INTRODUCTION THE FIVE MAJOR SACRIFICES IN LEVITICUS 1-7
extra problems, and particularly for any study of the meaning of sacrifice like this one, source-
criticism is unlikely to be fruitful.”
94
When the Israelites performed their sacrifices they were, no doubt, very aware of their symbolic meaning; indeed, the meanings of the rituals are rarely
spelled out in the text because they were self-evident.
95
What we shall attempt is to glean from those clues in the text and from the symbols used the purpose or purposes
of the different sacrifices. For each of five sacrifices the following pattern of study will be followed:
1. Rite: an overview of the main elements of the ritual.
2. Translation: an initial survey of the various translations suggested. In some cases
this will serve as a preliminary overview of some of the major questions concerning the purpose of the offering.
3. Exegesis: a detailed look at the elements of the rite and the explanations found in
the text. 4.
Conclusion: a consideration of the purpose or purposes of the offering.
5.2
hlu
Figure 10: The
hlu
ritual
Actor Action
Worshipper Presents the offering at the entrance of the Tabernacle
Worshipper Lays a hand on the head of the animal
Worshipper Slaughters and skins the animal
Priest Applies the blood to the altar
Worshipper Cuts the animal
Worshipper Washes the innards and the legs
Priest Burns the whole animal except the hide on the altar
Translation
hlu has been variously translated:
94
Kiuchi, N., The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987, p.17.
95
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.18.
1. holocaust or elevation or ascending offering Scherman and Goldwurm
,
as the noun derives from the verb meaning to offer up or go up.
96
These translations accord with the animal being burnt, and the flames and smoke ascending to
heaven. 2.
burnt offering NIV, Wenham emphasises the animal is burnt before God and not consumed by humans.
3. whole offering Hartley was chosen because the whole animal is consumed on
the altar. 4.
whole burnt-offering BDBG. The different translations do not reflect any major differences in theology or
interpretation; they rather are looking at the physical action involved in the sacrifice from different angles.
The animal offered
There are three forms of hlu—herd, flock and then birds—outlined in
separate paragraphs to imply that if the offerer can afford to bring a bull, it is preferable to do so. If not, he may bring a sheep or goat, and if he cannot afford even
that, he may bring a bird. The bull, lamb or goat had to be without defect, which both accorded with
the holiness of God
97
and “prevented the offering of weak, deformed or crippled animals, animals that had lost much of their value.”
98
They were also required to be male. Milgrom suggests that “the male is economically more expendable, the female being the one to supply the milk and the
offspring.”
99
Most scholars, however, like Hartley, think it is because of the higher value placed on the male in that society.
100
This is backed up if one looks at the graded offerings in Lev 4 where bulls are offered in the two most important cases.
101
96
Hartley, John E., Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary volume 4; Dallas: Word Books, 1992, p.17.
97
Hartley, Leviticus, p.19.
98
Hartley, Leviticus, p.19.
99
Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16, The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1991, p.147.
100
Hartley, Leviticus, p.18. In Lev 27:1-8 the higher price for a man redeeming himself from a vow to serve God reflects the higher price on redeeming a male slave; see Wenham, The Book of Leviticus,
p.338.
101
See Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.174.
If a bird was offered, it was to be a dove or pigeon. They are thought to be the only birds that the Hebrews domesticated.
102
Further latitude is shown to the poor in that there is no requirement for a male or an unblemished bird.
103
Washing
The animal’s legs and entrails are washed so as to ensure that no dirt on the legs or undigested food or dung defiles the altar.
Division of responsibilities
It appears that the worshipper undertook the messier tasks, such as washing, which would have polluted the clean and holy priest. In contrast, “[t]he blood, the
means of atonement cf. Lev 17:11 is the most sacred element and could only be handled by the priest. The priest catches the blood in a bowl Ex. 27:3; 38:3, stirring
it to keep it from coagulating. Then he throws it or dashes it against the large altar standing in the courtyard.”
104
It is the holy priest, too, who approaches the altar itself, and burns the animal.
In the case of the smaller sacrifice of a bird, fewer steps were involved, but the same principle governed the division of labour, i.e. the worshipper performed the
dirtier tasks. The same concern for the holiness of the priest is expressed in the regulations
concerning the correct priestly clothing, covering his private parts, as he approaches the altar to clear away the ashes. When he left to dispose of the ashes outside the
camp, he had to put on other clothes Lev 6:10f.
