Reading: Priesthood by William G.

Moorehead
LITERATURE

All worship is based on priesthood, for the priestly office is an essential part of salvation.
Christianity itself has its glorious Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is through His one
supreme offering that we are brought into saved relations with God and enjoy fellowship with
Him. The priesthood of Christ and its mighty effects in sacrifice and intercession on behalf of
the people of God are the chief and fundamental theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

1. Priesthood an Office:

Priesthood is a real office, definite and specific. It is needful to insist on this fact, for the noble
word "priest" has been misappropriated and misapplied, so that its intrinsic import has been
impaired. There is a certain literary slang indulged in by some who talk of the "priests of
science," "priests of art," and similar absurdities. If priesthood is to have any definite meaning,
there can be no thought of the priesthood of literature or the priesthood of science. For it
belongs to the realm of grace, presupposing as it does sin and the divine purpose to remove it.
We might as well try to talk about the grammatical structure of a forest or the predator instinct
of a blade of grass. Priesthood is an office, embracing very specific duties and functions.

2. In the Old Testament:

Priesthood in some form appears to have existed from the earliest times, even from the
beginning of the history of our race. In patriarchal times the office was held and its duties were
discharged by those who occupied some sort of headship, and particularly by the father or the
chief of the family and of the tribe. Thus, Noah in his capacity of priest and in behalf of his
household "builded an altar unto Yahweh, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean
bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar" (Genesis 8:20). Abraham offered the ram "for a
burnt-offering in the stead of his son" (Genesis 22:13). In like manner Job offered burnt
offerings for his children, and likewise by divine direction for the three "comforters" when the
great trial had passed (Job 1:5;42:8). In these and the like instances there was priestly action
no less certainly than in that of Aaron or of any regularly appointed priest in Israel. Melchizedek
was "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18). Isaac "builded an altar there and called upon
the name of Yahweh" (Genesis 26:25), as did Jacob (Genesis 33:20). In these cases priestly
acts were performed by the patriarchs in their capacity as fathers of the family or heads of
clans. From the beginning, priesthood with its acts of expiation and of worship was thus
recognized as a divinely-instituted office. But in pre-Mosaic times there was no special class of
priests recognized.

3. Hereditary Priesthood:

Regular priestly succession in a single family was established by Moses (Exodus 28:1-3). From
this point of time onward the priesthood in Israel was confined to the family of Aaron. No
hereditary priesthood seems to have prevailed in patriarchal times. According to the Epistle to
the Hebrews, Melchizedek, a priest of the highest rank, had neither predecessor nor successor
in his great office. By divine direction Moses designated the Aaronic family as the priestly
family in Israel, and he prescribed the garments they should wear, the sacrifices they should
offer both for themselves and for the congregation, their maintenance, their domestic relations,
and their conduct toward their fellow Hebrews.

In the appointment of the priesthood there is no trace of Egyptian influence. Yet we know that
Joseph married the daughter of the priest of On (Genesis 41:50). But this fact had no bearing
on the selection of Israel's priestly family. The Aaronic priesthood had nothing in common with
that of Egypt; it claimed to be of divine origin, and its duties, functions and powers in no way
contradict the claim. The witness of an Egyptian archaeologist (Dr. M.G. Kyle) may be here
introduced touching one essential element in the duties of the priestly office, namely, sacrifice:

"The entire absence from the offerings of old Egyptian religion of any of the great Pentateuchal
ideas of sacrifice, substitution, atonement, dedication, fellowship, and indeed of almost every
essential idea of real sacrifice, as clearly established by recent very exhaustive examination of
the offering scenes, makes for the element of revelation in the Mosaic system by delimiting the
field of rationalistic speculation on the Egyptian side. Egypt gave nothing to that system, for it
had nothing to give." As much may be said respecting the priesthood; Israel took little or
nothing of its powers and functions from Egyptian sources.

Although the office was limited to the Aaronic family, nevertheless in certain exigencies and
emergencies others beside the regular priest offered sacrifices to the Lord and were accepted
by Him. Thus did Gideon in a time of great straits in Israel (Judges 6:24,26); thus the men of
Beth-shemesh (1 Samuel 6:14,15); the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 7:9); David (2 Samuel
6:13,17); Elijah (1 Kings 18:23,32-38), etc. The chosen people appear to have felt free to offer
sacrifices and to engage in priestly functions when occasion required, until the central
sanctuary was established on Mt. Moriah. When the Temple was built and dedicated, priestly
action was confined to Jerusalem and to the regular priestly household. When Pharisaism, with
its rigid legalism, with its intolerable burdens, became dominant, all liberty of worship and
spontaneous service largely disappeared. The religious life of Israel stiffened into a dreadful
monotony.

4. In the New Testament:

All priesthood reaches its climax in that of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is because of the perfection
of His priesthood that the office as represented by Melchizedek and Aaron was effective, and
fulfilled the end for which it was appointed. The one answers to the other as type and antitype,
as prediction and fulfillment. Christ's priesthood is opened to us in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(2:14-18; 4:14-16; 5:1-10; 7:9,10,18). Two fundamental truths touching His priesthood are
made very prominent in the Epistle to the Hebrews. These are its order and its duties. By the
order is meant the rank or grade of the Priest, and by the duties the various functions of His
ministry. Christ's order as Priest is that of Melchizedek, not at all that of Aaron; Hebrews
7 makes this fact perfectly clear. Like Melchizedek, and infinitely above Melchizedek, He is
Priest, having no predecessor in the great office, and no successor; herein He stands
absolutely alone, peerless and perfect forever. He executes the duties or functions of it after
the pattern of Aaron, as Hebrews 9 clearly exhibits. These two priesthoods, Melchizedek's and
Aaron's, are gloriously accomplished in the person and Work of Jesus Christ.

The point is raised and discussed with some keenness in our day, Did Christ execute the office
of priest during His sojourn on earth, or does He exercise the office only in heaven? A full
discussion of this interesting subject would be inappropriate. However, let it be noted (1) that
the Lord Jesus was appointed a Priest no less certainly than was Aaron (Hebrews 5:4,5). In the
words, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," there appears to be a reference both
to His incarnation (Luke 1:32;Hebrews 1:5) and also to His resurrection (Acts 13:33).
In Hebrews 2:17 we are told that it "behooved him in all things to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to
make propitiation for the sins of the people." The assumption of human nature was needful that
He might be such a priest. John the Baptist saw this truth, and said, "Behold the Lamb of God,
that taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

There was certainly priestly action in His death. Twice we are told that He "offered up himself"
(Hebrews 7:27), "For this he did once for all, when he offered up himself." This strong term,
"offered," is sacrificial and points to His death as an offering made for the sins of the people.
His own action in it must not be overlooked; it was He Himself who presented the offering; He
was not, therefore, a struggling victim, a martyr, who could not escape the doom that came
upon Him--nay, He voluntarily offered Himself.

In Hebrews 9:14 we find these significant words:

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself
without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
It was as Priest that He made this stupendous offering, and this He did when still on earth. He
was at once both sacrifice and priest. Never was He more active than when He offered Himself
to God.

It is worthwhile to remind ourselves that the words employed in Scripture to express the act of
His dying are never used to denote the death of a creature, a man. Matthew has, He "yielded
up (dismissed), his spirit" (Matthew 27:50). John has, He "gave up his spirit" (John
19:30); Mark 15:37 and Luke 23:46 both have the same words:

He "gave up the ghost." He died, not because He was mortal as we are, nor because He could
not deliver Himself, but because He gave Himself for our sins that we might be forgiven and
saved (John 10:17,18). The voluntariness of His offering is the very essence of His priestly
atonement.

See CHRIST, OFFICES OF, V; PRIESTHOOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

5. Conclusions:

Priesthood springs out of the deepest need of the human soul. Men universally feel that
somehow they have offended the Power to whom they are responsible, to whom they must
give account of their deeds. They long to appease their offended Lord, and they believe that
one who is authorized and qualified to act in their behalf may secure for them the abrogation of
penalty and the pardon they seek. Hence, priesthood connects itself most closely with sin, with
guilt and its removal. The heart craves the intervention and intercession on their behalf of one
who has liberty of access to God, and whose ministry is acceptable. In short, the priest is the
representative of the sinner in things pertaining to God. He is the mediator whose office it is to
meet and satisfy the claims of God upon those for whom he acts, and who secures the pardon
and the favor which the offender must have, if he is to enjoy fellowship with God. And this, and
more than this, we have in our Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ.

LITERATURE.

P. Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, II; Soltau, Exposition of the Tabernacle, the Priestly
Garments and the Priesthood; Martin, Atonement; Moorehead, Mosaic Institutions, article
"Priest."

Reading: Sacrifices Part 1

Originating in Religious Instincts.

Neither theory of an objective divine revelation, nor of a human origin will account for the
universality and variety of sacrifices. The truth lies in a proper combination of the two. The
notion of offering a gift to the Deity arose out of the religious instincts of the human heart,
which in an early period had a consciousness of something wrong between itself and God, and
that this something would mean death sooner or later. Added to these true instincts was the
Omnipresent Spirit to guide men in giving expression. What could be more simple and primitive
than to offer something possessing life? Of course the notion originated in simple and childlike
ideas of God, and its real motive was not to gratify God by sharing a meal with Him, or to gain
His favor by a bribe, but to present Him with something that represented a part of the offerer
which might be accepted in his stead. Thus sacrifices became the leading features of the
religious life of primitive man. Naturally other ideas would be added, such as a gift of food by
fire to the Deity, the peace offerings, etc., to celebrate the friendly relations with God, the thank
offerings, the sin offerings, etc., all of which naturally and logically developed from the primitive
idea. It might be expected that there would be many corruptions and abuses, that the sense of
sin would be obscured or lost among some peoples, and the idea of sacrifice correspondingly
degraded. Such has been the case, and as well might we try to understand man at his best by
studying the aboriginal tribes of Africa and Australia, or the inmates of asylums and
penitentiaries, as to attempt to understand the Bible ideas in sacrifices by studying the cults of
those heathen and savage tribes of Semites, etc.

III. Classification of Sacrifices.

1. Maimonides:

Maimonides was among the first to classify them, and he divided them into two kinds:

(1) Those on behalf of the whole congregation, fixed by statute, time, number and ritual being
specified. This would include burnt, meal and peace offerings with their accompaniments. (2)
Those on behalf of the individual, whether by virtue of his connection with the community or as
a private person. These would be burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings with their
accompaniments.

2. W. R. Smith and Others:

Others, such as W. R. Smith, classify them as:

(1) honorific, or designed to render homage, devotion, or adoration, such as burnt, meal and
peace offerings; (2) piacular, designed to expiate or make atonement for the errors of the
people, i.e. burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings; (3) communistic, intended to
establish the bond between the god and the worshipper, such as peace offerings.

