A couple of weeks ago, after waiting more than a year with much anticipation, I found out that I will have opportunity to travel to Israel with FFOZ in November. As January ’10 rolled around I was informed that a tour was scheduled for this year and that I occupied the eleventh spot on the waiting list for it. In February, the thirty folks who had originally signed up for the tour back in ’08 (which was cancelled for ’09) would be notified. As openings were available those on the waiting list would be informed. After receiving the email that an opening was available for me I found myself laying in bed that night thinking about the opportunity that had come my way. Instead of feeling excited or happy, I was surprised that I actually felt hesitant and a little frightened about it all.
Although I have traveled alone before, I have never yet been outside of North America, or to a country that is considered a high security risk. Perhaps something so long awaited for brings a bit of “numbness” when it finally comes to pass? Instead of mailing in the security deposit right away, I took a few days to think about this decision. Inevitably I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to travel with such an excellent tour. But even after securing my place a real excitement still hasn’t set in. All I can think is that going “outside the camp” of my American country and culture is something that isn’t as easy for me as I may have imagined it would be.
Although my study of Torah has been limited due to the time involved with Pesach cleaning and preparations I did find my curiosity peaked in reading about the sin offering of the anointed Priest in Vayikra this past week (Leviticus 4:3-12). This offering is one of only four in Torah in which the hide, innards, and offal of the sacrifice is burned outside the camp (michutz lamachaneh / מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶ ). Other offerings having this distinction include the sin offering for the entire assembly of Israel (Leviticus 4:13-21), and two offerings on Yom Kippur –the bull as a sin offering for the High Priest and his household, and the goat chosen by lot for HaShem as a sin offering for the people. All offerings burned outside the camp had their blood service performed within the Tabernacle itself, rather than upon the altar of sacrifice in the courtyard.
Apart from the anointed Priest, Leviticus chapter 4 also describes the sin offering for the congregation, for a ruler, and for an individual. Of these four sin offerings the anointed Priest’s is unique in that he is not described as sinning unintentionally, nor is there any mention of atonement or forgiveness in relation to his offering. Unlike the sin of others, the anointed Priest’s sin is described as “bringing guilt upon the people” (v. 3). This most unusual phrase, le-ashmat ha’am (לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם) is interpreted in various ways among the commentators.
Rashbam understands that the anointed Priest brought guilt upon the people by giving incorrect instruction regarding Torah which caused the people to err and sin. [1] Ibn Ezra takes a most literal approach, understanding the Priest’s personal sin to bring guilt upon the people because of his high status. By sinning, the High Priest caused all of Israel to be guilty because he must be free of sin to atone for them through the service of the Tabernacle. Therefore, the High Priest was punished more severely for his sin as alluded to by the omission of atonement and forgiveness in relation to his offering. [2] Ramban goes so far as to say that the High Priest was required to pray and beg of HaShem for forgiveness rather than find it through sacrifice alone. [3] To add to this thinking the Bekhor Shor relates that the High Priest’s guilt when sinning was equivalent to the entire people. [4]
But a most interesting interpretation of le-ashmat ha’am is presented by Sforno who understands that guilt is not placed upon the people by the High Priest’s sin but instead that the people bring guilt to the High Priest by their sin. In Sforno’s view even the people’s inadvertent sins befall the priest on their account. Therefore, instead of understanding that the Priest’s guilt affects the people, it is the people whose guilt is leveled against the priest. [5] If the people do not act appropriately the High Priest bears the blame. This thinking is also presented in Leviticus Rabbah 6:6 which relates that when the High Priest sins, the people are to blame. Sforno finds proof for his interpretation in the fact that Torah does not indicate that the Priest ever realizes his guilt for he is not said to have inadvertently sinned. This is because the sin was not of his doing, but happened to him by the fault of the people. [6]
The commentators also notice the juxtaposition of the anointed Priest’s sin offering with the instructions for the sin offering of the congregation which follows (vv. 13-21). The two are mirror images as both involve a bull sacrifice, blood service within the Tabernacle, and burning of the hide and innards outside the camp. When seeing the Priest bring a sin offering to the Tabernacle the people would be immediately alerted regarding their own sinfulness, for the two go hand in hand. No matter how one interprets the “guilt upon the people” in relation to the Priest’s sin offering, such an offering would always result in discovery of inadvertent sin for the community at large.
With this in mind, my thoughts were drawn to Hebrews 13:10-13;
We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. (Hebrews 13:10-13 ESV)
In Christian commentary, going “outside the camp” as described in the above verses is often understood as a call for the Jews, to whom Hebrews was written, to separate themselves from the community of Israel and abandon Judaism in order to follow Christ [7]. Being “outside the camp” means leaving behind the “Jewish dispensation” [8] and “withdrawing from the earthly Jerusalem and its sanctuary” [9]. Yeshua, who suffered “outside the camp” is understood as one rejected by Israel and no longer part of her community. The reproach that the believer, especially the Jewish believer, must bear is exclusion from the Jewish people. Typically, the symbolism involved in this passage is understood to reflect the Yom Kippur sacrifice of the High Priest whose blood was offered in the Tabernacle and hide burned outside the camp.
Curiously, to burn a sacrifice outside the camp according to Torah instruction was not to leave behind the community of Israel but rather was a means of functioning within the community in order to obtain atonement and forgiveness for sin in specific situations. Although it is true that the offering of the High Priest on Yom Kippur was burned outside the camp, a couple of details seen in Hebrews 13 seem to refer instead to the sin offering of the anointed Priest and corresponding sin offering of the community as given in Leviticus 4.
In v. 13, the author of Hebrews relates that Yeshua suffered outside the camp and that the appropriate response was for the people to go to him there, “bearing his reproach”. This reflects the exact pattern of Leviticus 4:3-21, where the sin offering of the anointed Priest brings “guilt upon the people”. If a sin offering was made by the High Priest with its blood service performed inside the tent, and hide burned outside the camp, the appropriate response of the people would be to offer an exact sacrifice which also would be burned outside the camp. In this way they bore the High Priest’s reproach by going outside the camp to him, as the people’s sacrifice was burned in the very same place of ashes as the High Priest’s sacrifice was.
In considering Yeshua and his sacrifice in relation to his role as High Priest of the heavenly Tabernacle, bringing guilt upon the people who “bore his reproach” could not have been the result of an error in Torah judgment or of personal sin, due to his perfect/sinless life. Instead, Yeshua’s sacrifice, as High Priest, gives witness that the guilt of the people has been placed upon him (cf. 1 Peter 2:24). The appropriate response then within the community of Israel, according to Torah, is to recognize the personal gravity of this situation, and inadvertent sin which has been committed, and follow the lead of the High Priest by seeking atonement and forgiveness for such sin through him.
A second detail pointing to the sin offering of the anointed Priest is found in Hebrews 13:10 that speaks of “an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat”. Classic Christian commentators typically understand the altar here as referring to Yeshua’s sacrifice which those who adhere to the Law of Moses cannot partake of or find benefit from. In the words of Jamieson-Fausset-Brown; “they who serve the Jewish tabernacle have no right to eat our spiritual Gospel meat, namely, the Jewish priests, and those who follow their guidance . . .” [10]
The book of Hebrews was written before the destruction of the Temple, at a time in which the priests were ministering daily within it (cf. Hebrews 10:11). The altar from which the priests had no right to eat was a present reality of the Temple system. No ceremonial portion of meat was ever given to the priests from animals whose blood service occurred inside the Tabernacle. Therefore, the author of Hebrews is merely stating a fact based on Torah in vv. 10-11, that the bodies of animals whose blood was brought into the sanctuary by the High Priest were sacrifices from which no priest had a right to eat. This would include the Yom Kippur offerings (bull for High Priest and goat for HaShem) as well as the sin offering for the anointed Priest and the sin offering for the community, all of which had blood smeared upon the horns of the altar of incense within the Tabernacle. This “altar” (of incense) is the one “from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat”.
However, an additional unique feature of the sin offering of the anointed Priest is found in Leviticus 4:10 in which the removal of the kidneys, liver, and fats of the sacrifice is likened to that of the peace-offering. In Torah the breast and thigh of the peace-offering was given to the priest to eat. Although the sin offering of the anointed Priest was handled in the same manner as the peace-offering there was no portion allotted from it for the High Priest, because its blood service was performed within the Tabernacle. From this association with the peace-offering, Rashi understands that the sin offering of the Priest was the “cornerstone of the entire system of atonement” bringing well-being (or peace) between G-d and man. [11] In like fashion, the author of Hebrews in describing Yeshua’s sacrifice outside the camp, understands it as a means of sanctifying the people, or providing well being in their relationship with HaShem.
. . . . . . . .
Over the years I have personally known numerous people who have traveled to Israel and visited Jerusalem. Although each person has a different story to tell and a different viewpoint regarding the trip at large, one common factor related by all believers is an uncanny sense of peace and well-being when one is in the Land. One lady I know, a devout Christian, described this spiritual phenomenon as “coming home”. Another person explained that they were overwhelmed with a sense of holiness and awe while there. Much different that going “outside the camp” into a strange and foreign environment it would seem that going to Israel is to return to the very camp that Yeshua’s followers were meant to function within all along.
Inevitably, I know myself well enough to realize that my current lack of excitement and thoughts of nagging hesitation regarding my upcoming trip to Israel is nothing more than a defense mechanism. Because I have been involved with two group trips to Israel in the past, both of which fell through last minute, I find myself hopefully cautious about this one, and reluctant to get too excited too early. L-RD willing I will actually make it to Israel this time!
___________________________________________________________________
[1] Rashbam as cited in Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Leviticus), Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA, 2009, p. 22
[2] Ibn Ezra as cited in ibid.
[3] Nachmanides as cited in ibid, pp. 21-22.
[4] Bekhor Shor as cited in ibid, p. 21.
[5] Sforno, as cited in ibid, pp. 21-22.
[6] Ibid.
[7] The Nelson Study Bible (NKJV), Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2101.
[8] Wesley’s Notes on Hebrews 13:13 available at; http://bible.cc/hebrews/13-13.htm
[9] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Hebrews 13:13, ibid.
[10] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Hebrews 13:10 available at; http://bible.cc/hebrews/13-10.htm
[11] Rashi, as cited in Michael Carasik, ibid, p. 23.
