Chapter 2 (Cereal or Meal Offering) pages 63-73
North attempts to see in the legislation concerning the jealousy that might come upon a suspicious husband over the fidelity of his wife (Num 5:11-31) a parallel in the cereal offering directions in Leviticus chapter 2. He writes (page 64 - my italics) that
‘God responded immediately to this jealousy offering, intervening in history to identify a guilty wife, but only in cases of adultery...her eating of this offering would cause her thigh to rot and her belly to swell (5:22)’
and definitively identifies the cereal offering as being the same offering as that outlined in the Levitical ordinances when he says (page 64 - my italics) that
‘...it was this...tribute offering which was brought to the priest by a husband in cases where the husband accused his wife of adultery...’
Unfortunately for North, the circumstances of the offering lead us to believe that this was not intended to be one and the same offering. To begin with, it wasn’t the cereal offering that caused God to respond to the husband’s accusations of infidelity but the water of bitterness. Num 5:27 states that
‘…when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people’
Even though the cereal offering is seen as a calling upon God or, perhaps better, as a part payment for the priest for his service (part of the cereal offering was given to the officiating priest), North’s statement that the woman actually ate the offering (quoted above) is obviously wrong.
Neither is it identical to the Levitical cereal offering for it says (Num 5:15) that
‘...he shall pour no oil upon it and put no frankincense on it...’
showing that, although it may bear the same title, it’s substantially different.
.)(.
North also sees a positive identification of the Levitical cereal offering in the offering of the two loaves at the festival of Pentecost. He notes (pages 69-70 - my italics) that
‘The meal offering is associated in the text with the firstfruits offering, another meal offering (Lev 2:12, 14). Firstfruits was a mandatory annual offering (Ex 23:16, 19 [which refer to Pentecost])...The firstfruits payment was mandatory. This was his public acknowledgement of his subordination to God through the Aaronic priesthood...Ex 23:17 indicates that the public offering of the firstfruits [that is, Pentecost]...was mandatory for all the men of Israel’
The problem here is twofold. Firstly, the two loaves that were brought to the Lord at Pentecost to be waved before him were leavened (Lev 23:17) which forbid them from being considered to be Levitical cereal offerings (Lev 2:11) and, secondly, the offering was a national and not an individual one.
This is the way that the rabbis understood the Scriptures and it’s the most obvious interpretation of the instructions in Lev 23:18-19 that
‘...you shall present with the bread seven lambs a year old without blemish, and one young bull, and two rams; they shall be a burnt offering to YHWH, with their cereal offering and their drink offerings, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to YHWH. And you shall offer one male goat for a sin offering, and two male lambs a year old as a sacrifice of peace offerings’
where the total amount of sacrifices per individual (if we follow North’s interpretation) were a dozen! This is, simply, too large a volume to be considered to represent a single offering and, like the two loaves, was always taken to represent the nation’s offering at the festival.
North is quite correct in asking (page 70)
‘How did the priests handle the immense flow of individual sacrifices?’
but, as we’ve seen, the sacrifices were corporate, not individual. However, his statement (page 71) that
‘Firstfruits would have tended to be a more male-oriented festival...Passover was a family celebration’
is probably quite correct - not because the women were
‘...tired of travelling with children’
but because the Passover naturally included entire families (even though it was just the males who were obligated to attend as seen previously) whereas Pentecost did not (the Exodus delivered family units from Egypt which were then made into the nation of Israel, whereas Pentecost had no similar historical event).
.)(.
North’s question which occurs in his concluding remarks (page 72 - my italics) and which he goes on to discuss that
‘The common Israelite, when he had committed an unnamed infraction, brought a meal offering to the priest for sacrifice. What was the nature of this transgression? We are not told...’
leads him on to a fairly fundamental error of reading into the Levitical text something that is, simply, not there. We nowhere read in the account that the cereal offering secures any atonement for the offerer - we read it in the text of the burnt offering (1:4), the sin offering (4:20) and the guilt offering (5:16) but neither in the cereal or peace offering do we read a categorical statement (or even a statement that can infer) that some sort of transgression is in mind when the offering was to be brought to the tent of meeting.
