ymlv THE FIVE MAJOR SACRIFICES IN LEVITICUS 1-7
1. concluding sacrifice. Rendtorff argues that in lists of sacrifices ymlv always
occurs last. Hartley suggests that this final position may be accounted for according to
the purpose of the different sacrifices. “Only after the head of the family had made expiation for his own sins and for those of his family, rendering
himself and his family acceptable to God, were they in a position to enjoy a festive meal before God. Therefore the theology of the sacrificial system tends to
account for an offering of well-being almost always occurring last in the order of sacrifices.”
179
2. covenant sacrifice suggested by Schmid. This suggestion seems unlikely as
ymlv was a voluntary offering; a sacrifice specifically designed to uphold the covenant surely would not have been left optional.
180
3. peace offering. This is the traditional translation via the Septuagint and Vulgate,
as it is suggested that ymlv comes from the Hebrew lv, “be complete” which
has the cognate olv, “peace”. This means more than the absence of war, but
health, prosperity, wholeness and peace with God. 4.
offering of well being. This renders the same idea as peace offering, but attempts to make it less ambiguous.
5. shared offering NEB, communion sacrifice JB, and fellowship offering NIV.
These are useful translations, as all “focus on the fact that this sacrifice is shared by the presenter’s family, the officiating priest, and God.”
181
Levine, working from parallels with
Ugaritic and Akkadian, suggests it originally meant “gift of greeting”, and that it was adopted for this sacrifice because “it expressed the
fellowship experienced by the worshippers and priests in God’s presence, as they greeted the divine guest.”
182
The animal offered
As in the case of hlu, cattle, sheep or goats can be offered as ymlv, but here
there is no gender restriction. Most regard this regulation as more lax because it is a voluntary sacrifice. Milgrom, though, thinks the reason for lack of gender restriction
179
Hartley, Leviticus, p.39.
180
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.77.
181
Hartley, Leviticus, p.38.
182
Levine, Leviticus, p.15.
is because its function is to allow the Israelites to eat meat see the argument below, p. 94.
Unlike the hlu regulations, birds are not mentioned. Milgrom suggests that
the parts that could have been burnt on the altar would be infinitesimal in size.
183
It is perhaps more likely that the birds would have been insufficient to provide a festive
meal.
The blood rite
As in the case of hlu, the priest dashes the blood against all sides of the altar.
This leads Harrison to say that there is “a strong substitutionary element”
184
in the ymlv. Although atonement is not specifically mentioned here, Wenham writes,
“Atonement is not a prominent feature of the peace offering. But even this essentially
joyful sacrifice includes a blood rite, a reminder that sinful man is always in need of the forgiveness of his sin.”
185
The parts of the animal burnt for Yahweh
The parts burnt on the altar as a pleasing aroma to Yahweh are listed below. The significance of the parts is not spelt out, but word associations elsewhere in the
Old Testament may offer some clues. Fat covering the entrails. Fat is synonymous with what is best in Gen 45:18 and Ps
81:16, and was seen as the source of an animal’s strength. Lev 3:16 emphasises that all the fat belongs to Yahweh. This fat of sacrificial animals, along with blood, may
not be eaten by Israel Lev 7:20ff.
186
Two kidneys. The kidneys were the centre of emotions, so possibly they symbolise here “the dedication of the worshiper’s best and deepest emotions to God.”
187
Long lobe of liver. The liver symbolises emotions of deep joy and sorrow Lam 2:11; Ps 16:9. Hartley suggests that as this was used for divination by neighbouring
peoples, it was burned here to erect a barrier to this practice in Israel.
188
However, this seems rather out of place with the symbolism suggested above, and as Milgrom
183
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.222.
184
Harrison, R.K., Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester: IVP, 1980, p.57.
185
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.80.
186
Per Levine, Leviticus, p.45.
187
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.81.
188
Hartley, Leviticus, p.40.
says, if this had been the reason “then the rest of the liver—employed just as much as the long lobe in divination hepatoscopy
—would have also been consigned to the altar.”
189
The priest’s share
In Lev 7:29-33, portions of the ymlv are assigned to the priests:
“He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the LORD shall bring his oblation unto the LORD of the sacrifice of his peace offerings. His
own hands shall bring the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering
before the LORD. And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall be Aaron
’s and his sons. And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering
of the sacrifices of your peace offerings. He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right
shoulder for his part.”
