Friend at Midnight: Exegetical Summary of Luke 11: 5-13

I.                   INTRODUCTION

            Prayer has been universally observed as a means by which the faithful communicates with higher beings.  In fact, each world religions have their own respective prayer books, which served as guides to the faithful.  For some, prayers are mere incantations that one can simply utter in times of trouble.  On the other hand, some treat prayer as a means of tapping into supernatural powers. 

            From the Christian tradition, Prayer is defined as an offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies (WSC Q.98).  Moreover, Jesus also taught his disciples how to pray.  In doing so, he gave them a pattern prayer, otherwise known as the Lord’s prayer, which serves as a model for his disciples to follow.  This pattern prayer is recorded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.  However, Jesus did not just give a pattern prayer; he likewise provided certain teachings about prayer, and the same is recorded in Luke 11: 5-13.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

            The opening verses of the Gospel of Luke readily shows the purpose for which the gospel was written.  The author deemed it necessary to write an orderly account for Theophilus, so that the latter may have certainty concerning the things he had been taught (Luke 1: 3-4).  The accounts narrated in the gospels were not personally witnessed by the author himself.  These accounts were constructed based from the facts and narrations gathered from the eyewitnesses themselves (Luke 1: 2). 

            According to Darrell Bock, we can assume that Theophilus needed reassurance based from the opening verses of the gospel (Bock 18).  Further, he asserts that Theophilus is a gentile believer who finds himself in a Jewish movement.  Despite its Jewishness, the movement receives persecutions from Jews.  Possibly, he maybe doubting as to whether this new movement belonged to God.  For this reason, the gospel writer explains the claims of this movement by showing God’s plan and the reasons why this new community suffers (ibid).  Moreover, it has also been suggested that even though Theophilus is the intended audience of the gospel account, nevertheless, Gentile Christians were considered to be the gsopel’s implied readers. (Fee and Stuart, 286)  

            A cursory reading of the whole gospel account shows several themes such as God’s plan, God’s faithfulness and Gentile inclusion, as means of giving assurance to Theophilus (Bock, 20).  However, the gospel is not merely intended to give assurance but also to elicit proper responses of faithfulness and perseverance.  In short, the gospel account provides a picture of what a strong Christian is, and how to live in a hostile world (ibid).

LITERARY CONTEXT OF LUKE 11: 5-13

              The story of the Friend at Midnight is part of a bigger narrative context.  This bigger narrative context is the so called Journey to Jerusalem account which comprises of Luke 9: 51 to 19: 44 (Carson and Moo 200).  This narrative unit is dominated by the teachings of Jesus (ibid).  In 9: 51 – 56, it recounts the rejection of Jesus by the Samaritans.  Thereafter, in 9: 57 – 62, Jesus discusses the cost of following him.  In 10: 1-24, Luke reports on the sending of the seventy-two (72) evangelists and their fruitful ministry.  Luke went on to narrate the confrontation that Jesus had with the religious leaders.  In 10: 25-37, we can read the famous parable of the Good Samaritan.  Through this parable, Jesus taught about true love for the neighbour (ibid).  In 10: 38-42, we can also read the famous story of Martha, Mary, and Jesus.  This story shows that Jesus is properly welcomed by listening to what he says (Fee and Stuart, 293).  In the next passage, Luke records the teachings of Jesus about prayer in Luke 11:1-13.

              Moreover, from Luke 9:51 to 11: 13, we can see the prevalence of the theme of discipleship.  According to Fee and Stuart, this unit is aimed at teaching the disciples.  Their negative attitude towards the Samaritans for rejecting Jesus was rebuked and corrected by Jesus through the Parable of the Good Samaritan.  Further, they assert that the story of Mary and Martha shows the proper way of welcoming Jesus, and that is by listening to what he says. Then, Jesus gave the disciples instructions on Prayer (ibid).

II.                SITUATIONAL CONTEXT OF LUKE 11: 5-13

            The parable of the Friend at Midnight is a continuation of Jesus’ teachings about Prayer.  In Luke 11: 1, we can see that after Jesus prayed, he was approached and asked by his disciples to teach them how to pray just as John the Baptist taught his disciples.  Then, Jesus taught them a prayer known in Christian tradition as the Lord’s prayer.  This prayer can also be read in the gospel of Matthew.  However, in the Gospel of Matthew, the prayer was taught in the context of a sermon, unlike in Luke 11.  In Luke 11, the prayer was taught in the context of a discourse between Jesus and his disciples.

