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.

“Now I Know The Lord Is Greater Than All.” -- Exodus 18:10-12

So Jethro said, “Blessed be the Lord who delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of Pharaoh, and who delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians.  Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the gods; indeed, it was proven when they dealt proudly against the people.”  Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat a meal with Moses’ father-in-law before God.
 

After hearing how God delivered the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt, Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, shares in the joy and goes even one step further – he blesses the Lord and now believes He is greater than “all the gods”.  Now, before we judge Jethro too harshly for his reference to “all the gods” – afterall, wasn’t he Moses’ father-in-law? – let us take a closer look at the Midanites and their religion.

Midianites were descendants of Midian, who was a son of Abraham through his wife Keturah.  Genesis 25:1-2 tells us Abraham took “another wife”.  When Moses got in trouble in Egypt after killing an Egyptian, he fled to the land of Midian where the Midianites had settled.  [In Genesis 26:4 we learn Midian’s descendants were basically five families.  In Genesis 26:6 we learn that Abraham had given them gifts and “sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the East”.]  Also of interest to us may be the fact it was Midianites that had bought Joseph from his brothers many years later, which sold him to the Egyptians (see Genesis 37); both events occurring way before Moses’ time.

But back to Jethro, who is also referred to as Reuel in Exodus 2:18 and as Hobab later in the Old Testament.  The Bible first refers to him in Exodus 2:16 and 3:1 as a priest. This was before Moses’s burning bush experience normally referred to by many as the time or point when the worship of Yahweh is deemed to have officially originated.

The potential dilemma with the multiple names of Jethro may be due to the fact that in the Hebrew language, the term referring to male ‘in-laws’ is non-specific, referring to a woman’s male relatives and could be used for her father, brother or even grandfather. [This kind of language phenomenon occurs in English as well. My own father used to tease me about who ‘poor the English language’ really was compared to Greek.  He would point out how Greek had two separate words for a brother-in-law that referred to one’s wife’s brother (i.e. by blood) and a brother-in-law that referred to one’s sister’s husband (i.e. by marriage).]  One possible (but uncertain) solution to the Jethro dilemma in this case is that Reuel may have been the grandfather head of the clan, Jethro was Zipporah’s father, and Hobab could have been the brother-in-law of Moses, Jethro’s son.  Another solution may have been that Jethro and Hobab were brother-in-laws to Moses, and Reuel was their father.  In any case, Jethro was a Midianite. 

We note also that there were interesting similarities in the way Moses met his wife to how others had met their wives in some earlier biblical accounts.  Moses met Zipporah at a well (as did Abraham’s servant who met Isaac’s future wife at a well) and he was met by daughters (as Jacob was met by the two daughters of his uncle Laban).

Midianites inhabited the desert borders in Transjordan from Moab down past Edom.  In Exodus 6:2-3 we learned that God was not yet know to Moses by the name Lord (or Yahweh).  Jethro may, however, have known Him.  It is possible Jethro was worshipping the Lord by a different name, as many of Moses ancestors had worshipped Him, as a deity with the prefix El.  You may recall God being called El Elyon in Genesis 14:18 and El Sheddai in Genesis 17:1.  In Genesis 16:13, Hagar called God Elroi, the “God who sees me”.

Whatever the historical background of Jethro’s religion was, he now blesses the Lord God of Israel who delivered Moses from the Egyptians and Pharaoh, and who delivered the Israelites from the Egyptians.  One may wonder why Jethro separates God’s act of delivery into the personal deliverance of Moses and the collective deliverance of the Israelites.  Two possible ideas come to my mind.  The first is that Jethro was responding first as a father-in-law blessing God for saving the husband of his daughter and the father of his grandchildren, and then as a human being caring for the people of Israel with whom he was connected ancestrally and soon to be connected in faith.  The second idea is that even here in these early writings of Moses, God wants to reinforce the fact that He is a personal God as well as a God of nations.  In the New Testament this theme continues, as His Son Christ Jesus is both a personal Savior as well as the King of Kings.  Jethro now blesses this God as he comes to know Him better.  Do you this Yahweh?

The next sentence is rather interesting and may help us with what Jethro may have believed before, as touched on above.  Jethro now knows the Lord is greater than all the gods.  It appears from this statement that Jethro, while he may have worshipped El as a deity, he did not see Him as the greatest of all the others.  The reference to the “they” that dealt proudly against the people is to the Egyptians who were so proud in their actions against the Israelites.  Jethro now sees that God is greater than all of them and their gods combined.  And in his condemnation, he likely included all the magicians that joined and abetted Pharaoh in opposing God and attempting to compete against Him.  Matthew Henry writes, “The magicians were baffled, the idols shaken, Pharaoh humbled, his powers broken, and, in spite of all their confederacies, God's Israel was rescued out of their hands. Note, Sooner or later, God will show himself above those that by their proud dealings contest with him. He that exalts himself against God shall be abased.”

And what does one do when he comes to that realization in his/her own life?  Well, in Jethro’s case, and as a priest (but not of the children of Israel), he offers up a burnt offering.  The commentator Robert Jamieson says that this friendly reunion between two people, Moses and Jethro, ends up in “a solemn religious service” for all the chiefs of Israel, where burnt peace offerings were consumed on the altar in a feast of joy and gratitude, officiated over apparently by Jethro, now as a dedicated priest of the true God.  We may well ask ourselves how our periodic reunions with friends or family members end up.

Chuck Smith points out that this account verifies that “other people knew God and worshiped God, who were not the children of Israel in those days, Jethro being one of them. He was a priest of God.”  Matthew Henry says, “Here was a Midianite rejoicing”.  Jethro’s faith was confirmed and he made a public confession of it.  And what did he confess?  He confessed our true God is able to silence all the others and subdue them.  Smith says Jethro “knew it before, but now he knew it better; his faith [grew] up to a full assurance, upon this fresh evidence.”

Just to recap.  Moses and Jethro were reunited; they shared about what God had done; Jethro offers a burnt sacrifice and confesses the power of the Almighty as being above all other gods; and then together with the elders of Israel they ate a meal before God.  This was a means of expressing their joy and thankfulness – being in communion and peace and love with each other – not only in the sacrifice service that preceded, but also now in a feast.  Jethro, the Midianite, was now cheerfully admitted into fellowship with Moses and Israel.  (You will remember that the whole issue of the official priesthood in Israel that eventually went to the Levites was not yet settled.)

I love the observation Henry makes when he says, “Mutual friendship is sanctified by joint-worship.” What a delight it is to those involved and to God Himself when relations and friends who come together join in the spiritual sacrifice of prayer and praise, keeping Christ at the center of their own unity.  I was thinking about this, as many of our youth are meeting and developing good friendships with others of different faiths.  Sometimes these friendships turn into romance and ultimately marriage.  But if a mutual friendship has no hope of becoming an occasion of joint-worship, then one needs to be very wary of it.  As much as it may hurt, one needs to guard their heart in such cases to avoid either loneliness in their worship and service to God, or a walking away from their faith in order to support their relationship.  A big loss no matter which road is taken.

Those present with Jethro and Moses did indeed eat bread, likely manna.  Jethro as a Gentile had to see and taste the bread from heaven.  Together we as believers must share such meals with non-believers – showing the world how as Henry writes, “we eat and drink to the glory of God, behaving ourselves at our tables as those who believe that God’s eye is upon us.”  What is your table scene like these days?  I know mine can be improved.
________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

 

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