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
man’s 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 man’s 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.
"Israel’s 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. Israel’s spiritual calling was to
work in the field of the kingdom of God, in the vineyard of his
Lord; this work was Israel’s 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 Master’s 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 Men’s
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 God’s 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 man’s daily food, Israel was reminded
that God’s 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 man’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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
man’s food, neither was it, like the meal, and cakes, and oil, a
product of man’s 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 David’s
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
Aaron’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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.
|