Lev 2:2  And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD:

Lev 2:2 Comments – The priest takes a handful of this grain offering, called the memorial portion (Lev 2:9) and sacrifices it on the brazen altar. The priest is able to keep the remaining portion of the sacrifice for himself. Note that the size of this offering is not mentioned in the Law. This is because God allowed each person to give according to his own measure of faith.

Lev 2:13  And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Lev 2:13 “with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt” – Comments – Salt represented fire, and fire represents judgment (Mar 9:49).

Mar 9:49, “For every one shall be salted with fire , and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Various Kinds of Meat-offerings.

v. 1. And when any will offer a meat-offering unto the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour. This also was an oblation, or gift, brought near to the Lord with the purpose of establishing true fellowship, and could be made by any member of the congregation, no matter whether man or woman. Only the finest wheat flour was to be used in these oblations. And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon. The incense was not mixed with the flour and the olive-oil, but added in such a manner as to permit its entire removal from the vessel in which it was offered.

v. 2. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he (the officiating priest) shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof and of the oil thereof with all the frankincense thereof, as much as the hand would hold of flour and oil; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to cause Jehovah to remember the worshiper in His mercy, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord, well-pleasing and acceptable to the Lord, as the burnt offering had been, Exo 1:9-13.

v. 3. And the remnant of the meat-offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons; all of it was offered to the Lord, who, in turn, bestowed the bulk of it upon the priests as a part of the emoluments due them; it is a thing moat holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire. This is said of all sacrificial gifts which were wholly devoted to God, but of which portions were hallowed to Him by being given to the priests. These gifts the priests used for food in a place in the court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, near the altar of burnt offering, Exo 6:26; Exo 10:12.

v. 4. And if thou bring an oblation of a meat-offering baken in the oven, a small portable earthen oven in the form of a pot or jar, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour, mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers, anointed with oil. The unleavened dough used in making these cakes was mixed with olive-oil, and the thick, biscuitlike cakes were pierced with holes.

v. 5. And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in a pan, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil, the only difference between this sacrifice and the preceding one being this, that it was fried in an open pan.

v. 6. Thou shalt part it in pieces and pour oil thereon; it is a meat-offering. The finished cakes were to be broken into small fragments and then saturated with olive-oil.

v. 7. And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in the frying-pan, boiled in a pot, it shall be made of fine flour with oil, apparently cooked in the oil. The olive-oil, which figures so prominently in these sacrifices, is a symbol of the Holy Ghost. The good works of the believers are done in the power of the Holy Ghost. If these sacrifices are accompanied with the incense of prayer, they will be wellpleasing in the sight of the Lord.

v. 8. And thou shalt bring the meat-offering that is made of these things unto the Lord; and when it is presented unto the priest, as the representative of God, he shall bring it unto the altar.

v. 9. And the priest shall take from the meat-offering a memorial thereof, to bring the worshiper in remembrance before God, and shall burn it upon the altar; it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord.

v. 10. And that which is left of the meat-offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire. The men that served in the Sanctuary were to receive their sustenance from these gifts, just as today they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.

v. 11. No meat-offering which ye shall bring unto the Lord shall be made with leaven, leaven being considered an impure addition in this case on account of its fermenting property; for ye shall burn no leaven nor any honey, against which the same objection was made as against the leaven, in any offering of the Lord made by fire. There were certain offerings in which leavened bread was included, Lev 7:13-14; Lev 23:17-20, and also honey, 2Ch 31:5; but in the meat-offering they were strictly forbidden. Thus the believers will avoid all impurity and hypocrisy in word and deed.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

THE MEAT OFFERING. The regulation of the burnt offering as a Levitical institution is immediately followed by a similar regulation of the meat offering, consisting of flour and oil, with salt and frankincense, and usually accompanied by the drink offering of wine. The sacrifice of the animal in the burnt offering had represented the entire surrender of the offerer’s will and life to God; the presentation of the fruits and products of the earth in the meat offering represents man’s gift of homage, whereby he acknowledges God’s sovereignty over all things and over himself, by offering to him a portion of that which he had graciously bestowed in abundance. David’s words, “All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee all this store cometh of thine hand, and is all thine own” (1Ch 29:14, 1Ch 29:16), express the idea underlying the meat offering. In the acted language of symbolism, it not only recognized the supremacy of God, but made a tender of loyal submission on the part of the offerer; as gifts of homage did in the case of Jacob and Esau (Gen 32:20), and as they do to this day throughout our Indian empire, and generally in the East.

Lev 2:1

And when any will offer a meat offering unto the Lord. The word used in the original for “meat offering” (minchah), means, like its Greek equivalent, , a gift made by an inferior to a superior. Thus the sacrifices of Cain and Abel were their “minchah” to God (Gen 4:3, Gen 4:4), the present sent to Esau by Jacob was his “minchah” (Gen 32:13), and the present to Joseph was his brethren’s “minchah” (Gen 43:11). It is therefore equivalent to a gift of homage, which recognizes the superiority of him to whom it is offered, and ceremonially promises loyal obedience to him. Owing to its use in this passage, it came gradually to be confined in its signification to vegetable gifts,unbloody sacrifices, as they are called sometimes, in contrast to animal sacrificeswhile the word “corban” crone to be used in the wider acceptation which once belonged to “minchah.” The conditions to be fulfilled by the Israelite who offered a meat offering were the following.

1. He must offer either

(1) uncooked flour, with oil, salt, and frankincense, or

(2) flour made into an unleavened cake (whether of the nature of biscuit or pancake), with oil, salt, and frankincense; or

(3) roasted grains, with oil, salt, and frankincense.

2. He must bring his offering to the court of the tabernacle, and give to the priests at least as much as one omer (that is, nearly a gallon), and not more than sixty-one omers.

The priest receiving it from him must:

1. Take a handful of the flour, oil, and salt, or a proportionate part of the cake (each omer generally made ten cakes) in place of the flour, and burn it with all the frankincense as a memorial upon the altar of burnt offering.

2. With his brother priests he must eat the remainder within the precincts of the tabernacle. Here the essentials of the sacrifice are the presentation made by the offerer, and the burning of the memorial on the altar, followed by the consumption of the remainder by the priests. The moral lesson taught to the Israelite completed that of the burnt offering. As the burnt offering taught self-surrender, so the meat offering taught recognition of God’s supremacy and submission to it, the first by the surrender of a living creature substituted for the offerer, the second by the gift of a part of the good things bestowed by God on man for the preservation of life which, being given back to God, serve as a recognition of his supremacy. Spiritually the lesson taught the Jew was that of the necessity of a loyal service to God; and mystically he may have learnt a lesson

(1) as to the force of prayer rising up to heaven as the incense which had to be offered with each form of the meat offering;

(2) as to the need of purity and incorruption, symbolized by the prohibition of leaven and honey, and the command to use salt. The supplemental character of the meat offering accounts for the order in which it hero stands, not arbitrarily interposed between two animal sacrifices, but naturally following on the burnt offering, as an adjunct to it and the complement of its teaching. So close was the union between the two sacrifices, that the burnt offering was never offered without the accompaniment of the meat offering (Num 15:4). It has been also maintained that the meat offering, like the drink offering, was never made independently of the animal sacrifice; but this cannot be proved. On the contrary, the manner in which laws regulating it are here laid down, lead to the inference that it might be offered, when any willed it, by itself. The close connection between the sacrifice of an animal and the offering of cakes of flour, and of wine, is noticeable in heathen sacrifices likewise. The very word, immolare, translated “to sacrifice,” is derived from the mola or salt-cake offered with the animal; and the other word ordinarily used in Latin for “sacrifice,” that is, mactare, is derived from the victim being enriched (magis auctus) with the libation of wine. Thus we see that the offering of the fruits of the earth was regarded, elsewhere as well as in Judaea, as the natural concomitant of an animal sacrifice, and not only that, but as so essential a part of the latter as to have given a name to the whole ceremony, and not only to the whole ceremony, but to the specific act of the slaughter of the victim. The thought of the heathen in offering the fruits of the earth was probably not much different from that of the Israelites. It was his gift to the superhuman power, to which he thus acknowledged that he owed submission. We may further notice that salt was enjoined in the heathen as in the Jewish sacrifices as indispensable. Pliny says that the importance of salt is seen especially in sacrifices, none of which are completed without the salt-cake (‘Hist. Nat.,’ 31, 7) The now obsolete use of the word “meat” in the sense of “food,” in contrast to “flesh,” creates some confusion of thought. “Fruit offering” would be a better title, were it not that the signification of “fruit” is going through a similar change to that which “meat” has undergone. “Flour offering” might be used, but an alteration in the rendering is not imperative.

Lev 2:2

He shall take there out his handful. This was the task of the priest. The handful that he took and burnt upon the altar has the technical and significative name of the memorial. It acted as a memorial before God, in the same way as Cornelius’s prayers and alms”Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God” (Act 10:4)being something which should cause God to think graciously of the offerer. The frankincense is not mixed with the flour and the oil and the salt, as a constituent element of the offering, but is placed upon them, and is all of it burnt in “the memorial,” symbolizing the need of adding prayer to sacrifice, that the latter may be acceptable to God.

Lev 2:3

The remnant of the meat offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. The meat offerings must have gone far to supply the priests with farinaceous food, as, for every handful of flour burnt on the altar, nearly a gallon went to the priests. They had to eat it within the precincts of the tabernacle, as was the case with all meats that were most holy, viz. the minchahs, the shew-bread, and the flesh of the sin offering and of the trespass offering (Lev 10:12). Other meats assigned to the priests might be eaten in any clean place (Lev 10:14). The priests’ own meat offerings were wholly burnt (Lev 6:23).

Lev 2:4-11

The second form of meat offering, when the flour and oil were made up into four varieties of cakes. The ritual of offering is not different from that of the first form. The frankincense is not mentioned, but doubtless is understood. The rabbinical rule, that meat offerings, when following upon burnt offerings or peace offerings, had no frankincense burnt with them, rests on no solid foundation.

Lev 2:11, Lev 2:12

Ye shall burn no leaven nor any honey, in any offering of the Lord made by fire. Leaven and honey are not forbidden to be offered to the Lord; on the contrary, in the next verse they are commanded to be offered. The prohibition only extends to their being burnt on the altar, owing, no doubt, to the effect of fire upon them in making them swell and froth, thus creating a repulsive appearance which, as we shall see, throughout the Mosaic legislation, represents moral evil. The firstfruits of honey are to be offered (cf. Exo 22:29), and leaven is to be used in the two wave loaves offered at the Feast of Pentecost as firstfruits (Lev 23:17). the words translated, As for the oblation of the firstfruits, ye shall offer them unto the Lord, should be rendered, As an oblation of firstfruits ye shall offer them (that is, leaven and honey), but they shall not be burnt on the altar. The mark in A.V. denoting a new paragraph at the beginning of Lev 2:12, should be removed.

Lev 2:13

Every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt. Salt is commanded as symbolizing in things spiritual, because preserving in things physical, incorruption. It is an emblem of an established and enduring covenant, such as God’s covenant with his people, which is never to wax old and be destroyed, and it is therefore termed the salt of the covenant of thy God. Hence “a covenant of salt” came to mean a covenant that should not be broken (Num 18:19; 2Ch 13:5). The use of salt is not confined to the meat offering. With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt. Accordingly we find in Eze 43:24, “The priest shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering.”

Lev 2:14-16

The third form of meat offering, parched grains of corn, with oil, salt, and frankincense. The mark of a new paragraph should be transferred from Lev 2:12 to the beginning of Lev 2:14.

HOMILETICS

Lev 2:1-16

The meat offering.

It consisted of a gift to God of the products of the earth most needed for the support of lifeflour and oil, to which were added salt and frankincense, and it was generally accompanied by the drink offering of wine. It was offered to God in token of the recognition of his almighty power which gave the corn, the olive, and the vine, and of the submission of the creature to him, the merciful Creator.

I. IT WAS A GIFT OF HOMAGE. As such, it had a meaning well defined and well understood in the East, that meaning being an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God, and a promise of loyal obedience on the part of the offerer.

II. SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLES OF THE GIFT OF HOMAGE.

1. The sacrifices of Cain and Abel. Whether the sacrifice was of the fruits of the ground or of the flock made no difference. Each was the “minchah,” or “gift,” of the offerer, acknowledging God as his Godone, however, offered loyally, the other hypocritically (Gen 4:3, Gen 4:4).

2. The present sent to Esau by Jacob (Gen 32:1-32; Gen 33:1-20). Jacob had sent a humble message to his brother (Gen 32:3), but this was not enough, “The messenger’s returned to Jacob, saying, We came to thy brother Esau, and also he cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men with him” (Gen 32:6). Then Jacob, terror-stricken, sent his gift of homage (Gen 32:13), which symbolically acknowledged Esau as his suzerain lord. Esau, by accepting it (Jacob “urged him and he took it”), bound himself to give protection to his brother as to an inferior, and offered to leave some of his soldiers with him for the purpose (Gen 33:15).

3. The present carried by Jacob’s sons to Joseph when they went down into Egypt (Gen 43:11).

4. The present without which Saul felt that he could not appear before Samuel (1Sa 9:7).

5. The gifts presented to the young Child by the Wise Men of the East (Mat 2:11).

III. EXAMPLES OF THE GIFT OF HOMAGE IN THE PRESENT DAY.

1. At an Indian durbar, every one of the dependent princes brings his present, and offers it to the representative of the Empress of India.

2. Presents are always brought by natives of India to British officials set over them, when they have a request to make, and ceremonially accepted by the latter by a touch of the hand.

3. In the Abyssinian war a present of a thousand oxen and five hundred sheep was sent by King Theodore of Abyssinia to Lord Napier of Magdala, in token of submission at the last moment, and rejected by the English general. Had he accepted it, he would have been bound to give the king protection.

IV. LESSONS TO US FROM THE MEAT OFFERING.

1. To give to God of the worldly goods which God has given to us

(1) freely,

(2) cheerfully,

(3) loyally.

Our motive must not be self-ostentation, nor the praise of men, nor our own gratification. By our offering to God we must recognize God’s claims over us, and openly profess our loving submission to them. This throws a new light on the practice of almsgiving in the weekly offertory of the Church.

2. To give a hearty and loyal service to God in other respects besides almsgiving, such as obedience to his commandments, doing his will on earth.

V. THE GIFT OF HOMAGE CALLS FORTH A REQUITING GIFT. Esau gave protection in return for cattle. Joseph gave sacks of corn in return for “a little balm and a little honey, spices and myrrh, nuts and almonds.” The representative of the Crown of England gives back to each prince at a durbar a present greater than he has received. So we give to God repentance, and receive back from him forgiveness; we give faith, and receive grace; we give obedience, and receive righteousness; we give thanksgiving, and receive enduring favour; we give, in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the “creatures of bread and wine,” and we receive back “the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Lev 2:13

Salt was to be used with all the sacrifices. Cf. Eze 43:24; Mar 9:49.

I. WHAT IT RECALLED TO THE MIND OF THE OFFERER. The eating of bread and salt together being the ceremony which finally ratified an agreement or covenant (as it still is in Arabia), salt was associated in the mind of the Israelite with the thought of a firmly established covenant. Each time, therefore, that the priest strewed the salt on the offering there would have been a reminder to all concerned of the peculiar blessing enjoyed by the nation and all members of it, of being in covenant with God, without which they would not have been in a state to offer acceptable sacrifices at all.

II. WHAT IT SYMBOLIZED. The effect of salt being to preserve from corruption, its being sprinkled on the sacrifice taught the offerer the necessity of purity and constancy in his devotion of himself to God.

III. THE SYMBOL TAKEN UP AND APPLIED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

1. The Christian’s speech is not to be corrupting, but edifying. “Let your speech be always seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col 4:6). “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, hut that which is good for the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph 4:29).

2. Christian men are to be salted with fire, as the sacrifices are salted with salt (Mar 9:49), and the life of the collective body of Christians, the Church, is to be, in its effects upon the world, as salt. “Ye are the salt of the earth” (Mat 5:13). “Have salt in yourselves” (Mar 9:50). Men influenced by the Spirit of Christ, having been themselves salted with fire, have now become the salt which saves the world from perishing in its own corruption.

IV. THE SALT MAY LOSE ITS SAVOUR. This is the case when “doctrine” being no longer characterized by “uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity” (Tit 2:7), religion becomes changed into superstition, thenceforward debasing instead of elevating mankind; or when it stirs men to acts of fanaticism, or rebellion, or cruelty; or when the spiritual life becomes so dead within it that it abets instead of counteracting the wickedness of the world.

V. SALT SYMBOLIZES PERMANENCY AS WELL AS PURITY. Our love for Christ must be, St. Paul teaches us (Eph 6:24), a love “in sincerity,” or rather, as the word should be translated, “in incorruption,” that is, an abiding love, without human caprice or changeableness; and our obedience to God must be constant, without breaks in its even course, and lasting to the end of life. “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Mat 24:12, Mat 24:13). “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev 2:10).

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR

Lev 2:1-11

Consecrated life-work, as brought out in the meat offering.

cf. Joh 4:34; Act 10:4; Php 4:18; Joh 6:27. The idea prominently presented in the burnt offering is, we have seen, personal consecration, on the ground of expiation and acceptance through a substitute. In the meat offering, to which we now address ourselves, we find the further and supplementary idea of consecrated life-work. For the fine flour presented was the product of labour, the actual outcome of the consecrated person, and consequently a beautiful representative of that whole life-work which results from a person consciously consecrated. Moreover, as in the case of the burnt offering there was a daily celebration, so in the case of this meat offering there was a perpetual dedication in the shew-bread. What we have in this chapter, therefore, is a voluntary dedication on the part of an individual, corresponding to the perpetual dedication on the part of the people. The covenant people are to realize the idea of consecration in their whole life-work. Lange has noticed that here it is the soul () which is said to present the meat offering, something more spiritual, as an act, than the presentation of the burnt offering by the man (). We assume, then, that the leading thought of this meat offering is consecrated life-work, such as was brought out in all its perfection when our Lord declared, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (Joh 4:34).

I. WORK DONE FOR GOD SHOULD BE THE BEST OF ITS KIND. The meat offering, whether prepared in a sumptuous oven () such as would be found with the wealthy, or baken in a pan () such as middle-class people would employ, or seethed in a common dish () the utensil of the poor,was always to be of fine flour (), that is, flour separated from the bran. It matters not what our station in life may be, we may still present to God a thorough piece of work. “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might” (Ecc 9:10) is an exhortation applicable to all. The microscopic thoroughness of God’s work in nature, which leads him to clothe even the grass, which is tomorrow to be cast into the oven, with more glory than Solomon (Mat 6:28-30), is surely fitted to stimulate every consecrated person to the most painstaking work.

And here we are led of necessity to the life-work of Jesus Christ, as embodying this idea perfectly. How thoroughly he did everything! His life was an exquisite piece of moral mosaic. Every detail may be subjected to the most microscopic criticism, only to reveal its marvelous and matchless beauty.

II. WORK DONE FOR GOD SHOULD BE PERMEATED BY HIS SPIRIT AND GRACE. The fine flour, be it ever so pure, would not be accepted dry; it required oil to make it bakeable. Oil has been from time immemorial the symbol of Divine unction, in other words, of the Holy Spirit’s gracious operation. Hence we infer that work done for God must be done in cooperation with the Spirit. It is when we realize that we are fellow-workers with God, that he is our Partner, that he is working in us and by us, and when, in consequence, we become spiritually minded, walking in the Spirit, living in the Spirit,it is then that our work becomes a spiritual thing.

And here, again, would we direct attention to the life-work of Christ, as spiritually perfect. The gift of the Spirit at his baptism, the descending dove, an organic whole (Luk 3:22), signalizes the complete spirituality of Jesus. He was “filled with the Spirit,” it was “in the power of the Spirit” he did all his work. Herein he is our perfect Example.

III. WORK CAN ONLY BE DONE FOR GOD IN A PRAYERFUL SPIRIT. This follows naturally from what has been already stated, but it requires to be emphasized in view of the frankincense which had in every case to accompany the meat offering. This is admittedly the symbol of devotion (cf. Kalisch, in loco). A life-work, to be consecrated, be steeped in prayer; its Godward object must be kept constantly in view, and stated and circulatory prayer must envelop it like a cloud of incense.

It is, again, worth while to notice how the perfect life-work of Christ was pervaded by prayer. If any one since the world began had a right to excuse himself from the formality of prayer in consequence of his internal state of illumination, it was Jesus Christ. And yet we may safely say that his was the most prayerful life ever spent on earth. As Dr. Guthrie once said, “The sun as it sank in the western sea often left him, and as it rose behind the hills of Moab returned to find him, on his knees.” We need not wonder why he spent whole nights in supplication, for he was bringing every detail of his work into Divine review in the exercise of prayer. There is consequently a most significant appeal issuing out of his holy life, to work prayerfully at all times if we would work for God.

IV. WORK FOR GOD MUST BE DIVORCED FROM MALICE AND FROM PASSION, AND DONE IN CALM PURITY AND STRENGTH. Much of the world’s work has malice passion for its sources. These motives seem to be symbolized by the leaven and honey, which were forbidden as elements in the meat offering. Care should be taken in work for God that we do not impart into it worldly and selfish motives. Such are sure to vitiate the whole effort. The Lord with whom we have to do looks upon the heart and weighs the motives along with the work.

What a commentary, again, was the perfect life of Jesus upon this! Malice and passion never mixed with his pure motives. He sought not his own will, nor did he speak his own words, but calmly kept the Father’s will and glory before him, all through.

V. WORK FOR GOD SHOULD BE COMMITTED TO HIS PRESERVING CARE. For it is to be feared we often forget to season our sacrifices with salt. We work for God in a consecrated spirit, but we do not universally commit our work to his preserving grace, and expect its permanency and purity. Work for God should endure. It is our own fault if it do not.

Our blessed Lord committed his work to the preserving care of the Father. He was, if we may judge from Isa 49:4, as well as from the Gospel, sometimes discouraged, yet when constrained to say, “I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for naught, and in vain,” he could add, “Yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God.”

VI. WORK DONE FOR GOD IS SURE TO BENEFIT OUR FELLOW–MEN. The meat offering was only partially burnt on the altara handful, containing, however, all the frankincense, was placed in the sacred fire, and thus accepted; the rest became the property of the priest. How beautifully this indicated the truth that when one tries to please God, his fellow-men, and especially those of the household of faith, are sure to participate in the blessing! The monastic idea was an imperfect one, suggesting the possibility of devotion to God and indifference to man coexisting in the same breast We deceive ourselves so long as we suppose so.

Our Master went about doing good; he was useful as well as holy; and so shall all his followers find themselves, if their consecrated life-work is molded according to the pattern he has shown us. Faithfulness in the first table of the Law secures faithfulness in the second.R.M.E.

Lev 2:12-16

About honouring God with our firstfruits.

cf. Pro 3:9; 1Co 15:23; Jas 1:18. This arrangement about the firstfruits, though appended to the meat offering, demands a special notice. The meat offering, we have seen, affirms the general principle that our life-work should be dedicated to God. But here in the firstfruits we have a special portion which is to be regarded as too sacred for any but Divine use. This leads us directly to affirm

I. WHILE GOD HAS A RIGHT TO ALL, HE CLAIMS A SPECIAL RIGHT TO THE FIRSTFRUITS OF ALL OUR INCREASE. The danger is in losing sight of the special claim in asserting the general principle. For instance, we must not deny God a special claim upon the first day of the week, because we acquiesce in the general principle that he has a right to all our time. Again, we must not withhold our tithes, a certain proportion of our substance, through an easy-going statement that he has a right to all our substance. We must condescend to particulars.

II. THE DEDICATION OF THE FIRSTFRUITS EXTENDED TO ANIMALS AS WELL AS TO the VEGETABLE KINGDOM. The dedication of the firstborn of man and beast is manifestly part and parcel of the same principle (Exo 13:1-16). This leads up to God’s right to the Firstborn of the human race, to him of whom the Father said, “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psa 89:27). Jesus is the Firstborn of humanity, the flower and firstfruits of the race. Hence we find the expression used regarding the risen Saviour, “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1Co 15:23). He is also called “the firstborn from the dead” (Col 1:18). Of him, therefore, pre-eminently was the dedication of the firstfruits typical.

If God has a right to the firstfruits of the life-work of the human race, he receives in the perfectly holy life of Jesus Christ. So that, as we found the meat offering to this, so do we find this arrangement about the firstfruits.

III. GOD HAS ALSO A RIGHT TO SERVICE, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE PERFECT. This seems to be the principle underlying the “oblation of the firstfruits.” This, as we from Le 23:15-21, was presented at Pentecost, and consisted of two tenth-flour baked with leaven. Such an arrangement points to the possibility of imperfection in serving God, which was met by the sin offering accompanying it. If, then, the firstfruits at the Passover, presented with oil and frankincense, typified Christ the Firstfruits in all his perfection; the oblation at Pentecost typified believers, Gentiles and Jews, who are trying, though imperfectly, to realize a consecrated life-work. God does not reject the labours of his people, even though they are very far from perfect. He has provided a sin offering to meet the imperfections of the case and render all acceptable to him. le-1

IV. THE DEDICATION OF THE FIRSTFRUITS WAS THE EXPRESSION NOT ONLY OF THANKSGIVING BUT ALSO OF FAITH. God’s rights first, even before man’s need has been met. It was seeking God’s kingdom first, in the assurance that all the needful things shall be added (Mat 6:33). It is most important that we should always act in this trustful spirit. This faith is, in fact, a kind of firstfruits of the spiritual life which the Lord expect s, and in rendering it to him we experience wondrous comfort and blessing.R.M.E.

HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE

Lev 2:1-3

Mediate and immediate presentation.

The abrogation by Christianity of the rites and ceremonies of Judaism does not prevent the necessity nor dispel the advantages of becoming acquainted with the laws by which the ancient sacrifices were regulated. The mind of God may be ascertained in the precepts delivered in olden days, and underlying principles recognized that hold good in every age. The very fact that truth has thus to be searched for, and by patient induction applied to present conditions, should prove an incitement rather than a hindrance to investigation. Freeing the kernel from its husk, grasping the essence and neglecting the accidents, preferring the matter to the form, we shall behold in the Law prophecies of the gospel, and admit the likeness that proclaims both to have proceeded from the same God.

I. A DISTINCTION IS MADE BETWEEN OFFERINGS ACCEPTED BY GOD DIRECTLY, AND THOSE PRESENTED TO HIM INDIRECTLY FOR THE USE OF HIS APPOINTED SERVANTS. The flour being brought to the priests, a handful was taken, and with frankincense was burnt upon the altar, rising to heaven in the form of smoke and perfume. The remainder of the flour was for the consumption of the priests. This distinction is applicable to many Christian offerings. The money given for the erection or support of a place of prayer, the surrender of time and thought for public worship, or for evangelistic work, the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ by baptism and by partaking of the Lord’s Supper, the devotion of our strength and influence to God’s service,these may be considered as gifts presented straight to God himself. They are laid upon the altar, enwrapped in the fire of holy love, perfumed with prayer, and are consumed with zeal of God’s house. But there are other oblations which must be regarded in the light of mediate presentations to God, such as, supporting the ministry at home and missionaries abroad, ministering to the need of the aged and feeble, and giving the cup of water to the disciples of Christ. This distinction is not meant to glorify the one class in comparison with the other, but to clarify our views, and to lead to the inquiry whether we are doing all we can in both directions. There is an idea in many minds that if the works of benevolence and charity be performed, the other duties of gathering together in the solemn assembly and of avowal of attachment to Christ are of little importance. The burning of a portion of the offering upon the altar rebukes such a conception. And similarly we learn that the punctual attendance upon the means of grace, and the regular offering of praise and prayer, must not exclude the exercise of hospitality and sympathy.

II. Looking at these two classes separately, we remark, respecting the bestowment of the “remnant” upon the priests, that OFFERINGS TO GOD MUST BE PRESENTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY. All the flour brought was considered “most holy,” and could not be employed thereafter except for the benefit of “sacred” persons. A man was at liberty to offer or withhold, but once having vowed, he could not withdraw even a portion of his present. God will not be satisfied with a share of a man’s heart. If it be given at all, it must be the whole heart. And once having engaged ourselves to be his, there can be no revocation of faculty, affection or time. To look back after taking hold of the plough is to mar religious dedication. The mistake of Ananias was in pretending to give the full price, and attempting to conceal a portion of it. Oh that we could make religion permeate our lives, hallowing even our secular employments by doing all to the glory of God!

III. With respect to the portion burnt for a “memorial,” observe that AN OFFERING HAS A DOUBLE INTENT; IT EVINCES A GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE BY THE WORSHIPPER OF GOD‘S BOUNTY AND REQUIREMENTS, AND IT ENSURES A GRACIOUS REMEMBRANCE OF the WORSHIPPER ON THE PART OF GOD. The special significance of the “minchah” lay in its expression of thankfulness, and of desire by that expression to secure the favour of the God by whom our needs are supplied. To appreciate past kindness is to show a fitness to receive additional mercies in the future. To remember God is to be remembered in turn by God. At the Communion we take the bread and wine as Christ’s memorial, and he, the Master of the feast, approves the spirit and the act, and thinks upon us for good. Self-interest recommends us to honour the Lord. To save a handful of meal would be to lose a coming harvest, and to save ourselves temporally is to lose eternally.

IV. ALL OFFERINGS MADE IN THE APPOINTED WAY ARE WELL PLEASING UNTO GOD. The meal oblation differed from the sacrifice of a lamb or bullock, perhaps was not so expensive, and all of it was not consumed by fire; yet it was also declared to be “of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” We should not trouble ourselves because our kind of service is distinct from that which our fellows render, or is treated by the world as less important. The mites of the widow lie side by side in the treasury with the shekels of the wealthy, and will receive quite as much notice from the Lord of the sanctuary. If a niche in the temple of heroes is denied to us, or if the eloquence that sways the wills of men belongs not to our tongue, yet may we with kindly words and manly actions and loving tones do our little part in Christianizing the world, and our efforts will win the commendation of him who “seeth not as man seeth.” And further, let us not be sad because at different periods we do not find ourselves able to render the same service. In the winter we may sacrifice from our herds and. flocks, but must wait till the summer for the firstfruits of the field. Youth, manhood, and age have their appropriate labours. Leisure and business, health and sickness, prosperity and adversity, may present to the Lord equally acceptable offerings.S.R.A.

Lev 2:13

The salt of the covenant.

It has been thought by some unworthy of the notion of an Infinite Being to consider him as concerned about such petty details as those here laid down for observance. But since the Deity had to deal with uninstructed creatures, with men whose ideas of his greatness and holiness were obscure and imperfect, it was surely wise to act according to the analogy furnished by the customs of earthly monarchs, whose courts require attention to be paid to numberless points of behaviour. Only thus could the august nature of Jehovah, the majesty of his attributes, and the solemnity of religious worship be duly impressed upon the minds of the Israelites. Every rite had a meaning, and to add salt to every offering was a command we shall find it interesting to study.

I. OBEDIENCE TO THIS COMMAND CONSTITUTES EVERY OFFERING A PART OF THE COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND HIS PEOPLE. It was by virtue of a special covenant that the nation had been selected as the vehicle of Divine revelation and the repository of Divine favours. The relation of superiority in which God stands to man, places in a strong light his condescension in making an agreement by which he binds himself as well as the people. Every covenant implies mutual obligations. God promised to guide and bless the Israelites if they, in their turn, kept his commandments and held him in proper esteem. To put salt, therefore, in compliance with his behest, was to acknowledge that the covenant remained in force, and the act became a present instance of the existence of the covenant. It was as much as to say, “I present this gift because of the covenanted relationship in which I stand to Jehovah.” The covenant of the gospel is ratified in Christ for all his faithful seed, who are made partakers of the blessing promised to Abraham (Gal 3:16). Hence whatever we do is in the name of Christ, recognizing our sonship, heirship, and co-heirship. The covenant influences, embraces all thoughts and deeds.

II. SALT, AS THE EMBLEM OF HOSPITALITY, SHOWS THAT SERVICE TO GOD IS A FEAST OF FRIENDSHIP. The offering of flour on which oil was poured was itself indicative of a friendly meal, and this view was strengthened by adding salt to the sacrifice. So surprising is the intimacy to which the Most High admits his people, that they may be said to feed daily at his table; all the fruits of the earth are the product of his bounty, which honours men as his guests. We do but render to God what he first bestowed; and in thus approaching we enjoy his presence and favour. It is permitted us to make ready for the Passover, whereat the Lord shall sit down with his disciples.

III. SALT, AS A PRESERVATIVE, REMINDS US OF THE PURITY WHICH SHOULD CHARACTERIZE OUR LIVES. Nothing that partakes of corruption is fit to be brought unto the ever-living God. “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit.” “Flesh and blood” tend to impurity and death, and “cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Our speech must he with grace, seasoned with salt, lest anything destructive of peace or edification should issue from our lips. Apart from the life that is instilled through faith in Christ, man is dead, and decay is loathsome. Without faith our walk and conversation cannot please God, nor are we “the salt of the earth.” Christians are salted with the purifying fire of trial (Mar 9:49).

IV. SALT TEACHES US THE PERPETUITY OF OUR FRIENDSHIP WITH GOD. A covenant of salt is for ever. (See Num 18:19 and 2Ch 13:5.) It lasts as long as the conditions are observed by us, for God will never change, nor desire on his part to revoke his blessing. Let us rejoice in the truth that he abideth faithful, and in the thought of the indissoluble alliance thereby created. He does not wish to treat us as playthings, invented to amuse him temporarily, and then to be tossed aside. We are put in possession by the great Healer and Life-restorer of imperishable principles, seeds of righteousness, that avert corruption and defy decay. Our devotion is not a hireling service that may soon terminate, but a consecration for the everlasting ages.S.R.A.

Lev 2:7-13

The offering of daily life.

It is interesting to perceive how the instructions here recorded made it possible for all classes of the people to bring sacrifices to Jehovah. None could complain of want of sufficient means or of the necessary cooking utensils. All such objections are forestalled by these inclusive arrangements. Whether consisting of “cakes” or “wafers,” whether baked on a fiat iron plate or boiled in a pot, the offering was lawful and acceptable. How, then, can we imagine that Christian work and gifts are so restricted in their nature as to be procurable only by a few?

I. THE MATERIAL OF WHICH THIS OFFERING WAS COMPOSED. “His offering shall be of fine flour.” The sacrifice God desires is of what man deems most precious, viz. life. As the animal was killed, giving up its life to God, so now there is presented in this oblation:

1. Something that belongs to daily life.

2. Contributing to its support;

3. and enjoyment.

By bestowing of our substance upon God, all our property is sanctified. To set apart specifically a portion of time in which to worship God, hallows the remainder of the week. See in Jesus the true Meal Oblation, the Bread of Life. We ask the Father to accept his offering on our behalf, and we also live on him as our spiritual food.

4. The sample presented must be of the best of its kind. God will not be slighted with scanty adoration and inferior exercise of our powers. Only wheaten flour is permitted.

II. ACCOMPANIMENTS OF THE OFFERING. Allusions to the Jewish sacrifices are frequent in the New Testament, and we cannot be wrong in guiding ourselves by such an interpretation of these figurative regulations.

