WHEN SOMEONE BRINGS a grain offering to the LORD, his offering is to be of fine flour. He is to pour oil on it, put incense on it 2and take it to Aaron’s sons the priests. The priest shall take a handful of the fine flour and oil, together with all the incense, and burn this as a memorial portion on the altar, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 3The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.
4“‘If you bring a grain offering baked in an oven, it is to consist of fine flour: cakes made without yeast and mixed with oil, or wafers made without yeast and spread with oil. 5If your grain offering is prepared on a griddle, it is to be made of fine flour mixed with oil, and without yeast. 6Crumble it and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering. 7If your grain offering is cooked in a pan, it is to be made of fine flour and oil. 8Bring the grain offering made of these things to the LORD; present it to the priest, who shall take it to the altar. 9He shall take out the memorial portion from the grain offering and burn it on the altar as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 10The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.
11“‘Every grain offering you bring to the LORD must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire. 12You may bring them to the LORD as an offering of the firstfruits, but they are not to be offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma. 13Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings.
14“if you bring a grain offering of firstfruits to the LORD, offer crushed heads of new grain roasted in the fire. 15Put oil and incense on it; it is a grain offering. 16The priest shall burn the memorial portion of the crushed grain and the oil, together with all the incense, as an offering made to the LORD by fire.
LEVITICUS 2 PROVIDES INSTRUCTIONS for grain offerings, which are like burnt offerings in that they involve turning offering material into smoke for the Lord on the outer altar. Two major categories of grain offerings are those that are uncooked (2:1–3) and those that are cooked (2:4–10). A special category is the firstfruits offering of grain (2:14–16), which acknowledges that the harvest providing for human needs comes from God. Separating the normal cooked or uncooked varieties from the firstfruits offering, verses 11–13 state rules regarding certain ingredients of grain offerings in general, which also apply to all other kinds of sacrifices.
Like any good food preparation manual, the language of Leviticus 2 clearly indicates logical relationships between its parts. Betty Crocker would approve. As we would expect in procedural case law, Leviticus 2 introduces the procedures for each of the major categories with ki (“when . . .”; 2:1, 4).1 Also in accordance with case law, additional subcategories of the cooked grain offering (following the first one—baked in an oven) are introduced by ʾim (“if”): “if your grain offering is prepared on a griddle” (2:5) or “if your grain offering is fried in a pan” (2:7).2
(ki) Uncooked grain offerings (vv. 1–3)
Preparation (v. 1)
Ritual (vv. 2–3)
(ki) Cooked grain offerings (vv. 4–10)
Preparation (vv. 4–7)
Baked in an oven (v.4)
(ʾim) Prepared on a griddle (vv. 5–6)
(ʾim) Fried in a pan (v. 7)
Ritual (vv. 8–10)
In Leviticus 2:1 the one bringing a grain offering is referred to as nepeš (generic “living being, person”; see also 4:2, 27; 5:1, etc.), which is the functional equivalent of ʾadam (generic “man” = “human being”; cf. 1:2). Both of these terms cover women as well as men (Num. 5:6). Women could also offer sacrifices. In fact, under some circumstances they were required to offer them (Lev. 12:6–8; 15:29–30).3
In 2:1–3 the grain offering handed over to the priest was to be semolina/grits (solet) of wheat (cf. Ex. 29:2; 2 Kings 7:16). Although this was not “fine flour” in terms of texture, it was “fine” in the sense that it was choice food (cf. Ezek. 16:13, 19) rather than ordinary flour (cf. 1 Kings 4:22).4 Preparation of the uncooked grain offering included adding olive oil and incense over the grain (Lev. 2:1). The oil helped the offering burn on the altar and the incense enhanced the “pleasing aroma.” Both oil and incense are associated with joy (Prov. 27:9).
A grain offering obviously involved no butchering, blood, or hide to serve as a priest’s “commission.” So the priest kept the remainder of the grain offering after he scooped a handful from it and burned that part as a token portion (ʾazkarah) for the Lord on the altar (2:2; cf. 6:14–18). This was the procedure for grain offerings on behalf of nonpriests. The grain offering of a priest, by contrast, was completely burned on the altar (6:23), with no “agent’s commission” because the priest was also the offerer.
