Commentary on Leviticus, Book · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
Ver. 1. Verſe 1 AND when any will offer a Meat-offering unto the LORD.] Here is a merciful proviſion for thoſe, who were neither able to offer Beaſts of any ſort, nor Birds, whom God ordered to bring Meal, (as was obſerved before on the firſt Chapter, v. 14.) which was called in the Hebrew Language Minchah, and by us tranſlated a Meat-offering: For it was a Korban, or Gift, as well as the foregoing, though of a lower ſort. And R. Levi Barcelonita thinks this ſort of mean Preſent (as we may call it) had the name of Mincah, becauſe ſuch Offerings were very often meerly voluntary; from whence whatſoever is not due among Men from another, is called Mincah, a Gift. Some of which were conſtant and ſtated, and alſo of a determinate quantity; being an Appendix to the daily Burnt-ſacrifice, Morning and Evening, as we read XXIX Exod. 38, 39, &c. But theſe here ſpoken of were voluntary, when any Man's Devotion inclined him to acknowledge God, and implore his Divine Bleſſing. And no certain quantity was preſcribed; only the Jews ſay, not leſs than an Ephah was accepted, but as much more as they pleaſed. See Dr. Outram in his excellent Book De Sacrificiis, p. 90.
His offering ſhall be of fine flour.] Viz. Of Wheatflour. For all the Offerings of this kind, whether for the whole Congregation, or particular Men, were of pure Wheat-flour, ſifted from the Bran; except only the Omer of Firſt-fruits of their Harveſt, XXIII. 13, 14. and that which was called the Mincha of Jealouſie, V Numb. 15. which were of Barley. Of theſe voluntary Offerings there were five ſorts, as appears by this Chapter: for they were either of raw Meal, (mentioned in this Verſe) or Meal made into Cakes, baked in an Oven, (which was of two ſorts, v. 4.) or baked in a Pan, v. 5. or in a Frying-pan, v. 7. The firſt of which was the moſt ancient, as appears from IV Gen. 3. and from what the Heathen ſay of it; particularly Plato, L. VI. de Legibus, and Pliny, L. XXX. Nat. Hiſt. cap. 5. where he ſaith Numa ordered the Romans Deos fruge colere, &c. And Pauſanias in his Attica tells us, in the Porch of the moſt high Jupiter there was an Altar, where they did not offer the Sacrifice of Beaſts, but only of fine Flour. The ſame he repeats in his Arcadia, and ſays this was ordained by Cecrops, that they ſhould Sacrifice only foreign, which the Athenians in his time called foreign. And accordingly Triptolemus, another of their moſt ancient Lawgivers, enacted this as one of his principal Laws, that they ſhould worſhip their Gods with the Fruits of the Earth. For theſe three Laws of his, Porphyry ſaith, were preſerved to his days, foreign (Lib. IV. foreign.) to honour their Parents, Worſhip their gods with the Fruits of the Earth, and hurt no living Creature. Which laſt St. Hierom (L. II. contra Jovin.) tranſlates, not to eat fleſh.
And he ſhall pour oil upon it.] Which was done to give this ſort of Offering a grateful reliſh, as Maimonides obſerves, P. III. More Nevochim, cap. 46. The Heathen uſed Oil in their Sacrifices, but not mixed with Flour; but poured upon the Fleſh of the Beaſt that was ſacrificed, to make it burn the better upon the Altar. So that of Virgil ſhows, Aeneid. VI.
Pingue ſuperque Oleum fundens ardentibus extis.
And put frankincenſe thereon.] To make a ſweet Odour in the Court of the Tabernacle, which otherwiſe would have been offenſive, by reaſon of the Fleſh that was burnt there daily, as the ſame Maimonides ſpeaks in the place before-named. When they came into the Land of Canaan, where they were required (XV Numb. 2, 3, &c.) to take care that this Mincha, or Meat-offering, ſhould attend all the Freewil-offerings of Beaſts, as well as the daily Morning and Evening Sacrifice, there is no Frankincenſe appointed; but a certain quantity of Wine, which perhaps was inſtead of it, (having a fragrant ſmell) and was not required in the Offering here mentioned. Both theſe were common in the Sacrifices of the Gentiles, as appears by this ſingle paſſage in Ovid, L. V. de Triſtibus, Eleg. 5.