1. Oil must be added. It was the element of consecration, and reminds us of the needful anointing of the Spirit to qualify us for our duties. “Ye have an unction from the Holy One.” As used, like butter, to impart a relish to food, it became a symbol of gladness. So the Christian motto is, “Rejoice in the Lord always.”

2. Frankincense is required that a pleasant odour may ascend to the skies. So may our service be redolent to earth and heaven of a fragrant savour. In Rev 8:3, incense is offered with the prayers of the saints, and speaks to us of the intercession of Christ, by which our pleadings are made effectual. Let prayer be the constant attitude of our souls, and let us connect the Saviour with all we do and say.

3. It must be seasoned with salt, a remembrance and an emblem of God’s covenant, by which his people are admitted to intimacy and friendship with him. The status of the believer is an indissoluble alliance with the Almighty on the ground of promise and oath. This is his privilege and motive power. Every sacrifice must be salted with the salt of holy obedience, producing peace and purity, and preserving it from corruption.

III. THINGS PROHIBITED.

1. Leaven, the emblem of wickedness, of hypocrisy, of fermenting putridity.

2. Honey, which, though sweet and increasing the delight with which food is partaken of, quickly turns to bitterness and corruption. It is regarded as typical of fleshly lusts which war against the soul, that love of the world which mars Christian character. The warning conveyed by these prohibitions is worthy of being sharply outlined in modern days, when the tendency waxes stronger to obliterate the dividing line between the Church and the world, and attempts are made to purify the impure, or to whiten the outside of sepulchers, and to seduce Christians into the belief that all the pursuits and pleasures of life may be harmlessly indulged in, and even sanctified to the glory of God. The first intention may be good, but the ultimate issue is unbounded license. Christ and Belial, light and darkness, can have no lasting concord. We may, however, take the leaven and honey as indicating the truth that some things lawful in themselves and at certain seasons, are at other times displeasing to God. The mirth and music and demeanour that are innocent as such, may not befit us in the solemnity of special circumstances, for example, the worship of the sanctuary. “To everything there is a season.”

CONCLUSION. The perfect realization of every offering is seen in the Lord our Saviour. What a matchless life was his! No stain of malice or lust; grace, beauty, purity, all exemplified in fullest degree; on him the Spirit ever rested; his words and works a continual sacrifice to his Father, evoking the exclamation, “This is my beloved Son: hear him.” As the heavenly Manna, he satisfies the wants of his kingdom of priests, and his Body was consumed in the flames of Calvary as our memento before God.S.R.A.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

Lev 2:1, Lev 2:2

The minchah, a type of Christ.

Because the minchah was an offering without blood, and therefore was not intended as a sacrifice for sin (Heb 9:22), some have supposed that it was in use before the Fall. This opinion, however, has but little to sustain it. We certainly read of the minchah as having been offered by Cain (Gen 4:3); but then Abel, at the same time, offered the holocaust, or sin offering, which no one dreams of having formed any part of the original worship in Eden. Cain’s fault was not in having offered the minchah, but in not associating with it some sin sacrifice. It is questionable whether the minchah, under the Law, was ever offered without such an accompaniment. Yet we may view the minchah as a type of Christ. For

I. ALL THE HOLY BREAD TYPIFIED CHRIST.

1. The manna was of this class.

(1) It is called “bread from heaven” (see Neh 9:15).

(2) Compare Joh 6:31-35, Joh 6:41, Joh 6:48-51.

2. The shew-bread also was of this class.

(1) It was the bread of heaven, for it rested in the sanctuary, which was one of the typical “heavenly places.”

(2) It rested under the splendours of the Shechinah, and therefore took its name, “Bread of Faces,” viz. of God. The Bread of the Sacred Presence.

3. So was this bread of the minchah.

(1) This, indeed, was offered in the outer court; for there the altar stood. But so was Christ offered “outside the gate” of Jerusalem, and outside the courts of heaven.

(2) But it was, like the shew-bread, destined to be eaten in the sanctuary. So is Christ eaten by his spiritual priesthood in his kingdom of heaven upon earth.

So is he destined to nourish the joys of the glorified in the heaven of heavens (Luk 22:30).

(3) This was a Eucharistic offering, and equivalent to the bread of the Christian Eucharist (Mat 26:26; 1Co 10:16).

II. THIS BREAD HAD THE QUALITY OF EXCELLENCE.

1. As bread it was the staple of food.

(1) We can dispense with luxuries, but bread is necessary. It is “the staff of life.” So is Christ.

(2) Bread is, by a figure of speech, put for everything needful for the body (Mat 6:12). Christ is, by no figure of speech, everything needful to the soul.

2. This bread was of “fine flour.”

(1) It may have been of barley as well as of wheat (see Num 5:15). Every variety of spiritual nourishment may be found in Christ.

(2) But the flour must be “fine.” The nourishment we find in Christ is of the finest order. Christ is God’s best Gift to us. So is Christ our best Gift to God. All secondary gifts are valuable as they are offered in his Name (2Co 9:15).

III. IT HAD NOTICEABLE ADJUNCTS.

1. Oil was poured upon it.

(1) The oil was from the olive, a tree full of fatness (Jdg 9:9). It is a symbol of the Holy Spirit’s grace (Mat 25:4).

(2) The fine flour was anointed with it. Messiah is so named because anointed with the Holy Ghost without measure. The Greek synonym of the Hebrew Messiah is Christ (Isa 61:1; Act 4:27; Act 10:38; Heb 1:9).

(3) We are called Christians because anointed by the Spirit of Christ (see 2Co 1:21; 1Jn 2:20, 1Jn 2:27).

2. It was offered with frankincense.

(1) This was a favourite spice, which appears not to have been yielded by one tree alone, but probably was compounded from several. We read of “spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense” (So Joh 4:14).

(2) It is associated with the Bridegroom in the Song of Songs, to express the perfections of his holy character, by which he is infinitely attractive to his Spouse, the Church. He is there described as coming up out of the wilderness “like pillars of smoke,” probably alluding to the Shechinah, and “perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the powders of the merchant” (So Son 3:6).

(3) In these perfections he is no less grateful to God when offered up to him (Mat 3:17; Mat 17:5; 2Pe 1:17). As we become Christ-like, we are also well pleasing in his sight. The faithful minister of the Word is “unto God a sweet savour of Christ” (2Co 2:15).J.A.M.

Lev 2:1-10

The feast upon the minchah.

In our remarks upon the two first of these verses, we viewed the minchah, or meat offering, as a type of Christ. Upon this point additional light may be incidentally thrown as we now proceed to consider the feast upon the minchah. For this we hold to be designed to represent our fellowship with God in Christ.

I. FEASTS HAVE EVER BEEN REGARDED AS TOKENS OF FRIENDSHIP.

1. Secular history abounds in examples.

(1) These date back to very ancient times. The ancient Egyptians, Thracians, and Libyans made contracts of friendship by presenting a cup of wine to each other. Covenants were made by the ancient Persians and Germans at feasts. The Pythagoreans had a symbol, “Break no bread,” which Erasmus interprets to mean “Break no friendship.”

(2) Similar usages still obtain. It would be considered amongst us a most incongruous thing for persons at enmity deliberately to sit down at the same table. So according to our laws, if a person drinks to another against whom he has an accusation of slander, he loses his suit, because this supposes that they are reconciled.

2. Sacred history also furnishes examples.

(1) Isaac and Abimelech made a covenant with a feast (Gen 26:30, Gen 26:31); so did Jacob and Laban (Gen 31:54); so did David and Abner (2Sa 3:20).

(2) The verb (, bera) to eat, in the Hebrew, if not the root of the word (, berith), covenant, is at least a kindred word.

(3) Hence in apostolic times, Christians were forbidden to eat with wicked persons (1Co 5:11; see also Gal 2:12). It must never be forgotten that the “friendship of the world is enmity against God.”

II. THE FEAST OF THE MEAT OFFERING WAS A SYMBOL OF FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD.

1. The “memorial” of the minchah was God’s meat.

(1) The offerer separated a portion of the mass, which was called the memorial, or representation of the whole. Thus he took from the bulk of the fine flour a handful. To this he added a suitable proportion of oil. The whole of the frankincense was devoted.

(2) The priest then burnt the complete memorial upon the altar of burnt offerings.

(3) God signified his acceptance of it by consuming it in fire, which was not of human kindling, but had issued from his Shechinah. The portion thus consumed was regarded as “God’s food,” or “meat,” of the offering which he was pleased to accept. This was one part of the feast.

2. The remnant was then eaten by the priests.

(1) The priests here are not to be viewed as types of Christ. The high priest alone seems to have represented him (Heb 3:1; Heb 8:1; Heb 9:11).

(2) The common priests were representatives rather of the holy people. Hence the whole nation of Israel were regarded as a “kingdom of priests” (Exo 19:6). The people, therefore, and in particular the offerer, representatively, feasted with God.

(3) Under the gospel even this official representation is changed. The people of God are now an holy priesthood, not by representation, but in right of their spiritual birth (1Pe 2:9). They draw nigh unto God (Heb 10:19-22). They feast with him at his table and in his very Presence.

(4) All this, amongst many other blessed things, is set forth in the Christian Eucharist, or Supper of the Lord.

III. CHRIST IS THE MEDIUM OF THIS FELLOWSHIP.

1. Obviously so since the minchah was a type of Christ.

(1) This has been sufficiently shown (see Homily on Lev 2:1, Lev 2:2).

(2) We may add that the argument is sustained by the use of the term “memorial.” When the firstling of the cattle was taken instead of the rest, it is called making a memorial to God (Exo 34:19; see Hebrew text). This represented the taking of the Great Firstborn instead of all men, and the firstling of the cattle was only a memorial, not the real sacrifice.

(3) It is a great truth that Christ is our one way of access to God (Joh 14:6). “He is our peace;” and it is through the frankincense of his presence that our offering becomes a “sweet savour “a savour of rest, “unto the Lord” (Lev 2:2, Lev 2:9).

2. Christ is delectable food to faith.

(1) Sometimes in the minchah the flour was unbaked (Lev 2:2). In this case the oil accompanying it was unmingled. The portion reserved for the priests might, therefore, be mingled by them in any way they pleased to render it most palatable.

(2) In other cases the bread was prepared to their hands. Sometimes baken in the oven in cakes, mingled with oil, or in unleavened wafers, with oil poured upon them (Lev 2:4). Sometimes in a pan or fiat plate, mingled with oil or oil poured over it (Lev 2:5, Lev 2:6). Sometimes in the frying-pan or gridiron, with oil (Lev 2:7).

(3) The bread of life is essentially good and nourishing. It is at the same time capable of being served up in such variety as to suit every taste that is not vicious. It is the privilege of the scribe instructed in the kingdom to bring out “things new and old,” to set old things in new lights, and to show that there is “nothing new under the sun; for all things are as old as the councils of eternity.J.A.M.

Lev 2:11-13

Notable things.

After describing the minchah under sundry forms, and before proceeding to the meat offering of the firstfruits, certain notable things are mentioned which the minchah has in common with sacrifices in general. These now claim attention, viz.

I. THE PROHIBITION OF LEAVEN (verse. 11). The reasons of this appear to be:

1. Because of its fermenting properties.

(1) These, which, under the action of heat, throw the lump into commotion, represent the evil passions of the heart (see 1Co 5:6-8). But since the meat offering is taken as a type of Christ, it was most fitting that everything suggestive of these should be excluded. In him was no ferment of anger or discontent when he was subjected to the fiercest fires of the wrath of God (Isa 53:7). What an example has he left to us!

(2) By its fermenting properties, leaven tended to reduce substances to corruption. But since our “Bread of Life,” our “Firstfruit” of the resurrection, could not “see corruption,” because he was the “Holy One,” it was most proper that leaven should be absent from his type (Psa 16:10; Act 2:31).

2. That the Hebrews might be reminded of their deliverance from Egypt.

(1) For they were, at the time of the Exodus, so hurried that they had to take their dough as it was without being leavened (Exo 12:39). It was most salutary to keep alive the remembrance of such mercies as they then experienced, and of the stupendous works with which they were associated.

(2) But since those things were all typical of gospel blessings, so must it be most edifying to us to remember the spiritual bondage and darkness from which we have been emancipated by the hand of that great Prophet “like unto Moses,” to whom it is our duty to hearken in preference to him.

II. THE PROHIBITION OF HONEY (Lev 2:11). The reasons of this appear to be:

1. Because honey was a symbol of carnal pleasures.

(1) It was in this light viewed by Philo and by Jerome: and certainly the similitude is apt. Though luscious to the palate, it is bitter to the stomach. Be evermore is sensual gratification (see Pro 25:16, Pro 25:27).

(2) The exclusion of honey from the sacrifices and offerings of the altar will, therefore, convey important morals, viz.

(a) considering these as types of Christ,

(b) considering them also as types of such spiritual sacrifices as we can present acceptably to God through Christ. Another reason may be:

2. Because honey was offered with the abominations of the heathen.

(1) Honey was offered to Bacchus and to the dii superi, the dii inferi, and departed heroes. Hence Orpheus, in beginning his hymns, calls the infernal gods , and the souls of the dead, . The origin of which custom is thus explained by Porphyry, “They made honey a symbol of death; and therefore poured out a libation of honey to the terrestrial gods”.

(2) The Hebrews were instructed scrupulously to avoid the customs of the pagans (see Deu 12:29-31). Let Protestants studiously avoid the abominations of the Romish Antichrist (Rev 18:4).

(3) Leaven and honey might be offered with the oblation of the firstfruits; but they must not come upon God’s altar. This is the teaching of Lev 2:12. The loaves of the firstfruits, which were perquisites of the priests, were even ordered to be baken with leaven (Lev 23:17). So in like manner honey was to be offered to them (2Ch 31:5). There are things which may be lawfully offered to man that may not be offered to God. As leaven and honey mingled with. the bread, even of the priests, so human conversation, at its best, is but imperfect.

III. THE REQUISITION OF SALT (Lev 2:13). The reason of this appears in the many excellent things of which salt was the symbol.

1. It was a symbol of purity.

(1) Hence it is described as “the salt of the covenant of God.” The Hebrew term for covenant (, berith) literally signifies purification; and the covenant of God is the gospel which is instituted of God for our purification from sin.

(2) Perhaps it was religiously, viz. in relation to the covenant, rather than for hygienic purposes, that infants were rubbed with salt (see Eze 16:4).

2. It was a symbol of friendship.

(1) The effect of a covenant to the faithful is friendship. So, in token of friendship, the ancient Greeks ate bread and salt together. And the Russian emperors had a custom, derived to them from antiquity, of sending bread and salt from their tables to persons they intended to honour.

(2) The delights of friendship are also set forth in this symbol. The following is rendered by Dr. A. Clarke from Pliny:“So essentially necessary is salt that without it human life cannot be preserved: and even the pleasures and endowments of the mind are expressed by it; the delights of life, repose, and the highest mental serenity are expressed by no other term than sales among the Latins. It has also been applied to designate the honourable rewards given to soldiers, which are called salarii or salaries. But its importance may be further understood by its use in sacred things, as no sacrifice was offered to the gods without the salt-cake.”

(3) But that “conversation” of Christians is best “seasoned” that has the “salt of the covenant” (see Job 6:6; Col 4:5, Col 4:6).

3. It was a symbol of perpetuity.

(1) This is suggested by its preserving properties. It is used to preserve meat and other things from decomposing. It is in this the very opposite of leaven; so, the reason which includes the one excludes the other.

(2) Hence by the symbol of salt the perpetuity of God’s covenant is expressed. Thus, “It is a covenant of salt for ever before the Lord” (Num 18:19; see also 2Ch 13:5).

(3) Christians, who are the people of the covenant, are the preservers of the earth (see Mat 5:13). Take the Christians out of the world, and it will rot.

4. The qualities of salt should distinguish all sacrifices.

(1) They do distinguish the Great Sacrifice of Calvary.

(2) All Christian offerings should resemble that. In allusion to the salting of sacrifices preparatory to their being offered up in the flames of the altar, our Lord says,” Every one shall be salted with fire,” or rather, “salted for the fire,” viz. of the altar, “and,” or rather, “as every sacrifice is salted with salt”. “We may reasonably infer, that as salt has two qualitiesthe one to season meat, the other to preserve it from corruption; so it fitly denotes that integrity and incorruptness which season every sacrifice, and render men’s persons and services grateful to God” (Old Bible).J.A.M.

Lev 2:14-16

The minchah of the firstfruits.

Having viewed the minchah as a type of Christ, and having considered the feast upon it as expressing fellowship with God in him, we proceed to consider the offering of the firstfruits, which is still the minchah under yet another form. The text brings before us

I. THINGS PECULIAR TO THE OFFERING OF THE FIRSTFRUITS. These are:

1. The matter of the offering.

(1) It is specified as “green ears of corn.” Still, observe, it is of the nature of bread, and so still typifies Christ, the Bread of Life.

(2) But in this case the life is in the grain. In this view Christ compares himself to a corn of wheat (Joh 12:24). In this passage there is also a reference to Psa 72:16, which is construed by learned Jews thus: “He shall be a corn of wheat in the earth on the top of the mountains.”

(3) It is specified as “firstfruits.” As the firstborn of every animal was the Lord’s (Exo 12:29; Exo 13:12, Exo 13:13; Num 18:16), so did he claim the vegetable firstfruits. And as Christ is “the Firstborn of every creature” (Col 1:15), the Anti-type of every firstborn,so is he the Firstfruits of everything in the creation. Through him all things are blessed to our use and benefit.

(4) In this character Jesus will come out in full form in the resurrection. He is the “First-begotten from the dead” (Rev 1:5). The “Firstfruits of them that slept;” and still sleep (1Co 15:20, 1Co 15:23; 1Th 4:14). Thus is he “the Beginning [or Chief] of the [new] creation of God ‘ (Rev 3:14).

2. The treatment it received.

(1) The corn was dried by the fire. It was not allowed to dry gradually and gently in the air, but was violently scorched. Here was set forth expressively that fire of grief and sorrow which parched the soul of Jesus. The fires of his zeal for the glory of God, which was outraged by the sinfulness of men, entered into his very soul (Psa 119:139). So did the corresponding flames of sympathy for that humanity which he had so wondrously assumed; consuming, because of its sinfulness, under the fires of God’s anger.

(2) It was beaten. This threshing of the wheat represented the severity with which Jesus was treated,

(a) in the court of Caiaphas;

(b) in the hall of Pilate;

(c) at the place called Calvary (Isa 53:5, Isa 53:8).

II. THINGS COMMON TO THE FIRSTFRUITS AND OTHER FORMS OF THE MINCHAH.

1. It was offered upon the altar of burnt offerings.

(1) Touching the altar, it became a sacrifice to God.

(2) Consumed in the fire, it was accepted by God.

2. It was offered with oil.

(1) The natural use of this was that the offering thereby became more readily consumed. The flame of oil is bright and fervent.

(2) This was a symbol of the Holy Spirit’s grace, which without measure rested upon Christ (see Psa 69:9; Joh 2:17).

3. It was offered with frankincense.

(1) The physical use of this would be to take away from the tabernacle the smell of a slaughter-house, and to fill the courts with a grateful odour.

(2) The spiritual use was to prefigure the fragrance of the merits of Jesus,

(a) in his sacrifice (Eph 5:2);

(b) in his intercession (Rev 8:3, Rev 8:4).

Thus the offensiveness of the flesh in us is destroyed, and the living sacrifice becomes acceptable (Rom 12:1).J.A.M.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Lev 2:1-16

Our recognition of the hand of God in the blessings of life.

The fact that the law of the meat offering follows that of the burnt offering is itself significant. It suggests

I. THE TRUE ORDER OF THE DIVINE LIFE IN MAN. It is, indeed, a mistake for the human teacher to attempt to lay down precise lines of thought and feeling along which souls must move. “The progress of religion in the soul” varies with individual experience. The action of God’s Spirit is not limited, and while we should seek to lead all souls to walk in the road by which we are traveling, we should not be anxious that they should tread in our own steps. On the other hand, there is an order of thought and experience which may not be inverted. First the burnt offering, then the meat offering; first the soul’s presentation of itself as a sinner to ask forgive-Hess and to offer itself to God, then the service of recognition of him and gratitude for his gifts. It is a serious, and may be a fatal, spiritual error to attempt to gain God’s favour by doing those things which are appropriate to his children, without having first sought and found reconciliation through a crucified Saviour. Start at the starting-point of the Christian course, lest, when the goal is reached, the crown be not placed upon the brow.

II. OUR GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF GOD‘S CONSTANT GOODNESS TO US. The meat offering was a sacrifice in which the worshipper acknowledged that the various blessings of his life came from God and belonged to him. He brought fine flour (Lev 2:1), and oil (Lev 2:1), also wine as the accompanying drink offering (Lev 23:13). The chief produce of the land, the principal elements of food were, in a sacred hour, at the holy place, and, by a pious action, solemnly recognized as gifts of God, to be gratefully accepted from his hand, to be reverently laid on his altar. We are thankfully to acknowledge:

1. God’s kindness in supplying us with that which we need. Bread (corn) will stand for that food which is requisite, and when we consider the goodness of our Creator,

(1) in originally providing that which is so wholesome and nourishing to all men;

(2) in multiplying it so freely that there is abundance for all;

(3) in causing it to be multiplied in such a way as ministers to our moral and spiritual health (through our intelligence, activity, cooperation, etc.);

(4) in making palatable and pleasurable the daily meals which would otherwise be (as sickness occasionally proves) intolerably burdensome;we have abundant reason for blessing God for his kindness in respect of the necessaries of life.

2. His goodness in providing us with that which is superfluous. A very large part of the enjoyment of our life is in the use of that which is not necessary but agreeable; in the appropriation of that which is pleasant,the exquisite, the harmonious, the fragrant, the delicately beautiful, etc. This also is of God. He “makes our cup to run over;” from him come the fruits and the flowers, as well as the corn and the grass. Nay, he has closely associated the superfluous with the necessary in nature as in human life. The common potato does not grow without bearing a beautiful flower, nor the humble bean without yielding a fragrant odour. As the Hebrew brought his oil and his wine to the altar of gratitude, so should we bring our thanksgiving for the delicacies, adornments, and sweetnesses which come from the bountiful hand of Heaven.

III. THE NECESSITY FOR PURITY IN OUR SERVICE, There might not be leaven nor honey (Lev 2:11); there must be salt (Lev 2:13). Everything associated with corruption must be avoided; that which was antiseptic in its nature should be introduced; “nothing which defileth” before him; the “clean hands and the pure heart” in “the holy place” (Psa 24:3, Psa 24:4). (See “Purity in worship,” infra.)

IV. THE ACCEPTABLENESS OF OUR GRATITUDE TO GOD. All the frankincense was to be consumed on the altar, and the burning of the other offerings with this fragrant incense accompanying it betokened that it was, as stated, a “sweet savour unto the Lord” (Lev 2:2, Lev 2:12). God is not to be worshipped with men’s hands, as though “he needed anything” (Act 17:25); but he takes delight in his children:

1. Realizing his presence.

2. Recognizing his hand in their comforts and their joy.

3. Responding to his fatherly love with their filial gratitude and praise.

V. THE WHOLESOME INFLUENCE OF GRATEFUL SERVICE ON OUR OWN HEARTS. He who “knows what is in man,” warned his people against saying in their heart, “My power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth” (Deu 8:17). Such a sacrifice as that of the meat offeringa service of grateful acknowledgment of God’s handis fitted to render us the greatest spiritual benefit, by:

1. Helping us to keep a humble heart before God.

2. Causing us to be filled with the pure joy of gratitude instead of being puffed up with the mischievous complacency of pride.C.

Lev 2:11-13

Purity in worship.

When the Hebrew worshipper had presented his burnt offering, had sought forgiveness of sin, and had dedicated himself to God in sacred symbolism, he then brought of the produce of the land, of that which constituted his food; and by presenting flour, oil, and wine, with frankincense, he owned his indebtedness to Jehovah. In engaging in this last act of worship, he was to do that which spoke emphatically of purity in approaching the Holy One of Israel. By Divine direction he was

I. CAREFULLY TO EXCLUDE THAT IN WHICH THERE WAS ANY ELEMENT OF IMPURITY, Leaven is “a substance in a state of putrefaction;” honey “soon turns sour, and even forms vinegar.” These were, therefore, expressly interdicted; they might not be laid on the altar of God. But so important was this feature that positive as well as negative rules were laid down. The offerer was

II. CONSTANTLY TO INTRODUCE THE CORRECTIVE OF IMPURITY, “Neither shalt thou suffer the salt to be lacking;” “with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.” Salt is the great preservative from putrefaction, fitting type of all that makes pure in symbolic worship.

When we come up to the house of the Lord to “offer the sacrifice of praise” or to engage in any act of devotion, we must remember that

I. GOD LAYS GREAT STRESS ON THE PURITY OF OUR HEART IN WORSHIP. Only the pure in heart can see God (Mat 5:8). Without holiness no man shall see him (Heb 12:14). They must be clean who bear the vessels of the Lord (Isa 52:11). None may ascend his holy hill but “he that hath clean hands and a pure heart.” “If we regard iniquity in our heart, the Lord will not hear us” (Psa 66:18). We have not now laid down for us any precise directions as to what words we shall use, what forms we shall adopt, what gifts we shall devote, but we know that the chief thing to bring, that without which all is vain, is a right spirit, a pure heart, a soul that is seeking God and longing for his likeness. The interdiction of the leaven and honey, and the requirement of salt, suggest that

II. GOD DESIRES A VIGILANT EXCLUSION OF EVERY UNHOLY THOUGHT WHEN WE DRAW NIGH TO HIM. We may be tempted to allow corruption to enter into and our worship or our Christian work, in the form of:

1. An unworthy spirit of rivalry.

2. An ostentation of piety.

3. Self-seeking by securing the favour of man.

4. Sensuous enjoyment (mere artistic appreciation, etc.).

5. A spirit of dislike or resentment towards fellow-worshippers or fellow-workers.

Such spiritual “leaven” must not be brought to the altar; such sentiments must be shut out from the soul. We must strenuously resist when these evil thoughts would enter. We must vigorously and energetically expel them if they find their way within the heart (Pro 4:23).

III. GOD DESIRES THE PRESENCE OF THE PURIFYING THOUGHT IN DEVOTION. There must not only be the absence of leaven, but the presence of salt; not only the absence of that which corrupts and spoils, but the presence of that which purifies. There must be the active presence of sanctifying thoughts. Such are:

1. A profound sense of the nearness of God to us.

2. A lively sense of our deep indebtedness to Jesus Christ.

Let these convictions fill the soul, and the lower and ignobler sentiments will fail to enter or will quickly leave. If we feel our own feebleness and incapacity, we may fall back on the truth that

IV. GOD HAS PROMISED THE AID OF HIS CLEANSING SPIRIT. We must pray for “the renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit 3:5); that he will “cleanse us from our sin;” will give us “truth in the inward parts;” will make us “clean,” “whiter than snow;” will “create in us a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within us” (Psa 51:1-19; and see Psa 19:12-14; Psa 139:23, Psa 139:24).C.

Lev 2:3-10

Priest and people: reciprocal services.

Two things are stated in the Law concerning the priesthood.

I. THAT EVERY POSSIBLE THING WAS DONE TO IMPART TO THEM PECULIAR SANCTITY. They were separated and sanctified by various ceremonies and services.

II. THAT SPECIAL SANCTITY WAS ASSOCIATED IN THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE WITH THEIR PERSON AND OFFICE. So much so that offerings given to them were lawfully regarded as presented to Jehovah. In the meat offering “the remnant” (the greater part) was to be “Aaron’s and his sons’,” and this is declared to be “a thing most holy.” To these statements we may add

III. THAT WHILE THEIR NEARNESS TO GOD CONFERRED SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, IT DID NOT ENSURE PERSONAL HOLINESS (Lev 10:1; 1Sa 2:17, 1Sa 2:23; Mal 1:6-10; Mal 2:1-9).

IV. THAT IN PROPORTION TO THEIR PERSONAL EXCELLENCE WOULD BE THE OFFERINGS OF THE PEOPLE. Few meat offerings would be brought whereby a rapacious, or arrogant, or impure, or unsocial, or irreverent priesthood would be benefited; but free and full offerings would come to the altar where blameless, beloved, and honoured men were ministering.

The Christian ministry is unlike the Jewish priesthood in that:

1. It is not hereditary; it is (or should be)only entered upon where there is individual fitness for the office.

2. It offers no sacrifices (Heb 10:11, Heb 10:12).

3. It approaches God with men rather than for them. Yet it is like that ancient priesthood, in that it is a section of God’s people set apart for conducting Divine worship and for the service of society in all sacred things. We are reminded

I. THAT IT IS THE WILL OF CHRIST THAT CHRISTIAN MINISTERS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED BY THE PEOPLE‘S OFFERINGS (1Co 9:11, 1Co 9:13, 1Co 9:14).

II. THAT WHAT IS PRESENTED TO THEM FOR THEIR WORK‘S SAKE, CHRIST COUNTS AS OFFERED TO HIMSELF (Mat 10:40, Mat 10:41; Php 4:18).

III. THAT IN THE RELATIONS OF MINISTER AND PEOPLE THERE SHOULD BE RECIPROCAL GENEROSITY. On the part of the latter let there be:

1. Full appreciation of the high nature and the large number of their services.

2. Generous overlooking of lesser faults, remembering human frailty.

3. Constant credit for purity of motive.

4. Active sympathy and cooperation; and

5. Substantial practical support.

He who has “the burden of the Lord” upon his heart should not be weighed down with temporal anxieties. On the part of the former, let there be:

1. Complete subordination of temporal to spiritual solicitudes.

2. Free and generous expenditure of love and strength, both on individual souls in special need, and on the Church and the world. Reciprocal indifference and closeness will end in leanness of soul; reciprocal love and generosity in largeness of heart and nobility of life (Luk 6:38).C.

HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD

Lev 2:1-3

The meat offering.

The offering of meat or food, consisting of fine flour, with frankincense, cakes and wafers, parched grain, suited to all classes. The general meaning was probably eucharistic. A portion of bread, firstfruits, offered in the fire as a memorial of Divine goodness and pledge of the future life. Several particulars noticeable.

1. It was what made part of the daily meal of the house.

2. Frankincense mingled with it, and oil poured upon it; the prayers and thankful worship of the offerer, which were the work of God’s Spirit, returned to him.

3. It was partly consumed by fire, and partly “a thing most holy,” or set apart to the Lord, eaten by the priests, supporting the temple worship.

4. If baked, no leaven in it nor honey, no corruption, a pure sacrifice.

5. Every offering seasoned with salt, “the salt of the covenant of thy God,” i.e; the emblem of Divine grace, which, while it accepts man’s obedience, overlooks and pardons its imperfection.R.

Lev 2:4-16

The various kinds of meat offerings.

Without dwelling on every minute regulation, the following main points may be distinguished as representative.

I. OFFERED FOOD. Acknowledgment of dependence. Praise for life and its gifts. Joys and pleasures should be consecrated. The will of God in them and over them. Family worship a duty. Recognition of God in common life. Firstfruits are God’s, not the remnant or gleanings of our faculties and opportunities, but all.

II. OFFERING DIVIDED BETWEEN OFFERER AND PRIESTS. Connection of daily labour and its results with the sanctuary and religious duties. The secular and sacred only nominally distinct. The house of God and the house of man should open into one another. Nothing should be allowed to interfere with the holiness of that which is assigned to God’s service in the sanctuary. “It is most holy.” Too often Christians fall into a carelessness with respect to sacred appointments which reacts on the spirit and life. Our partnership with God involves responsibility.

III. NO LEAVEN, NO HONEY. In all things purity and humility. There must be no corrupt principle admitted into our service of God. The doctrine must be purified of leaven. The motives must be examined. We ought not to serve God for the sake of filthy lucre, under the influence of mere sensational excitement. Truth and sobriety in worship.

IV. SALT WITH EVERY SACRIFICE. All must be brought to God in the spirit of penitent faith. Salt preserves life, sets forth the dependence of man upon God. The gracious covenant is the source of all. He who commands is himself the giver of all power to fulfill his word. He is the Alpha and the Omega of the spiritual life.

V. FRANKINCENSE AND OIL. Fragrance and brightness. Heaven and earth mingled together. Reconciliation of God and man. The outpoured spirit of light and life. Joy in God and in his gifts. The anointing oil mingled in the fire and increased the flame. The Messiah is the true Anointed One. Every Israelite, in a lower degree, was himself a Messiah, an anointed one, taken up into the Son of God and blessed. The people are a holy, consecrated people, separated unto Jehovah. Every individual act of religion is acceptable as the oil of the Spirit is poured upon it. What a new view of life can thus be obtained! Make all a meat offering to the Lord.R.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Lev 2:1. A meat-offering The words immediately following clearly shew what is meant by this offering; and, consequently, how ill it is rendered a meat-offering. Minchah signifies any offering or present made to God, as a means of appearing his wrath; and it should certainly have been rendered here, either a bread or wheat-offering: accordingly, Le Clerc renders it donarium farreum; and the French gateau.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

B.OBLATIONS (MEAT-OFFERINGS)

Lev 2:1-16

1And when any [a soul,1] will offer a meat-offering [an offering of an oblation2] unto the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon:3 2and he shall bring it to Aarons sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with4 all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord: 3and the remnant of the meat-offering [oblation2] shall be Aarons and his sons: it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire.

4And if thou bring an oblation of a meat-offering [an offering of an oblation2] baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. 5And if thy oblation be a meat-offering [offering be an oblation2] baken in a pan, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled 6with oil. Thou shalt5 part it in pieces, and pour oil thereon: it6 is a meat-offering 7[an oblation2]. And if thy oblation be a meat-offering [offering be an oblation2] baken in the frying-pan [boiled in the pot7], it shall be made of fine flour with oil.8And thou shalt bring the meat-offering [oblation2] that is made of these things unto the Lord: and when it is presented unto the priest, he shall bring8 it unto the altar. 9And the priest shall take from the meat-offering [oblation2] a memorial thereof, and shall burn it upon the altar: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. 10And that which is left of the meat-offering [oblation2] shall be Aarons and his sons: it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made 11by fire. No meat-offering [oblation2], which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the Lord made by fire. 12As for the oblation [As an9offering2] of the first-fruits, ye shall offer them unto the Lord: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savour. 13And every oblation of thy meat-offering [offering of thy oblation2] shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat-offering [oblation2]: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt. 14And if thou offer a meat-offering [an oblation2] of thy [the] first-fruits unto the Lord, thou shalt offer for the meat-offering [an oblation2] of thy first-fruits, green ears of corn [grain10] dried [roasted11] by the fire, even corn 15[grain10] beaten out of full ears. And thou shalt put oil upon it, and lay frankincense thereon: it12 is a meat-offering [an oblation2]. 16And the priest shall burn the memorial of it, part of the beaten corn [grain10] thereof, and part of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof: it is an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Lev 2:1. .As this word is generally rendered a soul in the A. V., especially in the similar places, Lev 4:2; Lev 5:1-2; Lev 5:4; Lev 5:15; Lev 5:17; Lev 6:2, etc., it seems better to preserve as far as may he uniformity of translation.

