Simply Synonyms?
and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. Ephesians 5:2 NASB
Offering/ Sacrifice – Paul does tend to be verbose at times. His Greek is complicated and filled with allusions (typical of a rabbinic midrash). But he chooses his words carefully (guided by the Spirit). That should make us pay attention to apparent repetitions. Why pick two words when one will do? Maybe what Paul has in mind actually can’t be captured in one Greek word. Maybe “offering” and “sacrifice” aren’t the same. And maybe the difference really does make a difference.
“Offering” is the Greek prosphora. Usually this word means an offering without blood as opposed to “sacrifice” (thusia or holokautoma), something wholly consumed by fire. In other words, prosphora would cover wave offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings but not animal sacrifices. Those would be thusia. However, when we look at the Hebrew parallels, we find just a bit more.
“Offering” becomes qorban from the verb qarab. Literally, it means what is brought near. The verb itself makes no distinction concerning what is brought near or how it is brought near. The emphasis is on approaching God and being in His presence. We can think of this Hebrew idea with the simple verb, “to bring.” There is, however, one crucial distinction. The Torah is the only ancient religious document that claims God Himself tells us what to bring and how to bring it. We might be inclined, like all pagan religions, to bring whatever we wish, but this is not the stance of the Torah. God tells us what to do. That is the critical difference. An offering is an offering because it follows God’s instructions.
“Sacrifice” is the Hebrew word zebah. Literally, this verb means “to kill.” By extension, a sacrifice is what is killed. We can see that “sacrifice” applies to only a small selection of what is brought near. We should notice that from a Hebrew perspective, the emphasis falls on the action, not the substance. In Greek, we are directed toward the thing offered or the thing slaughtered. But in Hebrew we are directed toward the act of coming near. The substance is only the means that facilitates the action.
An offering can be a sacrifice but a sacrifice cannot be an offering. And now you know why Paul chose both words to describe the actions of Yeshua. Yeshua’s death was a sacrifice. Given on our behalf, it brought us near. He came into God’s presence and in so doing, ushered us in as well. His living, not His dying, was the offering. But Yeshua was also zebah. He was slaughtered. He brought His blood near and in His death, He was a sacrifice. Both words capture the action of coming near. Each word describes a particular aspect of this cosmic event. Neither the living nor the dying is sufficient in itself. We might consider this when we think about what was really accomplished on the cross. It just might change our view of redemption.
Topical Index: sacrifice, offering, prosphora, thusia, qorban, zebah, Ephesians 5:2
I am feeling rather dense this morning. I have two questions about the following paragraphs:
“An offering can be a sacrifice but a sacrifice cannot be an offering. And now you know why Paul chose both words to describe the actions of Yeshua. Yeshua’s death was an offering. Given on our behalf, it brought us near. He came into God’s presence and in so doing, ushered us in as well. His living, not His dying, was the offering. At the same time, Yeshua was zebah. He was slaughtered. He brought His blood near and in His death, He was a sacrifice.”
Can someone restate and explain the first sentence, please. In what way is an offering possibly also a sacrifice, but a sacrifice unable to be an offering?
AND, Skip, you say at the beginning that Yeshua’s death was an offering, but later you say His life was the offering. Can you (or someone) clarify that part for me, please?
Thanks!
Amanda Y
An offering (something not slaughtered) can become a sacrifice if and when it is killed. But something designated to be slaughtered cannot be an offering since it was intended to be killed from the beginning. Greek makes the distinction. Hebrew doesn’t always make the same distinctions. Paul wanted to capture both ideas. So, Yeshua’s life is an offering. It is offered as a life of perfect obedience. But his death is a sacrifice since it was intended to be a ritual slaughter from the beginning. If I said that his death was an offering, my mistake. I’ll correct that. His life is an offering that later becomes a sacrifice.
OK, I corrected the error. Please read the paragraph again and see if it isn’t clearer now. Sorry.