The stated purpose
Its purpose is stated but briefly. The worshipper is “to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make
rpk for him.” Lev 1:4. “It is a burnt offering, an hva, an aroma pleasing to Yahweh.” Lev
1:9,13,17. We will now attempt to penetrate the meaning of these short statements.
102
Hartley, Leviticus, p.23.
103
Hartley, Leviticus, p.23.
104
Hartley, Leviticus, p.21.
hva
The meaning of hva is enigmatic and has attracted various proposals:
1. an offering made by fire, by association with hva “fire” NIV.
2. a food offering NEB, TEV, Wenham, by association with an Akkadian word for
offerings made at a festival. 3.
a gift to create friendly relations between God and man Ellinger.
105
4. a sacrifice that is willingly received by Yahweh.
106
5. a generous, rich gift Driver.
107
Wenham points out the weakness of the first interpretation in that hva
“refers not only to sacrifices which are burned in whole or in part on the altar, but to the portions of sacrifices eaten by the priests 2:3,10; 7:30,35 and to the bread of the
Presence 24:7,9.”
108
Hartley uses the same critique against Wenham’s suggestion of food offering: if it refers to all these different kinds of sacrifices then to restrict it
to food offering is too narrow.
109
The final three interpretations are close to each other; they fit in well with what immediately follows: an aroma pleasing to Yahweh. Given the association with
a fairly wide variety of offerings, Hartley’s suggestion, that it is best translated simply as gift, seems wise. Milgrom also brings forward evidence to support this
conclusion: the purification offering which cleanses the tabernacle is never described as
hva. He writes: “A sacrifice that purges the sanctuary of the pollution caused b
y the accumulation of sin can hardly be called a gift.”
110
Leaning of a hand on the head of the animal
Several theories have been forwarded for the meaning of this action. 1.
Symbolic transference of the offerer’s sin to the animal. Morris, among others,
111
sup ports this theory. The sin is transferred to the animal “so that when it died it
105
Cited in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.56.
106
Targums Ps.-J. and Neof. cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.162.
107
Cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.162.
108
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.56, fn.8.
109
Hartley, Leviticus, p.14, fn.9.g.
110
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.162.
111
Shadal in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.151.
was taking the punishment due to the worshipper for his sins.”
112
Certain scholars think of it as the “obvious symbolism” of the action.
113
Such a transfer took place annually on the Day of Atonement when the high priest placed his hands on a goat, confessed the wickedness and rebellion of the
people over it before driving it into the desert Lev 16:21f. But the Day of Atonement, others argue,
114
is unique in its mention of such a transfer, and the high priest on that day laid both his hands on the goat, and not
just one. This difference would indicate a different meaning. Furthermore, the leaning of one hand occurs during, amongst others, the
ymlv, an offering which has “little concern with expiating sin.”
115
De Vaux also argues that according to the doctrine of Leviticus, the “expiatory force is not attached to the gesture of the
imposition of hands, but to the blood rite cf. Lev 17:11”
116
though it shall be argued below p.81 that the atonement is attached not only to the blood, but to
the sacrificial death and the rite as a whole. 2.
Identification of the soul of the offerer and that of the animal. Janowski argues that the gesture means the offerer participates in the death of the animal that dies
in place of him, a sinner.
117
Rowley argues that the death of the animal removes any obstacle to fellowship with God and at the same time symbolises the surrender
of self to God.
118
Milgrom quickly dismisses identification as magical and alien to biblical thought.
119
Another possible counter-argument is that the hand-leaning occurs in the rite for the
ymlv, which does not involve expiation of sin. 3.
An act associated with the declaration of the offerer of the purpose of the sacrifice.
120
Levine argues that hand- leaning “assured that sacrifices intended for
specific rites would be used solely for that purpose.” Milgrom,
121
though, points out that if a declaration took place, it was a discrete act independent of hand-
112
See Morris, Leon, The Atonement, Its Meaning and Significance; Leicester: IVP, 1983, p.47.
113
Morris, The Atonement, p.47.
114
Sansom, M.C. “Laying On of Hands in the Old Testament”, Expository Times 94 19823 323-336, p.324.
115
Hartley, Leviticus, p.20.
116
De Vaux, Roland, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice; Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964, p.28 fn.5.
117
In Hartley, Leviticus, p.20f.
118
In Hartley, Leviticus, p.20.