Lev 2:1. The words here translated in the A. V. meat-offering are the same as those rendered in Lev 2:4 an oblation of a meat-offering. In this technical language of the law it is certainly desirable to preserve a strict consistency of translation, even if it must sometimes cause an appearance of tautology. The word will therefore be rendered throughout offering; gift might be in itself considered a better translation; but as it is already rendered offering twenty-nine times in Lev., and almost universally (with only two exceptions) in Num., less change is required to make that translation uniform. On the other hand is already always in Lev. meat-offering in the A. V., and generally so in Num.; but the sense of meat has so generally changed since that version was made, that the term had better be replaced. In this book therefore it will be always rendered oblation, as it is in the Vulg. very frequently oblatio.

Lev 2:1. The Sam. and LXX. add oblation est, i. e., this is the law of the oblation.

Lev 2:2. With: for a similar construction of , see Exo 12:8.

Lev 2:6. ; on this use of the Infin. abs. comp. Exo 13:3; Exo 20:8.

Lev 2:6. The ancient form is here changed in ten MSS. and in the Sam. to the later .

Lev 2:7. , derived (Gesenius, Fuerst) from , to boil up, and interpreted by Maimonides, Knobel, Keil and others of a pot or kettle for boiling;a deep vessel suitable for boiling flour and other substances thoroughly. Kalisch.

Lev 2:8. in Hiph. is here used as the enhanced, second power of in Hiph. as in Jer 30:21. Lange.

Lev 2:12. The A. V. is singularly unfortunate; this clause plainly refers to the leaven and honey of Lev 2:11.

Lev 2:14. Corn is in this country so generally understood of maize that it seems better to substitute the more general word.

Lev 2:14. Dried does not sufficiently give the sense of =roasted.

Lev 2:15. Eighteen MSS. and the Sam here again, as in Lev 2:6, read .

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The oblation, or meat-offering, naturally follows next after the burnt-offering, because it was usually an accompaniment of that offering. That it was invariably so has been often maintained (Outram, Bhr, Kurtz, etc.), and indeed it was always offered, and also a drink-offering, with most of the other sacrifices (Num 15:2-13); but from this chapter with Lev 6:14, and with Num 5:15, it appears that the oblation might be offered separately, although the reasons given for this by Kalisch need not be admitted. It is also associated with the burnt-offering in the generality of its signification as opposed to the more special offerings which follow. Lange: It signifies not so much resignation as giving, or a return, in the sense of childlike thankfulness, resignation of the support of life, of the enjoyment of life. Its motive is not through a divine demand as the performance of a duty or a debt, but through an instinctive desire of communion with Jehovah. Hence it is here indeed the soul, , that brings the sacrifice, not the as in the burnt-offering; and in spite of the grammatical equivalence of both expressions, we must not obliterate this distinction. The word itself originally means a present with which one seeks to obtain the favor of a superior (Gen 32:21-22; Gen 43:11; Gen 43:15, etc.); then , what is presented to God, a sacrifice. At first it was used alike of the bloody and the unbloody sacrifice (Gen 4:3-4); but under the law it is restricted absolutely to bloodless offerings. The full expression, as in Lev 2:1; Lev 2:4, is , LXX. , although often either or alone. Besides the kinds of oblation mentioned here, there were others, as the shew-bread and the jealousy-offering. With those enumerated in this chapter salt was always to be used (Lev 2:13) and oil (Lev 2:1; Lev 2:4-7; Lev 2:15); and with those of flour and grain, incense also (Lev 2:1; Lev 2:15).

Only a handful of these oblations was to be burnt upon the altar, the rest being eaten by the priests in a holy place. The oblation of unprepared flour or of flour simply mingled with oil (Lev 7:10) was the common property of the priests (Lev 2:3); while that which was cooked belonged to the officiating priest (Lev 7:9-10).

While the bloody sacrifice is to be purified of its unclean portions, the unbloody sacrifice is to be enriched by the addition of oil, incense and salt; i.e. the enjoyment of life becomes enriched and preserved clean through spirit and through prayer, and especially through the salt of the covenantthrough the hard spiritual discipline which keeps pure the divine fellowship. In its nature the meat-offering [oblation] is closely related to the salvation (or peace) offering; yet the latter has reference to the enjoyment or desire of uncommon prosperity, while the former relates to the enjoyment of usual and quiet existence. The meat-offering culminates in the shew-bread (Exo 25:30; Lev 24:5). Lange. In all these cases the sacred character of the offering was conveyed not only by the admixture of oil, the type of holiness and sanctification, the addition of frankincense, the emblem of devotion, and the use of salt, the agent of preservation, and therefore called the salt of the covenant; but more decidedly still by the rigid prohibition of honey and leaven, representing fermentation and corruption, by the portion devoted to God and burnt in His honor as a memorial to bring the worshipper to His gracious remembrance, and lastly by the injunction to leave to the priests the remainder as most holy. Kalisch.

Three kinds of oblation are here mentioned, the second of which had three varieties: I. Fine flour with frankincense (Lev 2:1-3); II. Cakes or pastry: (a) of unleavened cakes mixed with oil and baked in an oven (Lev 2:4), or (b) of thin cakes, also unleavened, baked and then broken up and oil poured over them (Lev 2:5-6), or (c) of fine flour boiled in oil (Lev 2:7); the directions common to all these varieties occupy Lev 2:8-10, while those concerning all oblations are in Lev 2:11-13; III. Parched kernels of the first-fruits of grain with frankincense.

I. The first kind of oblation. Lev 2:1-3.

Lev 2:1. A soul=a person, any one of either sex.

Fine flour, a word of uncertain derivation, but clearly meaning fine flour, whether as separated from the bran, or as sifted from the coarser particles. The Syr. here renders puram, and in Gen 18:6 it is put in apposition with . It is probable that this flour was generally of wheat (see Exo 29:2), and the LXX. always translate it . The Vulg. has similia. does not occur in connection with the jealousy-oblation of barley, Num 5:15.

Put frankincense thereto.The incense was not mixed with the flour and oil, but so added that it might be wholly removed with the handful which was taken to be burned with the incense upon the altar. Frankincense was a costly, sweet-smelling, pale yellow resin, the milky exudation of a shrub, used for sacred fumigations (Fuerst), and also for purposes of royal luxury (Son 3:6). It is considered to have been a product of Southwestern Arabia. Its use in the oblations presented with the animal sacrifices must have been important. Maimonides (More Neboch., lib. III., c. 46): Elegitque ad eam thus, propter bonitatem odoris fumi ipsius in illis locis, ubi ftor est ex carnibus combustis.

Lev 2:2. And he shall take.The A. V. like the Heb. leaves the antecedent of the pronoun somewhat uncertain; but the Targ. Onkelos and the Vulg. are undoubtedly right in referring it to the priest, see Lev 6:15, and comp. also Lev 5:12. The transfer of the handful from the offerer to the priest who was to burn it would have been inconvenient.

Handful.Plainly what the hand could hold, and not, as the Rabbins have it, with the thumb and little finger closed, leaving three fingers open.

Memorial., applied only to that part of the oblation which was burnt upon the altar (Lev 2:9; Lev 2:16; Lev 6:15), to the corresponding part of the sin-offering of flour (Lev 5:12), of the jealousy-offering (Num 5:26), and also to the frankincense placed upon the shew-bread (Lev 24:7), which last was also burnt upon the altar. The LXX. render by , and the figurative application of that word to the prayers and alms of Cornelius (Act 10:4) throws light upon the significance of the oblation.

An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.The same expression as is applied to the burnt-offering, Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13; Lev 1:17.

Lev 2:3. And the remnant,etc.So far as the offerer was concerned, the oblation was as wholly given to the Lord as the burnt-offering; nothing of it was restored to him. There was a difference in the method by which it was given: the burnt-offering was wholly burned except the skin, which was given to the priest; the oblation had only an handful burned, together with all the incense, and the bulk of it was consumed by the priests.

A thing most holy. , lit. holy of holies. This term is applied to all sacrificial gifts which were wholly devoted to God, yet of which a part was given to Him by being given to His priests. It is not applied to the burnt-offerings, nor to the priestly oblations (Lev 6:19-23), nor to any other sacrifices which were wholly consumed upon the altar. All sacrifices were holy, and the phrase most holy is not to mark those to which it is applied as holier than the others; but is used only in regard to those which, having been wholly devoted, might possibly be perverted to other uses. Thus it is used of the oblations (Lev 2:3; Lev 2:10; Lev 6:17; Lev 10:12) of such of the sin and trespass-offerings as were not burned without the camp (Lev 6:25; Lev 6:29; Lev 7:1; Lev 7:6; Lev 10:17; Lev 14:13; Num 18:9), and of the shew-bread (Lev 24:9). Its use is similar when applied to other things than sacrifices; thus, Exo 40:10, it is used of the altar in contradistinction to the tabernacle which is called holy (Lev 2:9), because the altar was thus to be guarded from the touch of the people, while there was no danger in regard to the tabernacle proper, since they were forbidden to enter it at all (comp. Exo 29:37); so the term is applied to the sacred incense (Exo 30:36), and to all objects devoted by vow, whether man or beast or field (Lev 27:28). The parts of all most holy sacrifices which were not placed upon the altar must be eaten by the priests themselves in a holy place (Lev 6:26; Lev 7:6; Lev 10:17, etc.); and this holy placenot the sanctuary itselfis more particularly described (Lev 6:26) as in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation, and beside the altar (Lev 10:12). Whereas the priests portion of other sacrifices might be eaten with their families in any clean place (Lev 10:14).

II. The second kind of oblation. Lev 2:4-13.

This included several varieties of cakes or pastry all prepared from fine flour and with oil, but without frankincense.
(a) The first variety, Lev 2:4.

Lev 2:4. Baken in the oven. is an oven of any kind, but must here mean a portable oven, or rather a large earthen pot or jar, such as is still in use in the East for baking cakes, such as is mentioned in Lev 11:35 as capable of being broken; this was heated by a fire inside.

Cakes. from =to be perforated. A thick kind of cake pierced with holes after the fashion of our bakers biscuit. These were mixed up with oil before baking.

Wafersfrom = to beat or spread out thin, This denotes a kind of cake well described by wafer. It is often cooked by the Arabs on the outside of the same vessel in which the are baked at the same time. The oil was applied to these after they were baked.

(b) The second variety, Lev 2:5-6.

Lev 2:5. In a pan.. Authorities differ as to whether this is to be understood as in the text of the A. V. of a frying-pan, or as in the margin of a flat plate. The LXX. render which seems to be equally perpetuated in the iron frying-pans of the Cabyles of Africa, and the earthen plates of the Bedouins of the East, both being called tajen. The distinction of this variety of oblation from the former will be more marked if we may understand it of fried cakes, according to the translation of the A. V. in 1Ch 23:29. This was both to be made up with oil, and to have oil poured on it after it was cooked and broken into pieces.

(c) The third variety, Lev 2:7.

Lev 2:7. Boiled in a pot.This is another variety made up with oil and boiled, perhaps also boiled in oil. Lange notes that with each successive advance in the form of the oblation the addition of the oil seems to rise, as if the varying grade of spiritual life was distinguished by the consecration of lifes enjoyment. (See Keil, Knobel, 363.) But throughout the oil of the Spirit is the peculiar or appropriate vital essence of the offering, especially in the burnt-offering and the thank-offering, and above all in the sacrifice of the priests.

Directions common to both these varieties of oblation. Lev 2:8-10. These scarcely differ from the directions in Lev 2:2-3, except in the omission of incense which was not used with the cooked oblation. The in Lev 2:9 has the same sense with the of Lev 2:2 (comp. Lev 3:3 with Lev 4:8; Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35; Lev 4:10 with Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35), and means simply to lift off the part to be burned. It does not denote, as the Rabbins and others assert, any special waving ceremony.

Lev 2:11-13. General directions concerning all oblations.

Ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey.These were strictly prohibited as offerings to be laid upon the altar, but not for those offered to God by being given to His priests; thus they are allowed in Lev 2:12. Leavened bread is also required in the peace-offering to be used as a heave-offering (Lev 7:13-14), and in the Pentecostal loaves to be waved before the Lord (Lev 23:17; Lev 23:20), and honey is expressly enumerated among the first-fruits offered under Hezekiah (2Ch 31:5). The reason for the exclusion of these from the altar was undoubtedly their fermenting property (for honey was anciently used in the preparation of vinegar, Plin. Nat. Hist. xi. 15; xxi. 48); fermentation has ever been recognized as an apt symbol of the working of corruption in the human heart (Clark) both in Scripture (Luk 12:1; 1Co 5:8; Gal 5:9), and among the ancients generally (Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. x. 15), and hence was unsuitable for the altar of Jehovah, although as abundantly shown by Bochart (Hieroz. Ed. Rosen. III., p. 394 sq.) continually offered to the heathen deities. Honey was also by the ancient interpreters generally connected with the delici carnis so destructive of the spiritual life. The leaven signifies an incongruous fellowship with the world, easily becoming contagious, which must be excluded from the priestly fellowship with Jehovah. The honey, on the other hand, signified in contrast with the leaven, the dainty enjoyment of children, or especially infants (Isa 7:15), and was no food for the communion of priestly men with Jehovah. Lange.

Lev 2:12. As an offering.The sense is plainly that while leaven, i.e. anything made with leaven, and honey might not be burned upon the altar, they were yet allowable as offerings of first-fruits to be consumed by the priests.

Lev 2:13. This verse gives directions applicable to all oblations, and in fact to all sacrifices. The salt of the covenant of thy God.A covenant of salt is a perpetual covenant, Num 18:19; 2Ch 13:5; and this expression is said to be still in use among the Arabs at this day. Salt in its unalterable and preserving property is the opposite of leaven and of honey. Its symbolical meaning is therefore plain; the purifying and preserving principle must never be wanting from any offering made in covenant-relation with God.

With all thine offerings.From the connection of this clause it might, with Knobel, be taken as applicable only to oblations; but as salt was used with all offerings (Eze 43:24 : Mar 9:49), not only among the Hebrews, but other nations also (Plin. Nat. Hist. xxxi. 41 insacris … nulla conficiuntur sine mola salsa), and as on account of this universally recognized usage no other direction is anywhere given about it in the law, it seems better to take the words as a parenthetical clause meant to apply to all offerings of every kind.

III. The third kind of oblation. Lev 2:14-16. This kind of oblation is separated from the others probably because it was not like them offered in connection with the bloody sacrifices, but by itself, like the same kind of offering mentioned in Num 18:12-13. That offering, however, was obligatory, while this was voluntary. Lange, however, considers that this direction looks back to Lev 2:12, completing it. It is true that the leavened loaves of the first-fruits might not be brought to the sacrificial fire; but it is not on that account to be said that in general the first-fruits were not to be offered. Accordingly the form is now prescribed. These precepts are of course to be understood of private and voluntary oblations of first-fruits; both the time (on the morrow after the Passover-Sabbath, Lev 23:11) and the material (barleyfor this only was ripe at that time) of the public and required oblation grain were prescribed.

Lev 2:14. Green ears of grain.Ears freshly gathered of the maturing grain scarcely yet quite ripe. Stalks of wheat with the ears, gathered before they are entirely ripe, roasted by the fire, and the kernels of grain then beaten out, is still a favorite food in the East.

Lev 2:15-16. Oil and frankincense were to be added, and the oblation treated as that in Lev 2:2-3.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

I. As the burnt-offerings were of such domestic animals as were used for food, and yet not from every kind of them; so the oblations were of certain kinds of farinaceous food in common usenot indeed of all kinds, but of a sufficient variety to place the material of the offering always within easy reach. Both kinds of offerings, which were entirely voluntary, were thus made easily accessible to the people, and they were taught that the things of the daily life were to be sanctified by offerings to God. As the perfect animal was required for the burnt-offering, so the fine flour was demanded for the oblation; that which is given to God is to be of the best man has.

II. That which is once absolutely given to God may not afterwards be turned aside to any other use. However voluntary the gift, when it has once been stamped most holy, it belongs to Him alone. The principle is recognized in the N. T. in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. Yet what is given to God must often, as in the oblation, be largely consumed by those who minister on His behalf, and by secondary instrumentalities generally. This is recognized by St. Paul in 1Co 9:13-14, and must necessarily be true of the great mass of the gifts in the Christian Church given to God for the upholding and advancement of His kingdom on earth.

III. In the exclusion from the oblation of all ferment and the requirement of the salt of purity and preservation is plainly taught that approach to God must be free from contamination of the leaven of hypocrisy, and must have in it both purity and steadfastness.
IV. In the oblation, recognizing as a whole that man gives back to God of that which God has given to him, the use of the oil seems to have a more special significance. As an article of food it meant also what was meant by the fine flour; but inasmuch as oil is constantly in Scripture the emblem of Divine grace given through the Spirit, it was perhaps intended by its use in the oblation to signify also the acknowledgment that spiritual gifts are from God and belong to Him.

V. Much of the ritual of the oblation is applied in the N. T. to Christian duties and affections, sometimes in what is common to this with other offerings, sometimes in what belonged to this alone. Several such passages have already been pointed out; others may be added: Mat 16:6, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees: Mar 9:49-50, Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt..Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another; 1Co 5:7-8; Col 4:6, Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt; Heb 13:15, through Christ, Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The oblation to God, though unbloody and among the least of the sacrifices, must still be the best of its kind, of fine flour. It must have upon it the oil of an act of the Spirit, and the sweet frankincense of prayer. That it may be truly a gift to God, and acceptable, it is only necessary that a mere handful of it be actually burned upon His altar; the rest is still a gift to Him, although consumed by those who minister in His service. It is joined with the burnt-offering like blessing with faithful discharge of duty. Lange.

Every variety of food, fit for the altar, must be sanctified by an oblation. We ever ask: Give us this day our daily bread, and receiving it, we are called upon to acknowledge the Giver by giving to Him an offering of that which is His own. Even the leaven and the honey, which, from their fermenting properties, may not go upon the altar, may yet be offered as first-fruits. There is none of Gods gifts which we may use ourselves, with which we may not show our gratitude to the Giver.

In the worship of God we may not adopt our own inventions, though they may be sweet and delicious as honey to our own palates. Honey is good in its proper place, and heaven itself is typified by a land flowing with milk and honey (Exo 3:8; Exo 13:5); but if God forbids it, we must abstain from it, or we shall not come to that heavenly Canaan. Wordsworth.

That seasoning of salt, which the apostle requires for our conversation (Col 4:6), may not be wanting from our gifts to God. They are not to be insipid, but having that freshness and vital briskness which characterizes the Spirits presence and work. Alford.

Of first-fruits especially is an oblation to be brought. Not only should we give to God as He blesses us all along; but especially with each new harvest received from His bounty should a first portion be laid aside for His service.

Footnotes:

[1]Lev 2:1. .As this word is generally rendered a soul in the A. V., especially in the similar places, Lev 4:2; Lev 5:1-2; Lev 5:4; Lev 5:15; Lev 5:17; Lev 6:2, etc., it seems better to preserve as far as may he uniformity of translation.

[2]Lev 2:1. The words here translated in the A. V. meat-offering are the same as those rendered in Lev 2:4 an oblation of a meat-offering. In this technical language of the law it is certainly desirable to preserve a strict consistency of translation, even if it must sometimes cause an appearance of tautology. The word will therefore be rendered throughout offering; gift might be in itself considered a better translation; but as it is already rendered offering twenty-nine times in Lev., and almost universally (with only two exceptions) in Num., less change is required to make that translation uniform. On the other hand is already always in Lev. meat-offering in the A. V., and generally so in Num.; but the sense of meat has so generally changed since that version was made, that the term had better be replaced. In this book therefore it will be always rendered oblation, as it is in the Vulg. very frequently oblatio.

[3]Lev 2:1. The Sam. and LXX. add oblation est, i. e., this is the law of the oblation.

[4]Lev 2:2. With: for a similar construction of , see Exo 12:8.

[5]Lev 2:6. ; on this use of the Infin. abs. comp. Exo 13:3; Exo 20:8.

[6]Lev 2:6. The ancient form is here changed in ten MSS. and in the Sam. to the later .

[7]Lev 2:7. , derived (Gesenius, Fuerst) from , to boil up, and interpreted by Maimonides, Knobel, Keil and others of a pot or kettle for boiling;a deep vessel suitable for boiling flour and other substances thoroughly. Kalisch.

[8]Lev 2:8. in Hiph. is here used as the enhanced, second power of in Hiph. as in Jer 30:21. Lange.

[9]Lev 2:12. The A. V. is singularly unfortunate; this clause plainly refers to the leaven and honey of Lev 2:11.

[10]Lev 2:14. Corn is in this country so generally understood of maize that it seems better to substitute the more general word.

[11]Lev 2:14. Dried does not sufficiently give the sense of =roasted.

[12]Lev 2:15. Eighteen MSS. and the Sam here again, as in Lev 2:6, read .

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 120
THE MEAT-OFFERING

Lev 2:1-3. And when any will offer a meat-offering unto the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour: and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon: and he shall bring it to Aarons sons, the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord: and the remnant of the meat-offering shall be Aarons and his sons: it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire.

IN order to a judicious exposition of the types, it is necessary that we should have certain canons of interpretation, to which we should adhere: for, without them, we may wander into the regions of fancy, and cast an obscurity over those Scriptures which we undertake to explain. Now it must be remembered, that Christ and his Church, together with the whole work of salvation, whether as wrought by him, or as enjoyed by them, were the subjects of typical exhibition. Sometimes the type pointed more immediately at one part of this subject, and sometimes at another; and sometimes it applied to different parts at the same time. The tabernacle, for instance, certainly represented Christ, in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily: and it represented the Church also in which Gods presence is more especially manifested, and his service more eminently performed. The types being expressly instituted for the purpose of pre-figuring spiritual things, have a determinate meaning in their minutest particulars: and it is highly probable that they have always a two-fold accomplishment, one in Christ, and the other in the Church. For instance; every sacrifice undoubtedly directs our views to Christ: yet we ourselves also, together with our services, are frequently represented as sacrifices acceptable to him: which shews, that the sacrifices have a further reference to us also. But here, it is of great importance that we distinguish between those expressions of the New Testament which are merely metaphorical, and those which are direct applications of the types. St. Paul, speaking of the probability of his own martyrdom in the cause of Christ, says, If I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all. Here he alludes to the drink-offerings, which were always poured out upon the sacrifices; and intimates that he was willing to have his blood poured out in like manner for the Churchs good. This, as a metaphor, is beautiful; but if we were to make the sacrifices typical of faith, and the drink-offerings typical of martyrdom, and from thence proceed to explain the whole type in like manner, we should bring the whole into contempt. The rule then that we would lay down is this; to follow strictly the apostolic explanations as far as we have them; and, where we have them not, to proceed with extreme caution; adhering rigidly to the analogy of faith, and standing as remote as possible from any thing which may appear fanciful, or give occasion to cavillers to discard typical expositions altogether.

The foregoing observations are particularly applicable to the subject of our present consideration. We apprehend that the meat-offering might be applied in every particular both to Christ and his Church: but in some instances the application would appear forced; and therefore we think it better to omit some things which may possibly belong to the subject, than to obscure the whole by any thing of a doubtful nature. Besides, there are in this type such a multitude of particulars, that it would not be possible to speak satisfactorily upon them all in one sermon, if we were to take them in the most comprehensive view: we shall therefore confine ourselves to such observations as will commend themselves to your judgment, without perplexing you by too great a diversity on the one hand, or by any thing fanciful or doubtful on the other.

That we may prosecute the subject in a way easy to be understood, we shall distinguish the meat-offering by its great leading feature, and consider it in that view only. The burnt-offering typified exclusively the atonement of Christ: the meat-offering typified our sanctification by the Spirit.

As for the meat-offerings which accompanied the stated burnt-offerings, they, together with their attendant drink-offerings, were wholly consumed upon the altar; but those which were offered by themselves, were burnt only in part; the remainder being given to the priests for their support. It is of these that we are now to speak. The different materials of which they consisted, will serve us for an easy and natural distribution of the subject.

The first thing to be noticed is, The fine flour
[Whatever we see burnt upon the brasen altar, we may be sure was typical of the atonement of Christ: whether it were the flesh of beasts, or the fruits of the earth, there was no difference in this respect: it equally typified his sacrifice. This appears not only from the meat-offering being frequently mentioned together with the burnt-offering in this very view [Note: See Psa 40:6-8 and Heb 10:5-8.], but from its being expressly referred to as a means of expiating moral guilt [Note: 1Sa 3:14; 1Sa 26:19. The mincha is the offering spoken of in both these places.]. It is on this account that we number it among the propitiatory sacrifices, notwithstanding its use in other respects was widely different. There is indeed, in the mode of treating this fine flour, something well suited to shadow forth the sufferings of Christ: it was baked (in a pan or oven) or fried, and, when formed into a cake, was broken and burnt upon the altar. Who can contemplate this, and not see in it the temptations, conflicts, and agonies of the Son of God? We cannot but recognize in these things, him, who was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities; who himself tells us, that He was the true bread, of which whosoever ate, should live for ever.

In the close of the chapter we are told, that, notwithstanding the first-fruits, when offered as the first-fruits, might not be burnt upon the altar [Note: 2.], yet, if offered as a meat-offering, they would be accepted [Note: 416.] ; and that in that case the ears must be dried by the fire, and the corn be beaten out, to be used instead of flour. The mystery in either case was the same: the excellency of Christ was marked in the quality of the corn, and his sufferings in the disposal of it.]

The next thing that calls for our attention is, The oil
[Though the sacrifice of Christ is the foundation of all our hopes, yet it will not avail for our final acceptance with God, unless we be renewed in the spirit of our minds, and be rendered meet for the heavenly inheritance. But to effect this, is the work of the Holy Spirit, by whose gracious operations alone we can mortify the deeds of the body, and attain the divine image on our souls. Hence, in approaching God with their meat-offering, they were to mingle oil with the flour, or to anoint it with oil, after having previously made it into a cake. We do not deny but that this part of the ordinance might represent, in some respect, the endowments of Christ, who was anointed to his work, and fitted for it, by a superabundant measure of the Holy Ghost [Note: Luk 4:18 and Joh 3:34.]: but, as it seems designed more particularly to mark the sanctification of our souls, we the rather confine it to that sense. And in this we have the sanction of two inspired persons, a Prophet, and an Apostle, both of whom, refer to the mincha as expressive of this very idea. Isaiah, speaking of the conversion of the Gentiles in the latter days, says, Men shall bring them for an offering (a mincha) unto the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering (a mincha) in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord [Note: Isa 66:20.]. And St. Paul, speaking of that event as actually fulfilled under his ministry, goes yet further into the explanation of it, and says, that the sanctification of their souls by the Holy Ghost corresponded with the unction wherewith that offering was anointed: I am, says he, the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost [Note: Rom 15:16.].

Here then we are warranted in saying, that all who would find acceptance with God, must have an unction of the Holy One, even that anointing which shall abide with them and teach them all things [Note: 1Jn 2:20; 1Jn 2:27.]. We should be filled with the Spirit, and live and walk under his gracious influences [Note: Eph 5:18; Gal 5:25.].]

In a subsequent part of this chapter there is an especial command to add to this, and indeed to every sacrifice, a portion of Salt,
[Here we have no difficulty; for the very terms in which the command is given, sufficiently mark its import: Thou shalt not suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat-offering [Note: 3.]. Had salt been mentioned alone, we might have doubted what meaning to affix to it; but, being annexed to the covenant of God, we do not hesitate to explain it as designating the perpetuity of that covenant. It is the property of salt to keep things from corruption: and the Scriptures frequently apply it to the covenant, in order to intimate its unchangeable nature, and duration [Note: See Num 18:19; 2Ch 13:5.]. In this view of it, we are at no loss to account for the extreme energy with which the command is given, or the injunction to use salt in every sacrifice: for we cannot hope for pardon through the sacrifice of Christ, nor for sanctification by the Spirit, but according to the tenour of the everlasting covenant. Nay, neither the one nor the other of these, nor both together, would have availed for our salvation, if God had not covenanted with his Son to accept his sacrifice for us, and to accept us also as renewed and sanctified by his Spirit. We must never therefore approach our God without having a distinct reference to that covenant, as the ground and measure, the pledge and earnest, of all the blessings that we hope for. Even Christ himself owed his exaltation to glory to this covenant: it was through the blood of the everlasting covenant that his God and Father brought him up again from the dead [Note: Heb 13:20.]. And it is because that covenant is ordered in all things and sure, that we can look up with confidence for all the blessings both of grace and glory.]

Together with these things that are enjoined, we find some expressly prohibited: there must be No leaven, nor honey [Note: 1.]

[Leaven, according to our Lords own explanation of it, was considered as an emblem of corruption either in doctrine or in principle [Note: Mat 16:12; Luk 12:1.]: and honey seems to have denoted sensuality. Now these were forbidden to be blended with the meat-offering.

There were occasions, as we shall see hereafter, whereon leaven at least might be offered; but in this offering not the smallest measure of either of them was to be mixed. This certainly intimated, that, when we come before God for mercy, we must harbour no sin in our hearts. We must put away evil of every kind, and offer him only the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. The retaining a right hand or a right eye, contrary to his commands, will be as effectual a bar to our acceptance with God, as the indulgence of the grossest lusts. If we would obtain favour in his sight, we must be Israelites indeed, and without guile.]

There was however one more thing to be added to this offering, namely, Frankincense
[The directions respecting this were singularly precise and strong. This was not to be mixed with the offering, or strewed upon it, but to be put on one part of it, that, while a small portion only of the other materials was put upon the altar, the whole of this was to be consumed by fire [Note:, 16. all, all.]. Shall we say, that this was enjoined, because, being unfit for food, it was not to be kept for mere gratification to the priests, lest it should be brought into contempt? This by no means accounts sufficiently for the strictness of the injunction. We doubt not but that its meaning was of peculiar importance: that it was intended to intimate the delight which God takes in the services of his upright worshippers [Note: Pro 15:8.], of those especially who come to him under the influences of his Spirit, trusting in the Saviours merits, and in the blood of the everlasting covenant. Yes, their every prayer, their every tear, their every sigh and groan, comes up with acceptance before him, and is to him an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice pleasing and acceptable unto him through Jesus Christ. As the sacrifice of Christ himself was most pleasing unto God, so are the services of all his people for Christs sake [Note: Compare Eph 5:2 with Heb 13:16; Php 4:18 and 1Pe 2:5.].]

There is yet one thing more which we must notice, namely, that a part only of this offering was burnt, and that
The remnant was given to the priests [Note:, 10.]

[The handful which was burnt upon the altar, is repeatedly called a memorial: and it was justly called so, especially by those who had an insight into the nature of the offering which they presented: for it was a memorial of Gods covenant-engagements, and of their affiance in them. Such also is, in fact, every prayer which we present to God: we remind God (so to speak) of his promises made to us in his word; and we plead them as the grounds of our hope, and the measure of our expectations.

The remnant was given to Aaron and his sons. This, to the Israelites, would intimate, that all who would obtain salvation for themselves, must at the same time be active in upholding the interests of religion, and promoting the glory of their God. To us, it unfolds a deeper mystery. We are frequently spoken of in the New Testament as being ourselves made priests unto God [Note: Isa 66:21 with 1Pe 2:5 and Rev 1:6; Rev 20:6.]. Since the veil of the temple was rent in twain, there is a way, a new and living way, opened for us into the Holy of Holies [Note: Heb 10:19-22.] ; and all of us, as a kingdom of priests, have free and continual access thither with boldness and with confidence [Note: Eph 3:12.]: and we also have a right to all the provisions of Gods house. It is our blessed privilege to feed upon that bread of life, the Lord Jesus, who has emphatically said, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed [Note: Joh 6:51-57.]. We may richly participate all the influences of the Spirit, and claim all the blessings of the everlasting covenant. Indeed, if we feed not on these things, there is no life in us; but if we live upon them by faith, then have we eternal life.

Behold then, Brethren, the remnant of the offering: here it is, reserved for us in this sacred treasury, the book of God. Take of it; divide it among yourselves; eat of it; eat and drink abundantly, O beloved [Note: Son 5:1.] ; eat of it, and live forever. It is that feast of fat things, spoken of by the prophet, which all of you are invited to partake of [Note: Isa 25:6.]. Only let not any hidden abomination turn it into a curse. If the bread be received even from the Saviours hands, and you partake of it with an unsanctified heart, it will only prove an occasion of your more entire bondage to Satan, and your heavier condemnation at the last [Note: Joh 13:26-27.]. But, if you draw nigh to God with a true heart, and full assurance of faith, he will abundantly bless your provision [Note: Psa 132:15.], and your soul shall delight itself in fatness [Note: Isa 55:2.].]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

CONTENTS

This Chapter, in prosecuting the law of ordinances, relates the appointments respecting of the meat-offerings; which consisted of flour, with oil, and incense: the method to be used, in the preparation of the offerings, is also here pointed out; and some regulations noticed, respecting the of the first fruits in the ear of corn.

Lev 2:1

As there was to be a daily sacrifice, see Exo 29:38-39 . So it should seem, that the offering with frankincense, was also daily. Did not the one point to the daily efficacy of the blood of CHRIST? And did not the other set forth the necessity of his daily intercession? Rev 8:3-4 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

The Meat-offering

Lev 2:12-16

We have been accustomed to the terms “burnt-offering,” “offering of the flocks,” “offering of the fowls,” “the burnt sacrifice,” “an offering made by fire of sweet savour unto the Lord,” now we read of a “meat-offering.” Is there, then, already in these ancient writings some hint of appropriation, participation in a sacred feast? The other offerings stand outside of us; we do not know all the meaning of the mysterious flame; it is something done by us under the inspiration and direction of God. But is the “meat-offering” a hint of something that is done within us for our spiritual nourishment, for the daily culture of the soul in all its best qualities and moods? Is it a solitary feast? or, being solitary at a given historical point, is it suggestive of communion, fellowship, participation with others yea, with the Master himself in festal blessing? We have become weary with the burnt-offerings, with slaughters and blood-shedding; but the “meat-offering” seems to hint at eucharistic hospitality, the appropriation of the body and the blood of Christ in a great symbolic act whose majesty is shaded by its tenderness. We are not yielding to fancy in any wanton or lawless sense in thus finding the germs and beginnings of things. Even the Church has its Genesis; even the Bible has its first book its seed-house; and blessed are they, as men who are very wealthy in spiritual possessions, who can wisely, and rationally, and truly seize the very plasm out of which all the Church-universe has been developed and consolidated.

