Although He Promised Them a Land Flowing With Honey, God Wanted None of It In Their Sacrifices -- Why?

The Grain or Meal Offering

Leviticus 2:1-16:

This chapter covers the Meal Offering, the second of four main types of offerings God required of the Israelites. Again, there are instructions and requirements to be followed. And there are some key differences between this offering and the first one – the Burnt or total offering, which left, at least in Leviticus chapter 1, nothing for the priests.

Thoughts on the Passage

In the Burnt offering what was being offered was the work of the Creator. In this second offering, the Meal offering, God is to be presented with the work of man – fine flour, mixed with oil and frankincense and made into dough, put on a fire to bake unto the Lord. Chuck Smith goes on to ask, “where did he get the flour?” And of course, the answer is “he had to till the soil, plant the seed, harvest it, thresh it and grind it into flour itself.” So, it is the work of man’s own hands.  Smith does the same with how the oil used here came about.

It is so much the work of man, that in this offering man is giving to God his service, “dedicating the work of [his] hands unto God.”  Thus, this too was a sweet-smelling savor unto the Lord. (Nothing smells better than home-baked bread.)

Some translators may use the word “meat” here rather than the word “meal” or “grain” to refer to these offerings. Robert Jamieson says that “meat” is improper for us today than it did at the time of early English translations. He says, “It was then applied not to ‘flesh’, but ‘food’, generally, and here it is applied to the flour of wheat.”

In verse 11, we read that no leaven and no honey was ever to be included in the mixture of the flour for this dough. Leaven, in Scripture, always represents sin. Leaven causes decay, making things artificially sour. Honey makes things artificially sweet and was also used, according to Guzik, in the pagan sacrifices to idols. God wants us to offer ourselves [and our service to Him] “just as I am”.

On the other hand, salt had to be added every time (verse 13). Salt has the opposite effect of putrefaction (rotting or decaying). It was used as a preservative.

David Guzik points that only a portion of what the offerer brought was offered unto the Lord, the “remainder” (verse 3) went to the priests for their own use in making bread for themselves and their families.

This Meal offering was a “bloodless” sacrifice (unlike the Burnt offering) which God accepted as an expression of thanksgiving, not as an atonement for sin. In what ultimately was an agricultural society, this had special meaning. So, this offering, to me at least, could be thought of the original Thanksgiving practice.

We also note that the Meal offering was to be prepared in one of three ways: in the oven; on a flat griddle; or in a covered pan. But always prepared at home. Guzik sees the symbolism here – the expression of devotion to God begins at home.

Another writer, Harrison (as quoted by Guzik) says the covered pan worked like a modern deep fat fryer and that some authorities suggest the cereal offering cooked in it would look rather like a modern deep-fried donut.

In verse 12 we have the “offering of first-fruits”, a version of the Meal Offering. This was to be offered to the Lord but not burned on the altar. It too had to include salt, which spoke of purity, preservation, and expense.  Our offerings to God should reflect these qualities – offered with a pure heart, sincere and lasting, and costly to us.

The well-known preacher Charles Spurgeon (and some commentators) refer to salt as the ingredient that holds a relationship together. For example, Spurgeon speaks of the ‘covenant of salt’ when he says, “By which was meant that it was an unchangeable, incorruptible covenant, which would endure as salt makes a thing to endure so that it is not liable to putrefy or corrupt.” God wanted our sacrifice to be about our relationships with Him, reminding us of their everlasting quality.

Verse 12 also tells us that first-fruit meal offerings were to be presented differently than grain offerings. First-fruit offerings (be they of the harvest or of the livestock) involved a certain financial and practical risk for the offerer, as there was no guarantee that the harvest or livestock would keep on producing. Yet, they were to go to the Lord. In fact, later in Scripture, in Proverbs 3:9-10 we are told that if we honor the Lord with our first-fruits, he will keep our barns full.

Oil and frankincense were to be added to the grain offering (verse 15) to sweeten the sacrifice and to make it costlier.

Matthew Henry suggests that while there were some offerings that were accompanied by drink offerings, etc., this second chapter of Leviticus focuses on meat-offerings [or grain-offerings] that were offered by themselves, whenever a man had the urge to express his devotion to God. And the first example of that was when Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering (Genesis 4:3).

Henry says this offering served two purposes:

1.     It made it possible for the poor to be involved (vs. the offering of more costly animals).

2.     It was an acknowledgment of the mercy of God to them in their food and a testimony to their dependence upon Him, their thankfulness to Him, and their expectations from Him as their owner and bountiful benefactor.

Matthew Henry also draws our attention to the fact that these ‘green ears’ [of corn] must be dried by the fire. He writes: “If those that are young do God’s work as well as they can, they shall be accepted, though they cannot do it so well as those that are aged and experienced. God makes the best of green ears of corn, and so must we.” Perhaps a call that we recognize youth on our team for God’s service.

