Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 6:14
And this [is] the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar.
(2) The Meal-Offering (14 18)
The injunctions of Lev 2:2-3 are repeated, almost in the same words in Lev 6:15-16 (as far as ‘his sons eat’): in what follows, the place of eating is fixed the court of the tent of meeting. In Lev 6:17 note the use of the first person, and the reference to the Sin-Offering and Guilt-Offering.
The Meal-Offering was ‘most holy,’ and could be eaten only by the male descendants of Aaron.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See Lev 2:1-10; Exo 29:40-41.
Lev 6:16
With unleavened bread shall it be eaten – This should be, it (the remainder) shall be eaten unleavened.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 14. The meat-offering] See Clarke on Le 2:1, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The law of the meat-offering, to wit, of that which was offered alone, and that by any of the people, not by the priest, for then it must have been all burnt. This law, delivered Le 2, is here repeated for the sake of some additions here made to it; as it is a common practice of law-makers, when they make additional laws, to recite such laws to which such additions belong.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14-18. this is the law of the meatofferingThough this was a provision for the priests and theirfamilies, it was to be regarded as “most holy”; and the wayin which it was prepared was: on any meat offerings being presented,the priest carried them to the altar, and taking a handful from eachof them as an oblation, he salted and burnt it on the altar; theresidue became the property of the priests, and was the food of thosewhose duty it was to attend on the service. They themselves as wellas the vessels from which they ate were typically holy, and they werenot at liberty to partake of the meat offering while they laboredunder any ceremonial defilement.
Le6:19-23. THE HIGHPRIEST’S MEATOFFERING.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And this [is] the law of the meat offering,…. Or the rules to be observed concerning that, for which, though directions are given, Le 2:1, c. yet is here repeated with some additions to it:
the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord being brought unto them by the children of Israel:
before the altar; or at the face of it, for what was properly offered was burnt upon it, as in the following verse Le 6:15: for it should be rather rendered “in”, or “on the altar” n; the face of it is the top of it, on which every sacrifice was offered, and not before it.
n “in altari”, Noldius, p. 82. No. 391.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Law of the Meat-Offering. – The regulations in Lev 6:14, Lev 6:15, are merely a repetition of Lev 2:2 and Lev 2:3; but in Lev 6:16-18 the new instructions are introduced with regard to what was left and had not been burned upon the altar. The priests were to eat this as unleavened, i.e., to bake it without leaven, and to eat it in a holy place, viz., in the court of the tabernacle. in Lev 6:16 is explained by “ it shall not be baken with leaven ” in Lev 6:17. It was the priests’ share of the firings of Jehovah (see Lev 1:9), and as such it was most holy (see Lev 2:3), like the sin-offering and trespass-offering (Lev 6:25, Lev 6:26; Lev 7:6), and only to be eaten by the male members of the families of the priests. This was to be maintained as a statute for ever (see at Lev 3:17). Every one that touches them (the most holy offerings) becomes holy.” does not mean he shall be holy, or shall sanctify himself (lxx, Vulg., Luth., a Lap., etc.), nor he is consecrated to the sanctuary and is to perform service there ( Theodor., Knobel, and others). In this provision, which was equally applicable to the sin-offering (Lev 6:27), to the altar of the burnt-offering (Exo 29:37), and to the most holy vessels of the tabernacle (Exo 30:29), the word is not to be interpreted by Num 17:2-3, or Deu 22:9, or by the expression “shall be holy” in Lev 27:10, Lev 27:21, and Num 18:10, but by Isa 65:5, “touch me not, for I am holy.” The idea is this, every layman who touched these most holy things became holy through the contact, so that henceforth he had to guard against defilement in the same manner as the sanctified priests (Lev 21:1-8), though without sharing the priestly rights and prerogatives. This necessarily placed him in a position which would involve many inconveniences in connection with ordinary life.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Law of the Meat-Offering. | B. C. 1490. |
14 And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar. 15 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. 16 And the remainder thereof shall 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. 17 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. 18 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. 19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 20 This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD in the day when he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meat offering perpetual, half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night. 21 In a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the meat offering shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto the LORD. 22 And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD; it shall be wholly burnt. 23 For every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten.
