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.

1Gager, 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

2Yee, T. 2005. Jews, Gentiles, and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paulʼs Jewish Identity and Ephesians. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
3Kronholm. 2003. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. XIII (364). Editor: Botterweck, G.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
4Oswalt, J. 1997. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. III (58).
Editor: VanGemeren, W. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
5Jenson, 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.
6Holladay, W. 1988. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (29) Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
7Delling. 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.

8Silva, M. 2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. (838). Editors: Carson,
D.A. & Beale, G.K. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
9Milgrom, 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

18Jenson, 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.
20Wenham, 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.
21Stott, John. 1980. Godʼs New Society: The Message of Ephesians (15). Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press.
22 Ibid., p. 26
23Lloyd-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

24Bruce, F.F. 1984. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (369). Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
25Hoehner, 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 Numbers 15:3

29:25 15:5
29:41 15:7
15:10
15:13
Leviticus 1:9 15:14
1:13 15:24
1:17 18:17
2:2 28:2
2:9 28:6
2:12 28:8
3:5 28:13
3:11 (LXX only) 28:24
3:16 28:27
4:31 29:2
6:8 (LXX 6:15) 29:6
6:14 (LXX 6:21) 29:8
8:21 (LXX 8:20) 29:11 (LXX only)
8:28 (LXX 8:27) 29:13
17:4 (LXX only) 29:36
17:6
23:13
23:18
26:31
 — 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.