119
Milgrom, Leviticus, p.151.
120
Péter in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.151.
121
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.151.
leaning. If declaration was the main purpose, why was hand-leaning not required for all sacrifices?
4. Identification of the offerer as the owner of the animal and beneficiary of the
sacrifice. Rendtorff
122
finds the interpretation of the rite in the words that follow its prescription: “ ... so that it may be acceptable on his behalf to make atonement
for him.” Lev 1:4 The gesture ensures the sacrifice benefits the offerer, and
eliminates a surrogate offering on behalf of another, as stressed by Jewish tradition.
Wenham argues against this theory : “This is so self-evident that it hardly
seems necessary to express such a sentiment in a specific act.”
123
Milgrom, however, suggests the following reason for the necessity: “It is required for all
quadrupeds because they would have to be dragged in by rope or bought from the sanctuary stock. In either case, ownership would have to be established. Without
authenticated ownership, the sacrifice would be invalid.”
124
Milgrom further argues that the sacrifices for which hand-leaning was not required, e.g. a cereal
offering, bird, or reparation offering which could be commuted to money, could each be carried in the hand and thus the owner easily identified.
125
It is difficult to be sure of the meaning of this symbolic gesture when there are mere hints given in the text as to the signification. But the following arguments
taken together point towards the first option, the symbolic transfer of sin to the animal as the most probable.
There is a great similarity in the actions of laying on of one hand and the laying on of two hands on the day of atonement, the meaning of which is stated clearly
in Leviticus. The difference between one and two hands is not fundamental and may be
explained in one of two ways. It may have been caused by physical constraints, the offerer dragging an animal into the tabernacle may have had only one hand
free to place on the beast, whereas on the Day of Atonement, Aaron would probably have been helped by his attendant to manhandle the goat and
122
In Hartley, Leviticus, p.21.
123
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.62.
124
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.152.
125
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.151f.
consequently had both hands free. Alternatively, two hands may have been required for the Day of Atonement sacrifice because of the importance of
confessing over it “all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites” Lev 16:21, but the essential nature of the symbolic act was the same as laying on one hand.
The transfer of sin is a weighty matter and would appear to merit the place accorded to this hand-leaning action near the very beginning of the Levitical
regulations. It is in accordance with a major theme in the Pentateuch: the need for Israel to deal with its sin to live in the presence of a holy God. The identification
of the offerer, in contrast, is not stressed anywhere else in the text of Leviticus or indeed of the Old Testament.
As for the argument that hand-leaning is part of the ymlv which is not expiatory,
Wenham contends that “in some degree substitution seems to form part of the theology of all the sacrifices.
”
126
rpk Snaith writes that the origin of
rpk is obscure, as it occurs mainly in cultic passages: “Probably it means ‘cover over’; cf. Gen 32.20 Heb 21, ‘appease’,
literally cover his face so that he cannot see the wrong.”
127
It is traditionally translated “atonement” meaning reconciliation between man and God. According to
Wenham, rpk can have one of two emphases depending on the context, to wipe
clean or to pay a ransom:
128
1 to wipe clean or expiate defilement on account of sin. This is generally agreed to be a good translation in the context of the
tafj see below, section 5.5 where some holy object, such as the horns of the altar Lev 4:25 or the mercy seat
Lev 16:14 has been defiled, and needs to be purged by the application of blood. 2 to pay a ransom and propitiate God’s wrath against sin. The payment of a
ransom in the Old Testament allowed a guilty party to escape being punished by death. Wenham cites several examples:
129
126
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.111.
127
Snaith N.H. ed., Leviticus and Numbers, The Century Bible; London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1967, p.30.
128
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.59.
129
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.59ff.
A husband was entitled to exact the death penalty against a faithless wife and her lover Lev 20:10, but he might choose to spare them on the payment of a ransom
rpk Prov 6:35. By offering incense as a ransom rpk Aaron stopped a plague that would have
destroyed Israel Num 16:47. Similarly Phinehas halted a national plague by executing one of the Israelites
guilty of worshipping foreign gods, thus paying a ransom rpk for the people of
Israel Num 25:13.
Wenham argues that the hlu could function similarly as a ransom, for
example when: David provoked the wrath of Yahweh by taking a census, and Yahweh brought a
plague on Israel, it stopped when David offered tlu and ymlv 2 Sam 24:25.