Verses 11–13 present two general rules. The first is a prohibition against yeast because of the even broader rule that no yeast/leaven or honey (probably agriculturally produced fruit honey here) may be turned into smoke as a food gift to the Lord. This does not apply to offerings that are not burned on the altar, including firstfruits of processed foods (reʾšit, “first-processed”; v. 12; cf. Num. 15:19–21) and leavened loaves made of “first-ripe” (bikkurim) wheat (23:17).5
The second general rule is a positive one: The “salt of the covenant of your God” must be included with all (kol) grain offerings, again as an application of a more general rule: All (kol) offerings, implicitly including animal sacrifices, must be salted (2:13; cf. Ezek. 43:24—priests salt animals for burnt offering).
Whereas the earlier instructions in Leviticus 2:1–10 concern grain offerings from semolina of wheat, verses 14–16 tell what to do if (ʾim; v. 14) you bring a “first-ripe” (bikkurim) grain offering. The fact that this section begins with ʾim rather than ki (“when”) suggests that it resumes the series of subcases within the overall category of cooked grain offerings. This makes sense because its preparation includes a kind of cooking: “You shall bring milky grain parched with fire, groats of the fresh ear” (v. 14).6 The ritual process at the sanctuary is the same as in the other cases (v. 16), but Leviticus 2 separates this parched variety from the earlier cooked offerings because it includes frankincense like uncooked offerings (v. 15; cf. v. 1), it consists of fresh, natural barley (23:10–11) rather than a ground wheat product,7 and it is mandatory rather than voluntary (cf. Ex. 23:16, 19; 34:22, 26; Num. 18:13).
Bridging Contexts
CAN AN OFFERING without death be a “sacrifice”? The apostle Paul appealed to his fellow Christians “in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship” (Rom. 12:1). A living sacrifice? Isn’t that an oxymoron? Doesn’t a sacrifice require the death of that which is sacrificed? Not necessarily, according to Leviticus 2. Therefore Paul does not utter a contradiction in terms.
In Leviticus 2:2, 9 the token portion of a grain offering that is burned on the altar is called “a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord.”8 There is no mention of expiation here (cf. kipper in 1:4), but otherwise the goal/meaning of the grain offering is the same as that of the burnt offering (1:9). So the grain offering is also a sacrifice.
If a grain offering is a sacrifice even though it involves no death or blood, we must abandon the common notion that death is a defining characteristic of “sacrifice.” In fact, the English word “sacrifice” did not originate from an idea of death. Rather, it derived from the concept of “making holy” (Lat. sacra, “sacred/holy” + facere, “to make”), that is, transferring something to the sacred realm.
Of course it is usage in the original Hebrew, not English etymology or usage, that defines the biblical concept. In Hebrew, the idea of “sacrifice” in general is conveyed by the noun qorban. For example, in Leviticus 1 this word appears in the overall introduction to sacrifices in general (1:2) and at the beginning of each subsection of the chapter, introducing burnt offerings of herd animals (1:3), flock animals (1:10), and birds (1:14). The meaning of qorban is associated with that of the Hiphil verb from the same root qrb (lit., “cause to come near”), which can refer not only to preliminary conveyance of offering material to the ritual location (e.g., 1:3), but also to formal ritual presentation to the Lord (e.g., 1:5, 13).9 This formal presentation transfers something to the holy God for his utilization. So a qorban (“sacrifice, sacrificial offering”) makes something holy by giving it over to the holy domain of God. Therefore, the meaning of the Hebrew word qorban coincides with the etymological meaning of the English word “sacrifice,” and this does not necessitate the component of killing.
