to give Him™ an item of lower value in presenting your sacrifice if you "cannot afford a sheep". This means you have a choice in how much of an offering you give. The ability to "afford" something is subjective. It means that you can have priorities other than whatever you intend to Sacrifice™ to Jehovah™.

    Do you need to work extra shifts so you can save for your vacation or education? Does it mean you have to skip a few Meetings™ to do so?

    Do you want to put away some money from each pay to save for your retirement? Does it mean there is less to put in the Contribution Box™?

    The WTS wants you to think that you shouldn't have priorities other than Preaching™ Door-to-Door™, going to Meetings™ and Conventions™, and putting your hard earned cash in the Contribution Box™. But it's all a choice. You can do/give what you can "afford", once all your other priorities are met.

Share this