COMMENTARY:

5 And he said to them, “Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, 6 for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’;

            In the Greek New Testament, verse 5 begins with the phrase “kai eipen pros autous” which can be translated as, “and he said to them”.  The phrase readily tells us that Jesus was speaking to the same audience with whom he spoke to in verses 1-4.  In other words, right after teaching the Lord’s prayer, Jesus continued to elaborate on the topic of prayer.  In doing so, Jesus narrates the parable of the friend at Midnight.  Jesus began by asking the disciples a hypothetical question (Green 446).  The disciples are then drawn into imagining the scenario that Jesus was narrating to them.  Jesus went on to narrate that there was this man who went to his neighbour, who also happends to be his friend, at midnight and asked from him three loaves of bread.  In verse 6, we can read the reason why he went to his neighbour-friend in the wee hours of the night.  We read that the man had another friend who just arrived from a journey. Now, he is confronted with the dilemma that he has nothing in his house to feed his guest.

            According to Joseph Fitzmeyer, it is a custom among Palestenian travellers to travel by night in order to avoid the heat of the sun.  As such, the arrival of the person to another person’s house is unexpected.  At the same time, the host is culturally expected to grant the guest hospitality when the latter arrives (Fitzmeyer 911).  Moreover, the hospitality covers the guest’s food and lodging (Keener __).  Anent the number of breads requested, Joel Green asserts that three breads are the number of loaves for an evening meal (Green 447).  Since the host does not have any food left in his house, there was urgency on his part to go to his neighbour-friend’s house to borrow for three (3) breads.  With his dilemna, the host did not hesitate to go to the neighbour-friend’s house even if it was already midnight; when people were already supposed to be sleeping.  

7 and he will answer from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything’? 8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence³  he will rise and give him whatever he needs.

            Jesus continues by stating the response of the neighbour-friend.  In his reply, we can see that the neighbour-friend did not address the host as friend.  Initially, we see that the neighbour did not immediately rise from his bed.  He claimed that their door was already shut, and that the children inside the house were already sleeping.  From the reply itself, we can imply that the said neighbour lives in a single room peasant home where the whole family sleeps together on mats (Green 447).  For this reason, if the neighbour would accede to the request of the host, such would mean waking up the entire family (Bock 206). Hence, his reluctance to get up and entertain the request of the host.

            However, the story did not stop in the reluctance of the neighbour-friend.  Jesus said that this neighbour-friend will rise from his bed and grant the host’s petition, not because they are friends but because of the man’s imprudence.  The term imprudence in the original greek is “anaideia”, which literally means “shamelessness”.  However, in other bible translations it is translated as “persistence”.  But for John Nolland, there are no valid reasons to translate the word as “persistence” because there are no evidences from the text itself to translate such the term as “persistence” (Nolland 625).  Nolland also notes that the term “aidws”, from which the term “anaideia” came from, refers to both a sense of shame and actual shame or scandal (ibid 626).  With a negative prefix added to the term “aidws”, we can say that Luke intended the term “anaideia” to mean “shamelessness” (ibid).  In short, the neighbour-friend will grant the host’s petition due to the scandalous circumstances under which the petition was made.  Hospitality, according to Joel Green, involves not only individuals but the whole community (Green 448).  Again, the possible failure of the neighbour-friend to give assistance may reach the entire community, since showing hospitality is a communal obligation.  A bad report can place the neighbour-friend in a bad light and humiliation if he fails to provide assistance (Keener ___).

            In short, Jesus is telling his disciples that the demands of friendship suffice to secure a favourable decision from whom the petition is made.  However, there are instances in which friendship may not be a strong reason to provide a positive grant for a request.  Nonetheless, the request will still be granted due to the possible shame that the person maybe placed, if one did not provide any assistance (Green 448).

9 And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.   

            After narrating the parable of the Friend at Midnight, Jesus goes on to tell an encouragement to his disciples.  The opening line of verse 9 says “kagw umivn legw”, which means “I myself am telling you”, shows a consequential connection between the parable and the subsequent words of Jesus (Green 449).  In this verse, we can see that Jesus is encouraging the disciples to venture to ask, seek, and knock because of what they heard in the parable of the Friend at Midnight.  According to Nolland, it is a venture for asking for something that another may be able to provide, seeking for what has been lost or whose location is initially unknown for some other reason, and knocking on a door to gain admission to a building.  He further notes that this venture may even be a venture of risk (Nolland 629).  Though a venture of risk, verse 10 provides for the success of such venture (ibid 630).