3. Oehler:

Oehler divides them into two classes, namely:

(1) those which assume that the covenant relation is undisturbed, such as peace offerings; (2)
those intended to do away with any disturbance in the relation and to set it right, such as burnt,
sin and guilt offerings.

4. Paterson and Others:

Professor Paterson and others divide them into three:

(1) animal sacrifices, burnt offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings; (2)
vegetable sacrifices, meal offerings, shewbread, etc.; (3) liquid and incense offerings; wine, oil,
water, etc.

5. H. M. Wiener:

H. M. Wiener offers a more suggestive and scientific division (Essays on Pentateuchal

Criticism, 200 f):
(1) customary lay offerings, such as had from time immemorial been offered on rude altars of
earth or stone, without priest, used and regulated by Moses and in more or less general use
until the exile, namely, burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings;

(2) statutory individual offerings, introduced by Moses, offered by laymen with priestly
assistance and at the religious capital, i.e. burnt offerings, peace offerings, meal offerings, sin
offerings, and guilt offerings;

(3) statutory national offerings introduced by Moses and offered by the priest at the religious
capital, namely, burnt, meal, peace and sin offerings.

IV. Sacrifices in the Pre-Mosaic Age.

Out of the obscure period of origins emerged the dimly lighted period of ancient history.
Everywhere sacrifices existed and sometimes abounded as an essential part of religion. The
spade of the archaeologist, and the researches of scholars help us understand the pre-Mosaic
period.

1. In Egypt:

In Egypt--probably from the beginning of the 4th millennium BC--there were sacrifices and
sacrificial systems. Temples at Abydos, Thebes, On, etc., were great priestly centers with high
priests, lower priests, rituals and sacrifices in abundance. Burnt, meal and peace offerings
predominated. Oxen, wild goats, pigs, geese were the chief animals offered. Besides these,
wine, oil, beer, milk, cakes, grain, ointment, flowers, fruit, vegetables were offered, but not
human beings. In these offerings there were many resemblances to the Hebrew gifts, and
many significant exceptions. Moses would be somewhat familiar with these practices though
not with the details of the ritual. He would appreciate the unifying power of a national religious
center. It is inconceivable that in such an age a national leader and organizer like Moses would
not take special care to institute such a system.

2. In Babylonia:

In Babylonia, from the year 3000 BC or thereabouts, according to E. Meyer (Geschichte des
Alterthums), there were many centers of worship such as Eridu, Nippur, Agade, Erech, Ur,
Nisin, Larsa, Sippar, etc. These and others continued for centuries with elaborate systems of
worship, sacrifices, temples, priesthoods, etc. Considerably over 100 temples and sanctuaries
are mentioned on inscriptions, and several hundreds in the literature and tablets, so that
Babylonia was studded with temples and edifices for the gods. At all these, sacrifices were
constantly offered--animal and vegetable. A long list of the offerings of King Gudea includes
oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (i.e. eagles and doves), dates, milk, greens (Jastrow, in
HDB, V, 580, under the word). The sacrifices provided an income for the priests, as did the
Mosaic system at a later time. It had long passed the stage when it was supposed to furnish a
meal for the god. A sacrifice always accompanied a consultation with a priest, and was really
an assessment for the services rendered. It was not a voluntary offering or ritualistic
observance. The priests on their own behalf offered a daily sacrifice, as in the Mosaic Law, and
likewise on special occasions, to insure the good will of the gods they served. It seems certain
that in some of the larger centers of worship animals were offered up twice a day, morning and
evening. At these sacrifices certain portions were consumed on the altar, the rest belonging to
the priest. The similarity of much of this to the Mosaic institutions is obvious. That the culture
and civilization of Babylon was known to Egypt and Israel with other nations is shown clearly
by the Tell el-Amarna Letters. Special sacrifices on special occasions were offered in
Babylonia as in Israel. As Jastrow says, "In the Hebrew codes, both as regards the purely legal
portions and those sections dealing with religious ritual, Babylonian methods of legal procedure
and of ritual developed in Babylonian temples must be taken into consideration as determining
factors." We do not doubt that Moses made use of many elements found in the Egyptian and
Babylonian systems, and added to or subtracted from or purified as occasion required. As
sacrificial systems and ritual had been in use more than a millennium before Moses, there is
absolutely no need to suppose that Israel's ritual was a thousand years in developing, and was
completed after the exile. To do so is to turn history upside down.

3. Nomads and Tribes of Arabia and Syria:

Among the nomads and tribes of Arabia and Syria, sacrifices had been common for
millenniums before Moses. The researches of Wellhausen and W. R. Smith are valuable here,
whatever one may think of their theories. The offerings were usually from the flocks and herds,
sometimes from the spoils taken in war which had been appropriated as their own. The
occasions were many and various, and the ritual was very simple. A rude altar of earth or
stone, or one stone, a sacred spot, the offerer killing the victim and burning all, or perhaps
certain parts and eating the remainder with the clan or family, constituted the customary
details. Sometimes wild animals were offered. Babylonians, Phoenicians and Arabs offered
gazelles, but the Hebrews did not. Arabs would sometimes sacrifice a captive youth, while the
Carthaginians chose some of the fairest of the captives for offerings by night. Assyrian kings
sometimes sacrificed captive kings. The Canaanites and others constantly sacrificed children,
especially the firstborn.

4. The Offerings of Cain and Abel:

The account of the offerings of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:4) shows that the ceremony dates
from almost the beginnings of the human race. The custom of offering the firstlings and first-
fruits had already begun. Arabian tribes later had a similar custom. Cain's offering was cereal
and is called minchah, "a gift" or "presentation." The same term is applied to Abel's. There is
no hint that the bloody sacrifice was in itself better than the unbloody one, but it is shown that
sacrifice without a right attitude of heart is not acceptable to God. This same truth is
emphasized by the prophets and others, and is needed in this day as much as then. In this
case the altars would be of the common kind, and no priest was needed. The sacrifices were
an act of worship, adoration, dependence, prayer, and possibly propitiation.

5. Of Noah:

The sacrifices of Noah followed and celebrated the epochal and awe-inspiring event of leaving
the ark and beginning life anew. He offered burnt offerings of all the clean animals (Genesis
8:20). On such a solemn occasion only an `olah would suffice. The custom of using domestic
animals had arisen at this time. The sacrifices expressed adoration, recognition of God's power
and sovereignty, and a gift to please Him, for it is said He smelled a sweet savor and was
pleased. It was an odor of satisfaction or restfulness. Whether or not the idea of expiation was
included is difficult to prove.

6. Of Abraham:

Abraham lived at a time when sacrifices and religion were virtually identical. No mention is
made of his offering at Ur or Charan, but on his arrival at Shechem he erected an altar
(Genesis 12:7). At Beth-el also (12:8), and on his return from Egypt he worshipped there
(Genesis 13:4). Such sacrifices expressed adoration and prayer and probably propitiation.
They constituted worship, which is a complex exercise. At Hebron he built an altar (Genesis
13:18), officiating always as his own priest. In Genesis 15:4 he offers a "covenant" sacrifice,
when the animals were slain, divided, the parts set opposite each other, and prepared for the
appearance of the other party to the covenant. The exact idea in the killing of these animals
may be difficult to find, but the effect is to give the occasion great solemnity and the highest
religious sanction. What was done with the carcasses afterward is not told. That animals were
slain for food with no thought of sacrifice is shown by the narrative in chapter 18, where
Abraham had a calf slain for the meal. This is opposed to one of the chief tenets of the
Wellhausen school, which maintains that all slaughtering of animals was sacrificial until the 7th
century BC. In Genesis 22 Abraham attempts to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering, as was
probably the custom of his neighbors. That he attempted it shows that the practice was not
shocking to his ethical nature. It tested the strength of his devotion to God, shows the right
spirit in sacrifices, and teaches for all time that God does not desire human sacrifice--a beast
will do. What God does want is the obedient heart. Abraham continued his worship at Beer-
sheba (Genesis 21:33).

7. Of Job:

Whatever may be the date of the writing of the Book of Job, the saint himself is represented as
living in the Patriarchal age. He constantly offered sacrifices on behalf of his children (1:5),
"sanctifying" them. His purpose no doubt was to atone for possible sin. The sacrifices were
mainly expiatory. This is true also of the sacrifices of his friends (42:7-9).

8. Of Isaac:

Isaac seems to have had a permanent altar at Beer-sheba and to have regularly offered
sacrifices. Adoration, expiation and supplication would constitute his chief motives (Genesis
26:25).

9. Of Jacob:

Jacob's first recorded sacrifice was the pouring of the oil upon the stone at Beth-el (Genesis
28:18). This was consecration or dedication in recognition of the awe-inspiring presence of the
Deity. After his covenant with Laban he offered sacrifices (zebhachim) and they ate bread
(Genesis 31:54). At Shechem, Jacob erected an altar (Genesis 33:20). At Beth-el (Genesis
35:7) and at Beer-sheba he offered sacrifices to Isaac's God (Genesis 46:1).

10. Of Israel in Egypt:

While the Israelites were in Egypt they would be accustomed to spring sacrifices and spring
feasts, for these had been common among the Arabs and Syrians, etc., for centuries.
Nabatean inscriptions testify to this. Egyptian sacrifices have been mentioned (see above). At
these spring festivals it was probably customary to offer the firstlings of the flocks
(compare Exodus 13:15). At the harvest festivals sacrificial feasts were celebrated. It was to
some such feast Moses said Israel as a people wished to go in the wilderness (Exodus
3:18; 5:3; 7:16). Pharaoh understood and asked who was to go (Exodus 10:8). Moses
demanded flocks and herds for the feast (Exodus 10:9). Pharaoh would keep the flocks, etc.
(Exodus 10:24), but Moses said they must offer sacrifices and burnt offerings (Exodus 10:25).

The sacrifice of the Passover soon occurs (Exodus 12:3-11). That the Hebrews had been
accustomed to sacrifice their own firstborn at this season has no support and is altogether
improbable (Frazer, Golden Bough(3), pt. III, 175 f). The whole ceremony is very primitive and
has retained its primitiveness to the end. The choosing of the lamb or kid, the killing at a certain
time, the family gathered in the home, the carcass roasted whole, eaten that night, and the
remainder, if any, burned, while the feasters had staff in hand, etc., all this was continued. The
blood in this case protected from the Deity, and the whole ceremony was "holy" and only for
the circumcised. Frazer in his Golden Bough gives a very different interpretation.