The “meat-offering” was to be seasoned with salt. It is wonderful to mark how God in his providence attaches his kingdom to old customs or prevalent practices, or to usages that had great meanings to the common people, so that through them as through parabolical images he might communicate his own highest purposes and meanings. This is what Christianity always does. In going into the nations it studies the customs of the people; it aims very quickly to preach in the native tongue. It does not stand up in its ancient pride and classical elegance and say to other nations, even to peoples who have no grammar or formal speech, “You must learn my tongue.” It says, “What is your speech? How do you hold commerce with one another? Show me your methods of communicating with one another as to spiritual impression, or purpose, or action that has a meaning and a design, and I will adopt your plans, methods, customs and usages, for through them, better than through any other medium, I can communicate my purpose to you.” Christianity is the condescending religion; Christianity is the religion that can afford to stoop; there is majesty in its every attitude. Its Founder made himself of no reputation, but took upon himself the form of a slave that he might raise and save the world. There was an ancient Eastern custom as to the use of salt and the meaning of salt as used upon various occasions. There have been countries in which the eating of salt with a man meant eternal friendship. Said one, “I cannot fight with him” naming a supposed enemy “because we have eaten salt together.” A custom among the Arabs was, in the forming of any serious covenant, to sprinkle salt upon a sword, and for the two covenanting parties to partake of the salt so sprinkled, and the understanding was that nothing should ever be allowed to violate that covenant. It was a covenant seasoned with salt, sealed by the most solemn formalities. Arabs, who can trifle with language, who have a subtlety of mind that can make distinctions where other intelligences fail to perceive any differences, would hold themselves bound by a common participation of salt sprinkled upon a sword never to violate the awful covenant. The Lord adopts our customs wherein they are to us most significant. He begins with the human mind where he can. Instead of formulating some new method unheard of and open to all the perils of controversial interpretation, he says, in effect, “What are your most solemn usages?” Finding them to be in themselves innocent, involving no corruptness or malice, he adopts such usages as points of beginning just as he would invent a parable whereby to express a kingdom. There is a great law here which we ought to study more carefully and apply more fearlessly. Christianity consents to be, in a sense, nationalised accentuated by the peculiarities of the people who receive it It cannot be otherwise. It is so amongst ourselves. Every man seasons his sacrifice according to his individuality, in other words, marks his labour by his own image and superscription, so that it is his labour expressively and exclusively; it bears upon it the touch of his own soul. When India receives the Christian revelation we shall have Indian preaching, Indian books: the old truths, which never can be changed in substance, expressed in new eloquence, startling allegory, wondrous philosophy: words will be turned to new uses and miracles will be wrought in the speech of men. So with every other nation. Each will have its own form of Christianity, its own method of representing the Gospel, its own condiment with which to season its most religious actions. Let us be more fearless herein. Let us recognise the diversity of human qualities, capacities, and general gifts. We must not mechanise the divine kingdom or the eternal book. Where can each man attach himself to this redeeming thought? should be the supreme question of the Church. The true Church includes all churches. They may not all stand upon one level, but they are all shone upon by the same impartial Sun, all grouped in the same infinite constellation which constitutes the crown of Christ. Can you seize the Christian thought best at the humanity of Christ? then seize it there and despise the theological odium that may be heaped upon you by theological bigots. Can you, on the other hand, at once, as if by some spiritual kinship, enter into the very highest mysteries of the Divine Nature? Then begin even there away among the upper places radiant with celestial splendour and heed not the imputations of fanaticism which may be accorded to you by theological utilitarians. Do you need some other point of attachment? and have you found one of your own? Have you found it? keep it, it is yours by right of spiritual revelation, or mental conquest, wrought in you as a miracle by God the Holy Ghost. The one thing to be observed is this: that the central truth may be the same must be the same; Christ cannot change, his priesthood cannot be altered; but recognise the sublime possibility that by a thousand different ways of merely particular thinking and seizure of principles we may all at last come into a common light and hail one another in a communion to which we have passed through all the tumult of sometimes angry controversy.

Here is the element of discipline even in worship. We have not been accustomed to associate worship and discipline, but the two cannot be properly or justly that is, in harmony with the genius of the divine purpose dissociated. Worship is discipline; discipline in its highest sense is worship. Is God careless about the way in which he is worshipped, or approached, or sought unto? Already in these ancient writings we find that it is God himself who marks the road, keeps the gate, gives the password, indicates times, seasons, gifts, quantities methods. There is no human invention in all this poetry of worship, nor is there laxity. No man is left to himself to invent his own religion, to build his own little altar, and to have everything according to his own way of thinking. This is the marvellous apparent contradiction of the divine testimony individuality, but under divine inspiration; divine inspiration accommodating itself to national circumstances and to individual capacities, but all the time preserving a central and unchangeable substance. This cannot always be explained in words. We must live some expositions. We must pray ourselves, and through much suffering introduce ourselves, into some of the many provinces of the heavenly kingdom. Even where God adopts a national habit, or an individual capacity and accent, he adopts whatever he takes in hand so as to bring it under continual and most holy discipline. Pray in your own time, but pray at the appointed altar; bring your offering willingly, but having brought it willingly offer it according to the standard and law of the sanctuary. We must not be lax in our worship. Voluntariness, consent and assent of the mind must not be understood as permitting new ventures, out-of-the-way customs, the very establishment of which conceals a tribute to our own vanity. In the kingdom of Christ there is the largest liberty for individual thought, capacity, expression, and yet there is a centripetal force that binds all diversities to its own great heart. Unity in diversity, diversity forming itself into unity, these are the practical mysteries; but, blessed be God, these are also the daily revelations of the highest spiritual life and relation. Herein we have been unjust to the gracious spirit of Christianity: we have come to church when we pleased, we have listened to Gospel ministration when we were disposed to do so, we have given the offering in any way that best suited the convenience of the moment, we have entered the house of God when our circumstances suggested we should do so, we have entered it perfunctorily, we have left it hastily, we have scampered through its exercises as through something that must unhappily be done; all this has but whitened the sepulchre, has but aggravated the blasphemy which it seemed to conceal. Let no man think that he can alter God’s waiting: or set back the ordinances of Heaven: that he can come into the book just where he pleases, how he pleases, and extract from it the message which God left there only for humble souls and broken hearts. There is a discipline of worship. There is a law that watches the altar a flaming sword moving every way that keeps the tree of Life. We must not debase the name of liberty by reducing its permissions into the extravagances of licentiousness. Discipline in every part of life must be our law; in our uprising and our downsitting, in all we think, say, do, the whole life must have, upon it the touch, the superintendence, criticism, and sacred intention of spiritual meaning.

Whatever of frankincense, or leaven, or oil, we may bring with the offering, if it be a meat-offering we must not forget the salt. Leaven and oil represent possible fermentation, corruption and depreciation of quality salt represents that which is antiseptic preservative, vital, permanent. The salt may not be required in some offerings, but it is required in one, and that offering the “meat-offering,” the participation-offering, the festival-service. There must be some seal with divine meanings in it. Perhaps we may be left in some sense to adopt our own particular seal; but the seal must be there the vital signature. Your letter means nothing until you have signed it; it is no letter addressed even to the eye, much less to the heart, until it bears the signature of the hand that wrote it and the man that meant it all. Your blessing upon your food may be very brief, but it is a blessing; before eating your bread you may but look up silently unto heaven, but there is a silence that is an infinite prayer. You must for yourself determine in many instances what the seal is to be whether salt, or an upward look, or a sigh, the confession of unworthiness, or some gentle family hymn sung by the father and the mother and all the children. Fix your own seal. It may be unknown by any other person or family in the whole Church, but it is yours; and in some things God has been pleased to allow us this gracious liberty, this license of spiritual invention, but without the seal which to you has the greatest meaning what you do may be worthless. The one great seal never can be changed, and that is the name of Christ, the priesthood of the Son of God, the ever-speaking blood, that admits of no variation, or modification, or rearrangement; it abides for ever. But there are other seals, tokens and intimations, in the use of which we may have much liberty. Your worship may be right as to its form; but it may be offered in a wrong spirit. A man may pray blasphemously; a man may pray profanely. There are prayers that are profanity in its worst form. When you use the altar as a place of judgment upon others when you pray so as to inflict pain upon those who are supposed to share your intercession when under the shelter of talking to God you talk bitterly to men of their offences, and shortcomings, and evil deeds the worship in its act and in some of its general meanings may be right, but being uttered in a wrong spirit it falls downward. Thank God he has a bottomless pit for our pithless, soulless, Christless prayers! You may give the right gift of time, or money, or influence be it what it may, but being unsalted with your heart’s consent, it is not accepted in the treasury of heaven; it does not amount to a practical and accepted contribution; a voice says, “Thy money perish with thee: both of you rot together or be eaten up by a common canker.” You have the right creed, but if it be unaccompanied by sacrifice it is no faith, it is without the salt of real, genuine trust; it is a form of godliness but without the power thereof. This is the position about which we should be most anxiously jealous. It has become so common to think that a creed merely as such an enumerated and regulated act of beliefs can save the world. All these we may need, every one of them may be of great importance; but until our creed becomes our faith, until it is taken into the heart and reproduced in the life by loving sacrifice, daily seasoned with salt, continually ablaze to the heavens, it is a creed only which a parrot might repeat not an inspiration which an angel might covet. Hence we come to have mechanical orthodoxies, hence we add to the profanity of a lifetime the audacity which can sentence men to the right hand or to the left in proportion as they read our books and adopt our lines and our formal positions. Blessed be God! our Maker is our Judge. He looks at the spirit. “To this man will I look.” “To which man, Lord?” “The man who is of a broken and a contrite heart and who trembleth at my word.” Where has that man ever been regarded as a Christian? Where is his name set down at the top of any human list? Nowhere; and that confession must be followed by a thanksgiving. You may be on the right side of an argument, but if your position be unsalted by enthusiasm your patronage is a burden. You count one by the register, but you are not counted at all by the God of the battle. A right man, a right side, without a right spirit; on the right nominal list without being inflamed by Heaven’s pure fire, that is falsehood, that is irony, that keeps back the kingdom of heaven from its proper advance to-day. Let the cold man leave the Church; we shall be the warmer for that subtraction of coldness. Do not let the formalist patronise the Cross; he hurts us, he hurts the cause, he hurts the Son of God. Take your patronage over to the other side: you grieve the Spirit of God! The offering is nominally right, the contribution is formally to all appearance as it ought to be; but the soul is wanting, the fire, the enthusiasm, the love, the passion, the one thing that gives it significance and value.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

III

OFFERINGS

Leviticus 1-7

I make some general statements that apply to those books of the Pentateuch before Leviticus. In sacrifices of every kind, we commence with the fundamental idea of vicarious expiation. Vicarious means “in the place of another,” a substitute dying for another. The next advance in thought is the atonement that is made in heaven based upon the blood that he shed here upon earth. The next thought is, how the blood of the expiatory sacrifice is applied to the sinner. The next is, that but once is the expiatory blood ever sprinkled on the mercy seat; after that, it is sprinkled just outside the most holy place. There are sins that a man commits after Christ’s blood is applied, and for these sins there are offerings and the application to the forgiveness of sins; those particular offenses and all of these things are presented in this book and afterward realized in the New Testament idea.

First of all the offerings is the vicarious offering, simply because every other one depends on that. You couldn’t offer what is called a thank offering unless there had first been an expiatory offering based upon which the thank offering can be offered. One cannot offer a peace offering unless it is based upon the idea of an expiation that has preceded that peace offering. The fundamental idea then is the expiatory sacrifice of the substitutionary victim.

The word “burnt offering” is a very comprehensive term. A burnt offering may be a sin offering, it may be a consecration offering, it may be a meal offering or it may be a peace offering. Then the burnt offering may be burnt in whole or in part. In the case of a sin offering it is always burnt, every make his offering. Now, poor people could not have offered pigeon. Why? Why that variety? So that every one could bit of it; so in the consecration offerings; in others only a part is burnt. So it is very easy to get your mind confused on the burnt offering.

The next thought in connection with the burnt offering is, where it is burned. There are only two places where the burnt offering can be burned. If it is a sin offering as well as a burnt offering, it is all burned outside the camp; but if it is a consecration burnt offering, or of that kind, the burning is always on the brazen altar of sacrifice.

Now, let us take up the idea of the burnt offering which is for the purpose of consecration. These offerings, or consecrations, are of great variety. I will tell you why directly. One might offer a bullock, a goat, a sheep, a turtledove, or a young a bullock when they wanted to consecrate themselves unto God; it was more than they were able to pay. It is an indication of the extreme poverty of our Lord’s family that when they went to consecrate him they could not bring any more than a pair of turtledoves. The object of the variety is to enable everybody to make an offering, whether rich or poor.

The next thought in this connection is, that this must always be a whole offering, not a part. If one was rich enough to offer a bullock, he must offer the whole bullock and the whole bullock was burned. If he was so poor that he could only offer turtledoves, he never presented half of the turtledove or pigeon, but presented the whole dove, the whole pigeon.

The next thought is the last on the consecration offering, viz.: that no life can be consecrated unless it has first been saved; therefore, I say expiation comes first. Now leaving the expiation idea, let us see what is the thought. When a man is saved, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, what is the first question for him? It is that his entire life and everything that he has is to be consecrated to God. This is the first thought. That was the thought when Jesus was presented in the Temple and when the appearance of the turtledoves indicated the consecration. Everything that he had was laid upon the altar of God.

Now let us look at an era of Texas history. All of you who live in Texas have doubtless heard George Truett’s sermon on consecration. I am sure he has preached it a hundred times. The idea is the giving up wholly to God after you are first saved; that you cannot give your sinful nature to God, but if the blood of Christ has cleansed you, then you can come before God. That is what this Levitical law requires. He was to bring the turtledoves and the whole of them was to be put upon the altar.

Now let us look at the ritual for the consecration offering. When one made that offering, first of all he laid his hands upon it. That indicates the idea of the transfer of his sins to the victim; it also indicates that his faith laid hold on that victim for what was done for him in that offering. In the New Testament times, you will see that the laying on of hands came to signify the imparting of the Holy Spirit.

What was done with the expiatory blood? That was carried into the most holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat. What was done with the blood of the victim in the consecration offering? It was never carried and sprinkled on the mercy seat, because it was based on the expiation, but it was sprinkled on the sides of the brazen altar. Now, get these significant thoughts in your mind. This is to show that one must offer to God, without any mental reservation whatever, an entire consecration of affection, of talents, of money, of everything that he has. That is why Brother Truett preached that sermon so much. He saw the little things that Christians were doing, and the ease with which they go along, and he wanted to preach that fundamental sermon which would show them that if they were God’s children then they were called upon to lay upon the altar themselves and everything that they had. As Paul says about the churches of Macedonia, that they first gave themselves and then gave their contribution. A contribution without giving yourself doesn’t count.

Now, let us get the idea of fire, the burning, that is, God’s acceptance of the consecration. When the fire consumes utterly the whole of the burnt offering that is laid upon the altar, that fire represents the idea of God’s acceptance and appropriation of the consecration of the entire life. Take, for example, the marvelous scene that occurred in the days of Elijah. The people assembled to determine who was the true God, Jehovah or Baal. The priests of Baal built their altar and laid their sacrifices on it, and then from morning till evening prayed: “O Baal, hear us; now if Baal be God, let him send down the fire and show that he accepts it.” Elijah wanted to show them the difference in the case of Jehovah. So when he had prepared the altar and laid the victim on it, he had barrels of water poured on the victim until the water filled the trenches around the altar of Jehovah. If Jehovah had fire hot enough to consume it, he was surely God. When he prayed, “O, Jehovah, hear us,” fire came down and devoured the sacrifice and licked up the water out of the trenches. The significance of the fire is that it is God’s acceptance of the offering.

The next thought is that which takes place when the smoke of the offering goes up. When you come to the New Testaments Paul says that when they made their offerings it was a sweet savour unto God (Phi 4:18 ).

Now let us take up the next burnt offerings, i.e., the meal offerings. This is not the consecration offering. This consists, as to its materials, of an agricultural product of one kind or another. And when they were brought up and put upon the altar, what is meant by it? It means that, as the whole life was consecrated to God in the consecration offerings, in this one the idea is service. First, we have expiation, then consecration, then service, and these thoughts presented in the book of Leviticus are of real value. If you were to go to preach a sermon on this, you would divide it thus: First, expiation, then atonement, then the consecration of the entire life which has been saved, then service.

There is another distinction between the meal offering and the consecration offering, viz.: that it is intended by the meal offering to make a contribution to the ministers of religion, priests in those times, preachers in these times; that it is a reasonable service of saved men, consecrated men, devoted to service, to minister carnal things to those who minister unto them spiritual things. So, a large part of the offering went to the priest, and to show the application of it in the New Testament Paul says that they went up to the altar and partook of the things of the altar. So God has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. In the last chapter of Leviticus there is this addition made, viz.: the tithe of all that God had given them, and that tenth, or tithe, was for keeping up the worship, or service of God. The peace offering must never precede the expiation. There is no peace with God until the sins are expiated. The peace offering is not all burned, only a part of it. The object of the peace offering was not to obtain peace. In other words, the peace offering relates to peace because of expiation, and Paul translates that idea into the New Testament language, “Being justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The justification is based on the expiation. There is no such thing as peace, spiritual peace with God, until first there has been justification and atonement and God has declared one justified. In this peace offering we come also to the idea of fellowship. Here the people share with the priest in eating of what is not burned. Only certain parts are burned; the other parts are kept for a feast and the people come up and eat with the officers and the priests in this.

We now come to a distinction in what are called sin offerings. In burning the offerings known as the sin offerings, if one was a king or a priest, he had to make a greater offering than if he had been one of the common people. Why is that? Now, just think about it. It means that if a king’s son sins or if the preacher sins, it is a greater offense than if any one else sins, because he occupies a higher position. It is required that those who bear the vessels of God should be holy. I heard a preacher say that he had as much right to do wrong as any one in his congregation. Perhaps he did, but the responsibility on that preacher to abstain from doing wrong is stronger than on a member of his congregation and he is held to a stricter and larger account.

I now call your attention to this feature of the sin offering, viz.: the Old Testament makes it perfectly clear that a sin offering must be made for a sin of which the person is unconscious; for sins that are unwittingly done. I heard a Methodist preacher give a definition of sin. He said, “Sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law.” I told him to strike out “voluntary” and strike out “known” and even then he would not have a true definition of sin. Suppose that a little child steps on a red-hot iron, does the child’s unwitting act or ignorant act keep that hot iron from burning its foot? You hold out a candle before a baby; it looks pretty and he will reach out and grab it and is burned. The law of nature is fixed. Now you apply that to the spiritual world. Law is not a sliding scale; law is a fixed thing; a thing is right or a thing is wrong, utterly regardless of whether we know it to be right or know it to be wrong. David offers this prayer: “Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” Not faults that he is keeping secret, but of which he is utterly unconscious.

And it is in this connection that I must speak of a very important matter of which Leviticus does not treat at all, viz.: the sin for which no offering can be made. We learn about it when we come to Numbers. The soul that doeth right in ignorance, an atonement shall be made for that sin; the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, no atonement can be made for that sin. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but the certain fearful looking for judgment. Now, Jesus taught that a certain kind of sin is an eternal sin. It never has forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come. That does not mean that some sins are forgiven here and some over yonder, but that God may forgive sins as for eternity and yet chastise the sinner here upon earth. When we come to the New Testament, particularly, to discuss the unpardonable sin, the sin for which there is no provision for forgiveness, I will show you how easily one may become possessed with the idea of committing the unpardonable sin.

I received a letter from a soldier in the regular army last year. He said, “I have never met you but I have heard that you have studied the Bible a great deal. I am in deep trouble. I have knowingly and wilfully committed sin.” Then he quoted that passage, “If we sin wilfully.” And he says, “Have I not committed the unpardonable sin?” I wrote him that his trouble arose from misunderstanding the kind of knowledge that meant; that it did not mean a sin against intellectual knowledge. The unpardonable sin is a sin against spiritual knowledge. Paul says that he sinned ignorantly, and that did not mean that he was intellectually ignorant of the Old Testaments, but he meant that he did not have the spiritual light that points to Jesus Christ.

The only way in which a man can commit the sin for which there is no atonement to be made is in a case like this: We will suppose that a great meeting is in progress, in which the power of God is marvelously displayed; in which the people of God are praying; in which the presence of God is felt in their gathering by any Christian. If, while preaching is going on in such a meeting and Jesus Christ is held up, a sinner is impressed by the Spirit of God that the preacher is telling the truth, that he (the sinner) is a lost soul, and that Jesus is his appointed Saviour, and he, under that spiritual knowledge, feels impressed to make & movement forward and accept Christ and turns away from that spiritual knowledge and says “No,” deliberately, maliciously, and wilfully walking away from it, that is the unpardonable sin. I heard a preacher once, when he saw a boy and girl laughing, accuse them of committing the unpardonable sin. I thought he was committing a great sin to make such accusation. Now, I have discussed the sin for which there is no offering. I have brought it in here because I don’t want to discuss it twice.

Suppose I should ask this question: What is the difference between the sin offering and the trespass offering? I will mention one; it is not all. Suppose a man in ancient times killed another one, the sin offering was made; suppose he stole $100 from a man, then he brought the trespass offering; one is called a sin offering and the other, trespass offering. In the trespass offering, one has to make restitution before he gets forgiveness. He can’t restore if he has killed a man; but if he has stolen money, if it is in his power, he must give the money back. Shakespeare asks this question: “Can a man be pardoned and retain the offence?” If he slips into your room and appropriates a piece of your property and goes off and says, “God forgive me,” God says, “Go and put the property back.” In the sin offering, there is no restitution on his part; there, the great sacrifice of Jesus is the one; but here is something he can do.

Now, who can answer this question: What denomination insists most on restitution where one has committed the trespass? I am sorry that I cannot say that it is the Baptists. It is the Roman Catholics. Just; let any one come and confess to a priest and want absolution don’t believe in confessing to a priest, but let that man come there and make that confession and that priest will insist on restitution before he will absolve him; no way to get out of it.

How is it with most people on that matter? They are ashamed to make restitution, because restitution exposes them. They often do it secretly. For instance, a man by unrighteousness, by burdening a thousand hearts, by bringing desolation into a thousand homes, will acquire an immense fortune. He does not feel right about it and wants to ease his conscience. He won’t come out and say, “I did wrong,” but he says, “I will give to one of the religious denominations, or I will build a church, or I will establish some good charity.” Do you know that a unique part of American history illustrates that part of the case? That is the conscience fund. The United States had to establish a conscience fund. They get so many letters of this kind unsigned: “I robbed the government by withholding a tax that was due. I should have paid it. My conscience so lashes me under religious conviction that I am compelled now to put that money back.” Now, this same conscience fund has assumed enormous proportions. Men feel that they do not want to come out and make a confession. They do not come out and say, “Mr. A and Mr. B confess to have stolen from the government.” It is a fine thing in America that conscience takes hold of us.

Now, study the difference in the trespass offering and the sin offering and you will see that in the case of the trespass offering there must be restitution not only in the law which was broken but fourfold. Zaccheus in the New Testament times says, “Lord, if I have wronged anybody, I restore it fourfold,” which is a reference to this law. As I have borne testimony to the fidelity of the Roman Catholics, I will tell you an amusing thing in literature. One of the greatest historic romancers was Sir Walter Scott, who wrote the book, The Betrothed. A certain castle was left in charge of a knight, to be held faithfully until the owner returned from the Holy Land. A certain number of Flemish people had come over from Flanders and had established a colony under the walls of the castle. When the old knight went out to fight his battle in which he thought he would die, he put this old Flemish man in charge of his castle. The priest distrusted the Flemish man. He believed the Fleming was about to receive overtures from the enemy. The danger was that they were about to destroy the castle. So they managed to get him to hold parley that if they would deliver a certain number of cattle, that he would consider opening the gates to them. The old priest disguised himself and heard the Fleming make that treaty and he determined to denounce him. The Fleming took the priest aside and said: “Father, I have a daughter, Rose. I got into financial trouble and I promised a man that I would give him my daughter if he would give me four hundred marks, and now I have received the four hundred marks and I don’t want to give my daughter.” “Sir, you must restore the four hundred marks.” “Well, but, Father,” he says, “those cattle you see coming yonder are the marks I received, the daughter Rose is this castle. Now, must I restore those cattle?” “No, you fool, the church makes a distinction in certain matters.” And the priest was right in his interpretation, because to restore those cattle meant not being true to the trust of the old knight and was to restore that over which the Fleming had no jurisdiction. He was very much amazed that he did not intend to betray him.

Suppose a man is called in to witness in a court and gives false testimony and an innocent man is made to suffer. He dies on the gallows. Now, this man whose false testimony convicted him has come under conviction himself, spiritual conviction. That prisoner is dead and gone. He brings the case to a preacher. “Now, what must I do? I cannot restore that man’s life.” The preacher says, “No, but you can restore his reputation; you can take the shame off his wife and children, and you must come out. I cannot encourage you that God will save you if you do not come out openly before the world and admit your guilt.” That illustrates the restitution idea; that if you cannot restore all and can restore part, you must restore all that you can.

QUESTIONS

1. Give a general statement applying to all the books of the Pentateuch touching sacrifices.

2. What of the signification of the blood sprinkled outside the most holy place?

3. What offering precedes all others and why?

4. What can you say of the sweep of burnt offerings?

5. What are the different kinds of burnt offerings?

6. What is the order of these offerings?

7. What of distinction in the burning?

8. Where were they burned?

9. What three characteristics of the consecration offerings?

10. Upon what must the consecration offering be based?

11. What modern preacher has a great sermon on consecration and what the main point?

12. What does the ritual prescribe for the consecration offering?

13. What of the signification of the laying on of hands?

14. What was done with the blood?

15. If an expiatory offering, where placed and why?

16. What of the signification of the fire in the consecration offering?

17. What Old Testament illustration of this idea of fire?

18. What does Paul gay of this from God’s viewpoint?

19. What is the idea of the meal offering?

20. Give the scriptural order of the sacrifices.

21. What is the object in the meal offering?

22. What New Testament corresponds to this teaching?

23. What was added later to supplement the offerings?

24. In the peace offering, how much burned?

25. What was the object, negatively and positively?

26. In the case of the sin offering, how burned?

27. Where was the blood placed?

28. What distinction in the case of kings and priests, and why?

29. For what kind of sins were sin offerings made?

30. What is sometimes given as a definition of sin?

31. What words should be stricken from this definition?

32. Is this, then, a good definition, and why?

33. What great sin is not discussed in Leviticus?

34. What is that sin?

35. What distinction between sin offering and trespass offering?

36. What said Shakespeare on this point?

37. What denomination insists most upon this?

38. How is this with most people?

39. How do some attempt to make restitution?

40. How has Uncle Sam provided for this?

41. Give a New Testament reference to the law of the trespass offering.

42. What of the point in the illustration from Scott?

43. What of the relation of this law to the trespass offering to salvation. Illustrate.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Lev 2:1 And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be [of] fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon:

Ver. 1. Of fine flour. ] No quantity is here prescribed, because it was a freewill offering: only it must be fine, no bran in it: to show the purity of Christ’s sacrifice, Heb 7:26 and of our services through him, Mal 3:11 by means of the oil of his Spirit and incense of his intercession.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Leviticus Chapter 2

THE OBLATION.

The Flour or kindred offering accompanied the Burnt offering closely. They were of a common character in this that they were never offered to clear a soul from sin; yet the Burnt offering was to make atonement, which the Flour offering was not, but consequent on it. The Burnt offering therefore was of a living thing put to death; whereas the Flour offering was always of a vegetable nature and therefore there was no question of blood. There was equally the searching fire of divine judgment to bring out the odour of rest, no less than in the Burnt offering.

“And when any one [a soul] presenteth an oblation (or, gift) to Jehovah, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial thereof on the altar, a fire offering of sweet odour to Jehovah. And the remainder of the oblation shall be Aaron’s and his sons’: [it is] most holy of Jehovah’s fire offerings” (vers. 1-3).

What could more distinctively and emphatically set forth the Lord, not in His sacrificial death, but in the entire devotedness of His life? The one was as pure and holy as the other. Indeed, while the ox or the sheep must be a male without blemish for the Burnt offering, the Oblation is expressly “most holy” of the fire offerings of Jehovah. And so we read of our Lord Jesus only that He was “the holy thing that should be born” (Luk 1:35 ). Of none others are, or could be, said such words’ not even of John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb. In Jesus was no sin. Even in “taking part of the same” with the children (Heb 2:14 ), He was to be called Son of God, which He was in His own eternal title. Of Him only it could not be said without blasphemy, as of every other child of Adam, “I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.” He and He alone as born here below was absolutely untainted, the Holy One of God; and this He preserved in the power of the Holy Spirit all through and presented as an oblation to God.

Man’s mind, we may be assured, would have put the Minchah or Oblation before the Olah or Burnt offering, as the order of what we may call history would render natural. But scripture in an unlooked for way gives us divine wisdom, to which faith implicitly bows and thus appropriates the truth: we grow, as the apostle says in Col 1 , by the true knowledge of God. It was when man was fallen that these figures of Christ and His work came in, and therefore the need of the Burnt offering in the first place when Jehovah was making known to His people the resources of His grace in Christ, as well as the primary truth of Himself glorified as to His nature to the uttermost. This given, the oblation beautifully follows. The Son of man, in Whom God was glorified by His death, glorified the Father on the earth and finished the work which He had given Him to do.

All was in the same perfection, His activities as a living man, and His suffering in self-surrender without limit, both in obedience unswerving. But, we see in chap. 1, that death was as essential and manifest in the Burnt offering, as here it is no less conspicuously absent. He was the obedient One, tried and proved every day, in the midst of the little passing circumstances of. each moment, as well as in the great temptations of the wilderness. Jesus, and Jesus alone, was always “the same”: yesterday, and today, and for ever, since it made no difference as to His personal glory, so none more as to His flawless obedience in every detail. Was there an approach to this in any saint that ever breathed? We need not speak of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, blessed men as they were. Take John and Peter and Paul, walking as none other ever did in the power of the Spirit. Yet the scriptures, which make their holy and devoted service plain, do not hide from us the profitable lesson of their failure, and on critical occasions too. Christ never had a word or deed to recall, never even a look or feeling to judge. He could say to His enemies, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” without a reply, but not without the vilest of reproaches and vituperations. He walked without a waver in the Spirit, never on the ground of rights, but in obedience. His food was to do the will of Him that sent Him and to finish His work. Did He not do it perfectly, an offering to God for a sweet-smelling savour? and this in entire rejection by man, most of all by the ancient people – His own people.

This was what the oblation typified: the fine flour, oil poured on it, and frankincense added (ver. 1). The fine flour was an apt symbol of His humanity sinless and in harmony with God. Oil is the known figure of the power of the Spirit, not His cleansing agency which man’s impurity demands, but His energy in contrast with the wilfulness of sinful and selfish man. And frankincense represents that fragrance which God the Father alone, and perfectly, appreciated in His Son a Man on earth, the object ineffable of His delight. The sweet odour might “fill the house”; but it was burnt to God as His own. All the frankincense therefore went with the handful which the offering priest burnt on the altar to God (ver. 2). The fire, which tried as nothing else can, only and fully brought out of the oblation a savour of rest to Jehovah.

The remnant of the oblation was Aaron’s and his sons’ (ver. 3). In this was marked difference from the Burnt offering. There as the rule all was consumed and went up to God acceptably and for the offerer’s acceptance. Here a handful only was burnt, but all the frankincense. The rest was for the great High Priest and the priestly family; the Christian body. For no truth in the N. T. is plainer than this. And is not Christ the food of all that are His? Does not Joh 6 prove this, and much more than this type imports? “Most holy” was it, but not therefore kept from but given to Christ and His own to enjoy. And so it is that those who have the entrance into the holies find in Christ Himself, and Christ here below as shown in the Gospels, their living priestly food. But it is in this as with other things that what all have in title, only those in fact enjoy who have faith in it and by the Spirit walk in that faith.

VARIETIES OF THE MEAL OFFERING.

The opening verses present the broad character of the Minchah or Meal offering, as distinguished from the Olah or Burnt offering. There was the fullest testing by fire, but not shedding or sprinkling of blood. It was not therefore atonement in view of God’s glory, the offerer being sinful, and withal Christ’s perfectness in the offering of Himself in His death, there rising up wholly as a sweet odour to God. The Meal offering oblation does not atone; but, after Jehovah had His handful, the rest was for Aaron and his sons to eat. Christ and His disciples enjoy it together. Yet it was no less an offering by fire to Jehovah, and expressly “most holy”; it thus excludes the profane thoughts of men who talk of Christ’s limitations so as to lower His infinite personal worth. Of no person in the Godhead is scripture more jealous. For the Holy Spirit, while fully attesting the reality of the Son’s assumption of humanity in His person, and the place of bondman which He took in grace, upholds His glory as Son of man, that all might honour the Son (even with especial care, all judgment being given to Him) as they honour the Father. Thus as He quickens all who believe, so will He judge all that believe not, to their ruin as everlasting as the blessing faith enjoys by His grace.

Now we come to the various forms in detail, having had the constituents of the oblation in general as the preliminary.

“And when thou presentest as oblation of a meal offering a baking of the oven, [it shall be] unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. And if thine oblation [be] a meal offering on the plate, it shall be fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil. Thou shalt part it in pieces, and pour oil thereon: it [is] a meal offering. And if thine oblation [be] a meal offering in the earthen pan (or, cauldron), it shall be made of fine flour with oil. And thou shalt bring the oblation that is made of these things to Jehovah; and it shall be presented to the priest, and he shall bring it to the altar. And the priest shall take from the meal offering a memorial thereof, and shall burn [it] on the altar, a fire offering of a sweet odour to Jehovah. And the remainder. of the meal offering [shall be] Aaron’s and his sons’: [it is] most holy of Jehovah’s fire offerings” (vers. 4-10).

In all these cases it was the finest of the flour of wheat duly sifted and bolted; in each of the three the baking had a different form according to intensity, display, or admixture. The perfect and sinless humanity of Christ is there in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in such fragrant grace as suited Jehovah and only appreciated in full by Him. But it was also variously proved here below, before the final burning on the altar, when made a Fire offering to Jehovah.

The general principle, as applied to the Antitype, may be seen in our Lord, baptised by John and praying, when the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove upon Him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art My beloved Son; in Thee I am well pleased (Luk 3:21 , Luk 3:22 ). There was the Second man, the last Adam, not yet risen and glorified as the Man of divine counsels, but as come of woman no less holy and acceptable to God the Father. In Him was no sin. Not only did He never sin, but He was absolutely without sin in His nature as man. This the Minchah everywhere sets forth in type, as the N.T. declares and demonstrates it in fact. It was indeed as essential to His person from the moment the Word became flesh, as His Godhead had been and is eternally. Him, the Son of man, God the Father sealed.

But He must be proved in this world; and this is here shown typically, as the Gospels present it in the days of His flesh. Compare Heb 2:10 .

First of these is the Meal offering baked in the oven, or great pot. There the heat brought to bear was as concentrated and extreme as could be at this time for unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. In both cases the absence of leaven is specified, as to which 1Co 5 can leave no doubt of the intended meaning. It is the negation of all corruption. Christ, and Christ alone of all born of woman, could be so designated. But here we have the two-fold positive fact of the Holy Spirit, the mingling of the oil, and the anointing of the oil, the former being the more intrinsic and characteristic of the two. For to none does it apply but to the Lord Jesus absolutely in His generation here below. And the answer to this type appears as clearly in Luk 1:35 , as we have the other, or the anointing, in Lev 3 , as also referred to in Act 10:38 . There is indeed a measure of analogy in every Christian; who first is born of the Spirit when converted to God, and then, when he rests on the redemption that is in Christ, has the Holy Spirit given to dwell in Him. But of Christ alone could it be said that the Holy Thing to be born should be called Son of God. The humanity of His person was holy as truly as the deity. Though of His mother, it was by the operation of the Holy Spirit’s power wholly apart from evil. This was due to His person as the Son; it was no less indispensable for the offering of Himself spotless to God in due time. He, and He alone, was incarnate; He, and He alone, propitiation for our sins. Perhaps we may compare with the oven the temptation away from the sight of men, which He knew more fiercely from the great enemy than Adam and all his sons.

The second was the converse, trial before the eyes of men. Here the Meal offering which typified a character of trial so familiar to us in the Gospels, as it had been also predicted by the prophets, is said to be baked on the plate or fiat iron girdle. Hence not only was the trial in contempt, opposition, detraction, hatred, to say nothing of want and homelessness, but we have details implied specifically. It was as before fine flour, unleavened, mingled with oil; and when parted in pieces, oil was poured thereon. The power of the Spirit only the more constantly shone in small things as in great.

