On The Altar: “a Pleasing Aroma To Yahweh” In The Theology Of Ephesians

On the Altar: “A Pleasing Aroma to Yahweh” in the Theology of Ephesians David Ketter November 7, 2008

—1 — On the Altar: “A Pleasing Aroma to Yahweh” in the Theology of Ephesians

Study of the history of Pauline studies demonstrates an anti-Judaistic bent since

the days of the Apostolic Fathers.1 While none of the Fathers were so bold as to dismiss Torah (contra Marcion), neither did they seriously accept Torah as a lens through which to understand the New Testament, unless it was by allegory. Since W.D. Davies published Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology in 1948, there has been a significant move in the realm of theology and biblical studies to re-inform our understanding of first century/Second Temple Judaism. This has led to a host of Pauline theologies and interpretations of the New Testament — many of which are at odds with each other.

For the purposes of this paper, this shift in Pauline studies provides the space to

ask the questions regarding Paulʼs understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly of Torah, and how it informs his theology. Even in the midst of this shift, however, New Testament hermeneutics has either diminished or ignored the role of what are commonly called the “ceremonial laws” of Torah. Yet, if ceremonial language and theology are present in Paul, then it behooves us to explore and understand it, that we may gain a fuller understanding of Paul. 1

Gager, J. 1985. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

—2—

Ephesians is one of the disputed writings in the Pauline corpus but, for the sake

of simplicity here, I will assume Pauline authorship and will refer the reader to T. Yeeʼs 2005 monograph on the subject.2 My focus will be upon Ephesians 5:2 which states, “And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” In order to understand Paulʼs use of “fragrant offering,” it will be necessary to establish the connection between this phrase and the Torah texts, where the phrase first appears; explore the contexts and content of some representative texts, as well as Ephesians 5:2; understand the liturgical purpose of the phrase; and discuss the connections between these texts and Paulʼs statement in Ephesians. The Language of “Fragrant Offering”

One of the common phrases in Torahʼs ceremonial language is reah nihoah.

Scholars have suggested translations such as “pleasing odor”3 and “soothing aroma,” 4 and this is the consensus. In many instances, the phrase occurs with the word ʻisseh, 5 an “offering by fire,”6 which establishes a literal connection with the sacrifice itself. In moving from the Hebrew text to the Septuagint, the translators consistently translated reah nihoah as osmen euodias, “a sweet savour,” 7 in Torah texts. This same Greek 2

Yee, T. 2005. Jews, Gentiles, and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paulʼs Jewish Identity and Ephesians. New York: Cambridge University Press. 3

Kronholm. 2003. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. XIII (364). Editor: Botterweck, G. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 4

Oswalt, J. 1997. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. III (58). Editor: VanGemeren, W. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 5

Jenson, P. & P.J. Olivier. 1997. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. III (1071). Editor: VanGemeren, W. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 6

Holladay, W. 1988. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (29) Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 7

Delling. 1967. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. V (494). Editor: Friedrich, Gerhard. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

—3— phrase, in turn, is found twice in the New Testament: Philippians 4:18 and Ephesians 5:2.

Linguistically, then, there is little doubt as to the connection. Moises Silva

describes these occurrences in Paul as “a fairly obvious dependence on the OT.” 8 We must examine whether he is also making use of the OT theology by this expression. In order to do this, we will return to representative Torah texts: Leviticus 2:1-13; 4:27-31; and Numbers 15:1-26. Summary of Representative Torah Texts

Leviticus 2:1-13. The book of Leviticus, concerned as it is with the continued

exposition of the Mosaic law governing Israelʼs liturgical life, is host to the broadest uses of reah nihoah. In this passage, Yahweh commands Moses concerning the grain or cereal offering and how it should be prepared. Unleavened cakes, anointed with oil and frankincense, are given to the priest who breaks off a “memorial portion” for burning (vs. 2) and retains the remnant for the sustenance of the Aaronic priests. Like some other offerings that the Levitical author describes, this offering is described as having “a pleasing aroma to Yahweh” (vs. 2, 9).

The text clarifies, however, that leaven and fruit honey cannot be offered as

ʻisseh.9 More specifically, “they shall not be offered on the altar for a pleasing aroma” (vs.12). The text does not go on to explain why, but the command stands without further comment in either the text or any commentators I have studied.

8

Silva, M. 2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. (838). Editors: Carson, D.A. & Beale, G.K. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 9

Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. Anchor Bible: Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (189). New York: Doubleday.

—4—

Leviticus 4:27-31. Another one of these occurrences, which Milgrom notes as

being exceptional among the Torah uses of the phrase, is in this passage concerned with the sacrifice for unintentional sin.10 This casuistic law makes reference to bimqom haoʼlah (in the place of the burnt offering, vs. 29) and zevah hashelomim (peace sacrifices, vs. 31) - connecting it with two of the three previous laws regarding offerings in Leviticus bearing the characteristic of reah nihoah.

Numbers 15:1-26. In the book of Numbers, the primary concern is continuing the

narrative of Exodus. In the midst of the story, the author provides mitzvot, “commands,” from the mouth of Yahweh through Moses. The premise of the passage in question, however, is that these commands are for when Israel receives the land that Yahweh has promised them (vs. 2). In the midst of this, the mitzvah, “command”, goes on to prescribe a pattern for a specific set of sacrifices, namely “a food offering or a burnt offering or a sacrifice, to fulfill your vow or as a freewill offering or at your appointed feasts, to make a pleasing aroma to Yahweh” (vs. 3) along with “the drink offering [...] and when you offer a bull as a burnt offering or sacrifice, to fulfill a vow or for peace offerings to Yahweh” (vs. 7-8).

The passage goes on the make the same guarantee for the ger, the “resident

alien” or “sojourner”, that they can make such offerings “with a pleasing aroma to Yahweh” (vs. 14). In this aspect, the passage is revolutionary, declaring that “You and the sojourner shall be alike before Yahweh” (vs. 15). That, then, is the end of the mitzvah. A few lines later, Yahweh gives instruction for when one of the Israelites sins unintentionally and, in this case, a bull is offered for the entire congregation, and in this

10

Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. Anchor Bible: Leviticus 1-16 (252).

—5— instance, we have one sacrifice for sin that is described as having “a pleasing aroma to Yahweh” (vs. 24).

It is noteworthy that these are not the only texts in which the phrase reah nihoah

or osmen euodias occurs.11 The three passages examined represent, for our purposes, the range of use and content, and further exploration would only serve to restate the meanings of the Leviticus and Numbers texts. The exegesis itself is perhaps simple but what confronts us now is the significance of this phrase to the liturgy and theology of Israelʼs sacrificial system. Discussion of “a pleasing aroma” in Israelʼs Liturgy and Theology

In order to understand the purpose of “a pleasing aroma,” the theology of

sacrifice should be understood. It is a perplexing and highly debated question as to what the Israelite believed he was doing when he offered a sacrifice — particularly sin offerings. Traditional Christian interpretation understood the sacrifice as being related to personal expiation or propitiation of divine wrath. Jacob Milgrom, however, in his commentary on Leviticus challenged this perspective by making a significant argument: The rendering of hattaʼt as a purification offering leads automatically to the question: Whom or what does it purge? Herein lies the first surprise: it is not the offerer of the sacrifice. It must be remembered that the hattaʼt is brought by an individual under two circumstances: severe physical impurity, such as that of the parturient, mesoraʻ [leper], or zab [person ritually unclean due to bodily discharge] (chaps. 12-15), or because of the commission of certain inadvertent sins (e.g., chap. 4). Clearly, physical impurity is removed by ablution [...and] Spiritual impurity, conversely [...], requires no purificatory rite.12

11

For a complete list of texts, please refer to Appendix A.

12

Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. Anchor Bible: Leviticus 1-16 (254)

—6—

This claim has engendered a great deal of debate and discussion. Roy Gane at

Andrews University, in opposing some of Milgromʼs argument, states that his “investigation has found further support for his overall conclusion that “the priestly theodicy” involves human sin leaving its mark on the sanctuary.”13 Ganeʼs position on the purgative sacrifices concludes that the sanctuaryʼs cleansing is effected on Yom Kippur, the “day of atonement” while all other hattaʼt offerings cleanse the offerer. This is the view I hold, seeing that ritual cleansing is “prerequisite to forgiveness [...] or accomplishing a final level of purification.”14 Among these, the one hattaʼt offering which effects a “pleasing aroma to Yahweh” is that for unintentional sin. Milgrom says “The logic is clear: Yahweh is surely pleased with the offering of the repentant wrongdoer (vs. 31), but it is not a gift; it is his humble expiation.” 15

The role of a “pleasing aroma” in the context of this offering is also disputed.

Köhler suggests that it is solely for the placation and “soothing” of Yahwehʼs wrath.16 In this view, the emphasis is upon the human worshiperʼs escaping judgment by means of sacrificial atonement. In contrast, De Boer suggests “a salvific divine effect on human worshipers” in connection with a theophany.17 Here, the emphasis is on Yahweh reassuring the worshiper of the fact that there is peace and security between them.

13 Gane,

Roy E. “Privative Proposition ‫ מך‬in Purification Offering Pericopes and the Changing Face of ʻDorian Grayʼ ” Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 2 (2008): 209. 14

Ibid, p. 217.

15

Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. Anchor Bible: Leviticus 1-16 (161). The discussion around the translation of ʻisseh is a tangent worthy of exploration. Whether it is translated as “an offering by fire” or “a food offering”, reah nihoah retains its singular function in the sacrificial rite. 16

Köhler, Ludwig as cited in Koch. ibid. (413).

17

De Boer as cited in Koch. ibid. (414).

—7— Others suggest thanksgiving for salvation18 or acceptance of sacrifice.19 G.J. Wenham even suggests both propitiation and thanksgiving.20 In any case, whether or not the pleasing aroma effects peace with Yahweh, the worshiper, or both, it is clear that within the context of the offering, it is a sign and seal of peace existing between the Israelite and his covenant Lord, Yahweh. Exegesis of Ephesians 5:2

The epistle to the Ephesians has been described many ways over the course of

Christian history. John Stott notes that it “was John Calvinʼs favourite letter” and was described as “the Queen of the epistles” (Samuel Taylor Coleridge).21 In summarizing its point, Stott says that, The whole letter is thus a magnificent combination of Christian doctrine and Christian duty, Christian faith and Christian life, what God has done through Christ and what we must be and do in consequence. And its central theme is “Godʼs new society.” 22

Ephesians is divided between doctrinal (chap. 1-3) and behavioral (chap. 4-6)

emphases. In the midst of the latter, Paul “introduces this tremendous statement of the doctrine of the Atonement.” 23 The NT consistently depicts Christ with sacrificial

18

Jenson, P. & P.J. Olivier. 1997. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. III (1071). Editor: VanGemeren, W. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 19

Delling. 1967. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. V (494). Editor: Friedrich, Gerhard. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 20

Wenham, G.J. as cited in Jenson, P. & P.J. Olivier. 1997. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. III (1071). Editor: VanGemeren, W. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 21

Stott, John. 1980. Godʼs New Society: The Message of Ephesians (15). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 22 23

Ibid., p. 26

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. 1982. Darkness and Light: An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17-5:17 (301). Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

—8— language and Paul does not differ from this practice, calling Christ “our Passover lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7), “making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20) so that those who believe “have now been justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9).

In the epistle to the Ephesians, the language of sacrifice is clearly present.

Beginning in 1:7, Paul declares that in Christ, “we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses.” In this the reader hears the echoes of the expiatory and propitiatory claims of OT sacrifice. Further on, Paul lays claim to the reconciliatory power of sacrifice by saying that the Gentiles “who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). Paul speaks of Christʼs sacrifice in expiatory and propitiatory terms. In the text following, Paul explores the implications of Christʼs sacrifice.

Since Christʼs death brings redemption, Paul exhorts his readers to “walk in a

manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called” (Eph. 4:1). With the sacrificial reconciliation in view, there is expectation that they would be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). So, in Ephesians 5:2 this reference is not out of step with Paulʼs language in this epistle: “And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” So, at the foundation of the new life described in Ephesians is “Christ [...] a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” The Connection Between Ephesians 5:2 and Torah

Here we certainly have the language of sacrifice. What should be questioned is

whether or not the theology of sacrifice is present in this text. Is it plausible? One commentator says that “the ʻfragrant odorʼ of all the main types of sacrifice in the

—9— levitical ritual betokened their acceptance by God; in the NT the language, like the idea of sacrifice in its totality, is transferred to the spiritual and personal realm. It is used of the perfect self-offering of Christ.” 24 This is a practice found consistently in Paul, as demonstrated in Romans 5:8,12:1, Galatians 2:20, Colossians 1:20-22, et alia. So the theology of sacrifice is certainly present.