Da mihi thura, puer, pingues facientia flammas,
Quodque pio fuſum ſtridat in igne merum.
Ver. 2. Verſe 2 And he ſhall bring it.] In a ſilver Diſh, or of ſome other Metal, (as R. Levi of Barcelona expounds it, Praecept. CXVI.) wherein he delivered it to the Prieſt, who carried it to the Altar, and preſented it to God by lifting it up over his Head; and, as the Jews generally ſay, turning it about to all the four quarters of the World, in token that it was offered to the Poſſeſſor of Heaven and of Earth.
To Aarons ſons the Prieſts.] To one of them that miniſtred at the Altar that day, this Offering was brought, as appears by the next words.
And he ſhall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof.] As much as he could take up between his fingers, ſaith the fore-mentioned R. Levi.
And of the oil thereof.] Which was mingled, as I ſaid before, with the Flour.
With all the frankincenſe thereof.] None of which was to be reſerved for the Prieſts own uſe; but intirely burnt upon the Altar. Which was contrary to the way of the Gentiles, who called Frankincenſe foreign, (as Diodorus Siculus ſpeaks, L. II.) a thing most beloved of the Gods, but yet offered only ſo much as they could take up with two fingers, or, as others ſay, three. See Cuperus his Apotheoſis Homeri, p. 74, &c.
And the Priest ſhall burn the memorial thereof upon the Altar.] As a grateful Acknowledgment unto God, that they held all they poſſeſſed of him their Sovereign LORD; whom they ſupplicated alſo hereby, that he would ſtill be mindful of them; that is, be gracious to them. For this Offering ſeems to have ſomething of the nature of an Holocaust, or whole Burnt-offering; though others will have it to be an Expiatory Sacrifice, becauſe part of it was eaten by the Prieſts. But it being ſaid in the next words, to be an Offering made by fire (which is the phraſe for a whole Burnt-offering, in the foregoing Chapter, v. 9, 13, 17.) I take the other to be the truer.
Of a ſweet ſavour unto the LORD.] The very ſame being ſaid of this ſort of Offering, which is of the foregoing, that were more chargeable, (I. 9, 13, 17.) Procopius Gazaeus had great reaſon here to obſerve (which cannot be too oft repeated) that true Piety is not demonſtrated by the greatneſs of its preſents. The way of Piety is open and eaſie unto all: For God's Commandment is exceeding broad. And he that maketh the ſmallest ſignification of it, if it be ſincere, differs nothing from him, who ſhows it by the largeſt Gifts, &c. So vain were the reaſonings of the Heathen, who diſputed, which were the moſt acceptable Sacrifices to their Gods, thoſe of living Creatures, or of Things inanimate. Julian contended that foreign, &c. the Sacrifices of living Creatures were more eſteemed, than of thoſe without life; becauſe they were nearer of kin to the living God, and the Author of Life. But his great Doctors, Pythagoras and Porphyrius (as St. Cyril obſerves, L. X. contra Julianum) condemned theſe Sacrifices of Beaſts, as hateful to their Gods; who they fancied were pleaſed only with thoſe that were made foreign of Fruits of the Earth, and of Frankincenſe. But they might have learnt from Moſes, if they had pleaſed, (Julian and Porphyry being acquainted with his Books) that theſe things were alike acceptable, God having reſpect to the Mind of him that offered, not to his Gifts.
Ver. 3. Verſe 3 And the remnant of the meat-offering ſhall be Aarons and his ſons.] To be eaten by them. But that Meat-offering which was offered for the Prieſts themſelves, was to be wholly burnt, and no part eaten, VI. 22, 23.