Ah, better, thank you. 🙂 So, our lives can be offerings, too, when we live them in obedience to Him, I think. Or maybe they are closer to being “living sacrifices” as Paul said (although I wonder if he was thinking of offerings or sacrifices when he wrote those words). Hmmm.
Slowly, slowly, things are getting clearer. Sometimes I think I think too much. That seems rather paradoxical.
Now you have me thinking about this more. I noticed in Hebrew 13:15 that the Greek text uses thusia for “a sacrifice of praise”, but obviously “praise” cannot fulfill the requirement of slaughter. In Romans 12, Paul uses thusia in the phrase “living sacrifice.” That would make sense because the intention was to slaughter the sacrificial object but it lives instead. But the passage in Hebrews doesn’t retain this distinction. So perhaps it isn’t accurate to say that offering and sacrifice are clearly distinguished. Perhaps it is better to say that sacrifice is a smaller subset of the category offering. Not everything that is an offering is a sacrifice but everything that is a sacrifice is an offering. This implies that sacrifices have a voluntary sense to them. At any rate, Yeshua is both offering and sacrifice. The distinction matters in his case since we want to understand his action from both perspectives. But as for the distinction holding in other cases, I am not quite sure now. Comments from anyone else are welcomed.
From shadow to substance: read Hebrews chapter 10.
-this Priest, on the contrary, after offering for sins a single sacrifice of perpetual efficacy, took His seat at G-d’s right hand, (Hebrews 10.12)
This man. This love. one offering. one sacrifice for sins. forever.- Not only by His death, but now by and through His endless life, for Christ is (lest we forget) ‘now’ risen from the dead. We now today, serve a living Savior. One who is able save to the uttermost, (to save completely,) them who come unto G-d by Him, seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7.25)
I think you were right the first time. The context of the passage in Hebrews is about praising Him while bearing REPROACH (His). What do you think that does for our ego? It gets slaughtered, but we also get aligned with YHWH. There’s the intention from the beginning.
Going futher it speaks of DOING GOOD and GIVING, for with such SACRIFICES God is well pleased. (what are some of the “other” sacrifices that are applicable today?) These sacrifices are for the same purpose, to kill the flesh but to allow God to quicken the spirit. God’s word is always in alignment with itself, we just have to sometimes figure out how! As Yeshua said, scripture CANNOT be broken!! 🙂
This makes sense to me because anyone can do good and anyone can give, but God requires such things in the form of self-denying (killing) sacrifice. If it is not done sacrificially, this giving is motivated by some form of self-serving (to feel better, to get attention, to feel superior to others, as in the case of the wealthy in the story of the widow’s mite). Only through God’s restoration of His creation in us can such action be “sacrifice.”
While understanding the offering and sacrificial distinctions may be important (a commitment to Greek particularity?), in its context here the two words are used to describe the way WE are to behave. In it’s broader context, starting at Eph. 4:20, imitating Christ is in contrast to a life of bitterness, anger, rage, stealing, sexual immorality, greed, coarse language, etc.
It’s the self-centered life or a life of offering and sacrifice in imitation of the Messiah. And Sha’ul seems to be of the opinion that right living (Torah) is not an option — even if we are saved by faith.
Ian, right-living (right-relatedness), righteous behavior is not even possible until we come to Christ and confess- “without you- I can do nothing”. We are in agreement with His words “without me-you can do nothing!” As Paul came to the realization “it’s not about me” with his declaration “not I, but Christ”- we too, must come to the same recognition and realization- it is G-d who is working in me- both to will and to do of His good pleasure. We become (and are becoming) the hands and feet of Christ. Energized and empowered with His mind, the mind of Christ and through the leading of the Ruach Hakodesh, our ever present comforter and teacher, we hear and obey “whatsoever things He has said unto us- the instructions of G-d and are becoming Torah observant children of our Abba, pleasing Him in both our attitudes and actions, our beliefs and our behaviors, bringing into captivity (purposefully, intentionally) ever thought to the obedience of Christ, our Master/Teacher/Savior/Shepherd/Blood-Covenant Friend. Christ is all and in you all. We are growing into the Lordship and Leadership of Christ, our Ever Present Help in time of need.
This goes into my “Favorite Word Studies” category. I really love this one…
Skip…I maybe reaching here however as I was reading your comments along with the other posted comments my mind weas brought to John 3 and the visit of Nicodemus. With this can it be that thorugh our belief and acceptace of the life and death of Yeshua we willingly present our lives as both an offering and sacrafice to YHWH to come near to Him (the offering) and die to our own lives (the sacrafice) thus killing the flesh and being born again in the spirit, thus becoming truly “living sacrafices” as we continue to live the offering of our lives to YHWH as we continue to live out our earthly lives by His commands.
Yes?…No?….I told you I maybe reaching…yet I’d rather ask and be wrong then never know and always wonder.
Nicademus’ visit and the exchange between him and Yeshua is one that has intrigued and will always intrigue me. This conversation is a prolgue to the famous John 3:16 statement of Yeshua but I feel is never really given much thought.
As I understand it, korban is about the Creator drawing near to His people. Not the other way around. This I believe is vital for complete perspective. Why?
God visited Israel soon after Sinai to usher them into His promise. They did not recognize their day of visitation. In other words, when the General showed up for inspection of His troops, they were not ready. A glimpse of this readiness is portrayed in Yeshua’s parable of the wise and foolish maidens awaiting the time of the wedding. 50% were not ready when the time came. Entering into the rest requires a readiness.
It seems to me offering and sacrifice prepares us for our Beloved’s presence. He dwells in the sacrifice of praise of His people. His presence is not about the euphoric experiences some might suggest, but it’s about a snap inspection. Instant in season and out if you will. Our LORD is ready to lead us, but are we ready to follow? Readiness is not a matter of the mind or will, but a matter of offering and sacrifice. Before we get excited about taking back the land, we need to be diligent with the offering and sacrifice He has asked for. Otherwise, we make the same mistake and take the same risk as foolish Korah.
Thanks Roderick for rounding that out for us. It’s truly self deception to say that when He “shows up” I’ll do whatever He requires, when we refuse to “do” those things now. It’s always intrigued me that, although the people in the parable were virgins, when they showed up afterwards with oil in hand, they were refused entrance. The door was shut and all the opportunities were given BEFORE the arrival of the Groom. Apparently, virgins can miss the wedding feast on this principle.
Wow! Profound.
Arnella
I think I have an analogy…If I am going to get married, I need to be at the ceremony, voluntarily with a good heart that is open and willing to actively continue that offering daily. I don’t just send my body, I send my will mediated through my body.The offering of all of me, open to him is the only way that the relationship can work; holding back defeats the purpose. As his Ezer Kenedgo, I am designed to be a guide for my husband, however, my “desire” must be set aside, (qorban) to G_d, in order for me to be the type of help that G_d intended. In order for my “offering” to be functional, I must do it G_d’s way and not mine. G_d then uses what I have “contributed” for the good of my husband. The “offering” IS the giving continuously throughout the relationship. The sacrifice is what is “used” or given to G_d for him.
When I married my husband, I had to promise to “dedicate (set aside) the rest of my days to HIS happiness”. If I don’t have the right heart about that, I will become bitter and start to resent what I will begin to see as having to give. I will resent the gift and the recipient, and sometimes even the One who asks me to do it. However, my husband had to promise the same. So MY happiness, MY fulfillment comes through my husband’s offering to G_d and G_d’s provision for me. Similarly the “offering” of myself to G_d makes my husband’s happiness possible. G_d does not demand, and has promised that IF I am willing to “offer” myself to Him, He will more than compensate. He shows us that His way is THE way for fulfillment and IF we want it, we need to invest. Our teshuq is our offering, our bodies, or the material which he uses, is the sacrifice. Hebrew is dynamic; it moves….it’s not Greek….
WOW Cheryl – i want this read at my wedding… ♥
jan
Uhmmm. Very interesting
Arnella
LOL, read Guardian Angel, much more (and better) stuff in there…https://skipmoen.com/products/guardian-angel/