The chapter ends by stating that these are offerings “by fire to the Lord”.  Again, Henry says the fire denotes the fervency of spirit which ought to be in all our religious services. “In every good thing, we must be zealously affected. Holy love to God is the fire by which all our offerings must be made; else they are not of a sweet savor to God.”

No one expects us to set up an altar in our homes today, or even in our churches, and make such sacrifices.  Rather God wants us to give Him sacrifices of spiritual devotion, service, trust, and obedience. He wants us to live in a way that has us be ever conscious of what He has done for us through His Son, Jesus Christ, and what we can do in the service of our fellow man.  But in all our deliberations in so doing, the principles God established in these animal and/or meal offerings can still be applied, and must not be ignored, if we want our spiritual sacrifices to be accepted.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Who Slays the Animal and Why Burn All That Good Food When It Could Be Given to the Poor?

Leviticus 1:5-9:

⁵ He shall slay the young bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

⁶ He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces.

⁷ The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 

⁸ Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, the head and the suet over the wood which is on the fire that is on the altar. 

⁹ Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer up in smoke all of it on the altar for a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

Thoughts on the Passage

Notice the first pronoun in verse 5, is “He” and it contains a capital as per normal punctuation with a word starts a sentence. However, some commentators (Matthew Henry among them) think the “He” refers to “the priests”.  Guzik and Jamieson disagree, saying the animal was to be killed by the offerer of the sacrifice and then the priests take over. I’m personally siding with the latter, otherwise what would be the purpose of the next phrase in the text which says, “. . . and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall offer up the blood. . .”?  Further to that, given the purpose of the sacrifice and the parallel implications for us with respect to Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf, it makes sense that the words at the end of the first phrase of the verse, “before the Lord” is really indicative of a sinner freely making this sacrifice “unto the Lord”.

Whenever we make a sacrifice for God, be it a tithe or donation, a service, or an act of worship, it is necessary that we remind ourselves that we are making such an offering “before the Lord”.  Doing so will help us have the right heart for the action we are engaging in.

On the issue, of who did the slaughtering referred to in our text, Guzik writes: “Of course, the priest would assist as necessary, and the priests would do the heavy work of skinning and cutting the animal up. But the one who brought the offering delivered the deathblow. The individual Israelite cut the jugular vein of the bull, in the presence of the priests at the Tabernacle of Meeting. This was a solemn testimony to the need for sacrifice.”

Robert Jamieson does indicate that “in later times” the Levites did do the actual killing.

The blood of the animal, representing its life, was sprinkled on the altar of sacrifice. The rest of the animal (one assumes after it was washed or cleansed of any bodily waste or impurity, was burnt on the altar. This total offering was a sweet aroma before God’s throne. Guzik says this reflects an “I surrender all” attitude. Nothing was held back.

There clearly was an order to how God wanted this and other sacrifices to be carried out. You couldn’t establish your own procedures as many of us do with so many things. (One example that comes to mind is how, often for the sake of time or convenience, churches modify the taking of Communion.) No, offerings at least, had to be made the way God wanted them to be made.

In verse 8, we are told how the priests had to arrange various parts of the offering over the fire.  The reference to “the suet” says Robert Jamieson, is a reference to the fat of the body, especially that about the kidneys.

In verse 9, however, the animal’s inwards and his (remember it was to be a male animal) were to be washed and then offered up in smoke which became the main contributor to the “soothing aroma to the Lord”.

Matthew Henry does raise a most interesting perspective regarding the burning of all this good meat.  It reminds me of how Judas reacted to Mary Magdalene’s washing of Christ’s feet as recorded in John 12. Judas says, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii, and given to poor people?”   Henry writes:

“. . .  the fat (the legs and inwards being first washed), were to be burnt together upon the altar,  ‘But to what purpose,’ would some say, ‘was this waste? Why should all this good meat, which might have been given to the poor, and have served their hungry families for food a great while, be burnt together to ashes?' So was the will of God; and it is not for us to object or to find fault with it. When it was burnt for the honor of God, in obedience to his command, and to signify spiritual blessings, it was really better bestowed, and better answered the end of its creation, than when it was used as food for man. We must never reckon that lost which is laid out for God. The burning of the sacrifice signified the sharp sufferings of Christ, and the devout affections with which, as a holy fire, Christians must offer up themselves their whole spirit, soul, and body, unto God.”

Perhaps it’s time for the church to reconsider how it does certain things as part of our service and worship?  And if the church won’t, at least each of us would be wise to think about anything that we may need to approach or do differently.  God does not require us to kill an animal for Him today – His Son was already sacrificed once and for all. What He wants is us to give Him our hearts and our obedience, freely and totally.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

The Significance of Touching The Animal's Head When Making a Burnt Offering

The Purpose of the Offering

Leviticus 1:1-4:

¹ Then the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, 

² “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock. 

³ If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. 

⁴ He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

Thoughts on the Passage

Because Leviticus is such a detailed instructional manual to God’s people of Israel, the various commentators have a lot to say about it.  Here we will try to keep it at a very high level, sharing only some of the key thoughts and ideas I was able to glean from my own study of the book as well as from some well-known commentators.