11. Of Jethro:
As a priest of Midian, Jethro was an expert in sacrificing. On meeting Moses and the people he
offered both `olah and zebhachim and made a feast (Exodus 18:12).

12. Summary and Conclusions:

From the above it is evident that sacrifices were almost the substance of religion in that ancient
world. From hilltops and temples innumerable, the smoke of sacrifices was constantly rising
heavenward. Burnt offerings and peace offerings were well known. Moses, in establishing a
religion, must have a sacrificial system. He had abundance of materials to choose from, and
under divine guidance would adopt such rules and regulations as the pedagogic plans and
purposes of God would require in preparing for better things.

Reading: Sacrifice Part 2

V. The Mosaic Sacrificial System.

1. The Covenant Sacrifice:

The fundamental function of Moses' work was to establish the covenant between Israel and
God. This important transaction took place at Sinai and was accompanied by solemn
sacrifices. The foundation principle was obedience, not sacrifices (Exodus 19:4-8). No mention
is made of these at the time, as they were incidental--mere by-laws to the constitution. The
center of gravity in Israel's religion is now shifted from sacrifices to obedience and loyalty to
Yahweh. Sacrifices were helps to that end and without obedience were worthless. This is in
exact accordance with Jeremiah 7:21. God did not speak unto the fathers at this time about
sacrifices; He did speak about obedience.

The covenant having been made, the terms and conditions are laid down by Moses and
accepted by the people (Exodus 24:3). The Decalogue and Covenant Code are given, an altar
is built, burnt offerings and peace offerings of oxen are slain by young men servants of Moses,
not by priests, and blood is sprinkled on the altar (Exodus 24:4). The blood would symbolize
the community of life between Yahweh and Israel, and consecrated the altar. The Law was
read, the pledge again given, and Moses sprinkled the representatives of the people,
consecrating them also (Exodus 24:7). Ascending the mount, they had a vision of God, held a
feast before Him, showing the joys and privileges of the new relationship. The striking feature
of these ceremonies is the use of the blood. It is expiatory and consecrating, it is life offered to
God, it consecrates the altar and the people:

they are now acceptable to God and dare approach Him and feast with Him. There is no idea
of God's drinking the blood. The entire ritual is far removed from the crass features of common
Semitic worship.

2. The Common Altars:

In the Covenant Code, which the people accepted, the customary altars are not abolished, but
regulated (Exodus 20:24). This law expressly applies to the time when they shall be settled in
Canaan. `In the whole place where I cause my name to be remembered,' etc. (Exodus
20:24margin). No need to change the reading to "in every place where I cause," etc., as the
Wellhausen school does for obvious reasons. All the land was eligible. On such rude altars
sacrifices were allowed. This same law is implied in Deuteronomy 16:21, a passage either
ignored or explained away by the Wellhausen school (see Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal
Criticism, 200 f). Moses commanded Joshua in accordance with it (Deuteronomy 27:5).
Joshua, Gideon, Jephthah, Samuel, Saul, David, Elijah and many others used such altars.
There were altars at Shechem (Joshua 24:1,26), Mizpah in Gilead (Judges 11:11), Gilgal
(1 Samuel 13:9). High places were chiefly used until the times of Hezekiah and Josiah, when
they were abolished because of their corruptions, etc. All such altars were perfectly legitimate
and in fact necessary, until there was a central capital and sanctuary in Jerusalem. The
customary burnt offerings and peace offerings with the worshipper officiating were the chief
factors. Heathen sacrifices and the use of heathen altars were strictly forbidden (Exodus 22:20;
(Hebrews 1:9); Exodus 34:15)

3. The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons:

The altar used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons was a "horned" or official altar, the
central one. The offerings were a bullock, two rams, unleavened bread, etc. (Exodus 29:1-4),
and were brought to the door of the sanctuary. The ritual consisted of Aaron laying his hand on
the bullock's head, designating it as his substitute (Exodus 29:10), killing it before the tent of
meeting (Exodus 29:11), smearing some blood on the horns of the altar, and pouring the rest
at its base (Exodus 29:12). The blood consecrated the altar, the life was given as atonement
for sins, the fat parts were burned upon the altar as food for God, and the flesh and remainder
were burned without the camp (Exodus 29:13,14). This is a sin offering--chaTTa'th--the first
time the term is used. Probably introduced by Moses, it was intended to be piacular and to
"cover" possible sin. One ram was next slain, blood was sprinkled round about the altar, flesh
was cut in pieces, washed and piled on the altar, then burned as an offering by fire ('ishsheh)
unto God as a burnt offering, an odor of a sweet savor (Exodus 29:15-18). The naive and
primitive nature of this idea is apparent. The other ram, the ram of consecration, is slain, blood
is smeared on Aaron's right ear, thumb and great toe; in the case of his sons likewise. The
blood is sprinkled on the altar round about; some upon the garments of Aaron and his sons
(Exodus 29:19-21). Certain parts are waved before Yahweh along with the bread, and are then
burned upon the altar (Exodus 29:22-25). The breast is offered as a wave offering (tenuphah),
and the right thigh or shoulder as a heave offering (terumah). These portions here first
mentioned were the priests' portion for all time to come, although this particular one went to
Moses, since he officiated (Exodus 29:26-30). The flesh must be boiled in a holy place, and
must be eaten by Aaron and his sons only, and at the sanctuary. What was left till morning
must be burned (Exodus 29:31-34). Consecrated to a holy service it was dangerous for anyone
else to touch it, or the divine wrath would flame forth. The same ceremony on each of the
seven days atoned for, cleansed and consecrated the altar to the service of Yahweh, and it
was most holy (Exodus 29:35-37). The altar of incense is ordered (Exodus 30:1), and Aaron is
to put the blood of the sin offering once a year upon its horns to consecrate it.

4. Sacrifices before the Golden Calf:

When the golden calf was made an altar was erected, burnt offerings and peace offerings were
presented. From the latter a feast was made, the people followed the usual habits at such
festivals, went to excess and joined in revelry. Moses' ear quickly detected the nature of the
sounds. The covenant was now broken and no sacrifice was available for this sin. Vengeance
was executed on 3,000 Israelites. Moses mightily interceded with God. A moral reaction was
begun; new tables of the Law were made with more stringent laws against idols and idol
worship (Exodus 32:1-35).

5. The Law of the Burnt Offering (`Olah):

At the setting-up of the tabernacle burnt and meal offerings were sacrificed (Exodus 40:29).
The law of the burnt offering is found in Le 1. Common altars and customary burnt offerings
needed no minute regulations, but this ritual was intended primarily for the priest, and was
taught to the people as needed. They were for the statutory individual and national offering
upon the "horned" altar before the sanctuary. Already the daily burnt offerings of the priests
had been provided for (Exodus 29:38-42). The burnt offering is here called qorban, "oblation."
(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 1:3-17).

This may have been from the herd or flock or fowls, brought to the tent of meeting; hands were
laid (heavily) upon its head designating it as the offerer's substitute, it was killed, flayed and cut
in pieces. If of the flock, it was to be killed on the north side of the altar; if a fowl, the priest
must kill it.

(2) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 1:3-17).

If a bullock or of the flock, the priest was to sprinkle the blood round about the altar, put on the
fire, lay the wood and pieces of the carcass, wash the inwards, legs, etc., and burn it all as a
sweet savor to God. If a fowl, he must wring the neck, drain out the blood on the side of the
altar, cast the crop, filth, etc., among the ashes, rend the wings without dividing the bird and
burn the carcass on the altar.

(3) General Laws for the Priest.

The burnt offering must be continued every morning and every evening (Exodus
29:38; Numbers 28:3-8). At the fulfillment of his vow the Nazirite must present it before God
and offer it upon the altar through the priest (Numbers 6:14,16):

on the Sabbath, two lambs (Numbers 28:9); on the first of the month, two bullocks, one ram
and seven lambs (Numbers 28:11); on the day of first-fruits, the same (Numbers 28:27); on the
1st day of the 7th month, one bullock, one ram, seven lambs (Numbers 29:8); on the 15th day,
13 bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs, the number of bullocks diminishing daily until the 7th day,
when seven bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs were offered (Numbers 29:12-34); on the 22nd day
of this month one bullock, one ram and seven lambs were offered (Numbers 29:35,36). Non-
Israelites were permitted to offer the `olah, but no other sacrifices (Leviticus 17:8; 22:18,25).

(4) Laws in Deuteronomy 12:6,13,14,27; 27:6.

Anticipating a central sanctuary in the future, the lawgiver counsels the people to bring their
offerings there (Deuteronomy 12:6,11); they must be careful not to offer them in any place
(Deuteronomy 12:13), but must patronize the central sanctuary (Deuteronomy 12:14). In the
meantime common altars and customary sacrifices were allowable and generally necessary
(Deuteronomy 16:21; 27:6).

6. The Law of the Meal Offering (Minchah):

The term "meal offering" is here confined to offerings of flour or meal, etc. (the King James
Version "meat-offering"), and was first used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exodus
29:41). These must not be offered on the altar of incense (Exodus 30:9); were used at the
completion of the tabernacle (Exodus 40:29); and always with the morning and evening burnt
offerings.

(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 2:1-16).

It must be of fine flour, with oil and frankincense added, and brought to the priest; if baked in
the oven, unleavened cakes mingled with oil, or wafers and oil; if of the baking pan, fine flour
mingled with oil parted into pieces and oil thereon; if of the frying pan, the same ingredients.
Leaven and honey must never be used as they quickly become corrupt. Every offering must be
seasoned with salt. If of the first-fruits (bikkurim), it should consist of grain in the ear, parched
with oil and frankincense upon it.

(2) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 2:1-16).

This required him to take out a handful with the oil and frankincense thereon and burn it as a
memorial upon the altar. The remainder was holy and belonged to the priest. Of the cakes,
after bringing them to the altar, he was to take a portion, burn it and appropriate the remainder;
the same with the first-fruits.

(3) General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:14-18 (Hebrew 7-11), etc.).

He might eat his portion without leaven in the holy place. At his anointing Aaron offered his
own oblation of fine flour--1/10 of an ephah, one-half in the morning and one-half in the
evening. If baked, it must be with oil. This meal offering must all be burnt; none could be eaten.
With the sin offerings and guilt offerings every meal offering baked in any way belongs to the
priest (Leviticus 7:9,10; 10:12; Numbers 18:9). The meal offerings accompanied the other
offerings on all important occasions, such as the consecration of Aaron (Leviticus 9:4,17);
cleansing of a leper (Leviticus 14:10,20,21,31); feast of first-fruits (Leviticus 23:13); Pentecost
(Leviticus 23:16); set feasts (Leviticus 23:37). Special charge was given to Eleazar to care for
the continual meal offerings (Numbers 4:16). The Nazirite must offer it (Numbers 6:15,17).
When the tribes presented their offerings, meal offerings were always included (Numbers
7:13,19, etc.); when the Levites were set apart (Numbers 8:8); with vows of freewill offerings
(Numbers 15:4,6); with the sin offerings (Numbers 15:24); at all the several seasons (Numbers
28:5-29:39). A special form was the "showbread" (bread of memorial). Twelve loaves were to
be placed in two rows or heaps of six each on a pure table in the holy place, with frankincense
on each pile or row. These were to remain for one week and then to be eaten by the priests.
They were an offering of food by fire, though probably only the frankincense was actually
burned (Leviticus 24:5).