It is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire.] Nothing is more known then the diſtinction which the Jews make between things moſt holy, and the lighter holy things, (as their phraſe is) which I took notice of before. The most holy were ſuch, as none whatſoever might eat of; or none but the Prieſts, and the Sons of Prieſts; and that only in the Sanctuary, and no where elſe, (See VI. 16, 26.) Such were all whole Burnt-offerings, all the Sin-offerings, and all the Peace-offerings for the whole Congregation. The lighter holy things were ſuch, as might be eaten by thoſe who were not Prieſts, in any place within the City of Jeruſalem, (to which their Camp now anſwered) and ſuch were all the Peace-offerings of particular Perſons, the Paſchal Lamb, the Tenth, and the Firſtlings of Cattle.
Ver. 4. Verſe 4 And if thou bring an oblation of a meat-offering baken in the oven.] This is the firſt ſort of baked Mincha's for the preparing of which there was an Oven in the Court of the Tabernacle, as afterward there was in the Court of the Temple, 1 Chron. XXIII. 28, 29. XLVI Ezek. 20.
It ſhall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil.] If the Cakes were thick, then the Oil was kneaded together with them: But if they were thin (like a Wafer) then it was only ſpread upon it, before it was baked, (See XXIX Exod. 2.) or, as ſome will have it, after it came out of the Oven. Concerning its being unleavened ſee below v. 11.
Ver. 5. Verſe 5 And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in a pan.] Or in a flat Plate, as we tranſlate it in the Margin. For Maimonides ſays, this was the difference between Macabath (which is the Hebrew word in this place) and Marcheſheth, that the former was a Pan or Plate without any Rim about it; and the other had one, as our Frying-pans have. And ſo Abarbinel, in his Preface to this Book, obſerves out of Jarchi, that there was a Veſſel in the Temple, which was only flat and broad, but had no riſing on the ſides of it: So that the Oil being poured upon it, when it was ſet on the fire, ran down and increaſed the Flame, and made the Cake hard.
It ſhall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil.] This ſort of Cake ſeems to have been both kneaded with Oil; and to have had Oil alſo poured upon it, after it was laid upon the Plate.
Ver. 6. Verſe 6 Thou ſhalt part it in pieces, &c.] This, according to Abarbinel, was done as it lay baking upon the Plate. Or, if this Diviſion was made after it was taken off, the reaſon was the ſame; becauſe part of it was to be given to God, and the reſt to the Prieſts.
And pour oil thereon.] Upon the pieces; that they might by this new Addition of freſh Oil, be made more ſavoury.
It is a meat-offering.] And therefore to be eaten with Oil, v. 1.
Ver. 7. Verſe 7 And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in the frying-pan.] This Veſſel was not flat, but deep, (as Abarbinel obſerves, See v. 5.) becauſe that which was baked in it was moiſt and fluid.
It ſhall be made of fine flour with oil.] The Oil was not kneaded with this ſort of Mincha, but put into the Pan, ſo that it mixed with the Flour; which might be ſhaken and moved up and down, as things are which are baken in Liquors. So Abarbinels words are in his Preface to this Book.
Ver. 8. Verſe 8 And thou ſhalt bring the meat-offering, that is made of theſe things unto the LORD, &c.] This relates to all the bake Meat-offerings before-mentioned, which were to be brought to the LORD at his Houſe, and there preſented to the Prieſt; who was to bring them to the Altar, when they were prepared as before directed. See v. 1, 2. And this variety of Mincha's was allowed, that the Table of the LORD (i. e. the Altar) might be furniſhed, and his Miniſters that waited on him entertained with all ſorts of Proviſions.
Ver. 9. Verſe 9 And the Priest ſhall take from the meat-offering a memorial thereof.] A part of the Cake (of whatſoever ſort it was) was ſeparated from the reſt for the LORD's portion; to whom it was offered as an acknowledgment of his Supream Dominion over them, and in commemoration of his goodneſs to them.