The third is when the Meal offering was baked in an earthen pan or cauldron, which seems more general than the foregoing, and the statement is according to this broader character, “with oil” (ver. 7), without defining the modes of application, or repeating even the absolute purity which is of course implied. The figure here appears to imply the combination of public trial with inner also. This the more intelligent Christian can scarce fail to recognise in what the Lord underwent in His rejection.

For indeed and in every way He was beyond all “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,” yet in unwavering obedience, whatever the power that rested on Him. He also had that holy nature of man which sought only God’s will and glory, the perfection of a Son, and that Son a man on an earth filled with all the evil of which the race under Satan are capable.

When the Meal offering, whatever the form, was brought by the priest, its memorial was taken and burnt on the altar, a Fire offering of a sweet odour to Jehovah. This was of course the severest test of all; for it was His consuming judgment, and yet drew out nothing but fragrance before God. No creature, still less a fallen one, could stand such a trial. He is our acceptance; and it is perfect. Without Him the grace wherein we stand were impossible. We are in Christ Jesus, as well as justified through Him. All things are ours, we may joyfully re-echo. And this is here the more evidently verified, in that we see in our Christian position of being priests (as well as kings), that it is ours to eat “the remainder” of the Meal offering in communion with Christ the great High priest. It was for Aaron and his sons. What a privilege to eat of what was offered up to God! It was “most holy” of Jehovah’s Fire offerings; yet, after His portion with all the frankincense, it is ours to feed on the perfectness of Christ here below where only and above all it was proved to the uttermost. To enjoy such food we need to appreciate our priestly nearness to God. Alas! how few saints in these degenerate days of earthly-mindedness even think of their actual relationship to God in the true sanctuary. Such unbelief soon opened the door, as we see in the Fathers, to a human caste and earthly priesthood now rampant in Christendom.

MEAL OFFERING INJUNCTIONS.

We have, next laid down, injunctions of much interest and spiritual weight. On the one hand leaven and honey were never in any Fire offering to Jehovah; on the other, as oil we have seen was to be variously used, so salt was not to be lacking but offered with all.

“No meal offering which ye shall offer to Jehovah shall be made with leaven; for ye shall burn no leaven and no honey as a fire offering to Jehovah. As to offering of first fruits, ye shall offer them to Jehovah; but they shall not come up for a sweet odour on the altar. And every offering of thy meal offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meal offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt” (ver. 11-13).

There is no shadow of doubt on the symbolic force of leaven. It is used for corruption that spreads and contaminates, unless the contextual employment modify it otherwise. This force is plain in the first and standing type of the O.T., the peremptory exclusion of leaven from the passover and its accompanying dependent feast of unleavened bread. On and from the very first day they were to put away leaven out of their houses; for seven days none should be found there. Nothing leavened was to be eaten on pain of cutting off from Israel. In 1Co 5 the reference is express, and the antitypical meaning certain. As leaven, even a little, taints the whole lump; so does known sin, if tolerated, the Christian assembly. It is vain to plead the old man. For was not Christ, our passover, sacrificed? and is it not our obligation now, as being unleavened in Him, to purge out the old leaven, that we may be a new lump? Leaven is characterised here as evil in itself and wickedness in its effect. Likewise in Gal 5:9 it is applied to the pravity in doctrine of requiring a ritual ordinance, which upset grace in justifying by the faith of Christ. Both are hateful to God, and incompatible with our calling: if either enter, we are bound to clear ourselves at all cost.

Yet we know as a fact that the church, or the Christian, differs in this essentially from Christ: that He was the Holy One of God, absolutely in and from His birth; we only as born anew and in virtue of His sacrifice. Hence in the type of Him as the wave-sheaf (Lev 23:10-14 ), it was waved before Jehovah with Burnt offering and Meal offering and Drink offering; whereas the new Meal offering of the wave-loaves which represented us was baked with leaven. The sin of our nature is clearly taken account of, and a Sin offering requisite, with Peace offerings, as well as the Burnt and Drink offerings. A similar principle obtained in the Peace offerings for thanksgiving. In no case was uncleanness more solemnly denounced (Lev 7:19 , Lev 7:20 ); but it is recognised that leaven was there, though not actively working, and leavened cakes were prescribed accordingly (ver. 13, Amo 4:5 ).

Honey set forth the sweetness of nature. It was good in its place and allowed for use, but not too much. Nevertheless it was forbidden in an offering to God, however wholesome and pleasant to man’s taste. No one approached the perfectness of Jesus, the Child or the Man. If He grew and waxed strong, He was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him. Yet even as a Youth, He said to His parents (tried by His staying behind in the temple), “Did you not know that I ought to be in the things of my Father?” And when His mother appealed to Him at the marriage in Cana, saying that they had no wine, His answer was, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” Certainly there was not an atom of disrespect; but it was not what answered to honey. Rather was it the salt of the covenant, which must not be wanting in a Fire offering to Jehovah. Christ was doing then as always the things that were pleasing to the Father. He would not act on a human motive, were it even to hearken to His mother. He was come to do the will of God. All must be a sweet odour to Him.

We have already noticed the deeply important truth taught by the oil, whether as mixed with the flour in the composition of the cakes, or as poured thereon. There too the bearing on Christ is plain. In His birth, in His incarnation, was the former verified as nowhere else. He was the true and only-begotten Son of God here below, as He was Son of God eternally. The believer has an analogy as being born of God. He is quickened by the Spirit’s power, born of water and the Spirit; but this leaves his old nature. where and what it was. Christ on the contrary had “no old man.” By the Spirit’s power His humanity was free from all taint and evil. Not only He sinned not, but no sin was in Him. His anointing or sealing was at His baptism, the reception of the Spirit in power for His service; and here by virtue of His work of redemption the analogy in our case is quite as close, always remembering that Christ received the Spirit as Himself the Holy Son of man, we after His blood-shedding and by the faith of it.

As the oil may be viewed in contrast with honey, so may salt, which the Lord pronounces “good,” stand opposed to leaven, the type of corrupting evil. Its use among men as preserving purity without any violence fits in with such an application. Our Lord said “Everyone shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” So the apostle exhorts that our speech be always in grace seasoned with salt. As the salt of the covenant was a pledge on God’s part of a savour that passed not away, so is there the need on ours of a holy separative energy Godward to keep from corrupt words and ways. Christ and His offering of Himself to God for us could alone be the ground of such a pledge and perpetuity. But how wondrous that such a figure should be extended from His offering of Himself to our speech as it should be seasoned! But, as our Lord exhorted at the close of Mar 9 , “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.” The separative power applies here to ourselves, the gracious spirit is for one with another. Without holiness peace mutually would be an illusion.

Ver. 12 seems to be the new Meal offering (fully described in Lev 23:15-20 ) where the oblation in an exceptional instance was expressly made with leaven as already shown. It was necessarily leavened in order to express the truth; but its exceptional nature was fully provided for. Even these first-fruits could only be presented to Jehovah they could not rise up on the altar for a sweet savour.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

any = soul. Hebrew. nephesh, as in Lev 4:2. See App-13.

offer. Hebrew. karab. See App-43. [bring near, or, to draw near]

a = an approach offering of. Hebrew. korban. See App-43. [a gift, or an admittance-offering].

meat offering. Better, “an oblation of a meal offering”. Hebrew. minchah. See App-43.

his offering. Hebrew his korban. See App-43.

fine flour. Not merely ground, but perfect and ready, no unevenness. So with the life of the Antitype, “the Man Christ Jesus”. Flour is to the wheat what blood is to the body; and pneuma is to the resurrection body.

oil. Flour mixed with oil, and then oil poured on it. So Christ’s life permeated and actuated by the Holy Spirit.

frankincense. This ascended to God as a sweet savour.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 2

In chapter two the next offering that we have is the meal offering. And this they would take the fine flour, mix it with oil and frankincense, and make up a dough that they would put on the fire to more or less bake unto the Lord. Now, these things bespeak the work of man’s hand. I am bringing flour, mixing it with oil. Where did I get the flour? I had to till the soil. I had to plant the seed. I had to harvest the seed. I had to thresh the seed. I had to grind the seed into flour itself. And so it was the work of my hands. I picked the olives and put them in the olive press and got the oil. It was the work of my hands. So I am offering to God in the offering, in the meal offering, I am offering to God my service, dedicating the work of my hands unto God, giving unto God my service. And thus this meal offering again was a sweet smelling savor. And what smells better than home baked bread? You know, that smell of bread baking is always just a great smell.

When we were kids in Ventura just a block and a half from the church, on Sunday nights there was a bakery that would bake bread. And, oh, we were overcome by the neat aroma. We would go up and buy a quarter pound of butter and get a loaf of bread right off the rack as it was coming out of the oven, so hot you would have to juggle it from hand to hand and break the thing in two and drop the butter down in and eat it. In those days I didn’t worry about weight. I was running so much that I ran the thing off. Oh boy, I’ll tell you the smell of home baked bread is really great.

And the idea is that of, again, that it might be a pleasant odor unto the Lord. It might arise as a pleasant aroma before Him and an offering to God. “Here it is, Lord, my service. I’m giving now my labor unto you. I am offering you myself as a servant to do your work.” And thus was the significance of this meal offering. The idea was the offering unto God, the work of my hands as service unto the Lord. And so, in chapter two it deals with this meal offering.

Now there were two things that were never to be mixed with the flour; one was leaven and the other was honey. The leaven, of course, always through the scripture is a type of sin, and thus, it was never to be mixed. It causes a putrefaction actually, or it causes a decay is what leaven does. And honey can also have that same effect, but honey really represents a natural sweetness. Now some of you are naturally sweet, but it is interesting that doesn’t buy you any points with God. It is only that sweetness that comes from Him that is acceptable. And so honey or leaven were two forbidden additions to these little loaves of bread.

But there was one thing that it had to always be offered with: salt, because salt has the opposite effect of putrefaction. Salt was used in those days as a preservative and, of course, to make things really more tasty. If you forget to put salt in your rolls, you’ll find they taste very flat. Potatoes without salt can be very flat. And so the salt was to give the flavor. It is being a preservative. They were to use salt in the meal offerings, but never the leaven or the honey. And again the idea is offering to God service. Giving to God my life to serve Him. Offering Him the work of my hands.

Now the final of the sweet savor offerings was the peace offering. And again this could be the ox, or actually, it could be out of the herd. It could be a cow also. It had to be without blemish. It could be from the flock, a lamb or again, if you are poor, it could be a turtledove. But this is the offering of communion and fellowship with God. In this offering a part of it would be returned to you to eat; and thus, the idea was here, “God, I have given this to you”, and part of it is burned. That’s for God. But then part of it is given back to me that I might sit down and eat of it so that I am actually fellowshipping with God, eating together with God is the idea. God is eating part of it. I am eating part of it. I am becoming part with God. And it was called the peace offering, but it was that of fellowship with God, the idea of eating together with God.

It is interesting in the New Testament how often Jesus sought to eat with people. In fact, the last message of Jesus to the church, in the Lord’s epistle to the church-what was His very last message? “Behold I stand at the door and knock and if any man will hear my voice and open the door, I will come in and eat supper with him,” ( Rev 3:20 ) because the Lord always enjoyed eating with people.

It spoke to them in their culture of the deepest possible fellowship when we ate together. We were entering into such a deep fellowship that we were actually becoming a part of each other, because in those days it was really family style. You have the big, old leg of lamb out there and you don’t have utensils. Your fingers are your utensils. And so you reach out and grab and pull off a piece of the meat and your friend reaches in and grabs a piece of meat. And you’re eating together having pulled off from the same leg of lamb that portion that you’re eating. And you’re eating of that same leg of lamb. Thus, that leg of lamb that is nourishing you is also nourishing me. That leg of lamb that is becoming a part of your body is becoming a part of my body; thereby I am becoming a part of you, you’re becoming a part of me. We are becoming related through this common eating together.

And then as we would finish the meal, we would take the bread and we would break it. And they didn’t have napkins in those days so they used the bread for a napkin. You wipe the lamb grease off your fingers and all the juices, and then you ate the bread or quite often that bit of bread was thrown to the little puppies that were around the table. The last piece that was used to sort of clean up. But by eating the same bread, by eating of the same meat, by partaking from the same table, from the same bowls, we were becoming part of each other. And they looked at it as that. For that reason they would never eat with their enemies. They didn’t want to become a part of their enemy. And for that reason a Jew was always extremely careful never to eat with a Gentile. There is no way that he wanted to become one with a Gentile. So that’s why that strict separation. The Jew never eating with the Gentile, because of the fear of becoming a part of a Gentile or a Gentile becoming a part of him.

And so here is the idea in the peace offering of offering the sacrifice unto the Lord. And part of it goes up unto the Lord, roasted for Him and all, but part of the roast given back to me, and I eat of it myself. So I sit down to eat with God.

And in the great feast days most of the offerings that were brought by the people in the great feast days were peace offerings. So that they were just what they say-they were feast days. The Passover Feast, The Feast of Pentecost, The Feast of Tabernacles-they were feasts, great feasts. People would come in and you’d have just all kinds of meat, all kinds of feasting together. They were holidays of feasting for seven days. With all of these sacrifices, these peace offerings would be offered, and then you’d receive yours back to eat. And thus, people were just sitting and feasting with God was the idea. And really it is a very beautiful thought in deed.

Man, it would be great if we had a seven-day feast with God around here sometime. You know, just the idea of here we are to sit with the Lord, just to feast together with Him realizing the oneness that is ours with Him, feasting together with the Lord, God’s people.

Chapter 4

Now as we get into chapter four, we get in now to the sin offerings. First of all, God said, “if a soul should sin through ignorance against any of the commandments” ( Lev 4:2 )-It is interesting to note that sins of ignorance needed forgiveness. We hear so often ignorance of the law is no excuse. This actually comes from God because God made provision for those sins of ignorance. Quite often sin is related to ignorance. Transgression is never really related to ignorance. Sin is related to ignorance because there is a vast difference between sin and trespass, and thus, the difference between the sin offering and the trespass offering.

Sins were often due to ignorance, “I didn’t know.” The word sin has as its root word “missing the mark.” In Greek “hamartia,” “the missing of the mark.” Now I could be trying to hit the mark and still miss. That is still sin. There are a lot of people who are sinning who don’t want to sin. They are trying not to sin. They are doing their best not to sin, but they are still sinning. They are still missing the mark for the word “sin” means to miss the mark.

Trespass is not ignorance. It’s more than missing the mark, for it is missing the mark deliberately. I know what I am doing. I know that God doesn’t want me to do it. I do it anyhow. That’s a trespass. It’s a deliberate, willful act against God. So often when you are dealing with sin, you deal with ignorance. The person didn’t know, yet the sin needed taking care of. You remember Jesus when he was being nailed to the cross, prayed, “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.” ( Luk 23:24 ) It was a sin of ignorance, and yet it needed the forgiveness of God. “Father, forgive them.” They needed that forgiveness, though the sin was being done by them in ignorance, not really knowing what they were doing.

And so, if a man sinned against the Lord-ignorance, he was to

bring a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering ( Lev 4:3 ),

And again the idea of putting on your hand upon its head, transferring the guilt, slaying it, the blood being taken in by the priest,

dipping his finger in the blood, sprinkling the blood seven times before the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar… ; and shall pour out the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar… ( Lev 4:6-7 )

And then also they were to take a part of the bullock and to place it upon the altar and burn it on the fire, mainly the fat and the kidneys, and all.

And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and his legs, and the inwards, and all, even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt ( Lev 4:11-12 ).

So the whole skin and everything was taken outside of the camp and there burnt with fire in this place where they would carry the ashes of the burnt offerings and all. There was a place outside of the camp they would carry them and lay them out, and at that place is where the skin and all. Now the skin of the-coming back to the first offering, the offering of consecration, those hides could be kept by the priest. And they would make them into coats and wear them and all. So the sheepskin coats and so forth would be worn by the priests, because they got the hides of those offerings. But with a sin offering, the priest couldn’t keep the hides. They were to be taken out and burnt completely with fire outside of the camp.

And the whole congregation of Israel sinned through ignorance, and the thing is hid from the eyes of the assembly, they’ve done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; when the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, to the congregation, they shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle ( Lev 4:13-14 ).

And so forth, and thus the sin offering following the same routine. A sin offering for the congregation and then the sin offering for the rulers. In verse twenty-two, the same idea of ignorance, the rulers and so forth. And then they were to bring a kid of the goats, a male without blemish, and it was to be offered in the same manner as the bullock before the Lord.

And then, we get down to us in verse twenty-seven.

And if any of the commoners sin through ignorance [and so it comes down to every one of us], while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and is guilty; if the sin, which he has sinned, comes to his knowledge: then he shall bring an offering, of the kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned ( Lev 4:27-28 ).

Now the rulers brought the male kid of the goats and the commoners brought a female kid of the goats. And they would lay their hand upon the head of the sin offering, and the priest would go through the same routine of putting the blood upon the altar and sprinkling it before the Lord.

And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish ( Lev 4:32 ).

And thus the sin offerings. And as I say, sin was related to ignorance. It was the missing of the mark. It comes to your attention; it wasn’t really a deliberate thing. But now what about those deliberate things.

Chapter 5

Chapter five.

And if a soul sinned, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of it; and he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity ( Lev 5:1 ).

If you touch any unclean thing and it goes on with some of the sins that you know to be wrong, and you swear against God, or do things that are to you knowledgeable, you’re guilty, you know it.

Then you shall confess that he has sinned in that thing ( Lev 5:5 ):

So even though you were to bring a sacrifice yet the necessity of the confession of your guilt.

Now in Proverbs we read, “whoever seeks to cover his sin shall not prosper; but who so will confess his sin shall be forgiven.” ( Pro 28:13 ) God cannot really deal with sin in your life as long as you’re trying to hide it. As long as you’re trying to deny it, as long as you’re trying to excuse it, as long as you’re trying to give the rationale for it, God can’t deal with it. If you can just sit down and tell me all the reasons why you sinned and give me all the excuses for why you were doing it, then God can’t deal with your excuses. God can only deal with it when you come to the place of confession. And when I confess my sin, it is then that He is faithful and just to forgive me and to cleanse me from all unrighteousness. So always with a trespass there was the necessity of confession. “God I have sinned against you in this thing. I was wrong. God I am sorry.” And with a confession, I make the possibility of forgiveness.

And so first of all the necessity was that of confession of the guilt, verse five.

And then he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a female from the flock, a lamb, or a kid of the goats, for the sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement [or a covering] for his sin. And if he is not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he has committed two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord; one for his sin offering, the other for a burnt offering. And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first ( Lev 5:6-8 ),

And goes ahead how they are to take care of the turtledoves and so forth, if that is what is brought as an offering. And they are to be offered before the Lord for the trespasses.

Verse fifteen is

If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, of his estimation according to shekels ( Lev 5:15 ),

And so forth, shall make amends.

Chapter 6

And thus, dealing with the trespass offerings and going on into Chapter six.

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, if a soul sins, and commits a trespass against the Lord, and lies to his neighbor in that which was delivered ( Lev 6:1-2 )

In other words, if you are my neighbor and you loan me your car, and I go out and smash it, and then I say, “Well, you know I parked it at Lucky’s and I just left the keys in the ignition. And I went into the store and when I came out, it was gone, you know. You better file a stolen report.” And then they find the thing wrapped around a telephone pole some place and oh my, you know, they must have wrecked it. And I am lying to you about something that was entrusted to me. This is a trespass, and it would be necessary for me to make a confession and to offer an offering before the Lord for the forgiveness or the covering.

The Lord spake unto Moses [verse eight], saying, command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: and the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fires of the altar shall be burning in it. And the priest shall put on his linen garments, his linen breeches and he shall put upon his flesh, and take the ashes which the fires consume with the burnt offering and the altar, and shall put them beside the altar ( Lev 6:8-10 ).

And then later carry them out.

But in verse thirteen,

the fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out ( Lev 6:13 ).

So God was the one who was to kindle the fire on the altar, but the priests were to never let it go out. Once God kindled the fire, it was their duty. All night long a priest would be on duty to put wood on the fire so that the fire of the altar would never go out. And so he goes ahead and explains again the offerings, the burnt offering. And then in Verse fourteen, the meal offering and the priest would get to eat this neat, hot bread themselves on this meal offering, what was left over. Part was unto the Lord and part was given to the priest more or less. Let’s see now, just a minute, hold on. On the meal offering was one that was to be wholly burnt and not to be eaten. There were other meal offerings of bread that the priests were to eat but not the meal offering.

Verse nineteen,

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord the day in which they are anointed; and the fine flours, the meal offering the perpetual, half in the morning, and the other half at night. It shall be baked in the pan, and thou shall bring it in: and bake the pieces for the meal offering, the sweet savor to the Lord. The priest and his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: as a statute forever unto the Lord; it shall be wholly burnt. For every meal offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten. [That is if the priest himself offered the meal offering for himself.] The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, This is the Law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed, so the sin offering was to be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when the thing is sprinkled with the blood ( Lev 6:19-27 ).

Now, the priest did get a part of the offering. They always were able to take a part of the offerings to eat for themselves that the people brought. It was, in a way, a payment to the priest, but this thing became corrupted. You remember later on when Eli was the priest at the time of Samuel? He had a bunch of greedy sons who were also working in the office of the priest. And these guys, when people would come to offer their sacrifice to the Lord, they would take their hooks and they’d reach in and grab the fillets, the very best of the meat and all. And if people would object, then they’d give them a bad time and curse them and everything else. And so Eli got into trouble because he didn’t correct his sons in these things. But the bad thing about it is that they were creating in the minds of the people a negative reaction towards God because they were the priests representing God to the people. But they were so misrepresenting God by their greed, that they made the people actually hate to bring sacrifices to the Lord because of the horrible way that Eli’s sons were treating them; and thus, Eli was judged by the Lord for his failure to reprimand his sons in that regard.

Chapter 7

Going on into chapter seven, sort of a repetition again as God deals with the trespass offering, offering a few additions to what has already been said, and then in verse eleven as God gets into the peace offering.

The peace offering was also

for a thanksgiving ( Lev 7:12 ),

It was fellowship, but it was fellowship in thanksgiving unto God. And it was to be offered in-it talks about a heave offering. Now the heave offering is the offering that they would lift up in a heaving motion before God. The wave offering was where they would move it back and forth and wave it before God. And so you read also of the wave offerings and the heave offerings. And so the requirements and so forth for the offering of the peace offering are in chapter seven.

Chapter 8

We get into chapter eight and now that God has laid out for them the various offerings and the ordinances regarding these offerings. How they were to be offered, who was to offer them, what part the people were able to eat, what part was to be burnt, where it was to be burnt, what part was the priests and all. God has laid out the whole thing for them in these offerings.

And now the Lord said unto Moses, Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for a sin offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread; And gather all the congregation together at the doors of the tabernacle of the congregation. And so Moses did as the Lord commanded; and gathered all the people there together at the door of the tabernacle. And Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing which the Lord commanded to be done. And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water ( Lev 8:1-6 ).

This great big brass laver, a bath that was there in front of the tabernacle and Moses washed Aaron and his sons. And he put on them the coat, and all of the garments of the high priest and put upon the sons of Aaron the garments of the priest. And so here is Aaron now for the first time being decked out in this magnificent robe of the high priest; the breastplate, the Urim and the Thummim, the whole thing; the mitre on his head with the little plate, the gold plate that said “holiness to the Lord”. And Aaron is being dressed for the first time in the garments of the high priest.

And then Moses took the anointing oil, and he anointed the tabernacle that was therein, and sanctified them ( Lev 8:10 ).

The tabernacle is now set up. Now is the time to dedicate the thing, more or less, and to sanctify it unto God. The word “sanctify” means to set apart for exclusive use. This was to be a single-use building. It was there only for the purpose of man having a place to come and meet God. And it wasn’t to be used for den mothers’ meetings or anything like that. It was just strictly a place where people met the Lord.

And so he sprinkled the altar seven times, he anointed the altar and all the vessels, and the laver, to sanctify them. And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him to sanctify him ( Lev 8:11-12 ).

So they took this anointing oil, went by, and anointed all of the things within the tabernacle, anointed the tabernacle. Everything was anointed. It was set apart and this is for God. It is to be used only for God and all. And then Aaron, who was actually also to be used only for God. He was to be God’s instrument; thus, Aaron was anointed with the oil.

And Moses brought in Aaron’s sons, and put the priests’ coats upon them, and the priests’ girdles, and he put on the bonnets as the Lord had commanded. And he brought the bullock for the sin offering ( Lev 8:13-14 ):

Now that these guys are being set up as priests the first thing that was necessary was that the sin offering be offered for them. They were sinners just like everybody else. And so before they could really serve the Lord and act as God’s representatives to the people, there had to first of all be a sin offering offered for them. And this, of course, yearly when the high priest would on Yom Kippur go into the Holy of Holies to offer a sacrifice for the sins of the whole congregation. The first sacrifice that he would make on Yom Kippur was his own sin offering. He had to take care of himself first, and his own sin offering would be first. He would have to offer for himself before he could ever offer for the people. And so the first offering in this whole tabernacle, new tabernacle set up, was the sin offering for Aaron and his sons that they might then be sanctified for the ministry unto the Lord.

And having offered the sin offering,

then he brought a ram for a burnt offering ( Lev 8:18 ),

Verse eighteen, because now that the sin is taken care of, now I can consecrate my life completely to God. And so the idea was first the atoning of the sins for the priests and then the consecration of their lives, a total consecration of themselves to God.

And so they brought the other ram, the ram of consecration: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head. And they slew it; and Moses took the blood of it, and put it upon the tip of Aaron’s right ear, upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot ( Lev 8:22-23 ),

Symbolic actually, of consecration. “May your ears be consecrated that they might hear the voice of God. May your hands be consecrated that they might do only the work of God. May your feet be consecrated that they will walk only in the path of God.” So it was the idea of the consecration of a man’s ears, of his hands, and of his feet. A complete kind of a consecration of himself unto the Lord.

Then there was the anointing oil in verse thirty,

Moses took the anointing oil, and of the blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled upon Aaron, upon his garments, upon his sons, upon the sons’ garments with him; and sanctified Aaron, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons’ garments with him ( Lev 8:30 );

Imagine taking all these beautiful new clothes and sprinkling oil on them and blood on them. But it was the idea of the consecration of these men and of their lives to God.

And Moses said unto Aaron and to his sons, Boil the flesh at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and eat it [before the congregation.] ( Lev 8:31 ).

And so the priests were then to be separated before God.

Verse thirty-three,

And ye shall not go out of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation for seven days, until the days of your consecration be at an end: for seven days shall he consecrate you ( Lev 8:33 ).

So they were to go through this period of consecration. Seven days they weren’t to leave that holy place there in the presence of the Lord, there in the tabernacle.

Ye shall abide at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation day and night for seven days, and keep charge of the Lord, that ye die not: for so I am commanded. And Aaron and his sons did all the things which the Lord commanded Moses ( Lev 8:35-36 ).

Chapter 9

And so it came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel; and he said unto Aaron, Take thee a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the Lord ( Lev 9:1-2 ).

Now Aaron is to begin his ministry. First of all with a calf for a sin offering, a ram for a burnt offering and,

Take ye the kid of the goats for a sin offering; a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering; A bullock and a ram for a peace offering, to sacrifice before the Lord; and a meal offering mingled with oil: for today the Lord will appear unto you ( Lev 9:3-4 ).

So he’s going to go through the whole route except for the trespass offering. And he’s to make all of these offerings; the various types of animals so that Aaron can more or less be schooled in the way that these offerings are to be brought before the Lord. And so they brought that which Moses commanded before the tabernacle.

And Moses said, This is the thing which the Lord commanded you should do: and the glory of the Lord shall appear unto you ( Lev 9:5 ).

And so Moses then instructed Aaron. He followed through with him. He went through with him sort of step by step the processes by which the sacrifices were to be made and the methods and all by which they were made. And so they offered first the sin offering, then the consecration offering, then the fellowship offering unto the Lord, and then finally they offered unto God the offering of service, the meal offering.

So in verse twenty-two,

Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offering ( Lev 9:22 ).

So, having gone in and offered these before the Lord. Now Aaron, the congregation of Israel is out there, and Aaron now comes out and blesses the people, and thus we see the twofold function of the priests. Going before God to represent the people because you and I could not directly come to God. Our sin had separated us from God. So, if I wanted to approach God under the old covenant, I had to come to the priest with an offering, and then he would take and go before God on my behalf. And having gone before God on my behalf he would return and then bless me on God’s behalf.

Now later on in Leviticus, we’ll get the blessing whereby the people were blessed from God. When Aaron came out, that beautiful blessing that he would put upon the people as he was representing, now, God to the people. So coming out from the sacrifices he now blesses the people as he is God’s representative in standing for God before the people, offering God’s blessing upon them.

And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people ( Lev 9:23 ).

Now Moses kept telling them, “You are going to see the glory of the Lord today. Now let’s get everything worked out right because today you’re going to see the glory of the Lord.” And so the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people. In what form? How? We don’t know. But yet they were all made conscious of it and aware of it and in one way it was demonstrated was that

fire came out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell upon their faces ( Lev 9:24 ).

So, there was the altar; it was there. The wood was there; the pieces of meat of the burnt offering were laid upon it and the fat. And suddenly like a spontaneous combustion fire from the Lord just kindled and the wood began to burn and the sacrifices were consumed. And the people seeing this miracle all began to shout for excitement and fell upon their faces worshipping God.

Chapter 10

And Nadab and Abihu, the two sons of Aaron, took both of them their censers, and they put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not ( Lev 10:1 ).

Now in this moment of excitement, in this moment of high emotional pitch, the people are excited. They have seen a miracle of God. They have seen fire from God suddenly consuming this sacrifice, no one around. The glory of God. Aaron’s two sons in the midst of this emotional fervor grabbed their little incense burners and took fire in them and put the incense on and began to go in before the Lord to offer incense, “strange fire, which the Lord commanded not”.

It is interesting God does want us to worship Him, but God has really prescribed the way that we are to worship Him. You see I am not really free to worship God any old way I feel. I can’t come to God any old way I want. If I am to come to God, God has laid out prescribed ways by which I am to come. If I am to worship God, God has laid out prescribed ways by which I am to worship Him. It isn’t up to me to choose how I am to worship God.

So here they were coming in a way in which God didn’t command them to take this fire and to offer the incense at this point. It was something that was totally done on their own part. Juices were flowing because there’s a lot of excitement, people are shouting and all. And, of course, they are important; they are priests and maybe they are wishing to show their importance. Everybody is all excited and watching, now, the things that are happening. And so maybe they want to get into the public eye. And so as they started in with these incense burners and the smoke rising, fire came from the Lord and they both fell dead.

And Moses said this is the thing that God spoke about saying that He would be sanctified before the people and that God would be glorified before the people.

I will be glorified [the Lord said]. And so Aaron held his peace ( Lev 10:3 ).

Perhaps they were seeking, at that point, to rob God from some of His glory. Perhaps, at that point, they were seeking to draw attention to themselves away from God. It is always tragic when the instrument of God receives more attention then God or when the instrument of God seeks to draw attention to itself.

We are to be as a mirror reflecting Christ before the world. The only time a mirror attracts attention to itself is when it is dirty. You really never notice a mirror unless it’s got a flaw in it or unless it’s dirty. When you look at a mirror, you are looking for the reflection. And the only time you really notice the mirror is when there is something wrong with it. Now, we are to be a reflection of Jesus Christ as mirrors reflecting His glory before the world.

Now any time that people are being attracted to me or drawn to me or attention is being put on me, it only indicates there’s something dirty, there’s a flaw, there’s something wrong. I shouldn’t be drawing attention to myself. It is tragic that so many do seek to draw attention to themselves. And I think that we perhaps have all been guilty of that at one time or another in our experiences and for me more times than I wish to remember.

Now, if I’m to worship God, I must come in the way that God has prescribed. And Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but by Me” ( Joh 14:6 ). So I don’t care how pious you are or anything else. If you don’t come to God through the prescribed way of Jesus Christ, you’re never going to make it to God. No matter how idealistic you might be in your thought patterns. No matter how sincere you might be in your endeavor to reach God. You are never going to reach Him unless you come the prescribed Way through Jesus Christ. It cannot be Jesus and others. Jesus said, “I am the Way, no man comes to the Father but by Me.”

So Aaron’s sons were guilty of taking attention of the people from God to themselves. They had a high hazard job.

And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron and said unto them, Come near, and carry your brothers from before the sanctuary out of the camp. So they went near, and they carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said. And Moses said unto Aaron, to Eleazar and to Ithamar, the other sons, [the brothers of these two guys,] Don’t uncover your heads, don’t tear your clothes; lest you die, lest the wrath of God come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled. And you shall not go out from the doors of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses. And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when you go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout all your generations: that ye may put the difference between the holy and the unholy, between the clean and the unclean ( Lev 10:4-10 );

So Aaron was not to mourn for his two sons publicly or God would wipe him out, because what God had done to his two sons was just. For Aaron to mourn before the people would be actually to indicate an unfairness on God’s part. And then the warning don’t drink any wine or strong drink when you come in before the Lord. He wasn’t to go out either. The anointing oil was upon him, the anointing of God was upon him. He was to stay right there, not to leave as long as the anointing oil was on him. But then the warning not to drink wine or strong drink when you’re doing service to God in order that you might have a clear head, in order that you might be able to discern between the holy and the unholy, between the clean and the unclean. There is perhaps there a hint that Aaron’s sons, the false fire was that they were actually a little bit inebriated, and thus under a false stimulant. Not able to clearly discern their own actions because of drinking and thus in their minds being beclouded and fuzzed because of their drinking. Not really responding to God in the right way that that was what caused them to be wiped out.

In Proverbs we read concerning Lemuel the king. Wine is not for kings. Why? Because if can cause a deterioration of judgment, it can remove natural inhibitions. It can cloud or fuzzy your thinking processes. God wants your mind to be perfectly clear when you worship Him, when you serve Him. He doesn’t want you to be under some kind of a false stimulant.

Now, He will accept people in any condition. We saw God working marvelous miracles in taking kids who were high on LSD and on some wild trip, and we’ve seen the Lord bring them right down and deal with them, bring them right off of it and clear them up and deal with them. But there are a lot of, you know, guys down at the bar tonight who are sitting there, you know, sobbing and saying how horrible they are and how much they need God and all this kind of stuff. But tomorrow they will be right back out cursing and in their old, you know, but it’s just that the booze is working on them. And so their repentance is not a true repentance of their heart. It isn’t from a really clear mind, thus it is of little value, no value really.

God wants you to have your wits about you when you come before Him. He wants you to think of what you’re doing, which is your reasonable service. Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord. He wants you to be sharp. He wants you to be able to think things through and reason things out to know the difference, to know what you’re doing.

David, in talking about our praises, said, “Let us praise Him with understanding”. A lot of times, I think people praise God really without understanding, in that you start just a little routine of “Oh Bless God, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord. Bless Jesus, Hallelujah kind of thing.” And you can go on uttering these words of praise but your mind can be a million miles away. And that praise is totally worthless and totally meaningless. In fact, it’s almost insulting to God for you to praise Him out of an empty head, you know, be thinking of something else while you’re just mouthing praises to Him. That’s an insult.