As we will go on to see, there is good reason for this - the cereal offering did not secure atonement and was never intended that it was to do so. It is, by translation of the name, simply a tribute/freewill offering offered to God out of the overflow of a worshipper’s heart.
North almost arrives at this conclusion in his main discussion of the offering when he writes (page 64) that the Hebrew word was
‘...what Jacob gave to Esau when he passed through Esau’s territory (Gen 32:13, 18); it was the “present” that Ehud promised to deliver to the tyrant Eglon (Judges 3:15); it was what the Moabites brought to David (II Sam 8:2) and the Syrians brought to David (II Sam 8:6)’
but, unfortunately, he prefers to attempt to try and find some sort of atoning purpose in its offering which isn’t there in the text.
.)(.
North is quite correct to point out (page 65) that
‘[The cereal offering] accompanied the inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood. The day Aaron was anointed, he and his sons had to offer a meal offering (Lev 6:20)’
but he fails to realise that the Scripture mentions that the cereal offering which begins on the day that the High Priest is anointed, continues throughout the ministry of that High Priest, the offering being divided between a morning and evening offering (the second half of the verse previously quoted) and the entire offering was to be burned with nothing saved for the consumption for the priest.
In so doing, the High Priest was continually reminded of his need to return thanks to God (the cereal offering being, simply, a gift of a worshipper to God) that he had been chosen to minister in the most important role amongst God’s people as the mediator between themselves and God.
North’s assertion (page 65) that
‘As the administrator of the consuming fire of the altar, he had to be reminded that he, too, was under the threat of God’s eternal fire’
is too strong - especially as it is difficult to see any reference to Divine judgment in the cereal offering of Leviticus chapter 2.
.)(.
Again, North’s statement (page 67) that
‘God delighted in the ritual burning of representative animals and meal. This symbolised (represented) God’s delight in the eternal burning of His enemies, angelic and human (Rev 20:14-15). This particular delight of God ought to be the terror of man’
is far too strong and needs to be tempered by such verses as Ezek 18:23 which has the Lord reasoning with His prophet Ezekiel
‘Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord YHWH, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?’
This is mentioned in the context of the continual fire that was to burn on the altar of burnt offering, sandwiched in-between details of inclusions and exclusions listed in Lev 2:11-13. He sees the fire of the altar as being indicative of (page 67)
‘God’s permanent, day-and-night testimony of His wrath’
but, if this is the case and if this is what the Jews understood by it, the cereal and peace offering (the former a simple gift to God and the latter a participation of fellowship with God) are frightening to witness - as the individual offering does not atone (no dealing with ‘offence before God’ is mentioned and it’s certainly not intended to be read into the legislation) the offerer would only see his gift/act of fellowship being consumed by the wrath of God’s anger, giving the impression that it has not been accepted at all.
Of course, fire is used of the presence of God in the Old Testament (Gen 15:17, Ex 3:2, Ex 13:21 - there are numerous occasions but I mention only these to show that the Israelite already had experience of that symbolism) and the fire that came initially to light the altar of burnt offering originated within the place where the presence of God dwelt (Lev 9:24 - there had already been offerings presented to God through fire but this that came from the Lord’s presence inaugurated the High Priesthood and initiated the Levitical sacrificial system).
Far from symbolising God’s anger (and, therefore, by extension, His withdrawal from His people), the fire represented the Divine presence.
Finally, in this same section, though North deals in a reasonable space with both leaven and salt, honey just gets one short mention on page 66 to confirm North’s belief that it was a symbol that was used to represent much the same thing as leaven and, as far as I can determine, frankincense (mentioned only in connection with the offering of flour [2:2] or crushed grain[2:15]) is ignored along with oil (to be included with each offering either at the cooking or offering stage).