            For Fitzmeyer, these verses are examples of the so-called theological passive paradigm (Fitzmeyer 915).  In a theological passive paradigm/construction, God is believed to be the responding party.  In other words, Jesus is telling his disciples that they can come to God with boldness and present their request, because surely God will respond to their prayers.

11 What father among you, if his son asks for⁴  a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12 or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

            To give further encouragement for his disciples to venture into praying to the Lord, and expect a reply from God, Jesus gave a similitude to highlight his point (Nolland 629).  This similitude is base from the daily experience of his disciples.  Jesus pointed that since earthly fathers know how to provide good things to their children, how much more for God who is good.  It is worthy to note that Jesus went back to the imagery of God as father just like he presented him in Luke 11: 1-4.   In fact, Jesus not only depicted God as good, he also described him as magnanimous or generous in that God will not only provide for his children, but He can also give them the greatest possible gift, which is the His Spirit/ Holy Spirit (Ibid 630).

III.             THEOLOGICAL POINT/S OF LUKE 11: 5-13

The point of the passage is to encourage the disciples to trust God and be bold in their prayers.  They can come to the Lord with the expectation that God will not ignore their prayers.  God being their good father will not ignore them but respond to their petitions.  In doing so, God is not responding out of shame but out of His goodness and generosity.  This passage is not a blank check promise but an assurance that what we received from God are things which are good (Bock 207).  Though I personally disagree with Fitzmeyer that verses 9-10 are in the theological passives tense, nonetheless, it is clear from the context of the passage that God is the implied respondent.  Furthermore, the verbs ask, seek, and knock are in the present active imperative, and not in aorist passive.

Moreover, it is my personal opinion that the passage is not mainly intended to teach about persistence in prayer.  The term “anaideia” is better translated as shameless audacity than persistence.  Base from the context, we can see the untimeliness of the petition.  The man asked for his needs during the time when it was very unconvenient.  Normally, a person would not disturb another person during midnight.  Nonetheless, the urgency prompted the man to go to his neighbour-friend to ask for help.  Further, there are no indications from the parable that there was progressive or repeated demands from the petitioner.  Hence, we can say that the act of the petitioner is shameless, in the sense that he asked for assistance during an untimely manner.

In the context of the Kingdom of God, God is not just a transcendent King who knows that needs of his people from a distance.  Rather, this King is also our Father with whom we have intimate relationship with.  Having an intimate relationship with God as our Father, we can be assured that He will supply our needs.

IV.             APPLICATION

The passage in this paper is very timely.  Upon submission of this paper, someone dear to my heart is undergoing trials in her life.  I personally shared the verses to her as a form of encouragement that God will respond to our prayers, and that whatever the consequences be, we can be assured that God’s response to our prayers are good in themselves.  With these, I personally feel encourage as well because I feel for this special person.  I feel the weight and burden of her problem.  Yet, this passage encourages me to go to the Lord and present to him my requests.

In addition, this passage tells me that no matter what my petition be, whether it be physical or spiritual need, the Lord will gladly supply them because he is my father in heaven.  The focus is not in the difficulty or impossibility of the requests but the goodness and generosity of God.

Tselem : Image of God

Image of God: a Personal Opinion

            Often than not, we are confronted with the question “how do you describe yourself”?  A typical answer would be, “What you see is what you get”!  It is just another way of saying that one can easily be described by simply observing the way the person live or acts.  Analogically, I could use the same method to describe as to what I believe the image of God is.  I think the image of God in humanity basically means that human beings are God’s reflections on earth.  Just as we see ourselves in the mirror, so humanity is the reflection of God.    We can surmise that we derived our creativity and intelligence from our creator.  In short, humanity has the attributes of its creator to some degree.  Nonetheless, my thesis that man is the “mirror reflection” of God can be examined thoroughly through a word study of the Image of God as used in the Old Testament.

Image of God: a Word Study

            The Hebrew word for image is םצֶלֶ (tselem) which occurred seventeen (17) times in fifteen (15) verses in the Hebrew concordance of the King James Version.[1]   The Hebrew word “tselem” appeared in the following verses: Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 5:3, Genesis 9:6, Numbers 33:52,, 1 Samuel 6:5, 1 Sam 6:11, 2 Kings 11:18, 2 Chronicles 23:17, Psalms 39:6, Psalms 73:20, Ezekiel 7:20, Ezekiel 16:17, Ezekiel 23:14, and Amos 5:26.