190
These traditional tra nslations of “wave offering” Hebrew hpwnt and “heave
offering” Hebrew hmwrt are based on the rabbinic interpretation that they constitute two cultic motions performed with an offering, the
hpwnt being a horizontal motion extending and bringing back, and the
hmwrt being a vertical motion raising and lowering.
191
Wenham states that “etymologically this is quite a natural way to explain these terms, but it fails to explain the difference between
them. And in some cases it is hard to envisage any such motion being involved.”
192
He cites Levites Num 8:13ff and land Ezek 45:1 as examples of objects of hpwnt
and hmwrt respectively which could not be waved or heaved.
Milgrom notes that as far back as the LXX there was uncertainty as to their meaning and inconsistency in the translation of the two terms.
193
In a detailed attempt to discover their original signification, he starts by noting that
hpwnt is done
189
Levine, Leviticus, p.208.
190
KJV.
191
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.461.
192
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.126.
193
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.461.
almost always before the LORD, which refers to a cultic action within the sanctuary, while
hmwrt is always to the LORD, and is not a ceremony at all.
194
In the case of hpwnt, he notes that the text lays emphasis on the need for the
offerer to bring the portion with his own hands, which signifies that at that point, it still belongs to him Lev 7:29-30.
195
He argues that hpwnt is a “ritual of dedication
that is performed in the sanctuary, with the result that the offering is removed from the domain of the owners and transferred to the domain of God.”
196
He argues against the traditional rabbinic interpretation of “waving”, by pointing out that the
related verb [nh means “to raise”.
197
In sum, hpwnt is an actual or symbolic
elevation rite, which sanctifies the profane, or makes it holy.
198
Milgrom demonstrates that most of the occasions of hpwnt in the Old
Testament can be interpreted consistently with this thesis. For example the hpwnt
service for the Levites separates them from the rest of Israel and transfers them to Yahweh’s domain, thus qualifying them for service at the Tent of Meeting Num
8:13-15.
199
From Lev 10:13-14, Milgrom makes a distinction between most offerings, which are from the start of the rite gifts belonging to Yahweh, and so do not undergo
hpwnt, and on the other hand, the well-being offering, which even at the point of slaughter, belongs to the offerer. The meat is his to eat, and so
hpwnt must be performed to transfer the portion for the priests to the domain of Yahweh.
200
According to Milgrom, hmwrt has a similar function to hpwnt, dedication to
Yahweh. It differs, though, in that it is carried out outside the sanctuary and without a rite.
201
He brings the following evidence in support:
202
1. the preposition “to” Yahweh is used with hmwrt
2. the verb “to give” is used with hmwrt, but never with hpwnt
194
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 pp.462, 474.
195
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.463f.
196
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.464.
197
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.469f.
198
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp.470, 473.
199
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.464.
200
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.463.
201
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.475.
202
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.474.
3. the related verb rh means “to remove, set aside, give”.
In the light of these factors, translators have now generally moved away from the traditional translations to:
Hpwnt, TnWp : elevation offering Levine, Milgrom, Hartley, dedication Wenham.
Hmwrt, TrWm : gift offering Levine, gift New Living Bible, Milgrom, contribution Wenham, Hartley.
What the essential distinction is between the two terms remains controversial. G.R. Driver denied there was any real difference.
203
Milgrom, though, rejects the idea that they are interchangeable and states “TrWm is not a ritual ... its true sense
is a dedication to God ... An offering requiring TnWp must undergo a previous stage of TrWm
, that is to say, a separation from the profane to the sacred.”
204
It appears that Milgrom is not being totally consistent here, as that separation was
exactly what he argued was the function of hpwnt: to remove the offering from the
domain of the owner to that of God see above, p.92. There is a further problem for Milgrom’s theory, in that there are several
examples of offerings being described by both terms, for example the right thigh of the well-being offering
hmwrt in Lev 7:32 is also described as part of the hpwnt in Lev 10:15. Milgrom considers the latter text a late editing and elaborates a theory of
historical development to account for a change in practice at the time of the Jerusalem temple due to the large number of priests.