Bloodless grain offerings are also sacrifices (qorban in 2:1, 4, 5, 7, 13) that are brought/presented (Hiphil of qrb) to God (2:1, 4, 8, 11, 13–14). Furthermore, in 5:11–13 an offering of grain serves as a purification offering (ḥaṭṭaʾt; so-called “sin offering”) that is functionally equivalent to a more expensive purification offering of a flock animal or of birds. It provides expiation (kipper) so that a sinner who cannot afford a blood sacrifice can receive forgiveness (5:13; cf. 5:11). If a purification offering of an animal is a sacrifice,10 such an offering of grain must also be a sacrifice. This is the exception acknowledged in Hebrews 9:22: “. . . the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (emphasis supplied).
The exceptional functional equivalent of grain does not negate the foundational significance of blood as the instrument of kipper, that is, expiation/ransom in Israelite sacrifice. According to Leviticus 17:11 (see comments), the Lord has assigned all blood ritually applied to his altar the function of ransoming (kipper) the lives of his people. So there is no application of blood to the altar that does not have to do with some kind of kipper.
The token offering of grain in Leviticus 2 serves as a simple gift to the Lord, expressing a positive relationship with him and honoring the One who provides “daily bread” (cf. Matt. 6:11). The idea of “gift” is found in the Hebrew label for this kind of sacrifice: minḥah, which has the basic meaning of “gift/present.” In nonritual use the word is used for gifts to people who are treated as superior: Jacob’s present of animals to Esau (Gen. 32:13, 18, 20, 21; 33:10), the gift of choice products that Jacob/Israel sent with his sons to Joseph (43:11, 15 25, 26), Ehud’s tribute (required gift) to King Eglon of Moab (Judg. 3:15, 17, 18, with Hiphil verb of qrb, “to present”), and the tribute sent to King Solomon by his vassals (1 Kings 4:21). Similarly, both Cain’s offering from the fruit of the ground and Abel’s sacrifice from his flock are called minḥah in the generic sense of “gift” to God (Gen. 4:3–5). However, in the special system of rituals performed at the Israelite sanctuary (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers), minḥah is used in the narrower sense of a gift to the Lord specifically consisting of grain.
Returning to Romans 12:1, God’s people can be “living sacrifices” in the sense of consecrating themselves to the Lord, presenting themselves as gifts for his holy service (1 Peter 1:14–16; referring to Lev. 11:44; cf. v.45; 19:2; 20:7, 26).
No leaven or honey. Ingredients of sacrifices carry meanings by association. Leviticus 2:11 prohibits burning yeast/leaven or honey on the Lord’s most holy altar. Leavening involves fermentation, which is a form of decay and therefore related to the concept of death. In connection with the ritual impurity laws of Leviticus 11–15, we will find that because death/impurity and life/holiness are antagonistic, the Israelite ritual system requires them to be kept apart from each other (see, e.g., 7:20–21; Num. 19:13, 20). Paradoxically, slain sacrificial animals are in a special category and do not defile the holy altar with death.
Several sources from late antiquity, including the New Testament, also reflect the association of leaven with deterioration:
“Leaven in the dough” is a common rabbinic metaphor for man’s evil propensities (e.g., b. Ber. 17a). The New Testament mentions “the leaven of malice and wickedness” (1 Cor 5:8) and “the leaven of the Pharisees,” which is “hypocrisy” (Luke 12:1; cf. Mark 8:15). This view is shared by the ancients: “Leaven itself comes from corruption, and corrupts the dough with which it is mixed . . . and in general, fermentation seems to be a kind of putrefaction” (Plutarch, Quaest. Rom. 109). Plutarch records that the Roman high priest (Flamen Dialis) was forbidden even to touch leaven (ibid.).11
The honey in Leviticus 2:11 is probably from fruit rather than from bees, as in 2 Chronicles 31:5, where “honey” is included in first-processed (reʾšit) agricultural produce from fields.12 Although it is not necessarily fermented, it is excluded from the altar, apparently because it is susceptible to fermentation (cf. Num. 6:3–4, where a Nazirite is prohibited from consuming even unfermented grape products because grapes ferment easily and are used for making fermented wine).
