What is the context?
For someone unable to afford a lamb, the law allows two birds, one for sin and one as a burnt offering. For someone unable to afford even the birds, it allows a measured amount of flour without oil or frankincense.
The flour is explicitly called a sin offering, and the passage again promises forgiveness. Its different preparation distinguishes it from the ordinary grain offering in chapter 2. Poverty changes what is brought without removing either responsibility or God’s provision.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Wesley stresses the concession for poverty and the need to address particular sins. He treats the absence of oil and incense as distinguishing this gift from the ordinary grain offering and suggests an association with sorrow for sin. The explicit reason given here is its identity as a sin offering; a complete symbolic meaning for every omitted ingredient is not stated.
Where does this fit in God's plan?
Hebrews 9:18–28 describes the blood of the covenant and Christ’s decisive offering. It says nearly everything under the law is purified with blood. The flour provision here cautions against claiming that every individual ritual offering necessarily involved killing an animal. Hebrews’ final emphasis remains Christ’s once-for-all self-offering, rather than the price of what a worshiper could bring.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.