Exodus 12:8

12:8 They will eat the meat the same night; ¹  they will eat it roasted over the fire with bread made without yeast ²  and with bitter herbs.

Leviticus 2:4

Processed Grain Offerings

2:4 “‘When you present an offering of grain baked in an oven, it must be made of ³  choice wheat flour baked into unleavened loaves ⁴  mixed with olive oil or ⁵  unleavened wafers smeared ⁶  with olive oil.

Leviticus 6:20-22

6:20 “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they must present to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah ⁷  of choice wheat flour ⁸  as a continual grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening. 6:21 It must be made with olive oil on a griddle and you must bring it well soaked, ⁹  so you must present a grain offering of broken pieces ¹⁰  as a soothing aroma to the Lord. 6:22 The high priest who succeeds him ¹¹  from among his sons must do it. It is a perpetual statute; it must be offered up in smoke as a whole offering to the Lord.

Leviticus 8:2

8:2 “Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, the anointing oil, the sin offering bull, the two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread,

Leviticus 8:1

Ordination of the Priests

8:1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses: ¹² 

Colossians 1:7

1:7 You learned the gospel ¹³  from Epaphras, our dear fellow slave ¹⁴  – a ¹⁵  faithful minister of Christ on our ¹⁶  behalf –

[12:8]  ¹ tn Heb “this night.”

[12:8]  ² sn Bread made without yeast could be baked quickly, not requiring time for the use of a leavening ingredient to make the dough rise. In Deut 16:3 the unleavened cakes are called “the bread of affliction,” which alludes to the alarm and haste of the Israelites. In later Judaism and in the writings of Paul, leaven came to be a symbol of evil or corruption, and so “unleavened bread” – bread made without yeast – was interpreted to be a picture of purity or freedom from corruption or defilement (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 90-91).

[2:4]  ³ tn The insertion of the words “it must be made of” is justified by the context and the expressed words “it shall be made of” in vv. 7 and 8 below.

[2:4]  ⁴ sn These “loaves” were either “ring-shaped” (HALOT 317 s.v. חַלָּה) or “perforated” (BDB 319 s.v. חַלָּה; cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:184).

[2:4]  ⁵ tn Heb “and.” Here the conjunction vav (ו) has an alternative sense (“or”).

[2:4]  ⁶ tn The Hebrew word מְשֻׁחִים (mÿshukhim) translated here as “smeared” is often translated “anointed” in other contexts. Cf. TEV “brushed with olive oil” (CEV similar).

[6:20]  ⁷ sn A tenth of an ephah is about 2.3 liters, one day’s ration for a single person (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:306).

[6:20]  ⁸ tn For the rendering “choice wheat flour” see the note on Lev 2:1.

[6:21]  ⁹ tn The term rendered here “well soaked” (see, e.g., NRSV; the Hebrew term is מֻרְבֶּכֶת, murbbekhet) occurs only three times (here; 7:12, and 1 Chr 23:29), and is sometimes translated “well-mixed” (e.g., NIV, NCV, NLT; NASB “well stirred”; NAB “well kneaded”). The meaning is uncertain (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:399-400), but in Lev 7:12 it stands parallel to already prepared grain offerings either “mixed” (the Hebrew term is בְּלוּלֹת (bÿlulot), not מֻרְבֶּכֶת as in Lev 6:21 [6:14 HT]) or anointed with oil.

[6:21]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “broken bits [?] of a grain offering of pieces,” but the meaning of the Hebrew term rendered here “broken bits” (תֻּפִינֵי, tufiney) is quite uncertain. Some take it from the Hebrew verb “to break up, to crumble” (פַּת [pat]; e.g., the Syriac, NAB, NIV, NLT “broken” pieces) and others from “to bake” (אָפַה, ’afah; e.g., NRSV “baked pieces”). For a good summary of other proposed options, see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 90. Compare Lev 2:5-6 for the general regulations regarding this manner of grain offering. Similar but less problematic terminology is used there.

[6:22]  ¹¹ tn Heb “And the anointed priest under him.”

[8:1]  ¹² sn Lev 8 is the fulfillment account of the ordination legislation recorded in Exod 29, and is directly connected to the command to ordain the tabernacle and priesthood in Exod 40:1-16 as well as the partial record of its fulfillment in Exod 40:17-38.

[1:7]  ¹³ tn Or “learned it.” The Greek text simply has “you learned” without the reference to “the gospel,” but “the gospel” is supplied to clarify the sense of the clause. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[1:7]  ¹⁴ tn The Greek word translated “fellow slave” is σύνδουλος (sundoulo"); the σύν- prefix here denotes association. Though δοῦλος is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:7]  ¹⁵ tn The Greek text has “who (ὅς, Jos) is a faithful minister.” The above translation conveys the antecedent of the relative pronoun quite well and avoids the redundancy with the following substantival participle of v. 8, namely, “who told” (ὁ δηλώσας, Jo dhlwsa").

[1:7]  ¹⁶ tc ‡ Judging by the superior witnesses for the first person pronoun ἡμῶν (Jhmwn, “us”; Ì⁴⁶ א* A B D* F G 326* 1505 al) vs. the second person pronoun ὑμῶν (Jumwn, “you”; found in א² C D¹ Ψ 075 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy co), ἡμῶν should be regarded as original. Although it is possible that ἡμῶν was an early alteration of ὑμῶν (either unintentionally, as dittography, since it comes seventeen letters after the previous ἡμῶν; or intentionally, to conform to the surrounding first person pronouns), this supposition is difficult to maintain in light of the varied and valuable witnesses for this reading. Further, the second person is both embedded in the verb ἐμάθετε (emaqete) and is explicit in v. 8 (ὑμῶν). Hence, the motivation to change to the first person pronoun is counterbalanced by such evidence. The second person pronoun may have been introduced unintentionally via homoioarcton with the ὑπέρ (Juper) that immediately precedes it. As well, the second person reading is somewhat harder for it seems to address Epaphras’ role only in relation to Paul and his colleagues, rather than in relation to the Colossians. Nevertheless, the decision must be based ultimately on external evidence (because the internal evidence can be variously interpreted), and this strongly supports ἡμῶν.