If you come up and start to carry on a conversation with me with just inane repetitions and chatter, and I knew that your mind was way off some place else, you weren’t even thinking of what you were saying, you’re just talking for the sake of uttering words; it would be very insulting indeed. And yet we do it when we come to God. “Bless God. Hallelujah. Praise the Lord. Bless Jesus”, you know. And we get into the little singsong, and we start going on and then our minds start tripping out. Man, I wonder if there’ll be much snow on Mammoth this year, you know, and coming down those slopes and “Bless God. Hallelujah. Praise the Lord”, you know and how insulting that must be to God. He wants you to have a clear head.

I think that sometimes it’s good to pray with your eyes closed but sometimes I think it’s good to pray with your eyes open. I like to just sit in my chair and just talk to God, just as though He’s sitting in the chair across the room from me and just to talk to God in conversational tones and in a conversational way. Somehow we have prayer all confused. We even have a prayer voice and a prayer style and we suddenly lapse into Old English because surely that’s more spiritual than modern English in prayer. “O Lord, Thou hath created the heavens and the Earth and Thou hast by Thy mighty hands formed the seas and now we comest Lord to Thee.” But usually we’ve got that prayer voice and so we’re sustaining a little bit because it makes it more spiritual, too. “Oh Lord, how much we need Thee,” a little quiver in the voice and a little sustain of the notes and prayer becomes much more effective.

What if your friends would come up to you, “Oh Doc, I have these symptoms,” and you think what in the world is going on here. And yet people in their prayer have a tone of voice and all which again are totally meaningless as far as prayer goes. I think it’s great to talk with God intelligently. To think of what you’re saying. I’m sure He appreciates it.

And so God wants a clear mind. The warning not to drink wine, strong drink. Now it is interesting that this follows through in the New Testament. The overseers of the church, the bishop, were not to be given to wine or strong drink. So, God said this is to be forever among the priesthood and then He carried it over into the church. Any pastor of a church, any overseer of the body of Christ should not drink wine or strong drink because he must keep his mind clear.

Paul the apostle said, “All things are lawful for me.” But then he added, I will not be brought under the power of any. I will not use my liberty in Christ in such a way indulging myself in some things that could bring me under their influence or under their power. Sure, I’m free to do it. Sure, it’s lawful for me but it would be stupid of me to do it because it could bring me under its power. It could bring me under its influence and once I’m under the influence or the power of this drug, or beverage, or whatever, I am no longer free. That very thing that I prize so highly, my glorious freedom in Christ is something that I have to guard very carefully because it’s so easy to exercise my freedom in such a way as to bring me into bondage.

Take a look at Adam. Sure he had the freedom to eat of that fruit, but in so doing, he led himself into bondage. He exercised his freedom in such a way that he was never free again. And it’s possible for you to exercise your freedom in such a way as to bring yourself into bondage and that isn’t very wise because then you’re no longer free.

And so the Lord said He wanted them to have a clear mind so that they could put a difference between the holy and unholy. And that they might be able to teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has spoken by the hand of Moses.

And so Moses spoke unto Aaron, to Eleazar, to Ithamar, his sons-the two that were left, [they said] Take the meal offerings that remain of the offerings of the Lord that was made by fire, and eat it without the leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: And you shall eat it in the holy place, because it is your wages, and your son’s wages, of the sacrifices to the Lord that were made by fire: so I am commanded. And so the wave breast, the heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with thee: for it shall be your wages, and thy son’s wages, which were given out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the children of Israel ( Lev 10:12-14 ).

And so Aaron and his sons did as Moses commanded.

So now as we go into chapter eleven of Leviticus, next we then get into some of the dietary laws that God established for them. What animals they could eat, what animals they could not eat. And then the purification rights for the women after they had borne children and all. And then the cleansing for leprosy and on into some very interesting things.

Now there is an interesting book called “None of These Diseases,” by Dr. Maxwell, I believe it is, that deals with some of the dietary laws. And some of these laws in Leviticus, the laws of cleansing and all, showing that the promise of God that if the children of Israel would keep His commandments and do His statutes and all that none of these diseases which came upon the Egyptians would come upon them. And was showing, actually, the wisdom of a lot of the dietary laws and the laws of cleanliness that God gave unto them, that actually they are strictly health codes.

God is interested in your good health. I don’t think God is behind junk food. And I don’t think that we can load ourselves up with junk food and ask God to give us a healthy body. I think there’s an inconsistency there. It used to be going home from Bible school, we would stop by the Boston Market and buy a gallon of ice cream, a pint of whipped cream, and chocolate syrup and bananas, and we’d go home and I would whip up a quick banana cream pie, and then we’d sit down to eat. And the guys would say, “Who’s going to ask the blessing?” I’d say, “You’ve got to be kidding. You can’t in all good conscience ask God to bless this. Just eat it and suffer the consequences.” But don’t ask God to bless what you know is no good for you. And yet some of us are so foolish, you know. We keep supplying our bodies with junk kinds of food and then we ask God for strength and for health. That’s a whole other subject, but we’ll get into that next Sunday as we get into Leviticus and the dietary laws and the value of a good diet and all, as God lays it out to the people. God was interested in their health and in the foods that they ate. And so I think we’ll find it very fascinating.

Shall we stand.

Aren’t you glad you’re not living under the old covenant? Wee, it’s so neat just to have Jesus Christ and to realize that all these ordinances and sacrifices and the whole thing have been done away and now we can relate to God freely, fully, openly. We don’t have to even go to a priest. We don’t have to have this mediator between us, but we can come directly to the throne of grace that we might find mercy because Jesus through His sacrifice has made the way for all of us. And so one thing this does in Leviticus is makes you really appreciate more and more what Jesus Christ has done, for He is our total Sacrifice; the peace offering, our meal offering, our burnt offering, our sin offering, our trespass offering, He’s everything. By His one sacrifice, He’s taken care of it all and made, now, access for each of you directly unto God. How glorious! How wonderful!

God be with you and God bless you and watch over you this week. And just give you a wonderful time in Jesus. As you fellowship together with Him may you experience more and more the glory of God upon your life. I’m convinced that God once again is wanting to reveal His glory to His people. And may He minister to us this week of His love and of His grace. And may you thus be strengthened and blessed in your walk with Him. In Jesus’ name, Amen. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

In the meal offering was presented another side of the great truth of personal dedication. In itself the offering was of the work of man’s hands, the fruits of the ground, the result of civilization, manufacture, and preparation. Through it the people were ever reminded that their approach to God demanded that they offer to Him a perfect service as well as a perfect life. Dedication of life is a condition for service. Service is its true reason and finest expression. A man whose life is imperfect necessarily renders an imperfect service.

If by the burnt offering the truth of substitution for life is taught, in the meal offering the provision of a perfect service in place of an imperfect one is as clearly set forth. In a perfect life there would be no necessity for the sacrificial burnt offering because the life in itself is acceptable to God. That, of course, was the truth about the life of Christ. Moreover, such life has no need of the specific meal offering, for all the service which it renders is perfect. Where life has failed, it can approach only through sacrifice, and where service has failed through the imperfect life, the offering suggesting perfection is necessary.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Meal-Offerings with Oil and Incense

Lev 2:1-16

The meal-offering, which is described in this chapter, portrayed in emblem the perfect character of our Lord. He was as fine flour, of the best quality, without grit or coarseness. There was nothing uneven, nothing rough and harsh, nothing unseemly or forbidding in Him. He was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit; His perfect obedience was fragrant to the Father, and should be so to us; there was no leaven of guile or hypocrisy in His constitution. See Eph 5:2. We should feed on His holy character by meditation, and resemble it in daily living. The interposition of the priest was an essential feature of the ancient ritual, informing us that our prayer and self-surrender are acceptable to God through our Savior. We are also reminded by Lev 2:14 that we are called to be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures to the Creator. See Jam 1:18.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

2. The Meal Offering

CHAPTER 2

1. The general instruction (Lev 2:1-3)

2. Baked in the oven (Lev 2:4)

3. Baked in a pan (Lev 2:5-6)

4. Baked in a frying pan (Lev 2:7)

5. Presented unto the priest (Lev 2:8-11)

6. The oblation of the firstfruits (Lev 2:12-16)

The word meat should be changed throughout this chapter to meal. This offering or oblation is closely connected with the burnt offering. No doubt it could not be brought apart from the sacrificial animal. The meal offering is the type of Christ in His perfect humanity and holy, devoted character. It was not for atonement even as the holy humanity of Christ and devotedness of His life could not atone for sins. It is called most holy for in His humanity He was that holy thing. The fine flour, sifted and pure, coming from the corn of wheat, is the apt and beautiful type of His perfect humanity. The oil, so prominent in this offering, is the type of the Holy Spirit. The oil was connected in a twofold way with this offering. The fine flour was mingled with oil. This is typical of the incarnation, His conception by the Holy Spirit, His whole being Spirit-filled. It is a blessed illustration of Luk 1:35. Leaven was entirely absent. Unleavened fine flour and no leaven is repeatedly stated by Jehovah. It had to be excluded, for leaven is a type of evil, and no evil was in Him.

Nor was any honey permitted in the fine flour. Honey is the type of the sweetness of human nature apart from grace; the picture of fallen nature in an amiable character, yet sin connected with it. Leaven is fermentation; and the sweet honey is the cause of it. It was not allowed in the fine flour, for nothing of an unholy sweetness was in Christ. Only the oil was mingled with the flour. But the oil was also poured upon the flour. This is the type of the Holy Spirit, as He came upon Christ, the anointed One. He was on earth the One whom the Father had sealed (Joh 6:27); in the meal offering salt had likewise a place. It is the type of the separating power of holiness. Believers, born again, have the Holy Spirit in the new nature, and by the Spirit are sealed. Thus we are enabled to walk even as He walked, and show forth His excellencies. We add here a beautiful tribute to the perfect humanity and the moral glory of Christ:

This meal offering of God, taken from the fruit of the earth, was of the finest wheat; that which was pure, separate and lovely in human nature was in Jesus under all its sorrows, but in all its excellence, and excellent in its sorrows. There was no unevenness in Jesus, no predominant quality to produce the effect of giving Him a distinctive character. He was, though despised and rejected of men, the perfection of human nature. The sensibilities, firmness, decision (though this attached itself also to the principle of obedience), elevation and calm meekness, which belong to human nature, all found their perfect place in Him. In a Paul I find energy and zeal; in a Peter, ardent affection; in a John, tender sensibilities and abstraction of thought, united to a desire to vindicate what he loved which scarce knew limit. But the quality we have observed in Peter predominates and characterizes him. In a Paul, blessed servant though he was, he did not repent, though he had repented…. In him in whom God was mighty toward the circumcision, we find the fear of man break through the faithfulness of his zeal. John, who would have vindicated Jesus in his zeal, knew not what manner of spirit He was of, and would have forbidden the glory of God, if a man walked not with them.

But in Jesus, even as man, there was none of this unevenness. There was nothing salient in His character, because all was in perfect subjection to God in His humanity, and had its place, and did exactly its service, and then disappeared. God was glorified in it, and all was in harmony. When meekness became Him He was meek; when indignation, who could stand before His overwhelming and withering rebuke? Tender to the chief of sinners in the time of grace; unmoved by the heartless superiority of a cold Pharisee (curious to judge who He was); when the time of judgment is come, no tears of those who wept for Him moved Him to other words than Weep for yourselves and for your children,–words of deep compassion, but of deep subjection to the due judgment of God. The dry tree prepared itself to be burned. On the cross, when His service was finished, tender to His mother, and entrusting her in human care, to one who (so to speak) had been His friend, and leaned on His bosom; no ear to recognize her word or claim when His service occupied Him for God; putting both blessedly in their place, when He would show that, before His public mission, He was still the Son of the Father, and though such, in human blessedness, subject to the mother that bare Him, and Joseph His father as under the law, a calmness which disconcerted His adversaries; and in the moral power which dismayed them at times, a meekness which drew out the hearts of all not steeled by opposition. Such was Christ in human nature. (J.N. Darby, Synopsis of the Bible.)

And frankincense was thereon. This is the fragrance, unspeakable in its value, as it went up from His blessed life to God.

But the meal offering was baked in an oven, in a pan and in a frying pan or cauldron. These are the types of the testings and trials in His holy humanity. He was made perfect through suffering as the captain of our salvation (Heb 2:10). The oven typifies the temptations from the side of Satan–known only to the Lord Himself. The pan tells of the more evident testings and trials through which He passed, enduring the contradiction of sinners and all the opposition and hatred heaped upon Him. The frying pan or cauldron speaks of the combining trials and sorrows of an outward and inward nature. But all, whether the oven, the pan or the cauldron, brought out His perfection.

The meal offering was then burnt upon the altar, a sweet odor to Jehovah. The priests could eat the remainder of the meal offering. As priests of God, constituted thus through the grace of God, it is our holy and blessed privilege to feed on Himself, and the feeding on Christ will ever keep us in conscious nearness to God, and wean us away from earthly things.

The oblation mentioned in verse 12 refers to the new meal offering in which leaven was permitted, and which was not to be burnt. This we shall find more fully mentioned in chapter 23:15-20. When we reach that chapter we shall speak of its significance as the wave offering. The oblation of the firstfruits (verses 14-16) consisted in green ears of corn dried by fire, even corn beaten out of full ears. He again is typified here as the green corn, which was dried (roasted) in the fire. It points to His holy life, His death and His resurrection. However, all this is more fully revealed in the wave sheaf after Passover in connection with Pentecost. This we shall find in the contents of the twenty-third chapter of the book.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

fine flour

The meal-offering. The fine flour speaks of the evenness and balance of the character of Christ; of that perfection in which no quality was in excess, none lacking; the fire, of His testing by suffering, even unto death; frankincense; the fragrance of His life Godward (see) Exo 30:34 absence of leaven, His character as “the Truth” (see) Exo 12:8 absence of honey;–His was not that mere natural sweetness which may exist quite apart from grace; oil mingled, Christ as born of the Spirit Mat 1:18-23 oil upon, Christ as baptized with the Spirit; Joh 1:32; Joh 6:27 the oven, the unseen sufferings of Christ–His inner agonies; Heb 2:18; Mat 27:45; Mat 27:46 the pan, His more evident sufferings (e.g.) Mat 27:27-31 salt, the pungency of the truth of God–that which arrests the action of leaven.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

meat offering: Minchah, from the Arabic manacha, to give, especially as a reciprocal gift, a gift, oblation, or eucharistical or gratitude offering, for the bounties of providence displayed in the fruits of the earth. It is termed a meat offering by our translators, because the term meat in their time was the general name for food. Lev 6:14-18, Lev 6:20-23, Lev 9:17, Num 15:4-21, Isa 66:20, Joh 6:35

fine flour: Exo 29:2, Num 7:13, Num 7:19, Joe 1:9, Joe 2:14

pour oil: Lev 2:4-8, Lev 2:15, Lev 2:16, Lev 7:10-12, 1Jo 2:20, 1Jo 2:27, Jud 1:20

frankincense: Mal 1:11, Luk 1:9, Luk 1:10, Rev 8:3

Reciprocal: Gen 4:3 – the fruit Exo 30:34 – frankincense Lev 2:7 – of fine Lev 5:11 – fine flour Lev 7:37 – meat Lev 9:4 – and a meat Lev 10:12 – Take Lev 14:10 – a meat offering Num 8:8 – his meat Num 28:5 – General Jdg 9:9 – wherewith 2Ch 13:11 – sweet incense Ezr 6:9 – wheat Mat 2:11 – frankincense

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE MEAL AND PEACE OFFERINGS

THE MEAL OFFERING (Leviticus 2)

We call the second offering the meal instead of the meat offering, following the Revised Version. The burnt and meal offerings really belong together. They are both offerings of consecration, and when the one was presented the other followed as a kind of appendage (see Lev 23:12-13; Lev 23:18; Num 28:7-15; Jdg 13:19; Ezr 7:17; etc.).

We have seen that the burnt offering was entirely consumed upon the altar as expressive of the entire consecration of the one who offered it, and Gods acceptance of it as a sweet savor to Him. In this it typifies Christ who is the only perfect life of consecration, and who has been accepted by God on behalf of all who put their faith in Him. This aspect of the sacrifice of Christ is indicated in Eph 5:2 and Joh 6:38.

The meal offering, composed mainly of fine flour, is generally taken to represent a consecrated life in its use for mankind, since flour is the universal food of man. It is a fact that God habitually uses for His service among men the lives and powers of those who are truly dedicated to Him, and this seems expressed in the fact that the burnt offering always had the meal offering attached to it. Our Lords life represents this consecration in such places as Mat 10:28 and Act 10:38, and is a consecration to God for the service of mankind, which He offered and God accepted on behalf of all who put their faith in Him.

Varieties in the Offering

It will be seen that there are certain varieties of the meal offering. The first is referred to in Lev 2:1-3, whose substance was fine flour, oil and frankincense. What parts and portion of the offering was to be taken out by the offerer to be presented unto the Lord (Lev 2:2)? To whom did the remainder belong for their use (Lev 2:3)?

The second is referred to in Lev 2:4-10, and contains the same substance except the frankincense, the distinction being that the offering is baked in the oven, or in a pan, and the priest rather than the offerer removes the Lords portion.

The third is alluded to in Lev 2:14-16, and consists of what substance? How was it to be prepared? What is included in this class which was omitted from the second class?

Lev 2:11-13 refer to articles that were prohibited from the meal offering, and one was particularly prescribed. Name those prohibited, and that prescribed. Leaven and honey represent decay and corruption, the first- named being the type of evil recognized as such, and the second, evil that is unrecognized because it has earthy sweetness in it. Both kinds of evil were absent in Jesus Christ, and the perfection of the type necessitates their absence in it. As to salt, it is the symbol of incorruption (Mat 5:13; Mar 9:50).

Taking the offering as a whole, it may be said to symbolize His fulfillment on our behalf of the second table of the law, just as the burnt offering symbolizes His fulfillment on our behalf of the first table. Of course, in fulfilling the first He fulfilled the second, but in the burnt offering the one thought predominates and in the meal offering the other thought. In the burnt offering Christ is, representatively, man satisfying God and giving Him what belongs to Him, while in the meal offering He is, representatively, man satisfying man and giving him what belongs to him as an offering to the Lord. The burnt offering represents His life Godward, and the meal offering His life manward.

THE PEACE OFFERING (Leviticus 3)

The data for the law of the peace offering are found by comparing chapter 3 with the following passages: Lev 7:11-34; Lev 19:5-8; Lev 22:21-25. We put them all together in this lesson that the student may obtain a complete view of the whole. There are certain features of this offering which differ from the others.

For example, the objects offered. The peace offering might be a female (Lev 3:1), the explanation for which may be that the effects of the atonement are contemplated rather than the act itself. Furthermore, no turtle dove or pigeon was permitted, the explanation for which may be that as the offering was connected with a sacrificial meal of which several partook, a small bird would be insufficient.

The Lords portion consisted chiefly of the fat (Lev 3:3-5), the richest portion, symbolizing that the best belongs to Him. Eating the fat of all animals was not prohibited, but only those used in sacrifice, and in these only when they were being so used. The prohibition of the eating of blood, however, applied to all animals and always (Lev 17:10-12). The peace offering was to be consumed upon the burnt offering (Lev 3:5), thus symbolizing that the peace it typified was grounded upon the fact of atonement and acceptance on the part of the offerer. The peace offering usually followed the meal offering (see the details in the dedication of Aaron, chapter 8, and those of the Day of Atonement, chapter 16).

By turning to 7:28-34 it will be seen that certain parts of the peace offering belonged to the priests. The waving of these parts back and forth, and the heaving of them up and down, were a token of their dedication to God first and their being received back again from Him by the priests.

By comparison of 7:15 and 22:29-30 and parallel places, it will be seen that the offerer himself had for his portion all that remained. It also will be seen that he was at liberty to invite his friends to the feast, which must always be eaten at the sanctuary and which was an occasion of joy (Deu 12:4-7; Deu 12:17-18). The only condition for partaking of the feast was that of ceremonial cleanness (7:20-21).

The Significance of the Offering

The meaning of peace in this case includes not only tranquillity of mind based on a cessation of hostilities (that is, a mere negative peace), but positive joy and prosperity. Three propositions define it: Peace with God (Rom 5:1); the peace of God (Php 4:7); and peace from God (1Co 1:3), conceived of as flowing into our hearts.

The feast, therefore, is an expression of friendship and fellowship growing out of the fact that the breach between man and God has been healed by His grace. The Israelite, who represents the Christian saint, is seen to be enjoying a feast with God, where God Himself is the host rather than the offerer. God first accepts the victim in expiation of sin and then gives it back for the worshipper to feast upon with Himself. Moreover, the feast is held in Gods house, not in that of the offerer, emphasizing the fact that God is the host. Of course Christ is the offering represented here, whose blood is shed for our guilt and to bring us into reconciled relation with God, and who Himself then becomes the meat by which we who are reconciled are thereafter sustained (Joh 6:51-58).

Keep in mind that this is a joint repast in which all three partake: God, the priest, and the offerer. It therefore represents our fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ (1Jn 1:3). Remember also that cleanness is the condition (1Jn 1:9). An Israelite might remain such and be unclean, but he could hold no feast and enjoy no communion with God while in that condition. The application to Christians is very plain (1Pe 1:13-16).

QUESTIONS

1. By what name is the first of these offerings known in the King James?

2. Give the distinction between the burnt and meal offering as to the scope of consecration.

3. What do honey and leaven symbolize?

4. Where was the peace offering consumed, and why?

5. What did the waving and heaving mean?

6. What is the meaning of peace in this case?

7. What is the idea of the peace offering?

8. Can you quote 1Jn 1:3?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Lev 2:1. When any will offer a meat-offering The word , mincha, which we render meat-offering, signifies generally a simple oblation or gift. In this chapter and elsewhere it signifies an offering of things inanimate, in opposition to animal sacrifices, described in the former chapter. The word meat-offering (which is supposed by some to have been an ancient false print, that has run through many editions of our Bible, for meal-offering) conveys a quite different idea to the English reader. It certainly would be better rendered meal-offering, or wheat-offering. It was of two kinds: the one which, being joined with other offerings, (Num 15:4; Num 15:7; Num 15:10,) was particularly prescribed with the measure and proportion of it. The other, which is here spoken of, was left to the offerers good-will, both for the thing offered and the quantity. As to the matter of these minchas, or offerings of things inanimate, it was of such things as were of great use to the support of human life, namely, flour, bread, wine, salt, &c. Now this sort of sacrifices was appointed, 1st, Because these are things of the greatest necessity and benefit to man, and therefore it is meet that God should be served with them, and owned and praised as the giver of them. 2d, In condescension to the poor, that they might not want an offering for God, and to show that God would accept even the meanest services, when offered with a sincere mind. Some of these offerings were for the whole congregation, as the waved sheaf, (Lev 23:11,) and the two waved loaves, Lev 23:17. Some, again, were for private persons; among which were that for the poor sinner who could not afford the more expensive sacrifices, Lev 5:11, that, for the suspected woman, Num 5:15; besides the voluntary ones. He shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon To make a sweet odour in the court of the tabernacle, which otherwise would have been very offensive, by reason of the blood that was sprinkled and the flesh that was burned there daily.

Besides, the pouring oil, and putting frankincense thereon, signified its being grateful and acceptable to God. And therefore in the offering of jealousy, when guilt was supposed, and sin brought to remembrance, no oil nor frankincense was to be put on the oblation. Now both these things were emblematical of spiritual blessings; the oil of the graces of the Holy Spirit, which are compared to oil and to anointing therewith, (Psa 45:7; 1Jn 2:20,) and are necessary to make any offering acceptable to God; and the frankincense of Christs atonement and intercession, compared to a sweet odour, Eph 5:2. And the intention of all these offerings being fully answered by the mediation of the Messiah and the blessings of his gospel, it was proper they should cease upon his death, as is thought to have been expressly foretold, Dan 9:27.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Lev 2:1. When any (Hebrews nephesh) soul; to denote that true religion is seated in the heart. Offer a meat-offering (Hebrews mincha) which Aquila renders, a gift of wheat to the Lord.

Lev 2:13. Salt of the covenant must not be lacking, as is often noticed. The rabbins, as well as the primitive christian doctors, seem agreed that salt here signifies incorruption, and the good savour of piety. Salt preserves flesh, and the alkali in limestone ranges will preserve fish; salt is therefore a figure of the fidelity of the promises of God to man.

REFLECTIONS.

In the preseding chapter we saw the sinner purged with blood, and permitted to enter the congregation of the Lord: here we find him feasted, as one of the Kings friends. The Lord himself has no need of meat- offerings and drink-offerings: if he were hungry, he would not apply to man, but he wished here to presignify the more excellent food he has provided for the soul. Here are wine and oil, marrow and fatness for the hungry, without money and without price. By enjoining these oblations he previously bound him self, as Lord of nature, to bestow them on man. Hence Israel, and all Gods people might see in these laws, so many promises that their harvests and vintages should never fail.

The meat-offerings were to be free from leaven; and even honey, though sweet in itself, and calculated, as the ancients say, to prolong life, could not be admitted, because it partook of the nature of leaven. We must eat in the presence of God, the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. The sour leaven of factions and parties in the church, spoils the unity of the spirit, and breaks the bonds of peace. In doctrine and discipline, in life and temper we must be simple and upright before the Lord, and being found as little children, we shall be admitted into his kingdom.

All the meat-offerings were to be seasoned with salt: every sacrifice, says our Lord, must be salted with salt, and every man shall be salted with fire, or purified by the fire of affliction. If grace then is to be in our hearts, as salt in the meat-offerings, how holy should we be, how fervent in spirit, and zealous in the Lords service! For if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and trodden underfoot of men.

The cakes were to be eaten with olive oil, and with incense: the former made them rich, the latter fragrant. There is no food so pleasant as that which we eat in the presence of God; no meat which gives such health to the soul, and joy to the countenance. Oh, how we should pity the poor sinners, whose only food is the news of the day, and the vanities of life.

But the Lord did not forget his priests, who were not allowed vineyards and lands: they were partakers of the altar. Let those engaged in the ministry, and on that account deprived of trades and lands, learn to trust in the Lord; he will give them food and raiment, and by some means provide for their children. Nor let them murmur and faint in the time of difficulty, but be thankful that God has counted them faithful, and put them into the ministry.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Leviticus 2

We, now, come to consider the meat offering which presents, in a very distinct manner, the man Christ Jesus.” As the Burnt offering typifies Christ in death, the meat offering typifies Him in life. In neither the one nor the other, is there a question of sin-bearing. In the burnt offering, we see atonement but no sin bearing* – no imputation of sin – no outpoured wrath on account of sin. How can we know this? Because it was all consumed on the altar. Had there been ought of sin-bearing, it would have been consumed outside the camp. (Comp. Lev. 4: 11, 22, with Heb. 13: 11)

{*That is to say sin-bearing is not prominent, Of course, where there is atonement, sin must be in question.}

But, in the meat offering, there was not even a question of blood shedding. We simply find, in it, a beauteous type of Christ, as He lived and walked and served, down here, on this earth. this one fact is, of itself, sufficient to draw the spiritual mind to the close and prayerful consideration of this offering. The pure and perfect manhood of our blessed Lord is a theme which must command the attention of every true Christian. It is to be feared that great looseness of thought prevails, in reference to this holy mystery. The expressions which one sometimes hears and reads are sufficient to prove that the fundamental doctrine of incarnation is not laid hold of as the word presents it. Such expressions may, very probably, proceed from misapprehension as to the real nature of His relations, and as to the true character of His sufferings; but, from what cause soever they arise, they should be judged in the light of holy scripture, and rejected. Doubtless, many who make use of those expressions, would recoil, with just horror and indignation, from the real doctrine contained in them, were it put before them in its broad and true characters; and, for this reason, one should be sorry to attribute unsoundness as to fundamental truth, where it may merely be inaccuracy of statement.

There is, however, one consideration which should weigh heavily in the estimation of every Christian, and that is, the vital nature of the doctrine of Christ’s humanity. It lies at the very foundation of Christianity; and, for this reason, Satan has diligently sought, from the beginning, to lead people astray in reference to it. Almost all the leading errors which have found their way into the professing church disclose the Satanic purpose to undermine the truth as to the Person of Christ. And even when earnest, godly men have sought to combat those errors, they have, in many cases, plunged into errors on the opposite side. Hence, therefore, the need of close adherence to the veritable words which the Holy Ghost has made use of in unfolding this profound and most sacred mystery. Indeed, I believe that, in every case, subjection to the authority of holy scripture, and the energy of the divine life in the soul, will prove effectual safeguards against every complexion of error. It does not require high theological attainments to enable a soul to keep clear of error with respect to the doctrine of Christ. If only the word of Christ be dwelling richly, and “the Spirit of Christ” be in energy, in the soul, there will be no room for Satan to thrust in his dark and horrible suggestions. If the heart be delighting in the Christ which Scripture unfolds, it will, assuredly, shrink from the false Christs which Satan would introduce. If we are feeding upon God’s reality, we shall unhesitatingly reject Satan’s counterfeit. This is the best possible way in which to escape the entanglements of error, in every shape and character. “The sheep hear His voice, and . . . . . . follow him: for they know His voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; for they know not the voice of strangers” (John 10: 4, 5) It is not, by any means, needful to be acquainted with the voice of a stranger, in order to turn away from it; all we require is to know the voice of the good Shepherd.” This will secure us against the ensnaring influence of every strange sound. While, therefore, I feel called upon to warn the reader against strange sounds, in reference to the divine mystery of Christ’s humanity, I do not deem it needful to discuss such sounds, but would rather seek, through grace, to arm him against them, by unfolding the doctrine of Scripture on the subject.

There are few things in which we exhibit more failure than in maintaining vigorous communion with the perfect manhood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence it is that we suffer so much from vacancy, barrenness, restlessness, and wandering. Did we but enter, with a more artless faith, into the truth that there is a real Man, at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens – One whose sympathy is perfect, whose love is fathomless, whose power is omnipotent, whose wisdom is infinite, whose resources are exhaustless, whose riches are unsearchable, whose ear is open to our every breathing, whose hand is open to our every need, whose heart is full of unspeakable love and tenderness towards us – how much more happy and elevated we should be, and how much more independent of creature streams, through what channel soever they may flow! There is nothing the heart can crave which we have not in Jesus. Does it long for genuine sympathy? Where can it find it, save in Him who could mingle His tears with those of the bereaved sisters of Bethany? Does it desire the enjoyment of sincere affection? It can only find it in that heart which told forth its love in drops of blood. Does it seek the protection of real power? It has but to look to Him who made the world. Does it feel the need of unerring wisdom to guide? Let it betake itself to Him who is wisdom personified, and who of God is made unto us wisdom.” In one word, we have all in Christ. The divine mind and the divine affections have found a perfect object in the man Christ Jesus;” and, surely, if there is that in the Person of Christ which can perfectly satisfy God, there is that which ought to satisfy us, and which will satisfy us, in proportion as, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, we walk in communion with God.

The Lord Jesus Christ was the only perfect man that ever trod this earth. He was all perfect – perfect in thought, perfect in word, perfect in action. In Him every moral quality met in divine and, therefore, perfect proportion. No one feature preponderated. In Him were exquisitely blended a majesty which overawed, and a gentleness which gave perfect ease in His presence. The Scribes and the Pharisees met His withering rebuke; while the poor Samaritan. and “the woman that was a sinner,” found themselves unaccountably, yet irresistibly, attracted to Him. No one feature displaced another, for all was in fair and comely proportion. This may be traced in every scene of His perfect life. He could say, in reference to five thousand hungry people, “Give ye them to eat;” and, when they were filled, He could say, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.” The benevolence and the economy are both perfect and neither interferes with the other. Each shines in its own proper sphere. He could not send unsatisfied hungry away; neither could He suffer a single fragment of God’s creatures to be wasted. He would meet, with a full and liberal hand, the need of the human family, and, when that was done, He would carefully treasure up every atom. The self-same hand that was widely open to every form of human need was firmly closed against all prodigality. There was nothing niggardly nor yet extravagant in the character of the perfect, the heavenly Man.

What a lesson for us! How often, with us, does benevolence resolve itself into an unwarrantable profusion! and, on the other hand, how often is our economy marred by the exhibition of a miserly spirit! At times, too, our niggard hearts refuse to open themselves to the full extent of the need which presents itself before us; while, at other times, we squander, through a wanton extravagance, that which might satisfy many a needy fellow-creature. Oh! my reader, let us carefully study the divine picture set before us in the life of the “Man Christ Jesus.” How refreshing and strengthening to “the inward man” to be occupied with Him who was perfect in all His ways, and who “in all things must have the pre-eminence!”

See Him in the garden of Gethsemane. There, He kneels in the profound depths of a humility which none but Himself could exhibit; but yet, before the traitor’s band, He exhibits a self-possession and majesty which cause them to go backward and fall to the ground. His deportment before God is prostration; before His judges and accusers, unbending dignity. All is perfect. The self-emptiness and the self-possession, the prostration and the dignity, are all divine.

So also, when we contemplate the beauteous combination of His divine and human relations, the same perfectness is observable. He could say, How was it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” And, at the same time, He could go down to Nazareth, and there set an example of perfect subjection to parental authority. (See Luke 2: 49-51.) He could say to His mother, Woman, what have I to do with thee?” And yet, when passing through the unutterable agony of the cross, He could tenderly commit that mother to the care of the beloved disciple. In the former case, He separated Himself in the spirit of perfect Nazariteship to accomplish His Father’s will; while, in the latter, He gave expression to the tender feelings of the perfect human heart. The devotion of the Nazarite and the affection of the man were both perfect. Neither was permitted to interfere with the other. Each shone with undimmed lustre in its proper sphere.

Now, the shadow of this perfect man passes before us in the “fine flour” which formed the basis of the meat offering. There was not so much as a single coarse grain. There was nothing uneven – nothing unequal – nothing rough to the touch. No matter what pressure came from without, there was always an even surface. He was never ruffled by any circumstance or set of circumstances. He never had to retrace a step, or recall a word. Come what might, He always met it in that perfect evenness which is so strikingly typified by the “fine flour.”

In all these things, it is needless to say, He stands in marked contrast with His most honoured and devoted servants. For example, Moses, though “the meekest man in all the earth,” yet “spoke unadvisedly with his lips.” In Peter, we find a zeal and an energy which, at times, proved too much for the occasion; and, again, a cowardice which shrank from the place of testimony and reproach. There was the assertion of a devotedness which, when the time for action arrived, was not forthcoming. John, who breathed so much of the atmosphere of the immediate presence of Christ, exhibited, at times, a sectarian and an intolerant spirit. In Paul, the most devoted of servants, we observe considerable unevenness. He uttered words to the high priest which he had to recall. He sent a letter to the Corinthians, of which at first he repented, and afterwards repented not. In all, we find some flaw, save in Him who is “the fairest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely.

In the examination of the meat offering, it will give clearness and simplicity to our thoughts to consider, first, the materials of which it was composed; secondly, the various forms in which it was presented; and, thirdly, the persons who partook of it.

As to the materials, the “fine flour” may be regarded as the basis of the offering; and, in it, we have a type of Christ’s humanity, wherein every perfection met. Every virtue was there, and ready for effectual action, in due season. The Holy Ghost delights to unfold the glories of Christ’s Person, to set Him forth in all His peerless excellence – to place Him before us in contrast with all beside. He contrasts Him with Adam, even in his very best and highest state; as we read, “the first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.” (1 Cor. 15: 47) The first Adam, even in his unfallen condition, was “of the earth;” but the second Man was “the Lord from heaven.”