God told Job’s friends to sacrifice an hlu so that they would not be dealt with according to their folly Job 42:8.
King Ahaz neglected to present “burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel. Therefore the wrath of the LORD came on Judah and Jerusalem” 2 Chr
29:7-8, RSV. An hlu was made as atonement for the Levites who were being consecrated to
Yahweh Num 8:5-12. They needed a ransom here because as sinful men coming into the presence of holy God, they were deserving of death.
Levine helpfully comments: “Basic to the theory of sacrifice ... was the notion of substitution. The
sacrifice substituted for an individual human life or the lives of the members of the community in situations where God could have exacted the
life of the offender ... Indeed, all who stood in God’s immediate presence
risked becoming the object of divine wrath. But substitution could avert the danger ... ”
130
130
Levine, Leviticus, p.115.
Hartley, in contrast, argues that propitiation of divine wrath should not be linked with any of the Levitical sacrifices, as it is not specifically mentioned in the
regulations. In contrast to the rare cases where God’s fierce anger against his people is displayed, “the cult is concerned with the usual, daily means of approaching God.
Thus not God’s kindled wrath but his potential wrath is the direct focus of expiating sacrifices ... ”
131
However, making a distinction between kindled wrath and potential wrath does not take away from the fact that it is God’s wrath that is averted, which is
the meaning of propitiation. Wenham further argues for
rpk meaning ransom payment rather than cleansing in the context of the
hlu: “In those rituals where kipper means ‘to wipe clean’ or ‘to cleanse’ it is clear
that the blood is applied carefully to the polluted object ... This is not the case with the burnt offering. The blood is simply caught and thrown over the altar.
The focus of attention is the animal’s burning carcass and the soothing aroma thereby produced. In the burnt offering there is no sign of any attempt at
cleansing the worshippe r, priest or altar.”
132
We conclude then that rpk has two emphases according to the context in
which it is found. In the context of Hlu, it means to ransom, while in the context
of Tafj, it means to cleanse. It is not unusual for a word to develop more than
one meaning according to context. Indeed, there is a common denominator, that is in both contexts,
rpk is overturning the negative consequences of sin.
Soothing aroma to Yahweh
According to Hartley, “Smell arouses one’s memory and reaches very deeply in
to a person’s emotions ... The sacrifice is offered in order to move God to remember with mercy the one who makes this sacrifice.”
133
So this anthropomorphism expresses the same idea as propitiation, averting God’s wrath.
The hlu soothes Yahweh, and changes his attitude to man.
131
Hartley, Leviticus, p.65.
132
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.59.
133
Hartley, Leviticus, p.22.
A clear example is the hlu Noah offered. Yahweh had decided to destroy
humankind for he saw that every imagination of man’s heart was evil from his youth Gen 6:5. In contrast, after the flood, Noah made his
hlu, and “when Yahweh smelled the soothing aroma Yahweh thought: I will never again curse the ground
because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” Gen 8:21. Wenham comments on this: “Though man was unchanged in his sinfulness,
God’s attitude to man altered, thanks to the burnt offering.”
134
Application of blood to the altar
The only part of the Old Testament which explicitly states how sacrificial blood effects atonement is found in
Yahweh’s words in Lev 17:10-11: “Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats blood—I will set my
face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make
atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”
The meaning of this text is debated. Some insist with von Rad that it “is not the blood itself that effects expiation, but the blood in so far as the life is contained in
it.”
135
Hicks argues that blood was not associated with death in the Old Testament.
136
Vincent Taylor, in a similar vein, states, “The victim is slain in order that its life, in the form of blood, may be released ... the bestowal of life is the fundamental idea in
sacrificial worship.”
137
Thus, the RSV translate s the final phrase: “it is the blood that
makes atonement, by reason of the life.” Others, like Harrison, see blood as a symbol of life given up in death. “Shed
blood constituted visible evidence that life had indeed been offered up in sacrifice.”
138
This i s reflected in the NIV translation: “it is the blood that makes
atonement for one’s life.” Morris sets out cogent arguments to defend this latter view:
139
134
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.56.
135
Quoted in Hartley, Leviticus, p.274.
136
See Morris, The Atonement, p.54.
137
Quoted in Morris, The Atonement, p.54.
138
Harrison, R.K., Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester: IVP, 1980, p.182.
139
Morris, The Atonement pp.53-61.