And ſhall burn it upon the Altar.] Before the other parts were eaten by the Prieſts; as was directed before about the fine Flour, v. 2.
It is an offering made by fire, of a ſweet ſavour unto the LORD.] See v. 2.
Ver. 10. Verſe 10 And that which is left of the meat-offering ſhall be Aarons and his ſons, &c.] All this Verſe hath been explained v. 3.
Ver. 11. Verſe 11 No meat-offering which ye ſhall bring unto the LORD, ſhall be made with leaven.] Theſe words [which ye ſhall bring unto the LORD] ſeem to have a peculiar emphaſis in this place; importing that no Meat-offering, part of which was offered upon God's Altar, ſhould be leavened. For no part of that leavened Bread which was offered in Euchariſtical Sacrifices, (VII. 13.) nor the two Loaves offered in the Feaſt of Pentecost, (which ſome miſtake for an Exception to this Precept) were offered upon the Altar, but given intirely to the Prieſts, as their portion.
Made with leaven.] There are many Moral Reaſons given, both by Jewiſh and Chriſtian Writers, why none of the Cakes before-mentioned ſhould have any Leaven in them, which I ſhall not here ſet down. There is ſome probability in their Opinion, who think this was ordered to refreſh their Memory, by putting them in mind of their Deliverance out of Egypt. But Maimonides ſeems to me to have given the beſt account of this, in his More Nevochim (P. III. cap. 46.) where he ſaith, God prohibited this to root out the Idolatrous Cuſtoms in thoſe days, as he found in the Books of the Zabij, who offered to their Gods no Bread but leavened. Next to this, the Account which Abarbanel gives of it is not to be diſregarded, who thinks it was forbidden, becauſe it would have made delay, if they had waited at the Tabernacle till the fermentation was perfected.
For ye ſhall burn no leaven, nor any honey in any offering of the LORD made by fire.] Neither mixed with Bread, nor alone by themſelves. For Honey was a kind of Leaven, and it is certain was uſed by the Heathen in their Religious Rites: As appears not only from Maimonides (who tells us in the place forenamed, that they choſe ſweet things for their offerings, and anointed their Sacrifices with Honey) but from a great number of other Authors, who make mention of it: Particularly Plato, who ſaith (in his VI de Legibus) that anciently Men did not Sacrifice living Creatures, but only fine Flour, foreign, and Fruits moiſtned with Honey. And ſo Phylarchus tells us (in Athenaeus his Deipnoſ. L. XV.) that the Greeks ſacrificed Honey to the Sun (which was the great God among the Gentiles) but poured no Wine upon his Altars. Which Polemon (in Suidas) calls foreign, a ſober Sacrifice; becauſe there was no Wine in it, but Honey and Water mixed together. Nay, there was ſcarce any God among the Heathen, to whom Honey was not offered, as Bochartus hath ſhown at large in his Hierozoicon P. II. L. IV. c. 12. But one Teſtimony may ſerve for all, which is from Pauſanias (in his Eliaca) where having reckoned up at leaſt fifty Altars in the Temple of Jupiter Olympius unto ſeveral Deities, and ſome of them common to them all, he ſaith, They ſacrificed upon every one of them once a Month, after an ancient manner, (foreign) Frankincenſe and Wheat mingled with Honey. Which being ſo common and ancient a thing among the Gentiles in their Idolatrous Worſhip, was the reaſon, it is likely, that God forbad it to be uſed in his Sacrifices. And under the name of Honey the Jews think Figs and Dates, and all other ſweet Fruits are comprehended. For the famous Compoſition among the Egyptians called foreign, which was burnt every day, Morning and Evening on their Altars, conſiſted of ſuch things, as well as of Myrrh, Calamus, and Cardamum. So Plutarch tells us (in his Book de Iſide & Oſir.) and mentions Honey in the firſt place, with Wine and Raiſins: foreign, &c. foreign, &c.