Based on the above list of verses, we can derive three (3) different denotations of the term “images” , namely,  shadowing forth in stated in the following verses: Genesis 1:26-27, 5:3, and 9:6; image as illusion or resemblance as stated in Psalms 39:6 and 73:20; and image as referring to an idol as found in the following: Numbers 33:52, 1 Samuel 6:5, 1 Sam 6:11, 2 Kings 11:18, 2 Chronicles 23:17, Ezekiel 7:20, Ezekiel 16:17, Ezekiel 23:14, and Amos 5:26.

Accordingly, the word “image” as used in the old testament may mean different things depending on how the word was used.  It could mean shadowing forth which denotes reflection, similar to a reflection in a mirror or water.  The word could also mean an inanimate object such as illusion or a mere phantom.  Lastly, it could refer to a tangible representative such as an idol.  With these working definitions, we can now address the subject of “image of God”

Image of God : a Word Study

With regard to the phrase “image of God”, we can see that it only occurred in the following verses: Genesis 1:26-27 and 9:6.  In Genesis 1:26-27, the image of God is closely tied up with the concept of dominion.  It should also be noted that though man was described as created in God’s image, nonetheless, in verse 27, women was included in the description as being created in the image of God.  Since the term is related to the concept of dominion, then this phrase may refer to the authority given to both man and woman to God’s representative to subdue and care for creation.  Moreover, Genesis 9:6 where the phrase also occurred, the image of God therein could also refer to the dignity or privileged given to man.

   According to Gordon Wenham, the concept of “image of God”, as widely believed, is either of Egyptian or Mesopotamian origin.  For them, the “image of God” connotes kingly function.[2]  He further elucidates that it was a common to view the king as God’s representative on earth.  However, the old testament democratized the term “image of God” by not limiting such term to royalties/kings, by applied the same to whole humanity, both male and female, as God’s representative.[3]   On the other hand, Stephen Holmes noted that term could also refer to humanities relational nature.  Just as God has a relational life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so are human beings to reflect the relational nature of God.  Moreover, he explained that the fact that both man and woman were described to be an image of God shows that God intends a relationship to occur in their context.[4]

Image of God in Gen. 1:26-27

            In my opinion, the term “image of God” in these verses refers to human beings as God’s representative to be “rulers and managers”[5], and to the fact that they are relational beings.[6]

            In the first part of verse 26, it states that God created man after his own image and likeness.  It went on to say that God gave them “dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”  With these, we can safely assume that the image of God in verse 26 basically involves man’s obligation to manage creation as God providentially cares for it.

            With regard to verse 27, we can see that the term “image of God” is not only limited to man but also to woman.  From this observation, I can say that the term denotes relationship.  I surmise that the fact a woman was created only shows that God intends a communal life, i.e. having an interpersonal relationship with each other.

            Combining both verses, I can conclude that both man and woman are God’s viceroy on earth in caring for creation, and that they shall do so with the help and assistance of one another.

Intimacy and Alienation : A Love-Hate relationship

Between God, Humanity, and Creation

Pre-Fall Scenario:

Intimacy/Love between God and Humanity

            In the opening chapter of Genesis, we can see that a self-sufficient and majestic God created human beings.  The fact that God “formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”[7] figuratively shows the effort on the part of man to create and give life to His creation.  Further, God set a beautiful and fertile garden and placed man therein to live and enjoy.  Within the garden, God and man communes with each other.

Intimacy/ Love Between Humanity and Created Order

            The fact that man was created from dust or ground shows man’s association with the ground.  Moreover, God causes trees to grow in order to provide food and sustenance to man.  He likewise created animals to man’s companion and helper.  As God’s image bearer, it means that man has the obligation to take care of his environment and everything that is within his immediate control.  In short, just as the ground produces food for man, so is man to take care of his environment.  Nonetheless, man lacks a suitable partner, who would also care for him.  The search for a suitable partner was not an easy task.  In effect, the finding of suitable partner for him bears significance on the part of man.