1. Out of 362 occurrences of blood in the Old Testament, 203 denote violent death
contra Hicks. 2.
Even in those passages that link blood and life, the meaning is “life given up in death”. He illustrates this with Gen 9:5 in which Yahweh says: “for your
lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting … from each man, too, I will surely
demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.” Here “what is in mind is
murder.”
140
3. The Hebrew vpn, translated “life” in Lev 17:11, often has the meaning “life
given up in death”. “Thus the Hebrew might speak of ‘lying in wait for the nephesh
’ or ‘laying a snare for the nephesh’ when murder is planned e.g. 1 Sam 28:9; Prov 1:18.”
141
4. There are occasions of atonement in the Old Testament, which involved death of
a victim, outside the cult and the application of blood. Examples include Moses’ offer to be blotted out in atonement for the sin of the people Exod 32:30-32,
and Phinehas’ execution of the principal offenders which effected atonement for Israel Num 25:13.
5. Sometimes atonement is linked with another part of the sacrificial process, such
as the burning of fat, or possibly the sacrificial rite as a whole Lev 4:26,31,35 and Exod 29:31-33, rather than specifically to blood.
His conclusion is therefore that it is “plainly the death of the victim that is the important thing.”
142
The purposes of hlu
hlu was a most versatile sacrifice. Milgrom comments, “The burnt offering
is a gift with any number of goals in mind.”
143
Tyler
144
proposed in 1871 that all sacrifices were gifts. In its crude form his theory reduces all sacrifices to the
mechanistic notion of reciprocity, even bribery: “I give to you so that you will give
to me in return.”
145
Averbeck modifies this, for on an integrated reading of the Old Testament, God has no need of being fed see Ps 50:12-14. He lacks nothing.
140
Morris, The Atonement, p.56.
141
Morris, The Atonement, p.56.
142
Morris, The Atonement, p.61.
143
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.176.
144
See Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.998.
145
Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.998.
Averbeck writes rather of gifts as tribute, the purpose of which is to “impress the
people and the priests with the fact that God was actually physically present, dwelling in the tabernacle.”
146
Malina develops a similar idea in terms of clients paying tribute to a patron: God as owner of all, does not need their sacrifices; but they need to sacrifice to God.
“Sacrifice to God symbols sic a gift of a client to a patron, an expression of asymmetrical but reciprocal relationship with a view to power, protection and the joy
of bathing in the presence of the patron of patrons.”
147
The goals of the gift may be classified under three headings: 1.
An expression of trust and readiness to obey Ya
hweh tested Abraham’s faith and obedience requiring him to offer his son Isaac as an
hlu. Blood ritual of some kind was common in the ancient Near East on the occasion of making a covenant. When Yahweh set out the terms of the covenant at
Sinai the people responded, “Everything the LORD has said, we will do” Exod 24:3. Moses then offered
tlu
148
and ymlv, and read the Book of the Covenant Exod
24:5ff. In the absence of comment in the text on its significance, the natural deduction in the context is that the sacrifice constituted ratification on behalf of the people.
2. An expression of thankfulness
After childbirth, or a healing, or the purification of a bodily pollution, an hlu
was required. Wenham suggests that public thanksgiving could be the underlying motive here for someone who has proved God’s faithfulness in his life.
149
Thanksgiving could likewise be the motive when an hlu was presented as a freewill
offering, a spontaneous act in response to God’s goodness. Again, as a votive offering, vowed in advance, it was given in thankfulness for the executed prayer Lev
22:18ff. 3.
Atonement This purpose came to dominate in the cult. The
hlu was an essential part of the regular pattern of cultic worship prescribed in Num 28-29. There was daily,
weekly, monthly, and feast day acts of worship each of which required specific hlu.
146
Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.999.
147
Malina 1993 The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, p.171.
148
The plural form of hlu.
149
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.58.
Hartley’s comment is appropriate: “As an atoning sacrifice, the whole offering was offered not so much for specific sins, but for the basic sinfulness of each person and
the society as a whole ... The frequent presentation of whole offerings enabled the covenant community, despite the human proneness to sin, to maintain fellowship
with the holy God.”
150
It was customary for an hlu to be made every morning and every evening
Num 28:3-8, and it was incumbent on the priests to keep the fire going day and night, to not let it go out Lev 6:9-13. Calvin, noting that the first burnt offerings in
both tabernacle and later temple were lit by fire from heaven, concludes that the fire had to be kept going so “that the offerings should be burnt with heavenly fire.”