Ver. 12. Verſe 12 As for the oblation of the firſt-fruits, ye ſhall offer them unto the LORD, but they ſhall not be burnt on the Altar for a ſweet ſavour.] There were ſeveral ſorts of First-fruits (as I obſerved XXIII Exod. 19.) That which is here ſpoken of, was of the Corn unground, only a little parcht at the fire, which was to be preſented unto God; but not burnt on the Altar, becauſe they belong'd to the Prieſts.
Ver. 13. Verſe 13 And every oblation of thy meat-offering ſhalt thou ſeaſon with ſalt.] All the fore-named Mincha's, which were Korbans, (as they are often here called) were to be thus ſeaſoned, becauſe Salt was a thing never wanting at any Table; and all Meat is unſavoury without it.
Neither ſhalt thou ſuffer the ſalt of the Covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat-offerings.] It is called the Salt of the Covenant of God, as ſome think, becauſe required by this Law, which they covenanted with God to obſerve, as much as to offer Sacrifices; which were not acceptable without Salt, as appears from the Repetition of it three times in this one Verſe. But there is a plainer reaſon than this, which is, That the Sacrifices being God's Feaſts, and they that did partake of them being his Gueſts, who did in a manner eat and drink with him at his Table; the Salt that was caſt upon all Sacrifices (as appears by the words following) is called the Salt of the Covenant, to ſignifie that, as Men were wont to make Covenants by eating and drinking together, (where Salt is never wanting at their Tables, but a neceſſary Appendix at every Feaſt) ſo God by theſe Sacrifices and the Feaſts upon them, did ratifie and confirm his Covenant with thoſe that did partake of them. For Salt, as is commonly obſerved, being a conſtant concomitant of all Feaſts, and Covenants being made by eating and drinking at the ſame Table, where Salt was ever uſed; thence Salt it ſelf was counted by the Ancients to be the Symbol of Friendſhip, and proverbially uſed among the Greeks to expreſs it. By which other places may be explained, about which ſome have beſtowed vain labour, (XVIII Numb. 19. 2 Chron. XIII. 5.) where the ſame words are uſed, but inverted; it being called a Covenant of Salt (inſtead of the Salt of the Covenant) becauſe Covenants, as I ſaid, were eſtabliſhed by eating together, where Salt is never wanting.
With all thine Offerings thou ſhalt offer ſalt.] Not only with the Minchas, or Meat-offerings, mentioned in this Chapter, but with all other Sacrifices whatſoever. Which is ſo ſolemnly enjoyned, (as Maimonides ſays in the place before-named) becauſe the Heathen did not uſe any Salt in their Sacrifices. Which is not unreaſonable to think, ſince Honey (with which Salt doth not well agree) was in ſuch conſtant uſe among them. And therefore ſaith he, God prohibited us to offer Leaven or Honey, and commanded us with great ſeriouſneſs, to uſe Salt in all our Sacrifices. That is, as R. Levi of Barcelona explains it, (Praecept. CXVI.) the Fleſh of all Sacrifices was to be ſalted; and the Meal of all Minchas. For which he gives theſe two Reaſons; becauſe nothing is grateful to the Palate without Salt; which alſo preſerves things from Corruption, as the Sacrifices did their Souls from periſhing. Abarbanel ſaith the ſame. And therefore whatſoever the Cuſtom might be in ancient time among the Heathen; in after Ages they learnt from Moſes to uſe it in all their Sacrifices: As appears from Pliny and Ovid (and many other Authors) the firſt of which ſays, That Salt was ſo neceſſary, that no Sacrifices were offered ſine mola Salſa: which every one knows the Greeks called foreign and foreign. And among the Jews this Salt was not brought by him that offered the Sacrifice, but was provided at the Publick Charge; there being a Chamber in the Court of the Temple (as we read in Middoth, cap. 5. ſect. 2.) called The Chamber of Salt. Which was one of the three Rooms on the Northſide of the Court (as there were three other on the South-ſide, for other uſes) where the Fleſh of the Sacrifices were powdered, as the Mincha's were ſeaſoned at the very Altar. And this was ſo neceſſary, that though a Sacrifice was not lookt upon as null, if the Prieſt neglected to ſalt it; yet the want of it in the Mincha's (as the Hebrew Doctors ſay) made them void; becauſe it is here ſo expreſly required in this Verſe, Thou ſhalt not ſuffer the Salt of the Covenant of thy God to be lacking in thy Meat-offering. And whoſoever offered any Sacrifice without Salt, or with Honey or Leaven, was beaten, as Mr. Selden obſerves, L. II. de Synedr. cap. 13.