Intimacy/Love Between Man and Woman

            It was not easy to search and present a suitable partner for man.  In order to provide a suitable partner for man, drastic measures were done.  A rib, which is portion near to man’s heart, was taken and from which woman was created.  The closing of the wound pictures the oneness between man and woman.  Also, the presentation of the woman to man by God typifies the handing of a daughter to the man she will be married to.  Moreover, the fact that they were naked and unashamed shows closeness and intimacy as well.

Post-Fall Scenario

 Alienation and Hate Between God and Humanity

            When both man and woman were duped by the serpent into transgressing God’s command, the intimacy that they experienced with God was disrupted.  The serpent caused them to doubt God’s goodness and truthfulness by tempting them to eat and transgress God’s command.  The serpent casted doubt into their hearts by telling them that God was withholding something good and precious from them.  He further misled them into believing that they could be like their creator.  When both of them transgressed, both desired to take the place of their God, thereby declaring autonomy and rebellion against God.

             

Alienation and Hate between Man and Woman

            After their transgression, shame entered into their consciousness.  The intimacy that they enjoyed during their nakedness is now substituted with shame.  This implies that they started to see things differently.  Before they saw the beauty of their nakedness, but now they despise it and hides their nakedness by clothing.  When they were confronted by God, they refused to be accountable and shifted the blame to another.

Alienation and Hate between Humanity and the Created order

            Before, humanity could easily cope up with this environment because of the harmony that they were enjoying.  The ground easily produces food for them.  But now, they have to struggle for survival due to the fact that the ground is now cursed.  It is also ironic that the trees which he previously takes care is now used by them to hide themselves due to their nakedness.

Conclusion:  I can really say that sin has disrupted the order and harmony that we are supposed to currently enjoy.  As such, pains and sufferings have been the norms of life.  Nonetheless, God in his grace and mercy provided redemption through the Lord Jesus Christ.  This redemption not only has a personal effect, but also an effect on creation per se.

           

           

---

[1]   http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6754&t=KJV (last accessed 07/30/2013).

[2]   Gordon Wenham, Genesis, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1992), CD-Rom.

[3]   Ibid.

[4]   Stephen R. Holmes, Dictionary of Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005), p. 319.

[5]   David L. Turner, Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1996), p. 366.

[6]   Ibid.

[7]   Genesis 2:7.

Leviticus 1 on Burn/Whole Offering

Caveat:  This blog post is among the papers submitted by the blogger for his OT1 class.  The blogger does not claim mastery and scholarship on the matter. 

Leviticus 1 (Burn/Whole Offering)

            The first chapter of Leviticus states the procedural requirements for burnt offerings.  In some translations, burnt offerings are translated as whole offerings.  The term burn or whole offering denotes the fact that the offering is entirely burnt.  According to John Hartley, the hebrew word for “whole offering” is often rendered as “holocaust”.[1]

Literary and Historical Context:

The book of Leviticus is a continuation of the book of Exodus.  After the construction of the tabernacle in Exodus 40, we can read at the beginning of Leviticus that God “called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting”.[2] Some holds to the view that the book of Leviticus is part of the priestly material which began in Exodus 25:1 and ends with the book of Numbers 10:10.  It can also been that in the book of Exodus to Numbers, law and history are intertwined with each other.  The book of Leviticus serves as guide for the nation of Israel on how to maintain its relationship with a holy God.[3]

Moreover, when one peruses upon the entire book of Leviticus, one cannot fail to notice that from chapters one to seven, several types of sacrifices or offerings were discussed.  These sacrifices are as follows: burnt offering, grain offering, sin offering, and guilt offering.  When the people of Israel became the people of God by virtue of the Sinai Covenant, these sacrifices which are believed to have been observed since the time of the patriarchs have to be regulated in order to conform to the worship of the one true God of Israel.[4]

Furthermore, the instructions on the different sacrifices preceded the pericope of the consecration of the priest, so that the initial sacrifice would be properly done.[5]

Leviticus 1 as an Apodictic and Sacrificial Law

            Leviticus 1 is an apodictic law as opposed to Casuistic law.  Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart describes apodictic law as “direct commands, generally applicable, telling the Israelites the sorts of things they are supposed to do to fulfil their part of the covenant with God.”[6]  Further, chapter one clearly states what an offerer and priest must do when a burnt offering is presented.

            Likewise, the first chapter is a sacrificial law because it regulates the what, when, and how the sacrifices are to be offered.

  Instructions for Burnt Offering (Leviticus 1:3-17)

            The first two verses of chapter one serves as a general introductory note for the offerings to be presented by the people of Israel.