151
Keil sees the perpetual fire as “a visible sign of the uninterrupted worship of Jehovah,”
152
and Wenham adds that it was a “reminder of the constant need for atonement.”
153
Conclusion
The offerer presented the hlu as a gift to Yahweh, but the initiative
originally came from Yahweh: it was the means he ordained for worship. It could express thankfulness to Yahweh and trust in him, but most prominent was its
provision of atonement for the sinner.
5.3
hjnm
Figure 11: The
hjnm
ritual
Actor Action
Worshipper Prepares the grain with oil and frankincense
Worshipper Presents the offering to the priest
Priest Burns a handful of mixture as a memorial portion, a
soothing aroma to Yahweh Priest
Eats the rest
150
Hartley, Leviticus, p.18.
151
Quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.119.
152
Quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.119.
153
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.120.
Translation
This offering is unique among the five main types of Levitical sacrifices in that it does not involve animals.
hjnm is the general word for gift, tribute, or any kind of offering to God whether grain or animals BDBG. In Leviticus, however, it is
used as a technical term for the offerings described in chapter two which comprise chiefly grain. Hence it is usually tra
nslated as “grain offering” or “cereal offering”.
Purpose
Leviticus does not specify the purpose of hjnm, so it will need to be gleaned
from clues such as the use of the term in contexts outside the cult, the designation of materials to be offered, and what use was made of the offering within the cult.
Uses of hjnm outside the cult
hjnm had a fairly wide semantic range; Driver defines it as a “present made to secure or retain good will.”
154
It often designated a gift to someone in a superior position to the giver. It could denote reverence to a divine being, homage to someone
in an important position who could help, or tribute from a vassal to an overlord as a mark of goodwill and faithfulness, as the following examples show:
1. Gideon gave a hjnm out of reverence to the angel of the Lord who appeared to
him Judg 6:19. 2.
Jacob’s sons sent a hjnm in homage to Pharaoh’s second in command when they returned to Egypt seeking food and favour from him Gen 43:11.
3. The Moabites paid hjnm as tribute to their victor King David 2 Sam 8:2,6.
Thus Hartley can argue, “The choice of hjnm for this offering adds a note that a grain offering is a gift for Yahweh in recognition of his lordship and his total claim
on the presenter’s life.”
155
“Tribute” probably better captures the idea than “gift” in the context of the Levitical offering, as Yahweh is already the owner of everything,
and no one can add to his possessions through any “gift”.
154
Quoted in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.196.
155
Hartley, Leviticus, p.29.
Materials designated for hjnm
1. tls, which is variously translated “fine flour”,
156
“choice flour”,
157
“flour of clear wheat”,
158
and “semolina flour”.
159
It is clear that it was the result of a “long and involved process,”
160
and thus “a luxury item in ancient society.”
161
2. Olive oil which was poured over the flour is associated sometimes with the Spirit
of God 1 Sam 10:1, 9ff; 16:13, and sometimes with joy Isa 61:3; Ps 45:7. 3.
Incense was mixed in the dough. This, too, has associations with joy. The proverb runs: “Oil and perfume make the heart glad” Prov 27:9.
4. Salt is a most vital element, as the text insists three times: “Season 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”
Lev 2:13. As Milgrom states, “the preservative qualities of salt made it the ideal symbol of the perdurability of a
covenant.”
162
To the worshipper it was a reminder that “God would never forsake him, and also that the worshipper had a perpetual duty to uphold and keep the
covenant law.”
163
Two elements were expressly forbidden to be added to the hjnm: leaven and
honey, but no reason is given for their exclusion. Some commentators argue that the exclusion was a reaction against the widespread use of honey in pagan cults.
164
However, the regular cultic use of other elements regularly used in pagan worship argues against this suggestion,
165
and Lev 2:12 forbids their use only on the altar: “You 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.” Other commentators suggest that
leaven and honey both cause fermentation, which is unacceptable on the holy altar because of its associations with decay and corruption.
166
156
NIV.
157
JPS.
158
Ibn Ezra see Levine, Leviticus, p.10.
159
Levine, Leviticus, p.10.
160
Scherman, Nosson and Hersh Goldwurm, Leviticus; New York: Mesorah Publications Ltd., 1989, p.59f.
161
Hartley, Leviticus, p.30.
162
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.191.