The “oil,” in the meat offering, is a type of the Holy Ghost. But, inasmuch as the oil is applied in a twofold way, so we have the Holy Ghost presented in a double aspect, in connection with the incarnation of the Son. The fine flour was “mingled” with oil; and there was oil “poured” upon it. Such was the type; and, in the Anti type, we see the blessed Lord Jesus Christ, first, “conceived,” and then “anointed,” by the Holy Ghost. (Comp. Matt. 1: 18, 23, with Lev. 3: 16) This is divine! The accuracy, which is here so apparent, draws forth the soul’s admiration. It is one and the same Spirit which records the ingredients of the type, and gives us the facts in the antitype. The one who has detailed for us, with such amazing precision, the types and shadows of the Book of Leviticus, has also given us the glorious subject thereof, in the gospel narratives. The same Spirit breathes through the pages of the Old and those of the New Testament, and enables us to see how exactly the one corresponds with the other.

The conception of Christ’s humanity, by the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin, unfolds one of the most profound mysteries, which can possibly engage the attention of the renewed mind. It is most fully set forth in Luke’s gospel; and this is entirely characteristic, inasmuch as, throughout that Gospel, it would seem to be the special object of the Holy Ghost to unfold, in His own divinely touching manner, “the Man Christ Jesus.” In Matthew, we have “the Son of Abraham – the Son of David.” In Mark, we have the Divine Servant – the Heavenly Workman. In John, we have “the Son of God – the Eternal Word – the Life – the Light, by whom all things were made. But the great theme of the Holy Ghost in Luke is “the Son of man.”

When the angel Gabriel had announced to Mary the dignity which was about to be conferred upon her, in connection with the great work of incarnation, she, not in a spirit of scepticism, but of honest ignorance, enquired, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” It, manifestly, seemed to her that the birth of this glorious Person who was about to appear should be according to the ordinary principles of generation; and this her thought is made the occasion, in the exceeding goodness of God, of developing much valuable light, in reference to the cardinal truth of incarnation. The angel’s reply to the virgin’s question is unspeakably interesting, and cannot be too closely considered. “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1: 35)

From this magnificent passage, we learn that the human body into which the eternal Son entered, was formed by “the power of the Highest.” “A body hast thou prepared me.” (Comp. Psalm 40: 6 with Heb. 10: 6) It was a real human body – real “flesh and blood.” There is no possible foundation here, on which Gnosticism or mysticism can base its vapid and worthless theories no warrant for the cold abstractions of the former, or the misty fancies of the latter. all is deep, solid, and divine reality. The very thing which our hearts needed- the very thing which God has given. The early promise had declared that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head,” and none but a real man could accomplish this prediction – one whose nature was as real as it was pure and incorruptible. Thou shalt conceive in thy womb,” said the angelic messenger, “and bring forth a son”* And, then, lest there should be any room for an error, in reference to the mode of this conception, he adds such words as prove unanswerably, that “the flesh and blood” of which the Eternal Son “took part” while absolutely real, was absolutely incapable of receiving, of retaining, or of communicating a single taint. The humanity of the Lord Jesus was, emphatically, that holy thing.” And, inasmuch as it was wholly without taint, it was wholly without a seed of mortality. We cannot think of mortality, save in connection with sin; and Christ’s humanity had nought to do with sin, either personally or relatively. Sin was imputed to Him, on the cross, where He was made sin for us.” But the meat offering is not the type of Christ as a sin-bearer. It foreshadows Him in His perfect life, here below – a life in which He suffered, no doubt, hut not as a sin-bearer – not as a substitute – not at the hand of God. Let this be distinctly noted. Neither in the burnt offering, nor in the meat offering, have we Christ as a sin-bearer. In the latter, we see Him living; and, in the former, we see Him dying; but, in neither, is there a question of the imputation of sin, nor of enduring the wrath of God, on account of sin. In short, to present Christ as the sinner’s substitute any where else save on the cross, is to rob His life of all its divine beauty and excellency, and to displace the cross altogether. Moreover, it would involve the types of Leviticus in hopeless confusion.

{*”But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” (genomenon ek gunaikos, genomenon hupo nomon.) This is a most important passage inasmuch as it sets forth our blessed Lord as Son of God, and Son of man. “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman” Precious testimony.}

I would, at this point, solemnly admonish my reader, that he cannot be too jealous in reference to the vital truth of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, If there be error as to this, there is no security as to anything. God cannot give the sanction of His presence to ought that has not this truth for its foundation. The Person of Christ is the living – the divine ground which the Holy Ghost caries on all His operations. Let slip the truth as to Him, and you are like a vessel broken from its moorings, and carried, without rudder or compass, over the wild watery waste, and in imminent danger of being dashed to fragments upon the rocks of Arianism, Infidelity, or Atheism. Question the eternal Sonship of Christ – question His Deity – question His unspotted humanity, and you have opened the floodgate for a desolating tide of deadly error to rush in. Let no one imagine, for a moment, that this is a mere matter to be discussed by learned theologians – a curious question – a recondite mystery – a point about which we may lawfully differ. No; it is a vital, fundamental truth, to be held in the power of the Holy Ghost, and maintained at the expense of all beside – yea, to be confessed, under all circumstances, whatever may be the consequences.

What we want is simply to receive into our hearts, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Father’s revelation of the Son, and, then, our souls shall be effectually preserved from the snares of the enemy, let them take what shape they may. He may speciously cover the trap of Arianism or Socinianism with the grass and leaves of a most plausible and attractive system of interpretation; but directly the devoted heart discovers what this system attempts to make of the Blessed One to whom it owes everything, and where it attempts to put Him, it finds but little difficulty in sending it back to where it manifestly came from. We can well afford to do without human theories; but we can never do without Christ – the Christ of God – the Christ of God’s affections – the Christ of God’s counsels – the Christ of God’s word.

The Lord Jesus Christ, God’s eternal Son, a distinct Person in the glorious Trinity, God manifest in the flesh, God over all, blessed for ever, assumed a body which was inherently and divinely pure, holy, and without the possibility of taint – absolutely free from every seed or principle of sin and mortality. Such was the humanity of Christ, that He could at any moment, so far as He was personally concerned, have returned to heaven, from whence He had come, and to which He belonged. I speak not here of the eternal counsels of redeeming love, or of the unswerving love of the heart of Jesus – His love to God – His love to God’s elect, or of the work that was needful to ratify God’s everlasting covenant with the seed of Abraham, and with the whole creation. Christ’s own words teach us that it behoved Him to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.” (Luke 24: 46) It was necessary that He should suffer, in order to the full manifestation and perfect accomplishment of the great mystery of redemption. It was His gracious purpose to “bring many sons unto glory. He would not abide alone,” and, therefore, He, as the corn of wheat, “should fall into the ground and die.” The more fully we enter into the truth of His Person, the more fully do we apprehend the grace of His work.

When the apostle speaks of Christ’s being made perfect through suffering,” it is as “the Captain of our salvation that he contemplates Him, and not as the eternal Son who, as regards His own abstract Person and nature, was divinely perfect and could not possibly have ought added to Him. So, also, when He Himself says, “Behold I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected,” (Luke 13: 32) He refers to His being perfected, in the power of resurrection, as the accomplisher of the entire work of redemption. So far as He was personally concerned, He could say, even on His way forth from the garden of Gethsemane, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Matt. 26: 53, 54)

It is well that the soul be clear as to this – well to have a divine sense of the harmony which exists between those scriptures which present Christ in the essential dignity of His Person, and the divine purity of His nature, and those which present Him in His relation with His people, and as accomplishing the great work of redemption. At times we find both these things combined, in the same passage, as in Heb. 5: 8, 9: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.” We must, however, bear in mind that not one of those relations into which Christ, voluntarily, entered – whether as the expression of divine love to a lost world, or the servant of the divine counsels not one of these could possibly interfere with the essential purity, excellency, and glory of His Person. “The Holy Ghost came upon” the virgin, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her;” and “therefore that holy thing which was born of her was called the Son of God.” Most magnificent unfolding, this, of the deep secret of Christ’s pure and perfect humanity – the great antitype of the “fine flour mingled with oil!”

And here, let me observe, that, between humanity, as seen in the Lord Jesus Christ, and humanity, as seen in us, there could be no union. That which is pure could never coalesce with that which is impure. That which is incorruptible could never unite with that which is corruptible. The spiritual and the carnal – the heavenly and the earthly – could never combine. Hence, therefore, it follows that incarnation was not, as some have attempted to teach, Christ’s taking our fallen nature into union with Himself. If He could have done this, there would have been no need of the death of the cross. He needed not, in that case, to feel “straitened” until the baptism was accomplished – the corn of wheat did not need to fall into the ground and die.” This is a point of great moment. Let the spiritual mind ponder it deeply. Christ could not possibly take sinful humanity into union with Himself. Hear what the angel said to Joseph, in the first chapter of Matthew’s gospel. “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” See now Joseph’s natural sensibilities, as well as Mary’s pious ignorance, are made the occasion of a fuller unfolding of the holy mystery of Christ’s humanity; and also of guarding that humanity against all the Blasphemous attacks of the enemy!

How, then, is it that believers are united to Christ. Is it in incarnation or resurrection? In resurrection, assuredly. How is this proved? “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone.” (John 12: 24.) At this side of death, there could be no union between Christ and His people. It is in the power of a new life that believers are united to Christ. They were dead in sin, and He, in perfect grace, came down, and, though Himself pure and sinless, was “made sin” – “died unto sin” – put it away – rose triumphant over it, and all pertaining to it, and, in resurrection, became the Head of a new race. Adam was the head of the old creation, which fell with him. Christ, by dying, put Himself under the full weight of His people’s condition, and having perfectly met all that was against them, rose; victorious over all, and carried them with Him into the new creation, of which He is the glorious Head and Centre. Hence, we read, He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” (1 Cor. 6: 17.) But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2: 4-6.) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” (Eph. 5: 30.) “And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” (Col. 2: 13.)

Passages might be multiplied, but the above are amply sufficient to prove that it was not in incarnation, but in death, that Christ took a position in which His people could be “quickened together with him.” Does this seem unimportant to the reader? Let him examine it in the light of Scripture. Let him weigh all the consequences. Let him view it in its bearing upon Christ’s Person, upon His life, upon His death, upon our condition, by nature, in the old creation, and our place, through mercy, in the new. Let him consider it thus, and, I feel persuaded, he will no longer regard it as a light matter. Of one thing, at least, he may rest assured, that the writer of these pages would not pen a single line to prove this point, did he not consider it to be fraught with the most momentous results. The whole of divine revelation so hangs together – is so adjusted by the hand of the Holy Ghost is so consistent in all its parts, that, if one truth be disturbed, the entire arch is injured. This consideration should suffice to produce, in the mind of every Christian, a holy caution lest, by some rude touch, he mar the beauteous superstructure. Every stone must be left in its divinely appointed place; and, unquestionably, the truth as to Christ’s Person is the keystone of the arch.

Having thus endeavoured to unfold the truth typified by the “fine flour mingled with oil,” we may remark another point of much interest in the expression, “He shall pour oil upon it.” In this we have a type of the anointing of the Lord Jesus Christ, by the Holy Ghost. The body of the Lord Jesus was not merely formed, mysteriously, by the Holy Ghost, but that pure and holy vessel was also anointed for service, by the same power. And it came to pass when all the people were baptised, and Jesus also being baptised and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove, upon him, and there was a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.” (Luke 3: 21, 22)

The anointing of the Lord Jesus, by the Holy Ghost, previous to His entrance upon His public ministry, is of immense practical importance to every one who really desires to be a true and an effectual servant of God. though conceived, as to His manhood, by the Holy Ghost; though, in His own proper Person, “God manifest in the flesh;” though embodying, in Himself, all the fullness of the Godhead; yet, be it well observed, when coming forth, as man, to do the will of God, on the earth, whatever that will might be, whether preaching the gospel, teaching in the synagogues, healing the sick, cleansing the leper, casting out devils, feeding the hungry, or raising the dead, He did all by the Holy Ghost. That holy and heavenly vessel in which God the Son was pleased to appear in this world, was formed, filled, Anointed, and led by the Holy Ghost.

What a deep and holy lesson for us! A most needful and salutary lesson! How prone are we to run unsent! How prone to act in the mere energy of the flesh! How much of that which looks like ministry is only the restless and unhallowed activity of a nature which has never been measured and judged in the divine presence! Truly, we need to contemplate, more closely, our divine “meat offering” – to understand, more fully, the meaning of the “Fine flour anointed with oil.” We need to meditate, more deeply, upon Christ Himself, who, though possessing, in His own Person, divine power, nevertheless, did all His work, wrought all His miracles, and, finally, offered himself without spot to God, by the eternal Spirit. He could say, “I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils.”

Nothing is of any value save that which is wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost. A man may write; but, if his pen be not guided and used by the Holy Ghost, his lines will produce no permanent result. A man may speak; but, if his lips be not anointed by the Holy Ghost, his word will not take permanent root. This is a solemn consideration, and, if properly weighed, would lead to much watchfulness over ourselves, and much earnest dependence upon the Holy Ghost. What we need is thorough self-emptiness, so that there may be room left for the Spirit to act by us. It is impossible that a man full of himself can be the vessel of the Holy Ghost. Such an one must, first, be emptied of himself, and, then, the Spirit can use him. When we contemplate the Person and ministry of the Lord Jesus, we see how that, in every scene and circumstance, He acted by the direct power of the Holy Ghost. Having taken His place, as man, down here, He showed that men should not only live by the Word, but act by the Spirit of God. Even though, as man, His will was perfect – His thoughts, His words, His acts, all perfect, yet would He not act, save by the direct authority of the Word, and by the direct power of the Holy Ghost. Oh! that in this, as in every thing else, we could, more closely, more faithfully, follow in His steps. Then, indeed, would our ministry be more effective, our testimony more fruitful, our whole course more entirely to the glory of God.

The next ingredient in the meat offering demanding our consideration is “the frankincense.” As has been remarked, the “fine flour” was the basis of the offering. The “oil” and “frankincense” were the two leading adjuncts; and, truly, the connection between these two latter is most instructive. The “oil” typifies the power of Christ’s ministry; the “frankincense” typifies the object thereof. The former teaches us that He did everything by the Spirit of God; the latter that He did everything to the glory of God. The frankincense presents that in the life of Christ, which was, exclusively, for God. This is evident from the second verse: “And he shall bring it (the meat offering) to Aaron’s sons, the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Thus was it in the true meat offering – the Man Christ Jesus. There was that in His blessed life which was exclusively for God. Every thought, every word, every look, every act of His, emitted a fragrance which went up, immediately, to God. And, as in the type, it was the fire of the altar” that drew forth the sweet odour of the frankincense; so, in the Anti type, the more he was “tried,” in all the scenes and circumstances of His blessed life, the more fully was it manifested that, in His manhood, there was nothing that could not ascend, as an odour of a sweet smell, to the throne of God. If, in the burnt offering, we behold Christ “offering himself, without spot, to God;” in the meat offering, we behold Him presenting all the intrinsic excellence and perfect actings of His human nature to God. A perfect, a self-emptied, an obedient man, on the earth, doing the will of God, acting by the authority of the word, and by the power of the Spirit, had a sweet odour which could only be for divine acceptance. The fact that all the frankincense” was consumed on the altar, fixes its import in the simplest manner.

It now only remains for us to consider an ingredient which was an inseparable adjunct of the meat offering, namely, “salt.” “and every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.” The expression, “salt of the covenant,” sets forth the enduring character of that covenant. God Himself has so ordained it, in all things, that nought can ever alter it – no influence can ever corrupt it. In a spiritual and practical point of view, it is impossible to over-estimate the value of such an ingredient. “Let your conversation be always with grace, seasoned with salt.” The whole conversation of the Perfect Man exhibited the power of this principle. His words were not merely words of grace, but words of pungent power – words divinely adapted to preserve from all taint and corrupting influence. He never uttered a word which was not redolent with “frankincense” and seasoned with salt. The former was most acceptable to God, the latter most profitable for man.

Sometimes, alas! man’s corrupt heart and vitiated taste could not tolerate the pungency of the divinely salted meat offering. Witness, for example, the scene in the synagogue of Nazareth. (Luke 4: 16-29) The people could bear him witness, and wonder at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth;” but when He proceeded to season those words with salt, which was so needful, in order to preserve them from the corrupting influence of their national pride, they would fain have cast Him over the brow of the hill whereon their city was built.

So, also, in Luke 14, when His words of “grace” had drawn “great multitudes” after Him, He instantly throws in the “salt,” by setting forth, in words of holy faithfulness, the sure results of following Him. Come, for all things are now ready,” Here was the “grace.” but, then, “whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple.” Here was the salt.” Grace is attractive; but “Salt is good.” Gracious discourse may be popular; but salted discourse never will. The pure gospel of the grace of God may, at certain times, and under certain circumstances, be run after by the multitude” for a while; but when the “salt” of a fervid and faithful application is introduced, it will soon thin the benches of all save such as are brought under the power of the word.

Having thus considered the ingredients which composed the meal offering, we shall now refer to those which were excluded from it.

The first of these was “leaven.” No meat offering which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall be made with leaven.” This ingredient is used throughout the inspired volume, without so much as a single exception, as the symbol of evil. In Lev. 23, which will be noticed in due course, we find leaven admitted in the two loaves which were offered on the day of Pentecost; but from the meat offering, leaven was most sedulously excluded. There was to be nothing sour: nothing that would puff up, nothing expressive of evil in that which typified the Man Christ Jesus.” In Him, there could be nothing savouring of nature’s sourness, nothing turgid, nothing inflated. All was pure, solid, and genuine. His word might, at times, cut to the quick; but it was never sour. His style never rose above the occasion. His deportment ever exhibited the deep reality of one walking in the immediate presence of God.

In those who bear the name of Jesus, we know, too well, alas! how leaven shows itself in all its properties and effects. There has been but one untainted sheaf of human fruit – but one perfectly unleavened meat offering; and, blessed be God, that one is ours – ours to feed upon in the sanctuary of the divine presence, in fellowship with God. No exercise can be more truly edifying and refreshing for the renewed mind than to dwell upon the unleavened perfectness of Christ’s humanity – to contemplate the life and ministry of One who was, absolutely and essentially, unleavened. In all His springs of thought, affection, desire, and imagination, there was not so much as a particle of leaven. He was the sinless, spotless, perfect Man. And the more we are enabled, by the power of the Spirit, to enter into all this, the deeper will be our experience of the grace which led this perfect One to place Himself under the full consequences of His people’s sins, as He did when He hung upon the cross. his thought, however, belongs entirely to the sin-offering aspect of our blessed Lord. In the meat offering, sin is not in question. It is not the type of a sin-bearer, but of a real, perfect, unblemished Man, conceived and anointed by the Holy Ghost, possessing an unleavened nature, and living an unleavened life, down here; emitting, ever, to God-ward, the fragrance of His own personal excellency, and maintaining, amongst men, a deportment characterised by grace seasoned with salt.”

But there was another ingredient, as positively excluded from the meat offering as leaven,” and that was honey.” For ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the Lord made by fire.” (Ver. 11). Now, as “leaven” is the expression of that which is positively and palpably evil, in nature, we may regard honey” as the significant symbol of that which is apparently sweet and attractive. Both are disallowed of God – both were carefully excluded from the meat offering – both were unfit for the altar. Men may undertake, like Saul, to distinguish between what is “vile and refuse,” and what is not; but the judgement of God ranks the delicate Agag with the vilest of the sons of Amalek;. No doubt, there are some good moral qualities in man which must be taken for what they are worth. hast thou found honey, eat so much as is convenient;” but, be it remembered, it found no place in the meat offering, nor in its Antitype. There was the fullness of the Holy Ghost; there was the fragrant odour of the frankincense; there was the preservative virtue of the salt of the covenant.” All these things accompanied the fine flour,” in the Person of the true “meat offering;” but “no honey.”

What a lesson for the heart is here! yea, what a volume of wholesome instruction! The blessed Lord Jesus knew how to give nature and its relationships their proper place. He knew how much honey “was convenient.” He could say to His mother, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” And yet He could say, again, to the beloved disciple, Behold thy mother.” In other words, nature’s claims were never allowed to interfere with the presentation to God of all the energies of Christ’s perfect manhood. Mary and others too might have thought that her human relation to the blessed One gave her some peculiar claim or influence, on merely natural grounds. There came, then, his brethren (“after the flesh”) and his mother, and standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him; and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.” What was the reply of the true Meat Offering? Did He, at once, abandon His work, in order to respond to nature’s call? By no means. Had He done so, it would have been to mingle honey” with the meat offering, which could not be. The honey was faithfully excluded, on this, as on every occasion, when God’s claims were to be attended to, and instead thereof, the power of the Spirit, the odour of the frankincense,” and the virtues of the salt” were blessedly exhibited. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and my mother.”* (Mark 3: 31-35.)

{*How important to see, in the above beautiful passage, that doing God’s will brings the soul into a relationship with Christ, of which His brethren according to the flesh knew nothing, on merely natural grounds. It was as true, with respect to those brethren, as any one else, that except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Mary could not have been saved by the mere fact of her being the mother of Jesus. She needed personal faith in Christ as much as any other member of Adam’s fallen family. She needed to pass, by being born again, not of the old creation into the new. It was by treasuring up Christ’s words in her heart that this blessed woman was saved. No doubt, she was highly favoured” in being chosen as a vessel, to such a holy office; but, then, as a lost sinner, she needed! to rejoice in God her Saviour, like any one else. She stands on the same platform, is washed in the same blood, clothed in the same righteousness, and will sing the same song, as all the rest of God’s redeemed.

This simple fact will give additional force and clearness to a point already stated, namely; that incarnation was not Christ’s taking our nature into union with Himself. This truth should be carefully pondered. It is fully brought out in 2 Cor. 5, “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh, yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.” (Ver. 14-17)}

There are few things which the servant of Christ finds more difficult than to adjust, with spiritual accuracy, the claims of natural relationship, so as not to suffer them to interfere with the claims of the Master. In the case of our blessed Lord, as we know, the adjustment was divine. In our case, it often happens that divinely-recognised duties are openly neglected for what we imagine to be the service of Christ. The doctrine of God is constantly sacrificed to the apparent work of the gospel. Now, it is well to remember that true devotedness always starts from a point within which all godly claims are fully secured. If I hold a situation which demands my services from ten till four every day, I have no right to go out to visit or preach, during those hours. If I am in business, I am bound to maintain the integrity of that business, in a godly manner. I have no right to run hither and thither preaching, while my business, at home, lies in sixes and sevens, bringing great reproach on the holy doctrine of God. A man may say, I feel myself called to preach the gospel, and I find my situation, or my business, a clog. Well, if you are divinely called and fitted for the work; of the gospel, and that you cannot combine the two things, then resign your situation, or wind up your business, in a godly manner, and go forth, in the name of the Lord. But, clearly, so long as I hold a situation, or carry on a business, my work in the gospel must begin from a point within which the godly claims of such business or situation are fully responded to. This is devotedness. Ought else is confusion, however well intended. Blessed be God, we have a perfect example before us in the life of the Lord Jesus, and ample guidance, for the new man, in the word of God; so that we need not make any mistakes, in the varied relationships which we may be called, in the providence of God, to all, or as to the various claims which God’s moral government has set up, in connection with such relationships.

2. The second point, in our theme, is the mode in which the meat offering was prepared. This was, as we read, by the action of fire. It was “baken in an oven” – “baken in a pan” – or “baken in a frying pan.” The process of baking suggests the idea of suffering. But inasmuch as the meat offering is called “a sweet savour” – a term which is never applied to the sin offering, or trespass offering – it is evident that there is no thought of suffering for sin – no thought of suffering the wrath of God on account of sin – no thought of suffering at the hand of infinite Justice, as the sinner’s substitute. The two ideas of “sweet savour” and suffering for sin, are wholly incompatible, according to the Levitical economy. It would completely destroy the type of the meat offering, were we to introduce into it the idea of suffering for sin.

In contemplating the life of the Lord Jesus, which, as we have already remarked, is the special subject foreshadowed in the meat offering, we may notice three distinct kinds of suffering; namely, suffering for righteousness; suffering by the power of sympathy; and suffering, in anticipation.

As the righteous Servant of God, He suffered in the midst of a scene in which all was contrary to Him; but this was the very opposite of suffering for sin. It is of the utmost importance to distinguish between these two kinds of suffering. The confounding of them must lead to serious error. suffering as a righteous One, standing amongst men, on God’s behalf, is one thing; and suffering instead of men, under the hand of God, is quite another. The Lord Jesus suffered for righteousness, during His life. He suffered for sin, in His death. During His life, man and Satan did their utmost; and, even at the cross, they put forth all their powers; but when all that they could do was done – when they had travelled, in their deadly enmity, to the utmost limit of human and diabolical opposition, there lay, far beyond a region of impenetrable gloom and horror into which the Sin-bearer had to travel, in the accomplishment of His work. During His life He ever walked in the unclouded light of the Divine countenance; but, on the cursed tree, the dark shadow of sin intervened, and shut out that light, and drew forth that mysterious cry, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This was a moment which stands absolutely alone, in the annals of eternity. From time to time, during the life of Christ, down here heaven had opened to give forth the expression of divine complacency in Him; but on the cross God forsook Him, because He was making His soul an offering for sin. If Christ had been a sin-bearer all His life, then what was the difference between the cross and any other period? Why was He not forsaken of God during His entire course? What was the difference between Christ on the cross, and Christ on the holy mount of transfiguration? was He forsaken of God, on the mount? Was He a sin-bearer there? These are very simple questions, which should be answered By those who maintain the ides of a life of sin-bearing.

The plain fact is this, there was nothing either in Christ’s humanity, or in the nature of His associations, which could possibly connect Him with sin, or wrath, or death. He was made sin” on the cross; and there He endured the wrath of God, and there He gave up His life, as an all-sufficient atonement for sin; but nothing of this finds a place in the meat offering. True, we have the process of baking – the action of fire; but this is not the wrath of God. The meat offering was not a sin offering, but a sweet savour” offering. Thus, its import is definitely fixed; and, moreover, the intelligent interpretation of it must ever guard, with holy jealousy, the precious truth of Christ’s spotless humanity, and the true nature of His associations. To make Him, by the necessity of His birth, a sinbearer, or to place Him, thereby, under the curse of the law, and the wrath of God, is to contradict the entire truth of God, as to incarnation – truth announced by the angel, and repeated, again and again, by the inspired apostle. Moreover, it destroys the entire character and object of Christ’s life, and robs the cross of its distinctive glory. It lowers the sense of what sin is, and of what atonement is. In one word, it removes the keystone of the arch of revelation, and lays all in hopeless ruin and confusion around us.

But, again, the Lord Jesus suffered by the power of Sympathy; and this character of suffering unfolds to us the deep secrets of His tender heart. Human sorrow, and human misery ever touched a chord in that bosom of love. It was impossible that a perfect human heart could avoid feeling, according to its own divine sensibilities, the miseries which sin had entailed upon the human family. Though, personally free, both from the cause and the effect – though belonging to heaven, and living a perfect heavenly life, on the earth, yet did He descend, by the power of an intense sympathy, into the deepest depths of human sorrow yea, He felt the sorrow, more keenly by far, than those who were the direct subjects thereof, inasmuch as His humanity was perfect. And, further, He was able to contemplate both the sorrow and its cause, according to their just measure and character, in the presence of God. He felt as none else could feel. His feelings – His affections – His sensibilities – His whole moral and mental constitution were perfect; and, hence, none can tell what such an One must have suffered, in passing through such a world as this. He beheld the human family struggling beneath the ponderous weight of guilt and wretchedness; He beheld the whole creation groaning under the yoke; the cry of the prisoner fell upon His ear; the tear of the widow met His view; bereavement and poverty touched His sensitive heart; sickness and death made Him groan in the spirit;” His sympathetic sufferings were beyond all human conception.

I shall quote a passage for my reader, illustrative of that character of suffering to which we are now referring. When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” (Matt. 8: 16, 17) This was entirely sympathetic – the power of fellow-feeling, which in Him was perfect. He had no sicknesses or infirmities of His own. Those things which are sometimes spoken of as sinless infirmities,” were, in His case, but the evidences of a veritable, a real, a perfect manhood. But by sympathy, by perfect fellow feeling, He took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” None? but a perfect man could have done this. We may feel for, and with, each other; but only Jesus could make human infirmity and sickness His own.

Now, had He been bearing all these things by the necessity of His birth, or of His relations with Israel and the human family, we should have lost all the beauty and preciousness of His voluntary sympathy. There could be no room for voluntary action when absolute necessity was laid upon Him. But, on the other hand, when we see His entire freedom, both personally and relatively, from human misery and that which produced it, we can enter into that perfect grace and compassion which led Him to take our infirmities, and bear our sicknesses,” in the power of true sympathy. There is, therefore, a very manifest difference between Christ’s suffering as a voluntary sympathiser with human misery, and His sufferings as the sinner’s substitute. The former are apparent throughout His entire life; the latter are confined to His death.

Finally, we have to consider Christ’s sufferings, by anticipation. We find the dark shadow of the cross casting itself athwart His path, and producing a very keen order of suffering which, however, must be as clearly distinguished from His atoning suffering as either His suffering for righteousness, or His suffering by sympathy. Let as take a passage, in proof: And he came out, and went, as He was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him. And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation and he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven strengthening him. and being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22: 39-44.) Again, we read, And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me . . . . . he went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” (Matt. 26: 37-42.)

From these verses, it is evident, there was a something, in prospect, which the blessed Lord had never encountered before. There was a cup” being filled out for Him of which He had not yet drunk. If He had been a sin-bearer all His life, then why this intense agony at the thought of coming in contact with sin and enduring the wrath of God on account of sin? what was the difference between Christ, in Gethsemane, and Christ, at Calvary, if He were a sin-bearer all His life? There was a material difference! but it is because He was not a sin-bearer all His life. What is the difference? In Gethsemane, He was anticipating the cross! at Calvary, He was actually enduring it. In Gethsemane, there appeared an angel unto him from heaven strengthening him;” at Calvary, He was forsaken of all. There was no angelic ministry there. In Gethsemane He addresses God as Father,” thus enjoying the full communion of that ineffable relationship; but at Calvary, He cries, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Here the sin-bearer looks up, and beholds the throne of eternal Justice enveloped in dark clouds, and the countenance of inflexible Holiness averted from Him because He was being made sin for us.”

The reader will, I trust, find no difficulty in examining this subject for himself. He will be able to trace, in detail, the three characters of the life-sufferings of our blessed Lord, and to distinguish between them and His death-sufferings-His sufferings for sin. He will see how that, when man and Satan had done their utmost, there yet remained a character of suffering which was perfectly unique, namely, suffering, at the hand of God, on account of sin – suffering as the sinner’s substitute. Until He came to the cross, He could ever look up and bask in the clear light of His Father’s countenance. In the darkest hour, He found a sure resource above. His path down here was a rough one. How could it be otherwise, in a world where all was directly contrary to His pure and holy nature? He had to endure the contradiction of singers against himself.” He had to endure” the reproach of them that reproached God.” What had He not to endure? He was misunderstood, misinterpreted, abused, maligned, accused of being mad, and of having a devil. He was betrayed, denied, deserted, mocked, buffeted, spit upon, crowned with thorns, cast out, condemned, and nailed between two malefactors. All these things He endured at the hand of man, together with all the unutterable terrors which Satan brought to bear upon His spirit; but let it be, once more, emphatically repeated, when man and Satan had exhausted their power and enmity, our blessed Lord and Saviour had to endure a something compared with which all the rest was as nothing, and that was the hiding of God’s countenance – the three hours of darkness and awful gloom, during which He suffered what none but God could know.

Now, when scripture speaks of our having fellowship with Christ’s sufferings, it refers, simply, to His sufferings for righteousness – his sufferings at the hand of man. Christ suffered for sin, that we might not have to suffer for it. He endured the wrath of God, that we might not have to endure it. This is the ground of our peace. But, as regards suffering from man, we shall always find that the more faithfully we follow in the footsteps of Christ, the more we shall suffer in this respect; but this is a matter of gift, a matter of privilege, a favour, a dignity. (See Phil. 1: 29, 30) To walk in the footsteps of Christ – to enjoy companionship with Him – to be thrown into a place of sympathy with Him, are privileges of the very highest order. Would that we all entered, more fully, into them! But, alas! we are too well content to do without them – too well satisfied, like Peter, to follow afar off” – to keep aloof from a despised and suffering Christ. All this is, undoubtedly, our heavy loss. Had we only more fellowship with His sufferings, the crown would glisten, far more brightly, in our soul’s vision. When we shrink from fellowship with Christ’s sufferings, we rob ourselves of the deep joy of His present companionship, and also of the moral power of the hope of His future glory.

3. Having considered the ingredients which composed the meat offering, and the various forms in which it was presented, it only remains for us to refer to the persons who partook of it. These were the head and members of the priestly house. “And that which is left of the meat offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons: it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire.” (Ver. 10) As in the burnt offering, we observed the sons of Aaron introduced as types of all true believers, not as convicted sinners, but as worshipping Priests; so, in the meat offering, we find them feeding upon the remnant of that which had been laid, as it were, on the table of the God of Israel. This was a high and holy privilege. None but priests could enjoy it. This is set forth, with great distinctness, in “the law of the meat offering,” which I shall here quote at length. And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, before the altar. And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it unto the Lord. And the remainder thereof shell Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten, in the Holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it. It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering. All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it: it shall be a statute for ever in your generations, concerning the offerings of the Lord made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy.” (Lev. 6: 14-18)

Here, then, we are furnished with a beauteous figure of the Church, feeding, “in the holy place,” in the power of practical holiness, upon the perfections of the Man Christ Jesus.” This is our portion, through the grace of God; but, we must remember, it is to be eaten with unleavened bread.” We cannot feed upon Christ if we are indulging in anything evil. Every one that toucheth them shall be holy.” Moreover, it must be in the holy place.” Our position, our practice, our persons, our associations, must be holy, ere we can feed upon the meat offering. Finally, it is, all the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it.” That is to say, real priestly energy, according to the divine idea of it, is required, in order to enjoy this holy portion. Aaron’s Sons” set forth the idea of energy in priestly action. His “daughters,” feebleness therein. (Comp. Num. 18: 8-13) There were some things which the sons could eat which the daughters could not. Our hearts should earnestly desire the highest measure of priestly energy, so that we may discharge the highest priestly functions, and partake of the highest order of priestly food.

In conclusion, let me add that, inasmuch as we are made, through grace,” partakers of the divine nature,” we can, if living in the energy of that nature, walk in the footsteps of Him who is foreshadowed in the meat offering. If only we are self-emptied, our every act may emit a sweet odour to God. the smallest as well as the greatest services may, by the power of the Holy Ghost, present the fragrance of Christ. The paying of a visit, the writing of a letter, the public ministry of the word, giving a cup of cold water to a disciple, giving a penny to a pauper, yea, the common-place acts of eating and drinking – all may emit the sweet perfume of the name and grace of Jesus.