These four specific ‘elements’ will be briefly dealt with below.
North attempts to see in the legislation concerning the jealousy that might come upon a suspicious husband concerning the fidelity of his wife (Num 5:11-31) a parallel in the cereal offering directions in Lev 2. He writes (page 64 - my italics) that
‘God responded immediately to this jealousy offering, intervening in history to identify a guilty wife, but only in cases of adultery...her eating of this offering would cause her thigh to rot and her belly to swell (5:22)’
and definitively identifies the cereal offering as being the same offering as that outlined in the Levitical ordinances when he says (page 64 - my italics) that
‘...it was this...tribute offering which was brought to the priest by a husband in cases where the husband accused his wife of adultery...’
Unfortunately for North, the circumstances of the offering lead us to believe that this was not intended to be one and the same offering. To begin with, it was not the cereal offering that caused God to respond to the husband’s accusations of infidelity but the water of bitterness (Num 5:27)
‘And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people’
even though the cereal offering is seen as a calling upon God or, perhaps better, as a part payment for the priest for his service (part of the cereal offering was given to the officiating priest). His statement that the woman actually ate the offering (quote above) is obviously wrong.
Neither is it identical to the Levitical cereal offering for it says (Num 5:15) that
‘...he shall pour no oil upon it and put no frankincense on it...’
showing that, although it may bear the same title, it is substantially different.
.)(.
North also sees a positive identification of the Levitical cereal offering in the offering of the two loaves at the festival of Pentecost. He notes (pages 69-70 - my italics) that
‘The meal offering is associated in the text with the firstfruits offering, another meal offering (Lev 2:12, 14). Firstfruits was a mandatory annual offering (Ex 23:16, 19 [which refer to Pentecost])...The firstfruits payment was mandatory. This was his public acknowledgement of his subordination to God through the Aaronic priesthood...Ex 23:17 indicates that the public offering of the firstfruits [that is, Pentecost]...was mandatory for all the men of Israel’
The problem here is twofold. Firstly, the two loaves that were brought to the Lord at Pentecost to be waved before him were leavened (Lev 23:17) which forbid them from being considered to be Levitical cereal offerings (Lev 2:11) and, secondly, the offering was a national and not an individual one.
This is the way that the rabbis understood the Scriptures and it is the most obvious interpretation of the instructions in Lev 23:18-19 that
‘...you shall present with the bread seven lambs a year old without blemish, and one young bull, and two rams; they shall be a burnt offering to the Lord, with their cereal offering and their drink offerings, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord. And you shall offer one male goat for a sin offering, and two male lambs a year old as a sacrifice of peace offerings’
where the total amount of sacrifices per individual (if we follow North’s interpretation) were a dozen! This is, simply, too large a volume to be considered to represent a single offering and, like the two loaves, was always taken to represent the nation’s offering at the festival.
North is quite correct in asking (page 70)
‘How did the priests handle the immense flow of individual sacrifices?’
but, as we have seen, the sacrifices were corporate, not individual. However, his statement (page 71) that
‘Firstfruits would have tended to be a more male-oriented festival...Passover was a family celebration’
is probably quite correct - not because the women were ‘...tired of travelling with children’ but because the Passover naturally included entire families (even though it was just the males who were obligated to attend as seen previously) whereas Pentecost did not (the Exodus delivered family units made into the nation of Israel, whereas Pentecost had no similar historical event).
.)(.
North’s question which occurs in his concluding remarks (page 72 - my italics) and which he goes on to discuss that
‘The common Israelite, when he had committed an unnamed infraction, brought a meal offering to the priest for sacrifice. What was the nature of this transgression? We are not told...’
leads him on to a fairly fundamental error of reading into the Levitical text something that is, simply, not there. We nowhere read in the account that the cereal offering secures any atonement for the offerer - we read it in the text of the burnt offering (1:4), the sin offering (4:20) and the guilt offering (5:16) but neither in the cereal or peace offering do we read a categorical statement (or even a statement that can infer) that some sort of transgression is in mind when the offering was to be brought to the tent of meeting.