7. The Law of the Peace Offering:

The peace offerings indicated right relations with God, expressing good-fellowship, gratitude
and obligation. The common altars were fitted for their use (Exodus 20:24), as feasts had been
thus celebrated from time immemorial. At the feast before God on the Mount, peace offerings
provided the food (Exodus 24:5); also before the golden bull (Exodus 32:6). The wave offerings
and heave offerings were portions of these.

(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 3:1-17).

The offering might be a bullock, a lamb, or a goat, either male or female, latitude being allowed
in this case. The ritual was the same as in the case of the burnt offering (see above).

(2) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 3:1-17).

Blood must be sprinkled on the altar round about, the caul, the liver and the kidneys must be
taken away and the fat parts burned on the altar; the fat tail of the lamb must also be burned.
These portions were offerings of food by fire to the Deity. The ritual for a goat was the same as
for a bullock.

(3) General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:12 (Hebrew 5); 7:1).

The fat was to be burned on the altar of burnt offering. If it was a thank offering (zebhach ha-
todhah), it must have unleavened cakes with oil, cakes mingled with oil and fine flour soaked.
Cakes of leavened bread might be offered, and one cake was to be a heave offering to the
priest. The flesh was to be eaten that day, none was to be left till morning (Leviticus 22:30). If it
was a votive offering (zebhach nedher) or a freewill offering (zebhach nedhabhah), it might be
eaten on the first and second days, but not on the third day; it should then be an abomination
(Leviticus 7:18). If eaten then by anyone, that person was to be cut off from the community. Of
all peace offerings the wave-breast and heave-thigh belong to the priest (Leviticus 7:29-34),
the remainder was to be eaten by the worshippers. At Aaron's consecration an ox and a ram
were the peace offerings (Leviticus 9:4,18,22). The priest's portion was to be eaten in a clean
place by the priest's family (Leviticus 10:14). When Israel should have a central sanctuary, all
were to be brought there (Leviticus 17:4,5). When they had no central place, the common
altars would suffice. All peace offerings must be made in an acceptable manner (Leviticus
19:5). Votive offerings must be perfect (Leviticus 22:18-22), but certain imperfections are
allowable in freewill offerings (Leviticus 22:23). At Pentecost two he-lambs of the first year
could be offered as peace offerings (Leviticus 23:19). The Nazirite at the end of his separation
must offer one ram for a peace offering with unleavened bread (Numbers 6:14,17), and the hair
shaved from his head must be burned under the peace offerings (Numbers 6:18). This hair was
regarded as a thing having life and offered as a sacrifice by other nations. The various tribes
brought peace offerings (Numbers 7, passim), and at the feast of trumpets the people were to
rejoice and blow trumpets over the peace offerings (Numbers 10:10). Some further regulations
are given (Numbers 15:9).

8. The Law of the Sin Offering:

The sin offering was a sacrifice of a special kind, doubtless peculiar to Israel and first
mentioned at the consecration of Aaron and his sons. It is not then spoken of as an innovation.
It was of special value as an expiatory sacrifice.

(1) At the Consecration of Aaron and His Sons (Exodus 29:10).

A bullock was killed before the altar, some blood was put upon the horns of the altar by Moses,
the rest was poured out at the base. The fat of the inwards was burned upon the altar, the flesh
and skin were burned without the camp. Every day during the consecration this was done
(Exodus 29:36).

(2) The Law of the Sin Offering (Leviticus 4:1-35; 24-30, etc.).

(a) The Occasion and Meaning:

Specifically to atone for unwitting sins, sins of error (sheghaghah), mistakes or rash acts,
unknown at the time, but afterward made known. There were gradations of these for several
classes of offenders:

the anointed priest (Leviticus 4:3-12), the whole congregation (Leviticus 4:13-21), a ruler
(Leviticus 4:22-26), one of the common people (Leviticus 4:27-35), forswearing (5:1), touching
an unclean thing (Leviticus 5:2) or the uncleanness of man (Leviticus 5:3), or rashly sweating in
ignorance (Leviticus 5:4). For conscious and willful violations of the Law, no atonement was
possible, with some exceptions, for which provision was made in the guilt offerings (see
below).

(b) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 4:1-5,13, etc.):

The anointed priest must offer a bullock at the tent of meeting, lay his hands upon it and slay it
before Yahweh. The congregation was also required to bring a young bullock before the tent of
meeting, the elders were to lay hands upon it and slay it before Yahweh. The ruler must bring a
he-goat and do the same. One of the common people might bring a she-goat or lamb and
present it in the same manner. If too poor for these, two turtledoves or young pigeons, one for
a sin offering and one for burnt offering, would suffice. If too poor for these, the tenth part of an
ephah of fine flour without oil or flankincense would suffice.

(c) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 4:1-5,13, etc.):

He must bring the bullock's blood to the tent of meeting, dip his finger into it and sprinkle blood
7 times before the veil of the sanctuary, and put some on the horns of the altar of incense, but
most of the blood must be poured out at the base of the altar. The fat must be burned upon the
altar, all the rest of the carcass must be carried to a clean place without the camp and burned.
In the case of the whole congregation, the ritual is the same. In the case of a ruler, the blood is
to be put upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, not the altar of incense. In the case of
one of the common people, the ritual is similar to that of the ruler. In both the latter cases the
carcass belonged to the priest. If a bird, the priest must wring off its head, sprinkle some blood
on the side of the altar and pour the rest at the base. Nothing is said of the disposal of the
carcass. If of fine flour, the priest must take out a handful and burn it upon the altar, keeping
the remainder for himself. The use of fine flour for an expiatory sacrifice is evidently
exceptional and intended to be so. Though life was not given, yet necessity of life--that which
represented life--was offered.

(d) General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:24-30):

The sin offering was to be slain in the same place as the burnt offering. It was most holy, and
the priest alone might eat what was left of the ram, pigeon or flour, in the holy place. Whatever
touched it was to be holy, any garment sprinkled with the blood must be washed in a holy
place, earthen vessels used must be broken, and brazen vessels thoroughly scoured and
rinsed.

(e) Special Uses of the Sin Offering:

(i) Consecration of Aaron and His Sons:

The consecration of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8:2,14,15) was similar to that of Leviticus
4:11,12, only Moses was to kill the offering and put the blood on the horns of the altar. On the
8th day a bull-calf was offered (Leviticus 9:2), and the congregation offered a he-goat
(Leviticus 9:3). In this case Aaron performed the ceremony, as in Leviticus 4:11,12. Moses
complained that they had not eaten the flesh of the calf and goat in the sanctuary, since that
was requisite when the blood was not brought into the sanctuary (Leviticus 10:16-20).

(ii) Purifications from Uncleannesses:

Purifications from uncleannesses required after childbirth a young pigeon or turtledove

(Leviticus 12:6-8). The leper must bring a guilt offering (a special kind of sin offering), a he-
lamb (Leviticus 14:12-14,19); if too poor for a lamb, a turtledove or young pigeon (Leviticus
14:22,31). Special use of the blood is required (Leviticus 14:25). In uncleanness from issues a
sin offering of a turtledove or young pigeon must be offered by the priest (Leviticus 15:15,30).

(iii) On the Day of Atonement:

On the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1-28) Aaron must take a bullock for himself and house,
two he-goats for the people, present the goats at the sanctuary, cast losts, one for Yahweh, as
a sin offering, the other for Azazel, to be sent into the wilderness. The bullock was killed, sweet
incense was burned within the rail, blood was sprinkled on the mercy-seat and before it 7
times. The one he-goat was killed and a similar ceremony was performed. Blood must be put
on the horns of the altar and sprinkled 7 times about it. The other goat was presented, hands
were laid on it, the sins of all confessed and put upon the goat, and it was sent into the
wilderness. The carcass of the bullock and he-goat were burned without the camp. At the feast
of first-fruits a he-goat was offered (Leviticus 23:19).

(iv) Other Special Instances:

Other special instances were:

in the case of defilement, the Nazirite must offer a turtledove or young pigeon on the 8th day
after contraction (Numbers 6:10); when the days of the separation were fulfilled a ewe-lamb
with the other offerings (Numbers 6:14) was to be offered; the twelve tribes included in each
case a he-goat for sin offering (Numbers 7:16); at the consecration of the Levites a young
bullock (Numbers 8:8,12). For unwitting sins of the congregation a he-goat was to be offered
(Numbers 15:24,25). If one person erred, a she-goat was permitted (Numbers 15:27). A sin
offering was required at the feast of the new moon (28:15), at the Passover (Numbers 28:22),
at Pentecost (Numbers 28:30), on the 1st day of the 7th month (Numbers 29:5), and on the
10th, 15th-22nd days (Numbers 29:10-38). The ceremony of the red heifer (Numbers 19:1-
10,17) was a special sin offering for purification purposes only. It was of ancient and primitive
origin. The young cow was brought without the camp and was slain before the priest's face,
blood was sprinkled 7 times before the sanctuary, the entire carcass with cedar wood, hyssop
and scarlet was burned, the ashes gathered and laid without the camp in a clean place to be
kept for the water of impurity. It was to purify after contact with the dead. In the case of the
unknown homicide (Deuteronomy 21:1-9) a young unbroken heifer was brought to a running
stream, its neck was broken, the elders washed their hands over the heifer in the presence of
the priests, declaring their innocence. Thus the bloodshed was expiated. The action was a
judicial one, but essentially vicarious and expiatory and had doubtless a primitive origin.

9. The Guilt Offering:

The guilt offering (the King James Version "trespass offering") (Leviticus 5:14-6:7) was a
special kind of sin offering, always of a private character and accompanied by a fine. It
expressed expiation and restitution. The classes of sin requiring a guilt offering with reparation
in money are:

(1) a trespass in the holy things done unwittingly;

(2) anything which the Law forbade depriving God or the priest of their due;

(3) dealing falsely, with a neighbor in a deposit, or pledge, or robbery, or oppression;

(4) swearing falsely regarding anything lost;

(5) seduction of a betrothed bondmaid (Leviticus 19:20-22).