Ver. 14. Verſe 14 And if thou offer a Meat-offering of thy first-fruits unto the LORD, thou ſhalt offer for thy Meat-offering, &c.] This is very different from the Oblation of Firſt-fruits mentioned v. 12. For there they are called Reſith, which ſignifies the Firſt-fruits at Harveſt time: but here Bichurim, which properly imports the firſt ripe fruits before the reſt were ready. And therefore the manner of their Oblation was different from the former, which follows in the Concluſion of this Verſe. And firſt he deſcribes what he means by the Firſt-fruits, which he calls Abib, i. e. full Ears of Corn, but as yet green and moiſt: which he ſaith therefore in the next place muſt be dried by the fire; and then bruiſed and beaten in a Mortar, or with a Mill: and they were to be brought out of the richeſt or fatteſt of their Fields: for ſo the laſt words ſeem to ſignifie Gereſh Carmel, (which we tranſlate Corn beaten out of full Ears) for Carmel ſometimes ſignifies a fruitful Field, XXXII Iſa. 15. and therefore may very well be thought in this place to import, the largeſt Ears of tender Corn. And the intention of its Contuſion ſeems to have been, that it might be reduced into Flour; as it might eaſily be after it had been dried by the fire. And therefore differed from that Meat-offering mentioned v. 1. only in this; that the former was Flour of old Corn, this of new: and that was fine Flour ſifted from the Bran; this had nothing taken out of it, but remained as it came from the Mortar or the Mill. And ſo the LXX. ſeem to have underſtood it. There are thoſe indeed, who think it was only thraſhed out of the Husk, and ſo offered; and fancy alſo that from this word Gereſh, the Goddeſs, called Ceres, had her Name among the Gentiles. Which laſt Conceit is the ſtranger, ſince they endeavour to have it thought, that the Jews derived this Cuſtom of offering Firſt-fruits from the Gentiles; and not the Gentiles from the Jews. Whereas the Gentiles had no ſuch Cuſtom, that I can find, as this, to offer the Firſt-fruits of Green Corn; but only the Firſt-fruits of their Harveſt, which they called Novas fruges: of which the Romans thought it unlawful to taſte, antequam Sacerdotes primitias libaſſent, before the Prieſts had offered the Firſt-fruits, as Pliny tells us, Lib. XVIII. cap. 2. and Cenſorinus ſaith the ſame, cap. 1. de Die Natali. Or if they did offer any Firſt-fruits before Corn was ripe, they boiled them in a Pot; but did not roſt them in the fire, as is here directed. For ſo Heſychius ſeems to ſay, that in the Feaſt called foreign (which was in the Month that Anſwers to our April) they offered foreign, the Firſt-fruits that appeared out of the Ground, which they carried about, i. e. in Pots, as other Authors tell us. And Heſychius himſelf ſaith that foreign ſignified a Pot, full of Sacred Decoction.
Ver. 15. Verſe 15 And thou ſhalt put oil upon it, &c.] See v. 1.
And the Prieſt ſhall burn the memorial of it, part of the beaten corn thereof, and part of the oil, and all the frankincenſe. All the reſt that was not burnt, was the Prieſts portion, except the Frankincenſe; which is here ordered to be intirely offered to God, (See v. 2.) and made this, and ſuch like Offerings, be called an Offering of a ſweet ſavour unto the LORD, v. 2.9, 12.
It is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.] See upon v. 9.