163
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.71.
164
Maimonides quoted in Levine, Leviticus, p.12.
165
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.190.
166
E.g. Keil, Hertz quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.71.
Memorial portion
There are two main interpretations put forward for the priest being required to burn a handful of the grain on the altar as a memorial portion.
1. Driver, who prefers “token” as a translation to “memorial portion”, asserts, “It is
the sign whereby the worshipper is reminded or taught that the whole offering is in fact owed to God but that He is pleased to accept only a part of it as a
‘token,’ while remitting the burning of the rest of it on the altar so that it may be
otherwise consumed.”
167
2. The presenter is remembering God’s grace in giving him his daily food or good
things.
168
In addition, the of fering stirs God’s memory concerning his past
commitments, so that he will continue to act graciously to the presenter.
169
In support of this, it is noted that each time Leviticus mentions the memorial portion
2:2; 2:9; 2:16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7 , it is follow
ed by one or both of the phrases “as a gift to Yahweh” and “as an aroma pleasing to Yahweh”.
The third interpretation seems to fit the context best. If, as hinted above, hjnm
is a reverent tribute of a vassal seeking God’s favour, the burning of the memorial portion, including incense to please him, and salt to remind him of the covenant
between them, fits well into the overall picture. It may be argued that such a small portion can hardly be called tribute, but it
must be remembered that the rest of the offering was given to Aaron and his sons and this is also “a most holy portion of the Lord’s food offerings” Lev 2:3. It was all a
gift to Yahweh; it was all holy, consumed by fire on the altar or by Yahweh’s priests.
Firstfruits
Lev 2:14-16 describes the rite to be carried out “if you bring a grain offering
of firstfruits to the LORD.” The rationale behind the firstfruits fits in again with the picture of the
hjnm as a tribute. In the firstfruits ceremony, the first part of the harvest was brought to Yahweh in acknowledgement that he is the Lord of the land
and in gratitude for his goodness Deut 26:1-11.
167
Quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.68.
168
Hoffman quoted in Hartley, Leviticus, p.30.
169
Childs quoted in Hartley, Leviticus, p.30.
Relationship with hlu
The regulations for the hjnm follow immediately those for the hlu in
Leviticus, which to Milgrom
170
and others suggests that they are closely related. “Rabbinic tradition clearly regards the cereal offering as the poor man’s burnt
offering.”
171
The rationale is that there is a range of sacrifices in Lev 1 and 2, commencing with the bull, becoming progressively less costly: lamb, goat, bird, and
ending with grain. Milgrom supports this view with the observation that the relationship between burnt and cereal offerings is “comparable to the graduated
purification offerings, where too the cereal offering follows that of birds 5:7-10, 11-13 and where the reason for allowing both is explicitly stated:
‘if his means do not suffice for an animal.
’”
172
The difficulty with this view is that more often than not, the
hjnm was not offered alone, but along with the hlu or ymlv. Most modern scholars see a different relationship: the
hjnm usually accompanied the
hlu or sometimes the ymlv to supplement the meat with bread, thus completing the food gift to Yahweh. Wenham, for example, writes, “The cereal
offering ... normally followed the burnt offering. God having granted forgiveness of sins through the burnt offering, the worshipper responded by giving to God some of
the produce of his hands in cereal offering.”
173
Secondary purpose of the hjnm
The offering of grain served a practical purpose in providing the priests who owned no land with their staple foodstuffs. One particular occasion of this was when
a hjnm was offered alone during the jealousy ritual to determine whether a wife
accused of adultery was guilty or not Num 5:15. “In this case the offering does not seem to be much more than a payment to the priest for administering the ... ritual.”
174
Oil and incense were not added to the grain, probably because it was not a joyful occasion.
175
170
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.196.
171
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.195.
172
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.196.
173
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.71.
174
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.70.
175
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.70.
Conclusion
The hjnm was usually a joyful occasion when tribute was presented to
Yahweh with two main purposes: 1.
“It was an act of dedication and consecration to God as Saviour and covenant King. It expressed not only thankfulness, but obedience to and a willingness to
keep the law.”
176
2. “It caused God to remember [the offerer] in covenant faithfulness.”
177
In combination with the hlu, it was repeated many times in a lifetime. As
Wenham comments: “Man’s sinful nature requires that he repeatedly seek divine forgiveness and he renew his dedication to God and his co
venant vows.”
178