Now, we must turn to the purpose of a “pleasing aroma to Yahweh” in this text. In

fact, this phrase is the point of the verse. Hoehner states, Paul is capturing the OT sense of a sacrifice that is acceptable to God. The genitive (ευωδιας) is attributive, ʻfragrant aroma.ʼ The preposition εις indicates purpose, that is, the offering and sacrifice to God is for the purpose of a fragrant aroma.25

The point of Christʼs sacrifice is for whatever the purpose of a “pleasing aroma”

is. In the overall theology of the phrase in Torah, was determined that the “pleasing aroma” serves as a sign and seal of peace existing between the Israelite and his covenant Lord, Yahweh. I conclude that Paul not only imports the sacrificial language here, but also the sacrificial theology. In effect, we understand this verse to say that Christʼs sacrifice signifies and confirms the reality of peace between those who are “in Christ” and the Living God.

The trajectory of the Epistle supports this. In Ephesians 2:3, Paul declares the

predicament of Godʼs people being “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of humankind.” The Gospel came, and was preached and the redemption of Israel began. For Gentiles, however, this represents a problem. If the “pleasing aroma” is for peace

24

Bruce, F.F. 1984. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (369). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 25

Hoehner, Harold W. 2002. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (651). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

— 10 — between the Israelite and Yahweh, how can Paulʼs Gentile mission be legitimated through the theology of sacrifice? We saw that Numbers 15 offers provision for the “stranger” in the Israelite commonwealth by allowing him to bring such offerings as he desires. Even with this, however, the Gentile is still not a member of the covenant. Paul assesses the situation in this light. “You [Gentiles] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12) Because of Christʼs sacrifice, however, they “who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). What follows is a profound statement: For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Eph. 2:14-19).

The Gentiles, then, are no longer relegated to a group of visitors but, in Christ,

are made to be “fellow citizens” and “members of the household of God” — equal in status to every son of Israel that has been redeemed. So, the theology of a “pleasing aroma” is not only maintained, but is intensified in order that the “new humanity” in Christ can recognize that they have peace with God because of Christʼs sacrifice. In view of the OT ceremonial theology, Paul brings reassurance of atonement to the Church and declares that there is peace between the Christian and his Lord.

— 11 —

Appendix A Torah References to Reah Nihoach or Osmen Euodias Exodus

29:18 29:25 29:41

Leviticus 1:9 1:13 1:17 2:2 2:9 2:12 3:5 3:11 (LXX only) 3:16 4:31 6:8 (LXX 6:15) 6:14 (LXX 6:21) 8:21 (LXX 8:20) 8:28 (LXX 8:27) 17:4 (LXX only) 17:6 23:13 23:18 26:31

Numbers 15:3 15:5 15:7 15:10 15:13 15:14 15:24 18:17 28:2 28:6 28:8 28:13 28:24 28:27 29:2 29:6 29:8 29:11 (LXX only) 29:13 29:36

— 12 —

Bibliography Alexander, T. Desmond and Brian S. Rosner. 2000. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Beale, G.K. 1994. The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Brenton, Launcelot Lee. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, with an English Translation; and with Various Readings and Critical Notes. London: S. Bagster and Sons, Ltd. 1844. Bruce, F.F. 1984. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Delling. 1967. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. V (493-495). Editor: Friedrich, Gerhard. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Even-Shoshan, Avraham. 1993. New Concordance of the Bible, 2nd Ed. (759; 1074-5). Jerusalem: “Kiryat Sefer” Publishing House, Ltd. Gager, J. 1985. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Gane, Roy E. “Privative Proposition ‫ מן‬in Purification Offering Pericopes and the Changing Face of ʻDorian Grayʼ ” Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 2 (2008): 209-222 Hays, Richard B. 1989. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hatch, Edwin and Henry A. Redpath. 1977. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), Vol. I (584-5), Vol. II (1018-9). Athens: “Beneficial Book” Publishers. Hoehner, Harold W. 2002. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Holladay, W. 1988. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Jenson, P. & P.J. Olivier. 1997. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. III (1070-1073). Editor: VanGemeren, W. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

— 13 — Koch. 2003. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. IX (412-415). Editor: Botterweck, G. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Kronholm. 2003. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. XIII (361-365). Editor: Botterweck, G. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. 1982. Darkness and Light: An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17-5:17. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. Anchor Bible: Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday. Oswalt, J. 1997. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. III (56-59). Editor: VanGemeren, W. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. Silva, M. 2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Editors: Carson, D.A. & Beale, G.K. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Stott, John. 1980. Godʼs New Society: The Message of Ephesians. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Yee, T. 2005. Jews, Gentiles, and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paulʼs Jewish Identity and Ephesians. New York: Cambridge University Press.