The meat-offering was either that which was offered by the people or that by the priests at their consecration. Now,
I. As to the common meat-offering,
1. Only a handful of it was to be burnt upon the altar; all the rest was allowed to the priests for their food. The law of the burnt-offerings was such as imposed upon the priests a great deal of care and work, but allowed them little profit; for the flesh was wholly burnt, and the priests had nothing but the skin. But to make them amends the greatest part of the meat-offering was their own. The burning of a handful of it upon the altar (v. 15) was ordered before, Lev 2:2; Lev 2:9. Here the remainder of it is consigned to the priests, the servants of God’s house: I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings, v. 17. Note, (1.) It is the will of God that his ministers should be well provided for with food convenient; and what is given to them he accepts as offered to himself, if it be done with a single eye. (2.) All Christians, being spiritual priests, do themselves share in the spiritual sacrifices they offer. It is not God that is the gainer by them; the handful burnt upon the altar was not worth speaking of, in comparison with the priests’ share; we ourselves are the gainers by our religious services. Let God have all the frankincense, and the priests shall have the flour and the oil; what we give to God the praise and glory of we may take to ourselves the comfort and benefit of.
2. The laws concerning the eating of it were, (1.) That it must be eaten unleavened, v. 16. What was offered to God must have no leaven in it, and the priests must have it as the altar had it, and no otherwise. Thus must we keep the feasts of the Lord with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (2.) It must be eaten in the court of the tabernacle (here called the holy place), in some room prepared by the side of the court for this purpose. It was a great crime to carry any of it out of the court. The very eating of it was a sacred rite, by which they were to honour God, and therefore it must be done in a religious manner, and with a holy reverence, which was preserved by confining it to the holy place. (3.) The males only must eat of it, v. 18. Of the less holy things, as the first-fruits and tithes, and the shoulder and breasts of the peace-offerings, the daughters of the priests might eat, for they might be carried out of the court; but this was of the most holy things, which being to be eaten only in the tabernacle, the sons of Aaron only might eat of it. (4.) The priests only that were clean might eat of it: Every one that toucheth them shall be holy, v. 18. Holy things for holy persons. Some read it, Every thing that toucheth it shall be holy: Al the furniture of the table on which these holy things were eaten must be appropriated to that use only, and never after used as common things.
II. As to the consecration meat-offering, which was offered for the priests themselves, it was to be wholly burnt, and none of it eaten, v. 23. It comes in here as an exception to the foregoing law. It should seem that this law concerning the meat-offering of initiation did not only oblige the high priest to offer it, and on that day only that he was anointed, and so for his successors in the day they were anointed; but the Jewish writers say that by this law every priest, on the day he first entered upon his ministry, was bound to offer this meat-offering,–that the high priest was bound to offer it every day of his life, from the day in which he was anointed,–and that it was to be offered besides the meat-offering that attended the morning and evening sacrifice, because it is said here to be a meat-offering perpetual, v. 20. Josephus says, “The high priest sacrificed twice every day at his own charges, and this was his sacrifice.” Note, Those whom God has advanced above others in dignity and power ought to consider that he expects more from them than from others, and should attend to every intimation of service to be done for him. The meat-offering of the priest was to be baked as if it were to be eaten, and yet it must be wholly burnt. Though the priest that ministered was to be paid for serving the people, yet there was no reason that he should be paid for serving the high priest, who was the father of the family of the priests, and whom therefore any priest should take a pleasure in serving gratis. Nor was it fit that the priests should eat of the offerings of a priest; for as the sins of the people were typically transferred to the priests, which was signified by their eating of their offerings (Hos. iv. 8), so the sins of the priests must be typically transferred to the altar, which therefore must eat up all their offerings. We are all undone, both ministers and people, if we must bear our own iniquity; nor could we have had any comfort or hope if God had not laid on his dear Son the iniquity of us all, and he is both the priest and the altar.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 14-18:
This supplement to the instructions regarding the Meat Offering specify that the greater portion was to be given to the priests. They and the males of their families were to eat of it without the addition of any leavening agent.