As God called out to Moses from the tent of meeting, we know, says David Guzik, that the Tabernacle had been completed and the place of sacrifice was ready. The sacrificial system God wanted could now be implemented in all its detail. Moses once again was to give the people of Israel the word that God shared with him on this matter of bringing their offering of the livestock, herd, and flock.

Robert Jamieson identifies a pattern that seems to show that when “the subject of communication were of a temporal nature, the Levites were excluded; but if it were a spiritual matter, all the tribes were comprehended [or included] under this name [sons of Israel].” So, as much as this is technical instructions as to how to undertake these various offerings, it had a very deep and significant spiritual implication.

This whole idea of sacrifice goes back to the covenant God had made with Israel at Mount Sinai.  It had three major parts: the law (what Israel had to obey), the sacrifice (to provide for their breaking the law), and the choice of blessing or curse (for their history going forward). The sacrificial system was necessary because God knew the law would be broken through sin.

Guzik says the system of sacrifice had its origins in the days of Adam when in Genesis 3:21 we read that God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife. One assumes that an animal had to be sacrificed by God to provide these garments. But that aside, we can for sure agree that it goes back as far as Adam’s sons, Cain and Abel who brought sacrificial offerings to God (Genesis 4) and then later we read of Noah’s offerings (Genesis 8:20,21). So, this was nothing new for the Israelites. And of course, they also observed “sacrifices to gods” all around them when they encountered different nations and cultures. It’s a concept that has been around universally from before the flood.

Therefore, it is possible these instructions were really based on much of what the priests of Israel were doing already wherever sacrifices were made. Now with the Tabernacle completed, the procedures could be formalized as the sacrifice of the people would be done in one place.

Guzik also suggests that offerings must cost the people something as they could only bring animals in their possession which had value, not wild ones.

In verse 3 is described the “burnt” or total offering that involved a male animal (thought to be, with all due respect to the pursuit of equality these days, stronger and thus more valuable) without blemish (no ‘seconds’ or ‘slightly marred goods’ accepted) and offered of one’s free will (indicating God wants our hearts to be freely given to Him).  Israel was not always obedient in this regard, as we read in Malachi 1:8.

Henry then adds the idea that as a total (burnt) offering “no part of it was eaten either by the priests or the offerer. It was designed to propitiate (or appease) the anger of God incurred by original sin, or by particular transgressions, and its entire combustion indicated the self-dedication of the offerer – his whole nature – his body and soul – as necessary to form a sacrifice acceptable to God.”

Matthew Henry, however, further clarifies the meaning here when he points out that “in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female; nor is any natural blemish in the body a bar to our acceptance with God, but only the moral defects and deformities introduced by sin into the soul.” And furthermore, in reference to this being done freely, Henry says, this act “must be done by no other constraint than that of love”.

Henry also sees a parallel in verse 3 in reference to the fact that this offering must be done at the doorway of the Tabernacle, indicating that the offender is “as one unworthy to enter, and acknowledging that there is no admission for a sinner into covenant and communion with God, but by sacrifice; but he must offer it at the tabernacle of the congregation, in token of his communion with the whole church of Israel even in this personal service.”

With reference to the animal being without blemish, Jamieson informs us that the Egyptian priests made a minute inspection of the animal and once declared perfect, a certificate to that effect was fastened to its horns with wax, sealed with the priest’s ring so that no other animal might be substituted.

Verse 4 communicates a key idea in the process. The person making the offering was to put his hand firmly on the head of the animal, and perhaps pause there for a second. This was a clear picture of identification with the sacrificial victim, says Guzik. The guilty human transferred his guilt to the sacrificial victim that would die for the sin of the offerer and offender. Can you see the symbolism foreshadowing what we (those guilty of sin) had to do in transferring our sin onto Christ Jesus (which He took on wilfully) so that He could die in our place? The parallelism is remarkable.

While the Israelite doing this at that time hoped this touching of the animal’s head would make his sacrifice acceptable, we who put our trust in Christ’s sacrifice, know that God has accepted His offering of Himself in our place.

As Guzik says, it wasn’t enough that the victim or animal died. No, the one receiving atonement through the sacrifice had to actively identify himself with the sacrifice. Do you see the implication of that for our own salvation?

Guzik: “The idea behind the Hebrew word for atonement – kophar – is to cover. The idea is that an individual’s sin is covered by the blood of the sacrificial victim. But there is a difference between the Old Testament idea of atonement and the New Testament idea. In the Old Testament, sin is ‘covered over’ until redemption was completed by Jesus on the cross. In the New Testament, sin is done away with - and a true "at-one-ment" was accomplished by Jesus' sacrifice.”

And this is only the beginning of Leviticus. If you found it as fascinating as I did, please stay with us by making sure you have signed to be told when the next blog is published.  Share this with your friends.  And above all, feel free to write to me with comments or questions.  

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.