The first two of these are unwitting sins, the others cannot be. The clear statement is made in
another place that sins done with a "high hand," i.e. in rebellion against the covenant and its
provisions, can have no sacrifice (Numbers 15:30). Is this a contradiction, or a later
development when it was found that the more stringent law would not work? (See J. M. P.
Smith, et al., Atonement, 47 f.) Neither conclusion is probable. These conscious sins are of a
kind that will admit of full reparation because against rights of property or in money matters.
The sin offering makes atonement toward God, the restitution with the additional one-fifth
makes full reparation to man. No such reparation can be made with such sins described as
committed with a "high hand." In the case of seduction, rights of property are violated
(compare Numbers 5:5-8; Deuteronomy 22:29).

(1) The Ritual (Leviticus 5:14-6:7).

A ram proportionate in value to the offense and worth at least two shekels is required. The
ritual is probably the same as that of the sin offering, though no mention is made of the laying
on of hands, and the blood is not brought into the sanctuary, but sprinkled about the base of
the altar, the fat and inside parts being burned, and the flesh eaten by the priests in a holy
place.

(2) Special Laws:

Leper, Nazirite, etc.

The leper, when cleansed, on the 8th day must bring a guilt offering of two he-lambs and one
ewe-lamb; the priest must wave one he-lamb before Yahweh, kill it, and smear blood on the
right ear, thumb and toe of the leper. The guilt offering belongs to the priest (Leviticus 14:12-
20). If the leper were too poor for two lambs, one sufficed, with a corresponding meal offering,
or one turtle-dove and a young pigeon (Leviticus 14:21,22). The Nazirite, if defiled during his
period of separation, must bring a he-lamb for a guilt offering (Numbers 6:12). All guilt offerings
were the priests' and most holy (Numbers 18:9).

10. The Wave Offering:

The wave offerings were parts of the peace offerings, and the custom was seemingly initiated
at the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:24-27), when the breast and bread were
waved before Yahweh. Leviticus 7:30,34 fixes the law. It must be brought from the peace
offerings of the offerer himself. At Aaron's consecration Moses put the breast, etc., on Aaron's
hands and waved them before Yahweh (Leviticus 8:27). On the 8th day Aaron did the waving
(Leviticus 9:21). The priests were to eat it in a clean place (Leviticus 10:14) . The leper's he-
lamb was to be waved by the priest, before being offered (Leviticus 14:12); the lamb of the guilt
offering also (Leviticus 14:24). At the feast of first-fruits the sheaf must be waved before
Yahweh (Leviticus 23:10,11,15); two loaves also (Leviticus 23:17,20). Of the Nazirite the priest
took the boiled shoulder, a cake and a wafer, put them on the Nazirite's hand and waved them
before Yahweh (Numbers 6:19).

11. The Heave Offering:

Heave offerings also are parts of the peace offerings, and refer particularly to what is lifted up,
or separated unto the service of Yahweh. They are first mentioned at the consecration of Aaron
(Exodus 29:27,28). The offering consisted of the right shoulder or thigh and was the fixed due
of the priest (Leviticus 7:32,34) One cake of the peace offering must be heaved (Leviticus
7:14). The offering must be eaten in a clean place (Leviticus 7:14) by the priest's family only
(Leviticus 10:14,15). Of the Nazirite's offering the heave thigh also went to the priest (Numbers
6:20). When the Israelites should come into the promised land to eat bread, they must offer a
heave offering of the dough, a cake (Numbers 15:19,20,21). The law is repeated inNumbers
18:8,11,19, and the Levites are to receive a tithe of the heave offerings of the people (Numbers
18:24). They were in turn to offer up a tithe of this to the priests (Numbers 18:26-32). A portion
of the spoil of Midian was a heave offering (Numbers 31:29,41). Deuteronomy commands that
all heave offerings be brought to the central sanctuary and eaten there (12:6,11).

12. Drink Offerings:

Jacob poured oil on the stone he had set up (Genesis 28:18) in honor of the Deity and
consecrated the spot. Jacob later (Genesis 35:14) set up a pillar where God had revealed
Himself and poured drink offerings and oil upon it. Probably wine was used. Drink offerings
accompanied many of the sacrifices (Exodus 29:40,41). None could be poured upon the altar
of incense (Exodus 30:9). At all set feasts the Drink offerings must be presented (Leviticus
23:13,18,37). The Nazirite was not exempt (Numbers 6:15,17). Wine and oil must accompany
all votive and freewill offerings (Numbers 15:4,5,7,10,24); the continual burnt offering (Numbers
28:7,8); sabbaths (Numbers 28:9,10) and all the other set feasts (Numbers 28:14-31; 29:6-39,
passim). That drink offerings were common among the heathen is shown by Deuteronomy
32:38.

13. Primitive Nature of the Cultus:

The cult is thoroughly in keeping with and adapted to the age, and yet an ideal system in many
respects. The ethical side is in the background, the external has the emphasis. No sacrifices
will avail for a breach of the covenant between God and the people. The people thoroughly
believed in the efficacy of the blood. It secured atonement and forgiveness. Their religious life
found expression in the sacrifices. God was fed and pleased by the offerings by fire. Many of
the customs are ancient and crude, so that it is difficult to imagine how such a primitive system
could have been arranged and accepted afterward by the people who had the lofty ethical
teachings of the prophets in their hands.

VI. Sacrifices in the History of Israel.

1. The Situation at Moses' Death:

The tribes were outwardly consolidated, and a religious system was provided. Some of it was
for the rulers, much for the people and much for the priests alone. The various laws were given
in portions and afterward compiled. No one expected them to be observed until the nation had
a capital and central sanctuary. Even then not every detail was always possible. They were not
observed to any extent in the wilderness (Amos 5:25), as it was impracticable. Even
circumcision was neglected until the wanderers crossed the Jordan (Joshua 5:2). The body of
the system was not in full practice for 300 or 400 years. The ritual, as far as it could be
observed, served as an educational agency, producing in the minds of the worshippers proper
conceptions of the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, and the proper spirit in approaching
God.

2. In the Time of Joshua:

Lay or common altars were in accordance With Exodus 20:24; Deuteronomy 16:21; 27:7. In
the days of Joshua, the Passover was celebrated (Joshua 5:10). At Ebal an altar was erected,
burnt and peace offerings were presented (Joshua 8:30-32). The tabernacle was set up at
Shiloh with a horned altar doubtless (Joshua 18:1), and the cult was observed to some extent.
Concerning the altar on the east side of the Jordan, see ALTAR.

3. The Period of the Judges:

Canaanitish altars were abundant with their corrupt and licentious cults of the Nature-gods.
Israelites with their common altars would naturally use the high places, when possible. The
stationary altars of the Canaanites were of course unlawful. The inevitable tendency would be
to imitate the worship of the Canaanites. They were rebuked and threatened for this, and,
weeping, offered sacrifices at Bochim (Judges 2:1-5). Gideon rebuilt an altar of Yahweh and
offered a bullock as a burnt offering (Judges 6:25,26). The kid prepared for the angel was not
first a sacrifice, but its acceptance as a gift was indicated by its being burned (Judges 6:19).
Jephthah offered up his daughter as a burnt offering, believing such a sacrifice well-pleasing to
Yahweh (Judges 11:31,39). Manoah and his wife prepared a kid for a burnt offering, a meal
offering accompanying it (Judges 13:16). At the time of the civil war with Benjamin the ark and
statutory altar seemed to be at Beth-el, where they offered burnt and peace offerings (Judges
20:26). The feasts at Shiloh imply at least peace offerings (Judges 21:19).

4. Times of Samuel and Saul:

Common lay altars and customary sacrifices were still much in use. The official altar with the
statutory individual and national offerings appears to be at Shiloh. El-kanah sacrifices and
feasts there yearly (1 Samuel 1:3). Such feasts were joyous and tended to excesses, as
drunkenness seemed common (1 Samuel 1:13). All Israel came thither (1 Samuel 2:14); the
priests claimed their portion, seizing it in an unlawful manner before the fat had been burned,
or the flesh had been boiled (1 Samuel 2:13-17). This shows that such ritual as was prescribed
in Le was practiced and considered by the people the only lawful custom. Was it in writing?
Why not? Guilt offerings were made by the Philistines when smitten by tumors (1 Samuel
6:3,1,8,17). There were five golden mice and five golden tumors. Crude as were their ideas of
a guilt offering, their actions show familiarity with the concept. Burnt offerings were used on
special occasions and in great crises, such as receiving the ark (1 Samuel 6:14), going to war
(1 Samuel 7:9; 13:9-12), victory (1 Samuel 11:15), etc. Saul met Samuel at a sacrificial feast in
a small city (1 Samuel 9:12,13) on a high place. At Gilgal there were burnt and peace offerings
(1 Samuel 10:8; 15:15,21). Saul offered burnt offerings himself (1 Samuel 13:9-12), but his
fault was not in offering them himself, but in his haste and disobedience toward Samuel. "To
obey is better than sacrifice," etc., says Samuel (1 Samuel 15:22), recognizing the fundamental
principle of the covenant and realizing that ceremonies are in themselves worthless without the
right spirit. The same truth is reiterated by the prophets later. To prevent the eating of flesh with
the blood Saul built a special altar (1 Samuel 14:32-35). Family and clan sacrifices and feasts
were evidently common (1 Samuel 16:2-5).

5. Days of David and Solomon:

The common altars and those on the high places were still in use. The central sanctuary at
Shiloh had been removed, first apparently to Gilgal, then to Nob, and later to Gibeon. David's
and Saul's families kept the feast of the new moon, when peace offerings would be sacrificed
(1 Samuel 20:5,24-29). The sanctuary at Nob had the shewbread upon the table (1 Samuel
21:4) according to Exodus 25:30. When the ark was brought up to Jerusalem, burnt offerings
and peace offerings were offered according to the Law (2 Samuel 6:17,18; 1 Chronicles
16:2,40). Ahithophel offered private, sacrifices at Shiloh (2 Samuel 15:12). David offered up
burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings when purchasing the threshing-floor of
Araunah (1 Chronicles 21:23-26). The statutory horned altar at this time was at Gibeon
(2 Chronicles 1:6; 1 Chronicles 21:29), but was soon removed to Jerusalem (1 Chronicles
22:1). In the organized sanctuary and ritual, Levites were appointed for attendance on the
shewbread, meal offerings, burnt offerings, morning and evening sacrifices, sabbaths, new
moons and set feasts (1 Chronicles 23:28-31), attempting to carry out the Levitical laws as far
as possible. At the dedication of the temple, Solomon offered burnt offerings, meal offerings,
and peace offerings in enormous quantities (1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chronicles 7:4-7); also burnt
offerings and peace offerings with incense triennially (1 Kings 9:25). The ritual at the regular
seasons, daily, sabbaths, new moons, set feasts, etc., was observed according to the Levitical
Law (2 Chronicles 2:4; 8:13). Was it written?

6. In the Northern Kingdom:

The golden calf worship was carried on at Da and Beth-el, with priests, altars and ritual
(1 Kings 12:27). The high places were in use, but very corrupt (1 Kings 13:2). A common altar
was in use on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18:30,32). Many others were known as Yahweh's altars
(1 Kings 19:10). The system was in full swing in Amos' time (Amos 4:4,5) at Beth-el and Gilgal
and probably at Beer-sheba (Amos 5:5). Amos bitterly satirizes the hollow, insincere worship,
but does not condemn the common altars and sacrifices, as these were legitimate. With Hosea
the situation is worse, the cult has been "canonized," priests have been fed on the sin or sin
offerings of the people, and the kingdom soon perished because of its corruption.
The high places were still in use and not denounced yet by the prophets (1 Kings 3:2; 2 Kings
14:4; 15:4,35). Worship was not fully centralized, though tending in that direction. In the days of
Abijah the temple cult was in full operation according to Moses' Law (2 Chronicles 13:10). Asa
removed many strange altars and high places because of their corruption (2 Chronicles 14:3),
but not all (2 Chronicles 15:17; 20:33).

7. In the Southern Kingdom to the Exile:

In the days of Jehoiada priests and Levites were on duty according to Moses (2 Chronicles
23:18; 24:14; 2 Kings 12:4-16). Sin and guilt offerings were in sufficient numbers to be
mentioned, but the money went to the priests. Kautzsch (HDB, V) and Paterson (HDB, IV), with
others, think these offerings were only fines and altogether different from those of Leviticus 4;5.
Such a statement is wholly gratuitous. The guilt offerings must be accompanied by fines, but
not necessarily the sin offerings. The passage speaks of both as perfectly familiar and of long
standing, but details are lacking and there can be no certainty in the matter, except that it
proves nothing regarding a ritual of sin and guilt offerings existent or non-existent at that time.
Kautzsch's and Paterson's motives are obvious. Having reversed the history and put the ritual
law late, they must needs make adjustments in the records to have them agree. In the days of
Ahaz, the regular offerings were observed for priests, kings and people (2 Kings 16:13-15).
Hezekiah destroyed many high places (2 Kings 18:4). When repairing the temple, many sin
offerings were presented to expiate the terrible sins of the previous reigns and the desecration
of the temple (2 Chronicles 29:21-24); and so, also, burnt offerings (2 Chronicles 29:27), peace
offerings and thank offerings, etc., in large number (2 Chronicles 29:31-35; compare Isaiah
1:10-17). The Passover was celebrated with peace offerings (2 Chronicles 30:1,2,15,22),
oblations and tithes (2 Chronicles 31:12); courses of Levites were established (2 Chronicles
31:2), and the king's portion (2 Chronicles 31:3). All the common altars were abolished as far
as possible, and worship centralized in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 32:12). Reversed by
Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33:3), the high places were again used (2 Chronicles 33:17). Josiah
purged Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 34:3), and on the discovery of the Book of the Law, with its
rule regarding a central sanctuary, that law was rigidly enforced (2 Chronicles 35:6-14). The
reformation under Josiah did not change the hearts of the people, and the rule followed in spite
of all the efforts of Jeremiah and other prophets.

8. In the Exilic and Post-exilic Periods:

That the cult was entirely suspended in Jerusalem from 586 to 536 BC seems certain. There is
no support for G. F. Moore's statement (EB, IV) that an altar was soon rebuilt and sacrificing
was carried on with scarcely a break. On the return of the exiles an altar was soon built and the
continual burnt offerings began (Ezra 3:2), and likewise at the Feast of Tabernacles, new
moons and set feasts (Ezra 3:4-7). Darius decreed that the Israelites should be given what was
needed for the sacrifices (Ezra 6:9). The band under Ezra offered many sin offerings on their
return (8:35). At the dedication of the temple many burnt and sin offerings were made for all the
tribes (6:17). Those who had married foreign wives offered guilt offerings (10:19). The firman of
Artaxerxes provided money for bullocks, rams, lambs, with meal offerings and drink offerings
(7:17). Under Nehemiah and after the formal acceptance of the Law, a more complete effort
was made to observe it. The shewbread, continual burnt and meal offerings, sabbaths, new
moons, set feasts, sin offerings, first-fruits, firstlings, first-fruits of dough, heave offerings of all
trees, wine and oil, etc., were carefully attended to (Nehemiah 10:33-37) and were in full force
later (Nehemiah 13:5,9). There is no hint of innovation, only a thoroughgoing attempt to
observe laws that had been somewhat neglected.

9. A Temple and Sacrifices at Elephantine:

At the time of Nehemiah and probably two or three centuries previous, there existed a temple
on the island of Elephantine in the Nile. It was built by a Jewish military colony, and a system of
sacrifices was observed. Just how far they copied the laws of Moses, and what were their
ideas of a central sanctuary are uncertain.

Several Semitic tribes or nations practiced human sacrifices. It was common among the
Canaanites, as is shown by the excavations at Gezer, Taanach, etc. They seemed to offer
children in sacrifice at the laying of cornerstones of houses and other such occasions.

10. Human Sacrifices in Israel's History:

Among the Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans human sacrifices were all too
common. The custom was not unknown to the Israelites. Abraham felt called upon to offer up
Isaac, but was stopped in the act, and a lesson was given for all time. The abominable practice
is forbidden by Moses (Leviticus 18:21), where it is spoken of as a passing through the fire to
Moloch, referring to Moabite and Ammonitish practices. Anyone practicing it was to be stoned
(Leviticus 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31;18:10). The rash vow of Jephthah resulted in the
immolation of his daughter, but the incident is recorded as something extraordinary (Judges
11:31). The execution of Zebah and Zalmunna is a case of blood revenge, not sacrifice
(Judges 8:18). Nor is the slaughter of Agag in any sense a sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:32). The
death of Saul's sons because of his breach of covenant with the Gibeonites was an expiatory
sacrifice, to atone for the father's perfidy (2 Samuel 21:9). The Moabite king in desperation
offered up his firstborn and heir to appease the anger of Chemosh, and the effect was startling
to the Israelites (2 Kings 3:27). Ahaz practiced the abomination in times of trouble (2 Kings
16:3). Such sacrifices were intended to secure favor with the Deity or appease His wrath. Hiel's
firstborn and youngest sons were probably sacrificed at the rebuilding or fortifying of Jericho
(1 Kings 16:34; compare Joshua 6:26). Manasseh practiced the custom (2 Kings 21:6), but it
was stopped by Josiah (2 Kings 23:10). Micah's words were probably applicable to those times
of Ahaz or Manasseh, when they thought to obtain God's favor by costly gifts apart from ethical
conditions (Micah 6:6-8). Isaiah refers to a heathen custom practiced by Israel of slaying the
children in secret places (Isaiah 57:5), and Jeremiah represents it as practiced in his time
(Jeremiah 7:31;19:5). Ezekiel denounces the same practice (Ezekiel 16:20,21; 23:37).

11. Certain Heathen Sacrifices:

Heathen sacrifices are hinted at in the later books, such as swine, a mouse, a horse, a dog
(Isaiah 65:4; 66:3,17; Ezekiel 8:10; 2 Kings 23:11). All such animals were unclean to the
Hebrews, and the practice had its roots in some form of primitive totemism which survived in
those heathen cults. They were little practiced among the Israelites.

See TOTEMISM.

VII. The Prophets and Sacrifices.

The prophets were reformers, not innovators. Their emphasis was on the ethical, rather than
the ritual. They based their teachings on the fundamentals of the covenant, not the incidentals.
They accepted sacrifices as part of the religious life, but would give them their right place. They
accepted the law regarding common altars, and Samuel, David and Elijah used these altars.
They also endorsed the movement toward a central sanctuary, but it is the abuse of the cult
that they condemned, rather than its use. They combated the heathenish idea that all God
needed was gifts, lavish gifts, and would condone any sin if only they bestowed abundance of
gifts. They demanded an inward religion, morality, justice, righteousness, in short, an ethical
religion. They preached an ethical God, rather than the profane, debasing and almost
blasphemous idea of God which prevailed in their times. They reminded the people of the
covenant at Sinai, the foundation principle of which was obedience and loyalty to Yahweh. If
Joe is early, the cult is in full practice, as he deplores the cutting-off of the meal offering, or
minchah, and the netsekh or drink offering, through the devastation of the locusts. He does not
mention the burnt offerings, etc., as these would not be cut off by the locusts (Joel
1:7,13; 2:14). Joe emphasized the need for a genuine repentance, telling them to rend their
hearts and not their garments (2:13).

Amos condemns the cult at Beth-el and Gilgal, and sarcastically bids them go on transgressing
(4:4,5), mentions burnt offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings, and freewill offerings (4:4;
5:22), reminds them of the fact that they did not offer sacrifices in the wilderness (5:25), but
demands rather righteousness and justice. There is nothing here against the Mosaic origin of
the laws.

In Hosea's time the hollow externalism of the cult had become worse, while vice, falsehood,
murder, oppression, etc., were rampant. He utters an epoch-making sentence when he says, "I
desire mercy, and not sacrifice," etc. (Hosea 6:6). This is no sweeping renunciation of
sacrifices, as such; it is only putting the emphasis in the right place. Such sacrifices as Hosea
speaks of were worse than worthless. It is somewhat extravagant for Kautzsch to say, "It is
perfectly futile to read out of Hosea 6:6 anything else than a categorical rejection of sacrifices."
Hosea recognizes their place in religion, and deplores the loss during exile (3:4). The corrupt
cults he condemns (4:13 f), for they are as bad as the Canaanitish cults (4:9). Yahweh will
spurn them (8:13; 9:4). The defection of the nation began early (11:2), and they have multiplied
altars (12:11; 13:2). He predicts the time when they shall render as bullocks the "calves" of
their lips (14:2 the King James Version).

Micah is as emphatic. The sacrifices were more costly in his day, in order the more surely to
purchase the favor of the Deity. Human sacrifices were in vogue, but Micah says God requires
them "to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (6:8). This does not
in the least affect sacrifices of the right kind and with the right spirit.

Isaiah faces the same situation. There are multitudes of sacrifices, burnt offerings, blood of
bullocks and goats, oblations, sweet incense, beasts, etc., but no justice, morality, love, truth or
goodness. Thus their sacrifices, etc., are an abomination, though right in themselves (1:11-17;
61:8). The same is true of all pious performances today. It is probable that Isaiah worshipped in
the temple (6:1,6). In his eschatological vision there is freedom to offer sacrifices in Egypt
(19:19,21). The people are to worship in the holy mountain (27:13). Ariel must let the feasts
come around (29:1).