As we will go on to see, there is good reason for this - the cereal offering did not secure atonement and was never intended that it was to do so. It is, by translation of the name, simply a tribute/freewill offering offered to God out of the overflow of a worshipper’s heart.
North almost arrives at this conclusion in his main discussion of the offering when he writes (page 64) that the Hebrew word was
‘...what Jacob gave to Esau when he passed through Esau’s territory (Gen 32:13, 18); it was the “present” that Ehud promised to deliver to the tyrant Eglon (Judges 3:15); it was what the Moabites brought to David (II Sam 8:2) and the Syrians brought to David (II Sam 8:6)’
but, unfortunately, he prefers to attempt to try and find some sort of atoning purpose in its offering which isn’t there in the text.
.)(.
North is quite correct to point out (page 65) that
‘[The cereal offering] accompanied the inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood. The day Aaron was anointed, he and his sons had to offer a meal offering (Lev 6:20)’
but he fails to realise that the Scripture mentions that the cereal offering which begins on the day that the High Priest is anointed, continues throughout the ministry of that High Priest, the offering being divided between a morning and evening offering (the second half of the verse previously quoted) and the entire offering was to be burned with nothing saved for the consumption of the priest.
In so doing, the High Priest was continually reminded of his need to return thanks to God (the cereal offering being, simply, a gift of a worshipper to God) that he had been chosen to minister in the most important role amongst God’s people as the mediator between themselves and God.
North’s assertion (page 65) that
‘As the administrator of the consuming fire of the altar, he had to be reminded that he, too, was under the threat of God’s eternal fire’
is too strong - especially as it is difficult to see any reference to Divine judgment in the cereal offering of Lev 2.
.)(.
Again, North’s statement (page 67) that
‘God delighted in the ritual burning of representative animals and meal. This symbolised (represented) God’s delight in the eternal burning of His enemies, angelic and human (Rev 20:14-15). This particular delight of God ought to be the terror of man’
is far too strong and needs to be tempered by such verses as Ezek 18:23 which has the Lord reasoning with His prophet Ezekiel
‘Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?’
This is mentioned in the context of the continual fire that was to burn on the altar of burnt offering, sandwiched in-between details of inclusions and exclusions listed in Lev 2:11-13. He sees the fire of the altar as being indicative of (page 67)
‘God’s permanent, day-and-night testimony of His wrath’
but, if this is the case and if this is what the Jews understood by it, the cereal and peace offering (the former a simple gift to God and the latter a participation of fellowship with God) are frightening to witness - as the individual offering does not atone (no dealing with ‘offence before God’ is mentioned and it is certainly not intended to be read into the legislation) the offerer would only see his gift/act of fellowship being consumed by the wrath of God’s anger, giving the impression that it has not been accepted at all.
Of course, fire is used of the presence of God in the Old Testament (Gen 15:17, Ex 3:2, Ex 13:21 - there are numerous occasions but I mention only these to show that the Israelite already had the experience of that symbolism) and the fire that came initially to light the altar of burnt offering originated within the place where the presence of God dwelt (Lev 9:24 - there had already been offerings presented to God through fire but this that came from the Lord’s presence inaugurated the High Priesthood and initiated the levitical sacrificial system).
Far from symbolising God’s anger (and, therefore, by extension, His withdrawal from His people), the fire represented the Divine presence.
Finally, in this same section, though North deals in a reasonable space with both leaven and salt, honey just gets one short mention on page 66 to confirm North’s belief that it was a symbol that was used to represent much the same thing as leaven and, as far as I can determine, frankincense (mentioned only in connection with the offering of flour [2:2] or crushed grain[2:15]) is ignored along with oil (to be included with each offering either at the cooking or offering stage).
These four specific ‘elements’ will be briefly dealt with below.
Leviticus Home Page
Old Doctrines Home Page