Social salt. Leviticus 2:13 requires that all grain offerings be seasoned (lit., “salted”) with salt: “Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings.” Here addition of salt enacts the idea of “covenant.” “Covenant” and “salt” also appear together in Numbers 18:19, where the Lord refers to his portions of sacred offerings that belong to the priests “as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt forever before the LORD for you and your descendants as well” (NRSV). Notice that here “salt” is used metaphorically to emphasize permanence (cf. 2 Chron. 13:5).
It is easy to see why “salt” is used to express permanence. Literal salt is a preservative.13 So a “covenant of salt” is a preserved/permanent covenant. Similarly, “the salt of the covenant of your God” (Lev. 2:13) is the ingredient of a sacrifice that symbolizes the permanent, binding nature of the covenant. The fact that according to this verse every Israelite sacrifice was to be salted shows that every sacrifice functioned in the context of the enduring covenant relationship between the Lord and his people that was established at Sinai through sacrifices (Ex. 24:3–8).
Salt carried additional meanings. In ancient times people who shared salt were bound together as a group by mutual obligations.
A neo-Babylonian letter speaks of “all who tasted the salt of the Jakin tribe” (ABL 747, r. 6), referring to the tribe’s covenantal allies. Loyalty to the Persian monarch is described as having tasted “the salt of the palace” (Ezra 4:14). Arab. milḥat, a derivative of malaḥa (“to salt”) means “a treaty” (G. B. Gray 1903: 232). “There is salt between us” implies among Arab bedouin a treaty stipulating mutual aid and defense (R. Smith 1927: 270). The Greeks likewise salted their covenant meals and referred to salt as “holy” (Iliad 9.214; Heliod. 4.16). Thus it is likely that in Israel as well salt played a central role at the solemn meal that sealed a covenant (e.g., Gen 26:30; 31:54; Exod 24:11).14
In the New Testament, Jesus calls his followers “the salt of the earth,” who must retain their “saltiness,” that is, their distinctiveness, in order to be a valuable influence in the world (Matt. 5:13). While “saltiness” suggests improvement of flavor, it also provides preservation. Both as a flavoring and as a preserving element, salt must be spread out and mixed with that which it benefits. So Christians should spread out and mingle with others in order to improve the moral “flavor” of their society and to “preserve” it from moral decay (cf. Lev. 2:14–16).
In Mark 9:50 Jesus admonishes: “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.” This idea is related to Colossians 4:6: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” In these verses “salt” is a metaphor for social grace and tact that enables people to get along with each other. While the primary emphasis is on the “flavor” of salt, the social context is close to the covenant setting in which salt “preserves” good relationships.
Contemporary Significance
“LIVING SACRIFICES.” BLOODLESS Israelite sacrifices of grain have helped us to understand that we can truly offer ourselves to God as “living sacrifices” and “be transformed by the renewing” of our minds rather than conforming “to the pattern of this world” (Rom. 12:1–2). By meeting the needs of other people, we can give gifts that are “a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God” (Phil. 4:18). “Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Heb. 13:15–16).
The “pattern of this world” (Rom. 12:2) is greed and self-gratification, all in the name of survival. To many the idea of sacrificing everything on God’s altar of service for others is suicidal folly, or at least a sign of mental instability. Paradoxically, however, just as the ancient Israelite altar of sacrifice represented life, giving oneself up for a higher purpose opens the door to ultimate fulfillment. Albert Schweitzer discovered this:
He who sacrifices his life to achieve any purpose for an individual or for humanity is practicing life-affirmation. He is taking an interest in the things of this world and by offering his own life wants to bring about in the world something which he regards as necessary. The sacrifice of life for a purpose is not life-negation, but the profoundest form of life-affirmation placing itself at the service of world-affirmation.15
Because of his global vision, Schweitzer was willing to move out of his comfort zone, to get out of the “saltshaker,”16 in order to spread the benefit of his influence to those who needed it most. So as a “living sacrifice” he became “salt of the earth.” In the process, he discovered that God preserved the precious things that he thought he had given up:
When I first went to Africa I prepared to make three sacrifices: to abandon the organ, to renounce the academic teaching activities to which I had given my heart, and to lose my financial independence, relying for the rest of my life on the help of friends.