Another provision not stated in the previous instructions: not only was the bread of the Meat Offering holy, but all who partook of it were also holy unto the Lord. This pictures the status of God’s servant today, who is made holy by virtue of the service he renders to the Lord.
“Holy” means “set apart, for a specific purpose or person.” The person or thing made holy was set apart or reserve for the Lord’s exclusive use. God’s child today is “holy,” set apart for His exclusive use, 1Co 6:19, 20; Ro 12:1, 2.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
14. And this is the Law of the meat-offering. We have already seen that there were various kinds of this offering; now, the cakes or wafers are omitted, (279) and mention is only made of uncooked flour, whereof God commands that the priest should burn on the altar as much as his hand could hold. But this law was necessary in order that believers might be fully assured that God was propitiated by the due offering of this part, and that none might complain because the greater portion remained with the priests. Lest, however, the dignity of the sacrifice should be impaired, it was only permitted to the priests to make unleavened bread of it, which they were to eat in the sanctuary, as we have seen elsewhere. The meat-offering of the priests is excepted, which I conceive to be for two reasons, — first, that the excellency and dignity of their gift, honored as it was by special privilege, might stimulate the priests to greater efforts of piety, so as not to exercise themselves in God’s service in a common and perfunctory manner; secondly, that they might be thus restrained from the affectation of offering it too frequently. For if it only cost them a little flour, a door was opened to vain ostentation; they would have never ceased offering their (280) minha, the profit of which returned to themselves; perhaps they might even have made a trade of it, as we see the Popish sacrificers entice the simple populace to profuse expenditure in offerings by the pomp of their fictitious devotion. Lest, therefore, they should cause their immoderate oblations to minister both to their vainglory and avarice, God willed that their meat-offering should be entirely consumed.
(279) “ Omettant les gasteux, et les tourtes, et bignets, tant cuits au four que frits;” omitting the cakes, and the tarts, and fritters, both cooked in the oven and fried. — Fr.
(280) “ Leurs belles parades.” — Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE MEAL OFFERING 6:1423
TEXT 6:1423
14
And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before Jehovah, before the altar.
15
And he shall take up therefrom his handful, of the fine flour of the meal-offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savor, as the memorial thereof, unto Jehovah.
16
And that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: it shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.
17
It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the trespass-offering.
18
Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, as his portion for ever throughout your generations, from the offerings of Jehovah made by fire: whosoever toucheth them shall be holy.
19
And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
20
This is the oblation of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto Jehovah in the day when he is anointed: the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering perpetually; half of it in the morning, and half thereof in the evening.
21
On a baking-pan it shall be made with oil; when it is soaked, thou shalt bring it in: in baken pieces shalt thou offer the meal-offering for a sweet savor unto Jehovah.
22
And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it: by a statute for ever it shall be wholly burnt unto Jehovah.
23
And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 6:1423
115.
The regulations here are very similar to those in the second chapter. What verses here compare with those in chapter two?
116.
There are some dissimilarities. Indicate them.
117.
Why not leaven in the bread made from the meal offering? In what place were they to eat it? Why?
118.
Only a certain class of persons were permitted to eat. Who were they?
119.
What is meant by the thought that to touch one of the sons of Aaron was to make the person who touched holy?
120.
Are we to understand that Lev. 6:14-18 discuss what to bring and Lev. 6:19-23 discuss when to bring it? Explain.
121.
Broken bread baked or fried on the fire is the offering of priests. Is this a fair conclusion? Discuss.
PARAPHRASE 6:1423
These are the regulations concerning the grain offering: Aarons sons shall stand in front of the altar to offer it before the Lord. The priest shall then take out a handful of the finely ground flour with the olive oil and the incense mixed into it, and burn it upon the altar as a representative portion for the Lord; and it will be received with pleasure by the Lord. After taking out this handful, the remainder of the flour will belong to Aaron and his sons for their food; it shall be eaten without yeast in the courtyard of the Tabernacle. (Stress this instruction, that if it is baked it must be without yeast.) I have given to the priests this part of the burnt offerings made to Me. However, all of it is most holy, just as is the entire sin offering and the entire guilt offering. It may be eaten by any male descendant of Aaron, any priest, generation after generation. But only the priests may eat these offerings made by fire to the Lord.