205
However, this is a suggestion made to sustain Milgrom’s theory and Milgrom himself admits that “assured
historical facts are lacking, and an y reconstruction can only be conjectural.”
206
It is more probable that the same offering is being described by two different words to
reflect two different perspectives. Levine suggests that
hmwrt means a levy, a gift to Yahweh who in turn allocates it to the priests.
207
He refers to Num 18:8 which reads, “Then the LORD said to Aaron,
‘I myself have put you in charge of the offerings presented hmwrt to
203
See Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.126.
204
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.476.
205
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp.479ff.
206
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.479.
207
Levine, Leviticus, p.43.
me; all the holy offerings the Israelites give me I give to you and your sons as your portion and regular share.
’” It seems then that there is considerable overlap in the semantic domains of the
two terms, as both imply sanctification of the offering. In addition, hmwrt
emphasises that an offering was made to Yahweh before being allocated to priests, and
hpwnt emphasises that an offering was made before Yahweh in the sanctuary.
The purpose of the ymlv
1 It has been suggested that the purpose of ymlv is atonement for the
slaughter of animals for food. Lev 17:3- 4 records Yahweh’s command: “If anyone of
the house of Israel slaughters an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as
an offering to the LORD, before the LORD’s Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be imputed to
that man.”
208
Milgrom follows one ancient rabbinic interpretation that insists that this forbids any slaughter outside the tabernacle for any reason
—including for food. So it is argued that the main function of the
ymlv is to atone for this illegal killing of the animal itself Lev 17:11 and thus allow the possibility of meat for the table. As this
would be a rare luxury, it would inevitably be a joyous celebration to share with family and friends.
209
There are two difficulties with this interpretation. Firstly, it implies that the manipulation of the blood of the animal atones for
its death. But if blood symbolizes life given up in death as argued above, p.80, then Milgom’s position on the ymlv is reduced to the animal being killed to make
atonement for the animal being illegally killed – which makes little sense.
Secondly, Lev 17:3-4 prohibits slaughter away from the tabernacle, so slaughter at the tabernacle is implicitly legal. What need then is there to atone for the
legal killing involved in the ymlv at the tabernacle?
Levine takes the line of the other traditional interpretation, that slaughter in Lev 17:3-4 is used in its restricted sense, that is to slaughter a sacrifice, in line with
the use of the verb in other ritual texts in the Pentateuch e.g. Exod 34:25.
210
The
208
JPS.
209
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.221.
210
Levine, Leviticus, p.112f.
purpose of the prohibition is to avoid the people sacrificing to deities other than Yahweh away from the Tent of Meeting, such as the goat-idols mentioned a little
later Lev 17:7. Slaughter for purposes of food could occur anywhere. This line of argument can be supported by observing firstly that Deut 12:15 allows the slaughter
in any town of “as much meat as you want”, and secondly the requirement that the ymlv be without defect Lev 3:1,6 which suggests blemished animals must have
been killed away from the tabernacle. 2 Another suggestion is that
ymlv is essentially a fellowship meal. The burning of the fat and entrails is described as a
hva jl for Yahweh Lev 3:11,16. hva probably means gift see above, pp.74; jl usually means bread or food.
Hartley observes that the idea of a gift of food for Yahweh is at first sight startling, as there are no Old Testament. texts indicating that Yahweh is dependent on
sacrifices for food.
211
Milgrom states that jl clearly “harks back to earliest times, when
sacrifices were intended to feed the gods”
212
and terms it “a linguistic fossil”.
213
Levine offers a less literal interpretation of the phrase. While it preserves “the idiom common to ancient religions, it understands the process somewhat differently. God
desires the sacrifices of His worshippers not because He requires sustenance but because He desires their devotion and their fellowship.”
214
This fits well with the description in Deuteronomy of a joyful feast in which the presence of Yahweh was
especially near:
215
“Bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your
herds and flocks. There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to,
because the LORD your God has blessed you” Deut 12:6-7.
Wenham, commenting on this, writes, “The worshipper had made his vows to keep the covenant law, or to do something more specific e.g., to give Samuel back
to the Lord, if the prayer was answered. The enjoyment of eating the meat was a
211
Hartley, Leviticus, p.41.
212
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.213.
213
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.213.
214
Levine, Leviticus, p.17.
215
Per Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.81.
physical reminder of all the blessings that attended the faithful observance of the covenant Lev 26:3ff; Deut 28:1ff.”
216
3 Smith argued from the fact that ymlv was eaten “before the LORD” that
its purpose was to effect a mystical unity between the offerer and the deity.
217
But Milgrom rebuts this by pointing out that the sacrifice was eaten “before the LORD”
and not “with the LORD”.
218
It appears then that the second suggestion, that ymlv is in essence a
fellowship meal, celebrated by Yahweh’s people, in his presence, has most to commend it.
Three different types of ymlv
Three types of ymlv are distinguished in Lev 7: hdt jbz “praise” 7:12ff,
rdn “vow” 7:16ff and hbdn “freewill” 7:16ff. 1
hdt jbz This is usually translated as “praise offering” or “thanksgiving offering”. Alone among the three types, an accompanying offering of cakes of bread
is prescribed Lev 7:12-13. It is offere d to express one’s gratitude to God for
“deliverance from danger or misfortune.”
219
Wenham, though, suggests “confession offering” as a translation as it was “appropriate in two quite different situations: when someone was seeking God’s
deliverance, either from his enemies or from sickness. In such cases he might well feel the need to confess his sins, if he thought this was the reason for his present
predicament Judg 20:26; 21:4; 2 Sam 24:25. Or he could offer the confession sacrifice after he had been delivered. In this case the confession would center on
God’s mercy rather than on his own sinfulness.”
220
However, in the instances he cites of confession of sin, the hdt jbz is
offered after the hlu. It could be argued that the confession of sin is tied more closely
to the hlu which has atonement as its purpose, and the hdt jbz is giving thanks for
the acceptance of the hlu, and for assurance of God’s fellowship within the difficulty.
216
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.81.
217
In Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.220.
218
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.221.
219
Levine, Leviticus, p.42 The rabbis derived from Ps 107 four occasions for this: safe return from a sea voyage or a desert journey, recovery from illness, and release from prison: Milgrom, Leviticus
1-16, p.220.
220
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.78.
2 rdn Wenham writes, “In difficult circumstances, men of old often made a
vow to the Lord that if he helped them, they would do something for God. When they fulfilled their vow, they were expected to bring a peace offering.”
221
For example, when barren, Hannah prayed for a child and vowed that if her prayer were
answered she would dedicate the child to God. When the child was weaned, she brought cattle, flour and wine as a
ymlv 1 Sam 1. 3
hbdn is described as the “spontaneous by-product of one’s happiness whatever its cause.”
222
Wenham distinguishes this from the previous two that were connected with petitionary prayer.
hbdn came as a response to God’s unexpected and unasked for generosity.
223
Wesseley comments on the above three types of ymlv: “The common
denominator of these motivations is rejoicing.”
224
Requirements for cultic purity for the fellowship meal
1. Generally the sacrificial beast had to be without defect Lev 3:1, but this
requirement was relaxed in the case of the freewill offering Lev 22:23. 2.
The meat had to be eaten within a certain time limit. This limit was tighter for the praise offering Lev 7:15f.
3. Any person who ate of the meat had to be ritually pure, or he would be “cut off
from his people” Lev 7:20f. 4.
Fat and blood should not be eaten Lev 7:20ff.
Conclusion
From the above we can see that the ymlv was usually an occasion for joy
and fellowship involving the offerer, his family, the priest and Yahweh. It could be offered at any time and was especially appropriate at the high points of the nation’s
life: sealing the covenant at Sinai, the installation of Ki ng Saul, David’s bringing of
the Ark to Jerusalem, and the dedication of Solomon’s temple.
225
221
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.78.
222
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.219.
223
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.79.
224
Cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.218.
225
Hartley, Leviticus, p.38.
Averbeck writes, “The point of eating was to enact the bond of relationship that had been established between God and his people. Whenever such an offering
was presented, it re-enacted the same bond and could have the effect of calling the people to renewed covenant loyalty to Yahweh and one another.”
226
It also served as a means of support for the priests. The manipulation of blood, and the regulations for cultic purity reminded the partakers that they were
sinners, requiring Yahweh’s merciful provision of the sacrifice to cleanse them to be fit to eat in the presence of a holy God.
226
Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.1001.