These three sacrifices I had begun to make, and only my intimate friends knew what they cost me.
But now there happened to me, what happened to Abraham when he prepared to sacrifice his son. I, like him, was spared the sacrifice. The piano with pedal attachment, built for the tropics, which the Paris Bach Society had presented to me, and the triumph of my own health over the tropical climate had allowed me to keep up my skill on the organ. . . .
For the renunciation of my teaching activities in Strassburg University I found compensation in opportunities of lecturing in very many others.
And if I did for a time lose my financial independence, I was able now to win it again by means of organ and pen.17
It is possible to serve without a polished personality, CV, budget, infrastructure, or even a specific agenda. Philip Yancey describes a rather eccentric older woman by the name of Louise Adamson, who makes a difference in urban Atlanta with no staff or organized program. She simply asks God each day to use her. Calling her contribution a “Jericho Road ministry,” after Jesus’ parable of the “good Samaritan” who helped a wounded man on the road to Jericho, she looks for those in need and distributes food and clothing that people give her for this purpose. She gets calls at all hours of the day and especially at night to assist individuals and families in crisis, such as battered wives and starving elderly folk. In addition, she serves as official guardian for a number of children assigned her by the Juvenile Court.18
Kierkegaard observed that it is unusual for people to follow Christ’s example of self-sacrificing love:
Christ required “followers” and defined precisely what he meant: that they should be salt, willing to be sacrificed, and that a Christian means to be salt and to be willing to be sacrificed. But to be salt and to be sacrificed is not something to which thousands naturally lend themselves, still less millions.19
Why is this? Before becoming “salt” to benefit others, a Christian must experience the enduring, assuring “salt of the covenant” of his or her God. Stable, long-term “saltiness” of moral preservation, tact, and social solidarity in the human sphere has its source in the divine-human covenant relationship. Without this relationship, the “salt” has lost its “saltiness” (Matt. 5:13; Mark 9:50; Luke 14:34); it has nothing to give. But a Christian who maintains the permanence of the covenant, often “salting” his or her “living sacrifice” with renewed commitment, as Louise Adamson does every day, has everything to give.
Basic needs, basic praise. In the ancient world, grain products were basic food for sustaining life. Thus Jesus taught his disciples to pray: “Give us today our daily bread” (Matt. 6:11). Martin Luther recognized that in a wider sense “daily bread” here applies to the full range of our needs, for which we rely upon God to provide:
Everything that nourishes our body and meets its needs, such as: Food, drink, clothing, shoes, house, yard, fields, cattle, money, possessions, a devout spouse, devout children, devout employees, devout and faithful rulers, good government, good weather, peace, health, discipline, honor, good friends, faithful neighbors and other things like these.20
By offering a gift of grain (Lev. 2), an ancient Israelite praised the Lord, who meets human needs. For a follower of God who internalizes this concept, the implications for daily life are profound. Every fulfillment of need is a holy gift. Every meal is communion with God. M. Buber has said that when a person eats in holiness, the table becomes an altar.21
Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35). It is Christ through whom God meets ultimate needs through his living and dying sacrifice. When as few as two or three share a meal in his name, they are unified as a worshiping community with Christ among them (cf. Matt. 18:20).
The grain offerings outlined in Leviticus 2 were not for expiation from sin. Similarly, today we can offer gifts of things or service to God just because we love him, we are grateful, and we want to honor him. This is simple, basic praise. “Praising God is one of the highest and purest acts of religion. In prayer we act like men; in praise we act like angels.”22
Francis Schaeffer understood that praise is not just giving something such as music to God, but also offering the whole of one’s life to God: “One day all Christians will join in a doxology and sing God’s praises with perfection. But even today, individually and corporately, we are not only to sing the doxology, but to be the doxology.”23 This kind of praise sounds like a “living sacrifice”!