And Jehovah said to Moses, On the day Aaron and his sons are anointed and inducted into the priesthood, they shall bring to the Lord a regular grain offeringa tenth of a bushel of fine flour, half to be offered in the morning and half in the evening. It shall be cooked on a griddle, using olive oil, and should be well cooked, then brought to the Lord as an offering that pleases Him very much. As the sons of the priests replace their fathers, they shall be inducted into office by offering this same sacrifice on the day of their anointing. This is a perpetual law. These offerings shall be entirely burned up before the Lord; none of it shall be eaten.
COMMENT 6:1423
Lev. 6:14 There is to be nothing secretive about this offering. It is to be made in the sight of all. The meal offering size and content are discussed in Lev. 2:1 ff. Here we follow the actions and attitude of the priests as they make the offering. Before the people upon the altarhow meaningful are all our actions and attitudes when we know that first of all that it is done in the sight of God!
Lev. 6:15 We learn nothing new in this verse from what we found in Lev. 2:2 except we are standing with the priest and not the worshipper. The aroma of frankincense, the flash of the fire as the oil-mixed flour is consumed upon the altar; all of this says to the priest and to the worshipper and to all who see that God is well pleased with the thank offering of grain.
Lev. 6:16 We are in this verse introduced to the exact action observed by Aarons sons as they take of their portion of the altar (Cf. 1Co. 9:13-14). Careful, repeated instructions relate to this bread being unleaven. There must not be anything in it that would intimate sin or corruption; for since the memorial has been offered, the remainder is reckoned pure, so pure that it may be put into the hands of the priests as food, and eaten on holy ground. It may present to us the fact, that when Jesus was once offered as a sweet savor of rest, then what remained, i.e. His body the church, was pure, and might be freely admitted to holy groundto heaven, and to all heavenly employments. (Ibid.)
Lev. 6:17 If the meal offering takes the form of cakes instruction is given that no leaven is to be Used. We like the thought that the enjoyment of eating is to come from their knowledge that the gift came from God and not in the flavor of the cake. There must be no leaven in it, for it is a gift to them from Me. Let it, then, derive its sweetness and relish to their taste from the consideration that it is my gift to them. There are two grand truths taught here: (1) any place becomes a holy place when we sense the presence of God. Calvary was a holy mount 2Pe. 1:18; the ground by a bush was holy ground Exo. 3:5; the outer court was called the most holy place Num. 18:10 (depending upon what happened as related to the presence of God); (2) We should rejoice more in the giver than the gift. Hannah rejoiced more in God than in Samuel 1Sa. 2:1; so did Mary and Elizabeth; It teaches us of the deep joyful communion which can exist between God and His people. Cf. Col. 2:1-2.
Lev. 6:18 While this food is available to all male members of the tribe of Levi they must not eat without thought and recognition of the giver because God has counted them holy or sanctified and therefore everyone who touches them or the altar or any of its utensils or garments is also holy. Even inanimate objects touched by the priests were thus set-aside as holy. All such items must be cleansed by washingspersons must also cleanse themselves of this ceremonial defilement. The purpose of such prohibitions was to teach respect, reverence for the Holy One of Israel. God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of His saints, and to be held in reverence of all that are about Him. Psa. 79:7. Nothing is more happy or holy than the presence of God!
Lev. 6:19-20 Here is information we have not had before. This is part of the ceremony used in the ordination of a man to the priesthood, whether it be the ordinary priests or the high priest. It is interesting to notice that neither the richest nor the poorest of the kinds of meal offerings is chosen. The priest is to relate himself to all peoplethe rich and the poor. The amount is the same as that chosen by God for the daily portion of manna. The same amount as placed in the golden pot in the ark of the covenant. Thus the priest is to remember he is a servant of both God and man.
Lev. 6:21 The cakes are prepared with oil and baked in a pan just as if they were to be eaten. They are to be consumed, but not by man, This could teach the priest that what he prepares for himself he also first prepares for God. What he prepares for himself is neither more nor less than what he prepares for God. God will accept what he has prepared. Our offerings to God must be as important and as basic as our everyday food.
Lev. 6:22-23 Actually the priest is offering himself in this offering. His total, whole self is given up to God. As our great high priest gave Himself to God on our behalf, we give ourselves to Him and others in our commitment to Him. We are all priests and all have received the anointing of the Holy One (Cf. 1Jn. 2:21; 1Jn. 2:27) and belong to Him. Please remember whose you are!
FACT QUESTIONS 6:1423
153.
What is meant by saying there is nothing secretive about this offering?
154.
What makes the actions and attitudes meaningful?
155.
What is the one message we get from Lev. 6:15?
156.
Why was it so important that not only the memorial portion but the whole be unleavened ?
157.
Why eat it in the holy place? What lesson is in this for us?
158.
There are two grand truths taught in Lev. 6:17. What are they?
159.
Was there an advantage or disadvantage to the non-Levite to be counted holy by touching one of the priests or some portion of the tabernacle?
160.
How was the meal offering used in the ordination service of the priests?
161.
What lesson is in the fact that the priest is to prepare cakes as if they were to be eaten and then burn them?
162.
The priest is offering himself in the meal offering. Show how and why.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(14) And this is the law of the meat offering.In Lev. 2:1-3, where this meat offering is spoken of, the people are told of what the mincha is to consist, and what portion of it was the perquisite of the officiating priest. In the section before us (Lev. 6:14-18) additional directions are given to the priests about the eating of the portions which belong to them and about the treatment of the residue.
The sons of Aaron shall offer it.Though in the chapter before us it literally means Aarons own sons, the phrase is intended to comprise his lineal descendants who succeeded to the priestly office. They, and they only, shall offer the sacrifices, but not a layman.
Before the altar.Or, in or at the fore part of the altar. That is, at the south-easterly corner of the altar. (See Lev. 2:8.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. The meat offering See Lev 2:1, note.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Law of the Grain Offering ( Lev 6:14-18 ).
This is dealing further with the grain offerings described in Leviticus 2 but concentrating more on the right of the priest to partake of them. It reminds us that it provides holy food for the priests. It is then followed by a description of the twice daily grain offering on behalf of the priests, of which they cannot partake.
Lev 6:14-15
‘And this is the law of the grain offering. The sons of Aaron shall offer it before Yahweh, before the altar. And he shall take up from it his handful, of the milled grain of the grain offering, and of its oil, and all the frankincense which is on the grain offering, and shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing odour, as the memorial of it, to Yahweh.’
As in chapter 2, but in more abbreviated form, the grain offering is brought and offered to Yahweh mingled with oil and with the frankincense placed on it. Then a handful of milled grain and oil, (the memorial of it to Yahweh) together with all the frankincense, is offered by fire to Yahweh.
In this way are we to offer our gratitude for His many provisions for us, and dedicate to Him our daily labour, together with the pleasing odour of Christ, which is like the frankincense brought from afar to enhance our offering. Thus are we acceptable to God.
Lev 6:16
‘And what is left of it shall Aaron and his sons eat: it shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.’
Then what is left of the grain offering can be eaten by the priests, and they alone, for it is a whole offering. It is to be eaten without leaven in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. It is a part of their ‘holy eating’ which prepares them for their ministry to the people.
In the same way may all who are ‘sanctified in Him’ (1Co 1:2; Heb 2:11) as a royal priesthood (1Pe 2:9) can partake of Christ as the living bread Who has come down from Heaven to give life to the world (Joh 6:33), partaking of Him daily through faith from His word, so that we never hunger, and coming to Him daily in confident trust so that we never thirst (Joh 6:35). And for this, like the priests, we should go aside into a dedicated place before we go out into the world, so that, daily receiving of Him, we might take blessing to the world (compare Gal 2:20). What we receive is most holy.
Lev 6:17
‘It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering.’
This grain offering was in no way to be baked with leaven. This confirms that it could certainly be baked if required, but not with leaven. There must be within it no ‘corrupting’ influence of the outward created world. It must be as from God, as received by His people. And this is because it is a portion of the offerings made by fire, the offerings which belonged to Yahweh, but of which he was willing for His priests to partake. They were most holy offerings, as were the purification for sin and guilt offerings (some of which could also be partaken of by the priests). They could only be eaten by His holy priests within His holy tabernacle. And they must be totally pure.
So should we in our quiet moments receive the unleavened word, uncorrupted by outward influences, receiving it into our hearts from God. There is a time for more detailed study with the help of outward influences, but there is also a time when He and His word and ourselves should be alone together, when we partake of the unleavened word. The warning is constant. Beware of the corrupting influence of the world with its sinful and spiritually harmful pleasures, its glittering offers that draw us from the way of righteousness, (the deceitfulness of riches), and its prizes offered if only we will compromise the truth!
Lev 6:18
‘Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, as his portion for ever throughout your generations, from the offerings of Yahweh made by fire: whoever touches them shall be holy.’
And the portions of the grain offerings after the memorial has been offered are for Aaron’s sons ‘for ever throughout their generations’, that is, into the foreseeable future. They were of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, but His priests could partake of them, for they were holy to Him. And whoever touched such offerings were to be holy. This was a warning to any others not to touch them, for if they were made holy like the priests, but were not of the priestly family, they would strictly have to be put to death as an offering by fire to Yahweh. (Alternately they would have to live priestlike lives without the benefits of being a priest. Possibly, however, this was one of the offences that could be dealt with by the guilt offering for trespass in the holy things if done unwittingly – Lev 5:15). Only those whom God had made holy, could be holy and live. It is dangerous to presume on God.
In the same way all who are His and sanctified in Him may continually partake of Christ and of His word. But we must beware, for we are touching holy things. By it we are continually sanctified and must ever therefore recognise our responsibility of priesthood and service to the world. Once we have partaken there is no release. We are His for ever.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Of Meat-offerings.
v. 14. And this is the law of the meat-offering, v. 15. And he, v. 16. And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat, v. 17. 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. v. 18. All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Lev 6:14. The law of the meat-offering Bread-offering and so wherever the word occurs; see ch. Lev 2:1-9.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Concerning the meat-offering, the first part was to be the LORD’S, the remainder the priest’s. Did not this offering allude to the person of JESUS? See Joh 6:35 . And were not the priests, in partaking of this, types of the whole body of CHRIST, who are said to be made kings and priests to GOD and the FATHER? Rev 1:6 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 6:14 And this [is] the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar.
Ver. 14. The law of the meat offering. ] Besides what is set down in Lev 2:1-2 . Thus one text explains another; as the diamond is brightened with its own dust.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the law. In Lev 2:1-3 we have the directions. in Lev 6:14-18 we have the law, and additional directions.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the meat offering: Lev 2:1, Lev 2:2, Num 15:4, Num 15:6, Num 15:9, Joh 6:32
Reciprocal: Lev 7:37 – meat Lev 9:4 – and a meat Lev 14:54 – the law Eze 42:13 – they be holy Eze 44:29 – eat
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 6:14-18. The Daily Meal Offering (cf. ch. 2 for occasional meal offerings). A meal offering, however, accompanies every burnt offering. This section repeats the provision that no leaven must be used in the baking, and adds that the priests who eat their portion of it must do so in a holy place, and that no women must partake of it; the women of the priests families are in a lower grade of holiness; to them, as to laymen, the holy offerings are taboo. This provision is mentioned here because the priests would have to see to its being carried out.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
The law of the meal offering for the priests 6:14-18
God considered the meal, sin, and trespass offerings "most holy" (Lev 6:17; Lev 6:25; Lev 7:1; Lev 7:6). This means that they were sacrifices that only the priests could eat.
The "layman who touched these most holy things became holy through the contact, so that henceforth he had to guard against defilement in the same manner as the sanctified priests (Lev 21:1-8), though without sharing the priestly rights and prerogatives. This necessarily placed him in a position which would involve many inconveniences in connection with ordinary life." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:319.]
These instructions about the meal offering clarify the priests’ rights. They could eat this offering but only in a holy place, such as the tabernacle courtyard. The priests enjoyed special privileges, but they also had to observe high standards of behavior. This is also true of Christians (cf. Luk 12:48; Jas 3:1; 1Pe 4:17).
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.