Among the sacrifices mentioned is the burnt/whole offering.  In the instruction for burnt/whole offering, we can see alternating participation between the offerer and priest.  The offerer should present an offering which may either come from his own herd or flock, which can be a bull, sheep, goat, turtledoves or pigeons as sacrifice.  The primary condition for the sacrifice is that it should be perfect or without any blemish.  Also, the entire sacrifice should be consumed by fire.

Burnt offering from the Herd: Bull sacrifice (v. 3-9)

Participation of the Offerer	Participation of the Priest
Presents a male offering at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (v. 3)
Lay his hand on the head of the offering (v. 4)
Kill the offering (v. 5a)
	Brings the blood and throws it against the sides of the alter located at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (v. 5b)
Flays/skins the offering and cuts it into pieces (v.6)
	Puts fire on the altar and arranges the woods (v.7)
Washes the entrails and legs with water(v. 9a)	Arrange the pieces of the offering: head and fat placed on the wood (v.8)
	Burns all the pieces of sacrifice  (v. 9b)

Burnt offering from the Flock: Sheep or Goat (v. 10-13)

Participation of the Offerer	Participation of the Priest
Presents a male offering without blemish (v. 10)
Kill the offering at the North Side of the Altar (v. 11a)
	Throws the blood of the offering against the sides of the altar (v.11b)
Cuts the offering into pieces (v. 12a)
	Arrange the wood and fire; with the head and fat of the offering on the wood (v. 12b)
Wash the entrail and legs with waters (v.13a)
	Burn all the pieces of the sacrifice (v. 13b)

Burnt offering of Birds: Turtledove or Pigeon

Participation of the Offerer	Participation of the Priest
Present a turtledove or pigeon (v.
	Brings the offer to the altar, and  wrings off the head
	Draws the blood on the side of the altar
	Removes the crop with its contents and case is beside the altar on the east side
	Tears the offer open by its wing, without severing it completely
	Burns the offer on the altar

The type of sacrifice as burnt offering depends upon the choice and social stature of the offerer.  An affluent Israelite can bring a bull, while the middle class Israelite may bring a sheep or goat, and the poor will bring a turtledove or pigeon, as burnt/whole offering.[7]

The offering should not only be without blemish but also that it must be from the male gender.  In ancient Israel, male livestocks are given premium than female livestocks.  In other words, male livestocks are costly on the part offerer when presented as sacrifice.[8]  It can also be seen that the sacrifice should come from one’s herd or flock.

Purpose of Burnt Offering

            Chapter one fails to explicitly mention the purpose behind the sacrifice.  However, some scholars suggest that the purpose of burnt offering is to entreat the deity’s response.[9]  It is a means to approach the Lord with a plea, which may include victory, mercy, forgiveness, purification, or favour.[10]  

            In addition, this type of offering can also be considered as an atonement offering; not for a specific sin, but for the offerer’s general inclination towards sin.  In short, the atonement mentioned in verse 4 denotes a plea for fellowship with God.[11]  Moreover, this offering also denotes worship submission and surrender.[12]

           

Present Day Application

           

In the New Testament, it is stated that we were ransomed by the “precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1Peter 1:19).  As a result thereof, we who had been ransomed should live a life a gratitude in terms of our attitude when we serve, and live our lives in daily worship to God.. 

Just as the offerer of burnt offerings who gave perfect sacrifices, likewise, we should pursue excellence in the things that we do.  The bible says that in whatever we do, we should do it all for the glory of God.  Also, when we work, “we should not work by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord…work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men.” (Col 3:22-24).

Moreover, we should live our lives as an act of daily worship.  The bible says that “…by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” (Romans 12:1)     this can only happen when we

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2).

            May we completely surrender to God in whatever circumstances we are.  God’s acceptance does not depend upon our good works, but by the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb for us.

---

[1]   John E. Hartley, Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1992), CD-Rom.

[2]   Alec Motyer, Roots: Let the Old Testament Speak, ed. John Stott (Scotland, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2009), p. 71.

[3]   Hartley, Leviticus, CD-Rom.

[4]   Ibid.

[5]   Ibid.

[6]   Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Manila, Philippines: OMF Literature), p. 171.

[7]   R. Laird Harris, Leviticus, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan), p. 538.

[8]   Hartley, Leviticus, CD-Rom.

[9]   John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testatment (Quezon City, Philippines: CGM), p.120.

[10]   Ibid.

[11]   Hartley, Leviticus, CD-Rom.

[12]   Harris, Leviticus, p. 538.

The Secret to Better Work and Life is Not Rocket Science

I have to admit that i myself am struggling on how to manage my work, and enjoy life.  In this article, i learned two important factors that we often missed.  These factors are exercise and healthy diet.  I invite you to peruse the article, and see why exercise and health diet are the keys to lessen work stress.
http://www.thehighcalling.org/culture/secret-better-work-and-life-not-rocket-science#.UZ15qaIwe8A

My take on the KC and Piolo Break Up!

Caveat:  These are just my opinion and gleanings that i learned from the said break up.  

Yesterday, KC Concepcion publicly admitted that her one year relationship with actor, Piolo Pascual, has ended. She said that Piolo failed to meet the basic expectations as a boyfriend.  The question needs to be properly qualified.  How basic is the "basic" referred to?  Obviously, the term "basic" is relative.  People may define it one way, while the others may define it in another sense.  Well, for me the basic expectations in a relationship are love and affection.  

Women tend to appreciate things differently from men.  I believe that most men would agree that they have already exerted their efforts to show their love and concern for the woman they love.  The problem is that the way "how" love and affections are expressed are not the ones expected by the woman.  Women has their own way of appreciating things.  Likewise, men would also feel something lacking in their relationship simply because the woman failed to express their love and affections the way their man would want it to be. 

Perhaps, it may be best to know the "love language" of your partner in order to minimize and prevent that feeling of "coldness" in the relationship, which then could lead to the falling out of love.  Furthermore, each partner should already lay their expectations beforehand, so that each party would not be at lost as what is expected of them.  Personally, i have learned this the hard way. 

I even shared to some of my friends, that "practically, it is easier to love the Lord because we know for sure what the Lord expects of his children.  Jesus even said, if you LOVE ME, you will obey my commands.  In other words, we have the Bible to show us and remind us of God's expectations, unlike in a dating or courtship, that each party has to guess what is expected of them."

Ladies, sometimes men needs to be reminded.  Men and Women are "wired" differently.  Sometimes, a checklist could be of help for us to serve as our "guide".

Most of all, all of us, whether men and women, should learn how to forgive.  We should learn how to love sacrificially, just as Christ love His Bride (the elect people) to the point of giving up His life for her.  Christ, our Savior and Lord, serves as our model when it comes to love, especially in loving the unloveable.

As Christians, our Lord expects of us, to "Outdo one another in showing honor." (Romans 12:10b).  May we learn how to love the woman we cherish, and the people around us.

Answered Prayer?!

It has been months since the 2010 bar exam had been released, nevertheless i can still the feeling of victory and relief. It is one my dreams to become a lawyer.  The preparation for the bar was not easy.  Honestly i am a nervous type of person and a perhaps can be described as a low esteem person.  In the first place, entering law school was not even my idea.  I studied law merely because i wanted to honor my parents; to make them proud so that people can look up to us.  It maybe selfish, but when the result came out, with teary eyes, my mom congratulated me.

As i was waiting for the bar exam, i happened to join one of the youth fellowship of QCEC.  During that time, they were watching the film, Amazing Grace: the Life of William Wilberforce.  As the film was being shown, i got inspired of William Wilberforce and eventually uttered a prayer.  In my prayer i told the Lord, "Lord if it is your will, if a pass the bar, use me like william wilberfore who would be an agent of change in the society."

Now that i passed and am a full pledge lawyer, i decided to leave my former work in Quezon City as a Corporate Support Group officer.  I told my girlfriend that i wanted to apply to the   Public Attorney's Office becuase i would like to experience litigation as a lawyer.  However, i got to talked to another christian lawyer friend of mine who suggested IJM for me.  I told my girlfriend about the suggestion given to me and she said that it will depend upon me.  We decided to pray about it together.  The next morning, i contacted my friend who happened to work at IJM.  He did not just replied, he called up.  He told me that he is not connected with IJM anymore since he got appointed to be a prosecutor. He went on to say that they needed a lawyer in their office in DOJ.

I accepted his invitation to join them in DOJ and it has been 3 weeks since i have been working there.  Looking back, is my work in DOJ an answer to my earlier prayer when i was at QCEC?  Only the Gracious Lord knows.  But as for, I will walk by faith and not by sight.