So, also, if only nature be kept in the place of death, there may be, in us, the exhibition of that which is not corruptible, even a conversation seasoned with the “salt” of abiding communion with God. But, in all these things, we fail and come short. We grieve the Holy Spirit of God in our ways. We are prone to self-seeking or men-pleasing, in our very best services, and we fail to “season” our conversation. Hence, our constant deficiency in the “oil,” the “frankincense,” and the Salt while, at the same time, there is the tendency to suffer the “leaven” or the “honey” of nature to make its appearance. There has been but one perfect meat offering;” and, blessed be God, we are accepted in Him. We are the sons” of the true Aaron; our place is in the sanctuary, where we can feed upon the holy portion. Happy place! Happy portion! May we enjoy them more than ever we have done. May our retirement of heart from all but Christ be more profound. May our gaze at Him be so intense, that we shall have no heart for the attractions of the scene around us, nor yet for the ten thousand petty circumstances, in our path, which would fret the heart and perplex the mind. May we rejoice in Christ, in the sunshine and in the darkness; when the gentle breezes of summer play around us, and when the storms of winter rage fiercely abroad; when passing over the surface of a placid lake, or tossed on the bosom of a stormy ocean. Thank God “we have found Him” who is to be our satisfying portion for ever. We shall spend eternity dwelling upon the divine perfections of the Lord Jesus. Our eyes shall never be averted from Him, when once we have seen Him as He is.

May the Spirit of God work mightily in us, to strengthen us, “in the inner man.” May He enable us to feed upon that perfect Meat Offering, the memorial of which has been fed upon by God Himself! This is our holy and happy privilege. May we realise it, yet more fully!

Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch

Lev 2:1-3. General Ritual.The term used here for meal offering was originally used for any present, either to God or man (Gen 4:3, Gen 32:14); in P it is confined to vegetable offerings. The material was most probably a somewhat coarse meal, as that used by the Arabs for their sacrifices. Oil is the natural Heb. accompaniment of a baked flour cake. Part of the offering belongs to Yahweh (i.e. must be burnt), part to the priests; this is the case with all offerings classed as most holy (holy in the first class). A holy thing (holy in the second class) could be eaten by a layman, but not by a foreigner (cf. Lev 22:10). Sin and guilt offerings could not be eaten at all The actual proportion to be given to Yahweh is not stated, nor the amount to be offered; contrast the measurements in regard to the High Priests offering in Lev 6:20.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

THE MEAL OFFERING (vv. 1-16)

This offering is an appendix to the burnt offering. We do not read of a meal offering ever being offered alone, but in connection with the burnt offering or the peace offering. For this was not a blood sacrifice, and in approaching God a blood sacrifice was imperative. The meal offering does not speak at all of the blood shedding of the Lord Jesus, but rather of the perfection of His humanity displayed in His life on earth. In this respect His entire life was an offering to God, but it could not make atonement for man’s sin.

A meal offering was to be of fine flour with oil poured on it and frankincense put on it. The fine flour reminds us that every particle of the milled grain symbolizes some detail of the perfection of the character of the Lord Jesus as a true Man. The oil speaks of the anointing of the Spirit of God, which marked Him out as the Man of God’s special appointment. The frankincense is white and sweet smelling, symbolizing the purity of the life of the Lord Jesus, a life fragrant to His God and Father.

The offering was to be brought to the priests, one of whom was to take only a handful of fine flour and oil, with all the incense and burn this as a memorial on the altar. This part was a sweet aroma to the Lord. But the rest would belong to Aaron and his sons: it was to be eaten (vv. 2-3). What went up in fire to God speaks of God’s appreciation of the person of the Lord Jesus in lowly humanity. What was eaten by the priests intimates the appreciation of Christ by all His saints, for today all believers are priests to God.

Three types of meal offerings are now considered, the first of which is that

(A) BAKED IN THE OVEN (v. 4)

This could be either unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. The mixing with oil speaks of the permeating of the humanity of the Lord Jesus by the Spirit of God from His very birth. This was the very nature of His Manhood. Compare Luk 1:35. Anointing with oil implies His being anointed by the Spirit of God at His baptism (Mat 3:16), in preparation for His great public ministry.

Baked in the oven indicates that He is a Sufferer, exposed to the heat of hidden sufferings. Inside an oven is where the heat is most intense, just as the unseen sufferings of the Lord Jesus were more intense than the sufferings to which men subjected Him outwardly. He felt the condition of mankind far more deeply than appeared on the surface. We may feel sorrow because of the evil all around us and for the way evil infiltrates the Church of God in its testimony on earth. He feels this more deeply than we, and when here on earth, His disciples did not enter into the sufferings of His heart, as in His weeping over Jerusalem (Luk 19:41-44) and in His prayer in Gethsemane (Luk 22:41-46).

(B) BAKED IN A PAN (vv. 5-6)

This oblation baked in a pan (or griddle) indicates open sufferings which the Lord endured from human enmity. Men’s hostile words which issued eventually in their spitting, tearing out His hair, lashing Him, crowning Him with thorns, etc. were sufferings that draw out our deep admiration of Him, just as the cooking of the meal renders the result much more acceptable to the taste. He learned obedience by the things which He suffered (Heb 5:8). Suffering therefore has valuable results.

In the case of an offering baked in a pan, this was to be parted in pieces and oil poured on it. We can discern the distinctions in what the Lord Jesus suffered from one source or another, and we should have appreciation for every various detail of what He suffered. The oil poured on tells us that He was empowered by the Spirit of God to bear all these things with calm confidence in His God and Father.

(C) COOKED IN A CAULDRON OR KETTLE (v. 7)

Though our King James Version calls this vessel a frying-pan, Young’s Concordance defines it as a kettle, and both J.N.Darby’s Version and the Numerical Bible use the word cauldron. In this case the offering was not baked, but cooked in water. Since water is a symbol of the Word of God, then it appears that this offering implies the sufferings of the Lord Jesus because of His obedience to God’s Word and because of His faithfully declaring it (cf. Luk 4:25-29 and Joh 10:27-31). Neither mixed with oil or anointed with oil are mentioned here, but only with oil, but at least in every case the Spirit of God is involved.

INSTRUCTIONS COMMON TO ALL MEAL OFFERINGS (vv. 8-16)

All these offerings were to be brought to the Lord, being presented to the priest. At the altar the priest was to take a memorial portion (a handful v. 2) and burn it on the altar as a sweet aroma to the Lord. What remained was for Aaron and his sons. Thus, God received His portion from that offering, Aaron (a type of Christ the High Priest) received his portion and each of the priests (typical of all believers) received their portion, all thus sharing in appreciation of the perfections of the Man Christ Jesus in His life of devotion and willing suffering.

Leaven (yeast) was to be excluded from the meal offerings (v. 11), for leaven speaks of sin, and as to Christ, in Him is no sin (1Jn 3:5). Besides this, honey was not to be used. Leaven is corrupting, but honey is not. Why then is honey excluded? Because, being the result of the bees’ activity in gathering what is sweet and good, it speaks of the ministry of the Word gathered by believers for the benefit of the whole Church of God. However sweet our thoughts are concerning the offering of Christ, those thoughts are not to be mixed with the offering itself. In other words, the best ministry of saints cannot improve on the established truth of God concerning Christ: therefore, while good ministry is beneficial for men, it has no place in the actual worship of the Lord Jesus.

The offering of the firstfruits (v. 12), being not properly a meal offering, was not burned, though offered to the Lord.

Every meal offering was to be seasoned with salt, for salt is a preservative, in contrast to leaven, which corrupts. Salt crystallizes at right angles, and is typical of righteousness, with which we know every detail of the Lord’s life was perfectly seasoned, not too little, not too much.

A MEAL OFFERING OF THE FIRSTFRUITS (vv. 14-16)

Though the offering of the firstfruits was not itself a meal offering (v. 12), yet part of the firstfruits could be offered as a meal offering. If so, it was to be of green heads of grain roasted by the fire, grain beaten from full heads. This speaks of the Lord Jesus in the freshness and vigor of His sinless life, as we are reminded by His words just before the cross, If they do these things in the green wood, what will be done in the dry? (Luk 23:31). He was the green tree who had come out of a dry ground (Israel), as the one hope of prosperity for the nation (cf. Isa 53:2). In refusing Him, Israel would be shown up in a coming day to be dry and desolate. What would be done then? How terrible a question! Their having judged the Lord Jesus would issue in a dreadfully burning judgment for them!

What a difference there would have been if they had valued Him as the meal offering roasted with fire, for He suffered much as the One devoted to the will of His Father. Let us at least appreciate the meal offering aspect of the offering of the Lord Jesus. Oil and frankincense were to be put on this offering, emphasizing the anointing of the Spirit of God and the fragrance to God of the Lord’s life of pure devotion. The memorial of the offering was burned, and all the frankincense, for this was God’s portion. He deeply values the perfection of the Manhood virtues of His beloved Son, every detail of His life as it is seen in the four Gospels. If God is so pleased with Him, then surely we should find great delight too in contemplating even the smallest details of His character, of His actions and of His words as He ministered in tender compassion to the need of mankind. Nor should we be impressed only with the gentle kindness of His ways with those in need, but with the faithfulness of His dealing with ungodly men, not fighting for His own rights, showing no resentment and no selfish or bitter response to men’s bad treatment, yet firmly declaring the truth, warning them of the judgment to come and pressing upon them God’s claims of truth and righteousness. Every aspect of His character is seen in beautiful harmony and balance.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

2:1 And when any will offer a {a} meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be [of] fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon:

(a) Because the burnt offering could not be without the meat offering.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

[See the Chapter Comments for Leviticus Chapter 1 for introductory information]

2. The meal offering ch. 2

The meal (grain, cereal) offering was also an offering of worship that brought God pleasure. It evidently symbolized the sacrifice and commitment of one’s person and works to God as well as the worshiper’s willingness to keep the law (cf. Rom 12:1-2; Heb 13:15-16). A meal offering always followed the official daily burnt offering (cf. Numbers 28), and it often accompanied a peace offering (cf. Num 15:3-5; 2Ki 16:13). The meal offering was a type of tribute from a faithful worshiper to his divine overlord. The Hebrew word minhah, here translated "meal offering," also means "tribute."

"God having granted forgiveness of sins through the burnt offering, the worshiper responded by giving to God some of the produce of his hands in cereal offering." [Note: Wenham, p. 71.]

"The ’grain offering’ . . . generally accompanied a burnt or peace offering to supplement the meat with bread (the libation provided the drink; cf. Num 15:1-10), thus completing the food ’gift’ to the LORD. It made atonement . . . along with the burnt offering (e.g., Lev 14:20) or alone as a sin offering for the poor (Lev 5:11-13)." [Note: The NET Bible note on 2:1.]

This offering was distinctive from the others in the following respects.

1.    It was a soothing aroma (Lev 2:2; Lev 2:9). To God the meal offering was pleasing because it was an act of worship based on atonement for sin.

2.    The offering itself was the fruit of human labor. A possible contrast between the burnt and meal offerings is that one represented what man owes God and the other what he owes his fellowman. [Note: Andrew Jukes, The Law of the Offerings, pp. 77-78.] However it seems more likely that the contrast intended was primarily between the person of the offerer and his works. The animals offered in the burnt offering were God’s creations, but the cake or grain offered in the meal offering was the product of man’s labor. God charged mankind with the responsibility of cultivating the earth (Gen 1:29; cf. Gen 9:4-6). Man cultivates the ground to provide for the needs of man-his own needs and the needs of other people. The grain or flour from which the "staff of life" comes symbolized what God enabled man to produce. By offering this sacrifice the offerer was saying that he viewed all the work that he did as an offering to the Lord.

The meal offering appears to have been acceptable only when offered with the burnt offering. This indicated that one’s works were acceptable to God only when they accompanied the offerer’s consecration of himself to God.

The materials used in this offering undoubtedly had significance to the Israelites. Fine flour (Lev 2:1) baked into bread represented then, as now, the staff of life. The fact that the offerer had ground the flour fine probably emphasized the human toil represented by the offering. The olive oil (Lev 2:1) was a symbol of God’s enabling Spirit that bound the flour of the offering into cake. [Note: See John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, pp. 21-22.] This consistency made it possible to offer the sacrifice as a finished "dish" rather than as a collection of ingredients. Frankincense (Lev 2:1) was a very fragrant spice, but its aroma did not become evident until someone subjected it to fire. [Note: The New Bible Dictionary, 196 ed., s.v. "Frankincense," by R. K. Harrison.] The oil and incense made the offering richer and more desirable, and therefore more pleasing to God. God also specified salt for this offering (Lev 2:13). Salt symbolized a covenant in that nothing in antiquity could destroy salt, including fire and time. [Note: Ibid., s.v. "salt," by R. K. Harrison.] Adding salt to an offering reminded the worshiper that he was in an eternal covenant relationship with his God. God specifically excluded honey and leaven from the recipe for the meal offering (Lev 2:11). Some writers have suggested that these ingredients represented natural sweetness and sin to the Israelites. [Note: Jukes, pp. 88, 90.] Most have felt they were unacceptable because they cause fermentation, and fermentation suggested corruption. [Note: E.g., Keil and Delitzsch, 2:295; and J. H. Hertz, Leviticus, p. 16.]

3.    Another distinction was that the priest did not offer the whole meal offering on the altar. He placed only a handful of the uncooked grain or cooked cake on the brazen altar and burned it. The priest ate the rest (Lev 2:9-10). The offerer cooked the dough at home first and offered it as cake rather than batter (Lev 2:4-5; Lev 2:7). Humankind, symbolized by the priest, derived most of the benefit of this offering. This was appropriate since it represented man’s work for his fellowman. The offerer received none of this sacrifice for himself. This too was obviously appropriate.

"The idea of a memorial portion given to God goes beyond a simple reminding. The verb often carries the nuance of beginning to act on the basis of what is remembered. The ’memorial portion’ thus reminded or prompted worshipers to live according to the covenant obligations, that is, to live as if all they had truly came from the LORD; and it prompted or motivated the LORD to honor and bless those who offered this dedication." [Note: Ross, p. 107.]

4.    Finally, the sacrifice was "to the Lord" (Lev 2:1). Though it fed the priests, the offerer did not offer it for the priests but to God (cf. Eph 6:7; Col 3:23-24).

God permitted various kinds of meal offerings: baked (Lev 2:4), grilled (Lev 2:5), fried, (Lev 2:7), and roasted (Lev 2:14). These constituted the variations within this offering. If this offering was public, it usually took the form of firstfruits, but if it was private, an Israelite could bring it to the tabernacle whenever he desired to do so.

"The LORD expects his people to offer themselves and the best they have as a token of their dedication and gratitude." [Note: Ibid., p. 108.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

THE MEAL OFFERING

Lev 2:1-16; Lev 6:14-23

THE word which in the original uniformly stands for the English “meal offering” (A.V “meat offering,” i.e., ” food offering”) primarily means simply “a present,” and is often properly so translated in the Old Testament. It is, for example, the word which is used {Gen 32:13} when we are told how Jacob sent a present to Esau his brother; or, later, of the gift sent by Israel to his son Joseph in Egypt; {Gen 43:11} and, {2Sa 8:2} of the gifts sent by the Moabites to David. Whenever thus used of gifts to men, it will be found that it suggests a recognition of the dignity and authority of the person to whom the present is made, and, in many cases, a desire also to procure thereby his favour.

In the great majority of cases, however, the word is used of offerings to God, and in this use one or both of these ideas can easily be traced. in Gen 4:4-5, in the account of the offerings of Cain and Abel, the word is applied both to the bloody and the unbloody offering; but in the Levitical law, it is only applied to the latter. We thus find the fundamental idea of the meal offering to be this: it was a gift brought by the worshipper to God, in token of his recognition of His supreme authority, and as an expression of desire for His favour and blessing.

But although the meal offering, like the burnt offering, was an offering made to God by fire, the differences between them were many and significant. In the burnt offering, it was always a life that was given to God; in the meal offering, it was never a life, but always the products of the soil. In the burnt offering, again, the offerer always set apart the offering by the laying on of the hand, signifying thus, as we have seen, a transfer of obligation to death for sin; thus connecting with the offering, in addition to the idea of a gift to God, that of expiation for sin, as preliminary to the offering by fire. In the meal offering, on the other hand, there was no laying on of the hand, as there was no shedding of blood, so that the idea of expiation for sin is in no way symbolised. The conception of a gift to God, which, though dominant in the burnt offering, is not in that the only thing symbolised, in the meal offering becomes the only thought the offering expresses.

It is further to be noted that not only must the meal offering consist of the products of the soil, but of such alone as grow, not spontaneously, but by cultivation, and thus represent the result of mans labour. Not only so, but this last thought is the more emphasised, that the grain of the offering was not to be presented to the Lord in its natural condition as harvested, but only when, by grinding, sifting, and often, in addition, by cooking in various ways, it has been more or less fully prepared to become the food of man. In any case, it must, at least, be parched, as in the variety of the offering which is last mentioned in the chapter (Lev 1:14-16).

With these fundamental facts before us, we can now see what must have been the primary and distinctive significance of the meal offering, considered as an act of worship. As the burnt offering represented the consecration of the life, the person, to God, so the meal offering represented the consecration of the fruit of his labours.

If it be asked, why it was that when mans labours are so manifold, and their results so diverse, the product of the cultivation of the soil should be alone selected for this purpose, for this, several reasons may be given. In the first place, of all the occupations of man, the cultivation of the soil is that of by far the greatest number, and so, in the nature of the case, must continue to be; for the sustenance of man, so far as he is at all above the savage condition, comes, in the last analysis, from the soil. Then, in particular, the Israelites of those days of Moses were about to become an agricultural nation. Most natural and suitable, then, it was that the fruit of the activities of such a people should be symbolised by the product of their fields. And since even those who gained their living in other ways than by the cultivation of the ground, must needs purchase with their earnings grain and oil, the meal offering would, no less for them than for others, represent the consecration to God of the fruit of their labour.

The meal offering is no longer an ordinance of worship, but the duty which it signified remains in full obligation still. Not only, in general, are we to surrender our persons without reserve to the Lord, as in the burnt offering, but unto Him must also be consecrated all our works.

This is true, first of all, regarding our religious service. Each of us is sent into the world to do a certain spiritual work among our fellow men. This work and all the result of it is to be offered as a holy meal offering to the Lord. A German writer has beautifully set forth this significance of the meal offering as regards Israel. “Israels bodily calling was the cultivation of the ground in the land given him by Jehovah. The fruit of his calling, under the Divine blessing, was corn and wine, his bodily food, which nourished and sustained his bodily life. Israels spiritual calling was to work in the field of the kingdom of God, in the vineyard of his Lord; this work was Israels covenant obligation. Of this, the fruit was the spiritual bread, the spiritual nourishment, which should sustain and develop his spiritual life.” And the calling of the spiritual Israel, which is the Church, is still the same, to labour in the field of the kingdom of God, which is the world of men; and the result of this work is still the same, namely, with the Divine blessing, spiritual fruit, sustaining and developing the spiritual life of men. And in the meal offering we are reminded that the fruit of all our spiritual labours is to be offered to the Lord.

The reminder might seem unneedful, as indeed it ought to be; but it is not. For it is sadly possible to call Christ “Lord,” and, labouring in His field, do in His name many wonderful works, yet not really unto Him. A minister of the Word may with steady labour drive the ploughshare of the law, and sow continually the undoubted seed of the Word in the Masters field; and the apparent result of his work may be large, and even real, in the conversion of men to God, and a great increase of Christian zeal and activity. And yet it is quite possible that a man do this, and still do it for himself, and hot for the Lord; and when success comes, begin to rejoice in his evident skill as a spiritual husbandman, and in the praise of man which this brings him; and so, while thus rejoicing in the fruit of his labours, neglect to bring of this good corn and wine which he has raised for a daily meal offering in consecration to the Lord. Most sad is this, and humiliating, and yet sometimes it so comes to pass.

And so, indeed, it may be in every department of religions activity. The present age is without its like in the wonderful variety of its enterprise in matters benevolent and religious. On every side we see an ever-increasing army of labourers driving their various work in the field of the world. City Missions of every variety, Poor Committees with their free lodgings and soup kitchens, Young Mens Christian Associations, Blue Ribbon Societies, the White Cross Army and the Red Cross Army, Hospital Work, Prison Reform, and so on; -there is no enumerating all the diverse improved methods of spiritual husbandry around us, nor can anyone rightly depreciate the intrinsic excellence of all this, or make light of the work or of its good results. But for all this, there are signs that many need to be reminded that all such labour in Gods field, however God may graciously make use of it, is not necessarily labour for God; that labour for the good of men is not therefore of necessity labour consecrated to the Lord. For can we believe that from all this the meal offering is always brought to HIM? The ordinance of this offering needs to be remembered by us all in connection with these things. The fruit of all these our labours must be offered daily in solemn consecration to the Lord.

But the teaching of the meal offering reaches further than to what we call religious labours. For in that it was appointed that the offering should consist of mans daily food, Israel was reminded that Gods claim for full consecration of all our activities covers everything, even to the very food we eat. There are many who consecrate, or think they consecrate, their religious activities; but seem never to have understood that the consecration of the true Israelite must cover the secular life as well, -the labour of the hand in the field, in the shop, the transactions of the office or on change, and all their results, as also the recreations which we are able to command, the very food and drink which we use, -in a word, all the results and products of our labours, even in secular things. And to bring this idea vividly before Israel, it was ordered that the meal offering should consist of food, as the most common and universal visible expression of the fruit of mans secular activities. The New Testament has the same thought: {1Co 10:31} “Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”

And the offering was not to consist of any food which one might choose to bring, but of corn and oil, variously prepared. Not to speak yet of any deeper reason for this selection, there is one which lies quite on the surface. For these were the most common and universal articles of the food of the people. There were articles of food, then as now, which were only to be seen on the tables of the rich; but grain, in some form, was and is a necessity for all. So also the oil, which was that of the olive, was something which in that part of the world, all, the poor no less than the rich, were wont to use continually in the preparation of their food; even as it is used today in Syria, Italy, and other countries where the olive grows abundantly. Hence it appears that that was chosen for the offering which all, the richest and the poorest alike, would be sure to have; with the evident intent, that no one might be able to plead poverty as an excuse for bringing no meal offering to the Lord.

Thus, if this ordinance of the meal offering taught that Gods claim for consecration covers all our activities and all their result, even to the very food that we eat, it teaches also that this claim for consecration covers all persons. From the statesman who administers the affairs of an Empire to the day labourer in the shop, or mill, or field, all alike are hereby reminded that the Lord requires that the work of everyone shall be brought and offered to Him in holy consecration.

And there was a further prescription, although not mentioned here in so many words. In some offerings, barley meal was ordered, but for this offering the grain presented, whether parched, in the ear, or ground into meal, must be only wheat. The reason for this, and the lesson which it teaches, are plain. For wheat, in Israel, as still in most lands, was the best and most valued of the grains. Israel must not only offer unto God of the fruit of their labour, but the best result of their labours. Not only so, but when the offering was in the form of meal, cooked or uncooked, the best and finest must be presented. That, in other words, must be offered which represented the most of care and labour in its preparation, or the equivalent of this in purchase price. Which emphasises, in a slightly different form, the same lesson as the foregoing. Out of the fruit of our several labours and occupations we are to set apart especially for God, not only that which is best in itself, the finest of the wheat, but that which has cost us the most labour. David finely represented this thought of the meal offering when he said, concerning the cattle for his burnt offerings, which Araunah the Jebusite would have him accept without price: “I will not offer unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing.”

But in the meal offering it was not the whole product of his labour that the Israelite was directed to bring, but only a small part. How could the consecration of this small part represent the consecration of all? The answer to this question is given by the Apostle Paul, who calls attention to the fact that in the Levitical symbolism it was ordained that the consecration of a part should signify the consecration of the whole. For he writes, {Rom 11:16} “If the first fruit is holy, then the lump”-the whole from which the first fruit is taken-“is also holy”; that is, the consecration of a part signifies and symbolically expresses the consecration of the whole from which that part is taken. The idea is well illustrated by a custom in India, according to which, when one visits a man of distinction, he will offer the guest a silver coin; an act of social etiquette which is intended to express the thought that all he has is at the service of the guest, and is therewith offered for his use. And so in the meal offering. By offering to God, in this formal way, a part of the product of his labour, the Israelite expressed a recognition of His claim upon the whole, and professed a readiness to place, not this part merely, but the whole, at Gods service.

But in the selection of the materials, we are pointed toward a deeper symbolism, by the injunction that in certain cases, at least, frankincense should be added to the offering. But this was not of mans food, neither was it, like the meal, and cakes, and oil, a product of mans labour. Its effect, naturally, was to give a grateful perfume to the sacrifice, that it might be, even in a physical sense, “an odour of a sweet smell.” The symbolical meaning of incense, in which the frankincense was a chief ingredient, is very clearly intimated in Holy Scripture. It is suggested in Davids prayer: {Psa 141:2} “Let my prayer be set forth as incense; the lifting up of my hands, like the evening oblation.” So, in Luk 1:10, we read of the whole multitude of the people praying without the sanctuary, while the priest Zacharias was offering incense within. And, finally, in the Apocalypse, this is expressly declared to be the symbolical significance of incense; for we read, {Rev 5:8} that the four-and-twenty elders “fell down before the Lamb, having golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” So then, without doubt, we must understand it here. In that frankincense was to be added to the meal offering, it is signified that this offering of the fruit of our labours to the Lord must ever be accompanied by prayer; and, further, that our prayers, thus offered in this daily consecration, are most pleasing to the Lord, even as the fragrance of sweet incense unto man.

But if the frankincense, in itself, had thus a symbolical meaning, it is not unnatural to infer the same also with regard to other elements of the sacrifice. Nor is it, in view of the nature of the symbols, hard to discover what that should be.

For inasmuch as that product of labour is selected for the offering, which is the food by which men live, we are reminded that this is to be the final aspect under which all the fruit of our labours is to be regarded; namely, as furnishing and supplying for the need of the many that which shall be bread to the soul. In the highest sense, indeed, this can only be said of Him who by His work became the Bread of Life for the world, who was at once “the Sower” and “the Corn of Wheat” cast into the ground; and yet, in a lower sense, it is true that the work of feeding the multitudes with the bread of life is the work of us all; and that in all our labours and engagements we are to keep this in mind as our supreme earthly object. Just as the products of human labour are most diverse, and yet all are capable of being exchanged in the market for bread for the hungry, so are we to use all the products of our labour with this end in view, that they may be offered to the Lord as cakes of fine meal for the spiritual sustenance of man.

And the oil, too, which entered into every form of the meal offering, has in Holy Scripture a constant and invariable symbolical meaning. It is the uniform symbol of the Holy Spirit of God. Isa 61:1 is decisive on this point, where in prophecy the Messiah speaks thus: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord God hath anointed me to preach good tidings.” Quite in accord with this, we find that when Jesus reached thirty years of age, -the time for beginning priestly service, -He was set apart for His work, not as the Levitical priests, by anointing with symbolical oil, but by the anointing with the Holy Ghost descending on Him at His baptism. So, also, in the Apocalypse, the Church is symbolised by seven golden candlesticks, or lamp stands, supplied with oil after the manner of that in the temple, reminding us that as the lamp can give light only as supplied with oil, so, if the Church is to be a light in the world, she must be continually supplied with the Spirit of God. Hence, the injunction that the meal of the offering be kneaded with oil, and that, of whatever form the offering be, oil should be poured upon it, is intended, according to this usage, to teach us, that in all work which shall be offered so as to be acceptable to God, must enter, as an inworking and abiding agent, the life-giving Spirit of God.

It is another direction as to these meal offerings, as also regarding all offerings made by fire, that into them should never enter leaven (Lev 2:11). The symbolical significance of this prohibition is familiar to all. For in all leaven is a principle of decay and corruption, which, except its continued operation be arrested betimes in our preparation of leavened food, will soon make that in which it works offensive to the taste. Hence, in Holy Scripture, leaven, without a single exception, is the established symbol of spiritual corruption. It is this, both as considered in itself, and in virtue of its power of self-propagation in the leavened mass. Hence the Apostle Paul, using familiar symbolism, charged the Corinthians {1Co 5:7} that they purge out from themselves the old leaven; and that they keep festival, not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Thus, in this prohibition is brought before us the lesson, that we take heed to keep out of those works which we present to God for consumption on His altar the leaven of wickedness in every form. The prohibition, in the same connection, of honey (Lev 2:11) rests upon the same thought; namely, that honey, like leaven, tends to promote fermentation and decay in that with which it is mixed.

The Revised Version-in this case doubtless to be preferred to the other – brings out a striking qualification of this universal prohibition of leaven or honey, in these words (Lev 2:12): “As an oblation of first fruits ye shall offer them unto the Lord; but they shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar.”

Thus, as the prohibition of leaven and honey from the meal offering burned by fire upon the altar reminds us that the Holy One demands absolute freedom from all that is corrupt in the works of His people; on the other hand, this gracious permission to offer leaven and honey in the first fruits (which were not burned on the altar) seems intended to remind us that, nevertheless, from the Israelite in covenant with God through atoning blood, He is yet graciously pleased to accept even offerings in which sinful imperfection is found, so that only, as in the offering of first fruits, there be the hearty recognition of His rightful claim, before all others, to the first and best we have.

In Lev 2:13 we have a last requisition as to the material of the meal offering: “Every oblation of thy meal offering shalt thou season with salt.” As leaven is a principle of impermanence and decay, so salt, on the contrary, has the power of conservation from corruption. Accordingly, to this day, among the most diverse peoples, salt is the recognised symbol of incorruption and unchanging perpetuity. Among the Arabs of today, for example, when a compact or covenant is made between different parties, it is the custom that each eat of salt, which is passed around on the blade of a sword; by which act they regard themselves as bound to be true, each to the other, even at the peril of life. In like manner, in India and other Eastern countries, the usual word for perfidy and breach of faith is, literally, “unfaithfulness to the salt”; and a man will say, “Can you distrust me? Have I not eaten of your salt?” That the symbol has this recognised meaning in the meal offering is plain from the words which follow (Lev 2:13): “Neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be wanting from thy meal offering.” In the meal offering, as in all offerings made by fire, the thought was this: that Jehovah and the Israelite, as it were, partake of salt together, in token of the eternal permanence of the holy covenant of salvation into which Israel has entered with God.

Herein we are taught, then, that by the consecration of our labours to God we recognise the relation between the believer and his Lord, as not occasional and temporary, but eternal and incorruptible. In all our consecration of our works to God, we are to keep this thought in mind: “I am a man with whom God. has entered into an everlasting covenant, a covenant of salt.”

Three varieties of the meal offering were prescribed: the first (Lev 2:1-3), of uncooked meal; the second (Lev 2:4-11), of the same fine meal and oil, variously prepared by cooking; the third (Lev 2:14-16), of the first and best ears of the new grain, simply parched in the fire. If any special significance is to be recognised in this variety of the offerings, it may possibly be found in this, that one form might be suited better than another to persons of different resources, it has been supposed that the different implements named-the oven, the baking pan or plate, the frying pan-represent, respectively, what different classes of the people might be more or less likely to have. This thought more certainly appears in the permission even of parched grain, which then, as still in the East, while used more or less by all, was especially the food of the poorest of the people; such as might even be too poor to own so much as an oven or a baking pan.

In any case, the variety which was permitted teaches us, that whatever form the product of our labour may take, as determined either by our poverty or our riches, or by whatever reason, God is graciously willing to accept it, so the oil, frankincense, and salt be not wanting. It is our privilege, as it is our duty, to offer of it in consecration to our redeeming Lord, though it be no more than parched corn. The smallness or meanness of what we have to give, need not keep us back from presenting our meal offering.

If we have rightly understood the significance of this offering, the ritual which is given will now easily yield us its lessons. As in the case of the burnt offering, the meal offering also must be brought unto the Lord by the offerer himself. The consecration of our works, like the consecration of our persons, must be our own voluntary act. Yet the offering must be delivered through the mediation of the priest; the offerer must not presume himself to lay it on the altar. Even so still. In this, as in all else, the Heavenly High Priest must act in our behalf with God. We do not, by our consecration of our works, therefore become able to dispense with His offices as Mediator between us and God. This is the thought of many, but it is a great mistake. No offering made to God, except in and through the appointed Priest, can be accepted of Him.

It was next directed that the priest, having received the offering at the hand of the worshipper, should make a twofold use of it. In the burnt offering the whole was to be burnt; but in the meal offering only a small part. The priest was to take out of the offering, in each case, “a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar”; and then it is added (Lev 2:3-10), “that which is left of the meal offering”-which was always much the larger part-“shall be Aarons and his sons.” The small part taken out by the priest for the altar was burnt with fire; and its consumption by the fire of the altar, as in the other offerings, symbolised Gods gracious acceptance and appropriation of the offering.

But here the question naturally arises, if the total consecration of the worshipper and his full acceptance by God, in the case of the burnt offering, was signified by the burning of the whole, how is it that, in this case, where also we must think of a consecration of the whole, yet only a small part was offered to God in the fire of the altar? But the difficulty is only in appearance. For, no less than in the burnt offering, all of the meal offering is presented to God, and all is no less truly accepted by Him. The difference in the two cases is only in the use to which God puts the offering. A part of the meal offering is burnt on the altar as “a memorial,” to signify that God takes notice of and graciously accepts the consecrated fruit of our labours. It is called “a memorial” in that, so to speak, it reminded the Lord of the service and devotion of His faithful servant. The thought is well illustrated by the words of Nehemiah, {Neh 5:19} who said: Think upon me, O Lord, for good, according to all that I have done for this people; and by the word of the angel to Cornelius: {Act 10:4} “Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God”; for a memorial in such wise as to procure to him a gracious visitation.

The remaining and larger portion of the meal offering was given to the priest, as being the servant of God in the work of His house. To this service he was set apart from secular occupations, that he might give himself wholly to the duties of this office. In this he must needs be supported; and to this end it was ordained by God that a certain part of the various offerings should be given him, as we shall see more fully hereafter.

In striking contrast with this ordinance, which gave the largest part of the meal offering to the priest, is the law that of the frankincense he must take nothing; “all” must go up to God. with the “memorial,” in the fire of the altar (Lev 2:2, Lev 2:16). But in consistency with the symbolism it could not be otherwise. For the frankincense was the emblem of prayer, adoration, and praise; of this, then, the priest must take naught for himself. The manifest lesson is one for all who preach the Gospel. Of the incense of praise which may ascend from the hearts of Gods people, as they minister the Word, they must take none for themselves. “Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name be the glory.”

Such then was the meaning of the meal offering. It represents the consecration unto God by the grace of the Holy Spirit, with prayer and praise, of all the work of our hands; an offering with salt, but without leaven, in token of our unchanging covenant with a holy God. And God accepts the offerings thus presented by His people, as a savour of a sweet smell, with which He is well pleased. We have called this consecration a duty; is it not rather a most exalted privilege?

Only let us remember that although our consecrated offerings are accepted, we are not accepted because of the offerings. Most instructive it is to observe that the meal offerings were not to be offered alone; a bloody sacrifice, a burnt offering or sin offering, must always precede. How vividly this brings before us the truth that it is only when first our persons have been cleansed by atoning blood, and thus and therefore consecrated unto God, that the consecration and acceptance of our works is possible. We are not accepted because we consecrate our works, but our consecrated works themselves are accepted because first we have been “accepted in the Beloved” through faith in the blood of the holy Lamb of God.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary