Grain Offering - Leviticus 2

While chapter 1 dealt with the burnt offering of animals, either cattle or birds, chapter 2 deals with the offering of grain. Significantly, verse one in the KJV calls is “a meat offering,” but it actually means grain, so this begs the question, how did we get to calling it “meat” in the English translation? The IM says, “the word translated ‘meat offering’ is a Hebrew word meaning ‘a gift’ Used in a sacrificial sense the word refers to a gift of grain, flour, or breads.” TB explains that the Hebrew word for “meat” used here is “Minchah,” which is translated as “meal.” In our English today “meal” means breakfast, lunch, or dinner and with meat featuring a large part of our meals, it came up that way. He also suggested that the translation of “minchah” to “meat” has to do with “resolving a word translation problem that surfaces in the story of the dispute over an offering to God between Cain and Abel, which eventually led to Abel’s death at the hand of Cain.”

This has always been an interesting thought experiment for me because Abel’s offering of an animal was accepted while Cain’s offering of plant life was rejected. One translator might find it easier to explain or understand if he translated “minchah” to “meat” instead of “meal” because God accepted one and rejected the other. Meal could also mean ground grain like corn meal. Interestingly, TB notes that in the account of Cain and Abel’s sacrifices, both sacrifices are referred to as “minchah” instead of differentiating meat and plants. So he suggests that it was a cultural and possibly personal interpretation throughout the 1,500 years that the Old Testament was translated. But over all, the point is that what’s translated in chapter 2 is that this is a grain offering. Additionally, this grain offering could be made either in dough form or in already cooked loaves, which I thought was an interesting distinction.

The second point that is important to note here is that, unlike the burnt offering discussed in chapter 1, this grain offering isn’t to be made when sin is committed, but instead this is a tribute, or “gift to God”, a gift required of everyone regardless of circumstance, not to cleanse the person of some sort of offense. Of this tribute, once offered, the priest was to take a small portion, TB suggests about an inch, and then burn that completely but then the rest of the offering was available to be consumed by the priests and their families, which makes sense because if they are too busy performing temple functions and can’t work to provide food for their families, they still have to eat.

As far as what the grain offering consisted of, it was to be the best part of the grain, the semolina and it would be ground very finely, combined with olive oil and a little bit of frankincense. The IM makes an interesting note saying, “Oil was used in the scriptures to symbolize the Holy Ghost (D&C 45:56-57), grain to symbolize the word of God (see Mark 4:14), and frankincense to symbolize prayer (see Revelation 8:3). As man was meant to live physically by eating bread, so too was he meant to live spiritually in Christ by partaking of the word and Spirit of the Lord through prayer.”

The IM also pointed out that in a time when all grain was ground by hand, grinding the semolina into a very fine grain would have been labor intensive. The IM notes, “in each case the wheat had to be prepared in some way. ‘Fine flour’ required the greatest effort in an age when grain was ground mostly by hand. Thus, the offerer’s time, symbolic of his whole life, was invested in the offering.” Oil was probably a practical choice, needed in the cooking process but oil, especially olive oil is used in a variety of temple rituals so it would be outrageous to see it used here in this circumstance as well. The Frankensense, TB notes, “Was rather expenseive, and ut was used to make a pleasing odor, a nice aroma.” He also notes that in the burnt offering of anything, the smoke is an important part because it represents the prayers of the people ascending up into the heavens to God. Frankencense was used as an incense, it would smell nice and it probably had a decently low smoke point so that it might make the grain offering smoke more than just the grain and oil would. Salt was also added to the offering, which could have represented a binding covenant with God. Salt in terms of spiritual significance is referenced a lot throughout the scriptures so adding salt could make sense spiritually here as well. TB actually has a long shpiel about how salt was used in ancient covenant context but it was too much for me so I just kind of listened and thought “interesting.”

There are two ingredients that were expressly forbidden from being added to the grain offering, leaven and honey. TB notes that we aren’t expressly given reasons for this exclusion anywhere in the scriptures so anything else is just pure speculation. The only reference to UNleaven bread in the scriptures is during the Passover where the people eat unleavened bread as a reminder that God provided for their miraculous escape from the bondage of Egypt so suddenly that they didn’t even have time to let their bread rise that they were cooking to eat. So it’s possible that exclusing leaven here might be for the same intent, which makes sense.

As far as the exclusion of honey, TB’s notes that this almost certainly doesn’t mean honey found in a beehive that is extracted because he says that during this time anciently, bees were domesticated like they are now, they were sometimes found as a great treat randomly in the wild. He says that most likely this term “honey” means any kind of sweetening agent such as date sugar or fruit nectar. Anyway, TB’s speculation for the exclusion of honey is because In every other ancient Middle Eastern culture known, in fact honey WAS used… it was CALLED for… in religious activities (particularly in sacrifices to gods), simply because it was so rare and valued. Therefore, God’s prohibition for the Israelites AGAINST the use of honey in sacrifices was to separate Israel’s behavior and rituals form all others.” This is a reasonable explanation that makes sense.

The IM suggests with some confidence, “The ability of these elements to produce fermentation and spoilage made them excellent symbols of corruption, something which had no place in the refining and purifying effects of the law which the sacrifices symbolized.” This also makes sense.