Jeremiah maintains the same attitude. Your "frankincense from Sheba, and the sweet cane,"
burnt offerings and sacrifices are not pleasing to God (6:20; 14:12). They made the temple a
den of robbers, in the streets they baked cakes to the Queen of heaven, etc. He speaks
sarcastically, saying, "Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh. For I
spake not unto your fathers .... concerning .... sacrifices:

but .... commanded .... saying, Hearken unto my voice," etc. (7:21-23). This was literally true,
as we have seen above; the covenant was not based on sacrifices but on obedience. Such a
statement does not deny the institution of sacrifices for those within the covenant who are
obedient. It is no "subterfuge," as Kautzsch calls it, "to say that the prophets never polemize
against sacrifice per se, but only against offerings presented hypocritically, without repentance
and a right disposition, with blood-stained hands; against the opera operata of the carnally-
minded, half-heathen mass of the people." This is exactly what they do, and they are in perfect
harmony with the covenant constitution and with their own ethical and spiritual functions.
Kautzsch can make such an extravagant assertion only by ignoring the fact that Jeremiah
himself in predicting the future age of righteousness and blessedness makes sacrifice an
important factor (33:11,18). Picturing possible prosperity and glory, Jeremiah speaks of burnt
offerings and meal offerings, frankincense, thank offerings, etc., being brought into the house
of Yahweh (17:26). (We are aware of the harsh and arbitrary transference of this passage to a
later time.)

Ezekiel is called by Kautzsch "the founder of the Levitical system." He is said to have
preserved the fragment of the ritual that was broken up in the exile. But his references to the
burnt offerings, sin offerings, and trespass offerings presuppose familiarity with them (40:38-
42).

He assigns the north and south chambers for the meal, sin and trespass offerings (Ezekiel
42:13). The cleansing of the altar requires a bullock and he-goat for a sin offering, with burnt
and peace offerings with a ritual similar to Leviticus 8:1f (Ezekiel 43:18-27). The Levites are to
be ministers and slay burnt offerings and sacrifice for the people (Ezekiel 44:11). The priest
must offer his sin offering before he ministers in the sanctuary (Ezekiel 44:27). They are to eat
the meal, sin, and trespass offerings as in Ezekiel 44:29. In Ezekiel 45, the people are to give
the wheat, barley, oil and lambs for meal, burnt and peace offerings, while the prince shall give
the meal, burnt and drink offerings for the feasts, the new moons, sabbaths and appointed
feasts. He is to prepare them to make atonement (45:13-17). In cleansing the sanctuary the
Levitical ritual is followed with added details (45:18-20). The Passover requires the burnt
offerings, sin offerings, and meal offerings with an extra amount of cereal. The priests prepare
the prince's burnt offerings and peace offerings (46:2-4,6,9-12) for the sabbaths, new moons,
etc. The daily burnt offerings (46:13-15) must have a sixth instead of a tenth part of an ephah,
as in Leviticus 1. The sin and guilt offerings are to be boiled in a certain place, and the meal
offering baked (1:20,26). Ezekiel varies from the Levitical Law in the quantity of the meal
offering, picturing the ritual in a more ideal situation than Moses. The people are all righteous,
with new hearts, the Spirit in them enabling them to keep the Law (36:26 f), and yet he
institutes an elaborate ritual of purification for them. Does this seem to indicate that the
prophets would abolish sacrifices entirely? It is strange reasoning which makes the prophets
denounce the whole sacrificial system, when one of the greatest among them seeks to
conserve an elaborate cult for the blessed age in the future.

In the second part of Isaiah, God declares that He has not been honored by the people with
burnt offerings and meal offerings, etc., and that He has not burdened them with such
offerings, but that He is wearied with their sins (43:23 f). Those foreigners who respect the
covenant shall offer acceptable sacrifices (56:7) in the blessed age to come. The Servant of
Yahweh is to be a guilt offering (53:10) to expiate the sins of Israel. Sacrifice is here for the first
time lifted out of the animal to the human sphere, thus forging the link between the Old
Testament and the New Testament. In the glorious age to come there are to be priests and
Levites, new moons, sabbaths and worship in Jerusalem (66:21,23).

Daniel speaks of the meal offering being caused to cease in the midst of the week (9:27).

Zechariah pictures the golden age to come when all nations shall go up to Jerusalem to keep
the Feast of Tabernacles, which implies sacrifices. Pots are used, and all the worshippers shall
use them in the ritual (14:16-21).

In Malachi's age the ritual was in practice, but grossly abused. They offered polluted bread
(1:7), blind, lame and sick animals (1:13 f). Yahweh has the same attitude toward these as
toward those in the times of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah (Malachi 1:10). The Gentiles offer better
ones (Malachi 1:11). The Israelites covered the altar of Yahweh with tears by their hypocritical,
non-ethical actions (Malachi 2:13). They robbed God in withholding tithes and heave offerings
(Malachi 3:8). It is the abuse of the cult that is denounced here, as in all the other Prophets.
A special use of the term "sacrifice" is made by Zephaniah (1:7 f), applying it to the destruction
of Israel by Yahweh. Bozrah and Edom are to be victims (Isaiah 34:6); also Gog and Magog
(Ezekiel 39:17,19).

In summing up the general attitude of the prophets toward sacrifices, even G. F. Moore in
Encyclopedia Biblica admits:

"It is not probable that the prophets distinctly entertained the idea of a religion without a cult, a
purely spiritual worship. Sacrifice may well have seemed to them the natural expression of
homage and gratitude." He might have added, "and of atonement for sin, and full fellowship
with God."

Reading: Sacrifice in the Old Testament Part 3 by J. J. Reeve

SACRIFICE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 3

VIII. Sacrifice in the "Writings."

1. Proverbs:

Dates are very uncertain here. The Psalms and Proverbs extend from David and Solomon into
the Persian period. The sages take the same attitude as the prophets. They enjoin the sacrifice
of first-fruits (Proverbs 3:9). A feast usually follows a sacrifice of peace offerings (7:14). The
trespass offering (?) has no meaning to fools (14:9), and the sacrifices of the wicked are an
abomination to God (15:8; 21:27). Righteousness and justice are more acceptable to Yahweh
than sacrifices (21:3), yet to them sacrifices are a regular part of worship. Qoheleth speaks of
sacrifices as quite the custom, and deprecates the offerings of fools (Ecclesiastes 5:1;9:2).

2. The Psalms:

The Psalmist admonishes the faithful to offer the sacrifices of righteousness, i.e. sacrifices
offered in the right spirit (Psalms 4:5). The drink offerings of idolaters are well known (Psalms
16:4). Prayer is made for the acceptance of sacrifices (Psalms 20:3). It is a coveted privilege to
offer them (Psalms 27:6;84:1-4). The true relation between sacrifice and obedience is
expressed in Psalms 40:6-8. As in Jeremiah 7:21, the emphasis is laid on obedience, without
which sacrifices are worthless and repugnant to God. They are not the important thing in
Israel's religion, for that religion could exist without them as in the wilderness and exile. The
teaching corresponds exactly with that of the prophets and is probably late. Psalms 50 is even
more emphatic. The Psalmist knows that sacrifices are in the covenant regulations (50:5), but
repudiates the idea of giving anything to God or of feeding Him (50:12,13). Everything belongs
to Him, He is not hungry, He would scorn the idea of drinking the blood of goats, etc. The idea
of the cult being of any real value to God is scouted. Yet in the next verse the reader is
admonished to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving and pay vows (50:14). The sacrifices that
express worship, penitence, prayer, thanksgiving and faith are acceptable. The penitent
Psalmist speaks in similar terms. Sacrifices as such are no delight to God, the real sacrifice is
a broken heart (51:16 f). When the heart is right, then, as an expression of true-heartedness,
devotion, repentance and faith, burnt offerings are highly acceptable (51:19). Another Psalmist
promises a freewill offering to God (54:6; 66:13,15). Sacrifices of thanksgiving are advised
(96:8; 107:22; 118:27) and promised (116:17). Prayer is likened to the evening sacrifice
(141:2).

IX. The Idea and Efficacy of Sacrifices.

That the Hebrews thoroughly believed in the efficacy of sacrifices is without doubt. What ideas
they entertained regarding them is not so clear. No single theory can account for all the facts.
The unbloody sacrifices were regarded as food for the Deity, or a pleasant odor, in one
instance, taking the place of a bloody offering (see above). The bloody offerings present some
difficulties, and hence, many different views.

1. A Gift of Food to the Deity:

Included under the head of gifts of food to the Deity would be the meal and peace offerings, in
so far as they were consumed by fire, the burnt offerings and the shewbread, etc. They were
fire-food, the fire-distilled essence or etherealized food for God which gave Him pleasure and
disposed Him favorably toward the offerer. They were intended either to appease wrath, to win
favor, or to express thanks and gratitude for favors experienced. The earlier and more naive
idea was probably to win the favor of the Deity by a gift. Later, other ideas were expressed in
the offerings.

2. Expression of Adoration and Devotion, etc.:

The burnt offering best gave expression to the sentiments of adoration and devotion, though
they may not be excluded from the meal and peace offerings. In other words, sacrifice meant
worship, which is a complex exercise of the soul. Such was Abraham's attempted sacrifice of
Isaac. The daily burnt offerings were intended to represent an unbroken course of adoration
and devotion, to keep the right relations with the Deity. On particular occasions, special
offerings were made to insure this relation which was specially needed at that time.

3. Means of Purification from Uncleanness:

The burnt and sin offerings were the principal kinds used for the purpose of purification; water
being used in case of uncleanness from contact with the dead. There were three classes of
uncleanness:

(1) those inseparable from the sex functions of men and women;

(2) those resulting from contact with a corpse;

(3) the case of recovery from leprosy.

Purification ceremonies were the condition of such persons enjoying the social and religious
life of the community. Why they should require a sin offering when most of them occurred in
the regular course of nature and could not be guarded against, can be understood only as we
consider that these offenses were the effects of sin, or the weaknesses of the fleshly nature,
due to sin. Such uncleannesses made the subject unfit for society, and that unfitness was an
offense to God and required a piacular offering.

4. Means of Consecration to Divine Service:

Consecration was of men and things. The ceremonies at the sealing of the covenant and the
consecration of the Levites and of Aaron and his sons have been mentioned. The altar and
furniture of the tabernacle were consecrated by the blood of the sin offering. This blood being
the means of expiation, it cleansed from all defilement caused by human hands, etc. The
sprinkling and smearing of the blood consecrated them to the service of God. The blood being
holy, it sanctified all it touched (compareEzekiel 45:19f).

5. Means of Establishing a Community of Life between Worshipper and God:

In other words, it is a kind of sacral communion. The blood is the sacred cement between man
and God. This is possible only because it contains the life and is appropriated by God as a
symbol of the communion into which He enters with the offerer. This blood "covers" all sin and
defilement in man, permits him to enter God's presence and attests the communion with Him.
This is the view of Schultz, and partly that of Kautzsch, in regard to earlier ideas of sacrifice.
Such a view may have been held by certain peoples in primitive times, but it does not do
justice to the Levitical system.

6. View of Ritschl:

The view of Ritschl is that sacrifices served as a form of self-protection from God whose
presence meant destruction to a weak creature. Thus, sacrifices have no moral value and no
relation to sin and defilement. They have relation only to man's creaturely weakness which is in
danger of destruction as it approaches the presence of God. God's presence necessarily
meant death to the creature without reference to his holiness, etc. Such a view banishes all
real sense of sin, all ethical values, and furnishes no proper motives. It gives a false idea of the
character of God, and is entirely out of accord with the sacred record.

7. The Sacramental View:

That sacrifices were really a sacrament has been advocated by many. According to some
theologians, the sacrifices were signs of spiritual realities, not only representing but sealing and
applying spiritual blessings, and their efficacy was proportionate to the faith of the offerer. By
some Roman Catholic theologians it is held that the Passover was especially of a sacramental
character, corresponding to the Lord's Supper. The purificatory rites corresponded to penance
and the consecrating sacrifices to the sacrament of ordination. Bahr says that the acceptance
of the sacrifice by Yahweh and His gift of sanctification to the worshippers give to the sacrifice
the character of a sacramental act. Cave also speaks of them as having a sacramental
significance, while refuting the position of Bahr. Though there may be a slight element of truth
in some of these ideas, it is not the idea expressed in the cult, and seems to read into the ritual
theology of theologians themselves. This view is closely allied to a phase of the following view
(see Paterson, HDB, IV).

8. Symbol or Expression of Prayer:

That it is a symbol or expression of prayer is held by Maurice and to some extent by Schultz.
Thus, the sacrifices are supposed to be symbols of the religious sentiment, which are the
conditions of acceptance with God. The victim serves as an index of what is in the worshipper's
heart, and its virtue is exhausted when it is presented to God. Thus, it may express spiritual
aspiration or supplication, hatred of sin and surrender to God with confession and supplication.
Bahr holds that a valuable and unblemished victim is selected as symbolical of the excellence
and purity to which the offerer aspires, the death is necessary to procure life which may be
offered to God, and the sprinkling of the blood is the presentation to God of the life still resident
in the blood. Schultz thinks that the sin offering was distinctively purifying. "Hence, the real
ground of purification is that God accepts the sacrifice and thereby enters into communion with
the sinner, granting him actual pardon, and that man in this offering enjoined by God as the
embodied prayer of a penitent expresses his confession, his regrets and his petition for
forgiveness." While there is an element of truth in this, and it is particularly applicable to the
burnt offering, it does not embrace all the facts. It represents the views of the prophets and
psalmists more than that of the Levitical code.

9. View of Kautzsch:

Kautzsch holds that the efficacy of sacrifices consists in this:

"God has connected the accomplishment of atonement with the obedient discharge of the
sacrificial prescriptions; whoever fulfils these and gets the priest to perform the atoning usages,
is forgiven. The ritual, especially the presenting of the blood, is the indispensable condition of
atonement, but it is not synonymous. Forgiveness of sin flows from the grace of God as taught
by the prophets, only with them it is unnecessary, but with the Priestly Code it is necessary."
Thus Kautzsch teaches a fundamental contradiction between the prophets and the Law, which
is utterly wrong and is made necessary by first turning the history upside down and making the
Priestly Code a hideous anachronism. He says, "That the process of atonement is connected
with the presenting of blood, explains itself naturally as a powerful after-influence of primitive
sacrificial usages, in which the presenting of blood had a different meaning. It is a symbolic
(not real) satisfaction, as through the animal's life symbolic expression is given to the fact that
the sinner's life is forfeited to God. But the main idea is that God has commanded it" (HDB, V,
721a). The half-truths in these statements will be obvious to most readers.

10. Vicarious Expiation Theory; Objections:

The theory that sacrifices were a vicarious expiation of sin and defilement, by a victim whose
life is forfeited instead of the sinner's, is the only one that will complete the Levitical idea of
sacrifices. This of course applies especially to the sin offering. While there is an element of
truth in the gift-theory, the prayer and sacramental theories and others, including that of
Kautzsch, the idea of a vicarious suffering is necessary to complete the conception. Oehler
recognizes the force of the prayer-theory, but advances to the idea that in sacrifices man
places the life of a pure, innocent, sacrificial animal between himself and God, because he is
unable to approach God on account of his sinfulness and impurity. Thus it becomes a kopher
for him, to cover his sin. This is not a punishment inflicted on the animal, although in the case
of uncertain homicide it is (Deuteronomy 21:1-9). The law does not lay the emphasis upon the
slaughter, but on the shedding of the blood and the sprinkling of it on certain articles. The
slaughter is of course presupposed. The altar is not regarded as a place of execution, it is the
means for "covering" the sins of the covenant people, a gracious ordinance of God and well-
pleasing to Him. But the gift can please God only as the gift of one who has given himself up to
Him; therefore the ritual must represent this self-surrender, the life of the clean and guiltless
animal in place of the impure and sinful soul of the offerer, and this pure soul, coming in
between the offerer and the Holy God, lets Him see at the altar a pure life by which the impure
life is covered. In the same way the pure element serves to cover the pollutions of the
sanctuary and the altar, etc. Its meaning is specific, it is the self-sacrifice of the offerer
vicariously accomplished. This self-sacrifice necessarily involves suffering and punishment,
which is inflicted on the beast to which the guilt and sin are imputed, not imparted (see Oehler,
Old Testament Theology, 278 f).

Objections have been raised by Dillmann, Kautzsch, and others on the ground that it could not
have been vicarious because sacrifices were not allowed for sins which merited death, but only
for venial transgressions (Numbers 15:30). Certainly, but the entire sacrificial system was for
those who were in the covenant, who did not commit sins that merited death, and was never
intended as a penal substitute, because the sins of those in the covenant were not of a penal
nature. The sacrifices were "to cover" the sin and defilement of the offerer, not the deserved
death-penalty of one who broke the covenant. Again, they object, a cereal offering may atone,
and this excludes a penal substitute. But sacrifices were not strictly penal, and the cereal was
distinctly an exception in case of the very poor, and the exception proves the rule. In any case
it represented the self-sacrifice of the offerer, and that was the important thing. Further, the
victim was slain by the offerer and not by the priest, whereas it should have been put to death
by God's representative. This carries no weight whatever, as the essential thing was a
sacrifice, and priests were not necessary for that. A more serious objection is that in the case
of penal substitution, by which the sin and guilt are transferred to the animal, the flesh of that
animal is regarded as most holy and to be eaten by the priests only, whereas it would
necessarily be regarded as laden with guilt and curse, and hence, polluted and unfit for use.
This is a pure assumption. In the first place, the substitution was not strictly penal, and,
secondly, there is no hint that actual pollution is conveyed to the flesh of the animal or to the
blood. Even if it were so, the shedding of the blood would expiate the sin and guilt, wipe out the
pollution, and the flesh would be in no way affected. On the contrary, the flesh, having been the
vehicle for the blood which has accomplished such a sacred and meritorious service, would
necessarily be regarded as most holy. All the animal would be holy, rather than polluted, since
it had performed such a holy service. Kautzsch's objection thus appears puerile. The ritual of
the Day of Atonement presents all these features. It is distinctly stated that the high priest
confesses the iniquities of the children of Israel over the scapegoat, and that the goat carries
this guilt away to the desert. Its blood is not shed, it is wholly unclean, and the man leading it
away is unclean. This is undeniably a vicarious act. In the case of the other goat, a sin offering,
the sin and guilt are imputed to it, but the life is taken and thus the expiation is made and the
flesh of the victim used in such a holy service is most holy.

That this view of a vicarious expiation was generally accepted is evident on every hand. There
was no need of a theoretical explanation in the cult; it was self-evident; as Holtzmann says,
"the most external indeed, but also the simplest and most generally intelligible and the readiest
answer to the nature of expiation" (New Testament Theology, I, 68). This view is amply
corroborated by the researches of S. I. Curtiss in his Primitive Semitic Religion of Today. By
searching questions he found that the fundamental idea of bloody sacrifices was that the victim
took the place of the man, redeemed him, or atoned for him as a substitute. The "bursting forth
of the blood" was the essential thing (see pp. 218 f).

11. Typology of Sacrifice:

The typology of sacrifice has been much discussed. There can be no question that, from the
standpoint of the New Testament, many of the sacrifices were typical. They pre-figured, and
designedly so, the great sacrifice of Christ. Thus they could not really take away sin; they were
in that sense unreal. But the question is, were they typical to the people of Israel? Did Moses
and the priests and prophets and people understand that they were merely figures,
adumbrations of the true Sacrifice to come, which alone could take away sin? Did they
understand that their Messiah was to be sacrificed, His blood shed, to make an atonement for
them, and render their divinely-given means of atonement all unreal? The answer must be an
emphatic "No." There is no hint that their minds were directed to think of the Coming One as
their sacrifice, foreshadowed by their offerings. That was the one thing the nation could not and
would not understand, and to this day the cross is their chief stumblingblock. The statement
that the Servant is to be a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10) is the nearest approach to it, but this is
far from saying that the whole sacrificial system was understood as foreshadowing that event.
The great prophets all speak of a sacrificial system in full vogue in the Messianic age.

We prefer to regard the sacrificial system as great religious educational system, adapted to the
capacity of the people at that age, intended to develop right conceptions of sin, proper
appreciation of the holiness of God, correct ideas of how to approach God, a familiarity with the
idea of sacrifice as the fundamental thing in redemption, life, and service to God and man.

LITERATURE.

Only a Selection Is Attempted:

Articles in Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition; Encyclopedia Biblica (G. F. Moore); HDB (Paterson);
RE and Sch-Herz (Orelli); Jewish Encyclopedia; McClintock and Strong, etc.; Murray's Bible
Dict.; Standard BD, etc. Kautzsch, Jastrow and Wiedermann in HDB; article on "Comparative
Religion" in Sch-Herz; Old Testament Theologies of Oehler, Dillmann, Smend, Schultz,
Davidson, Koenig, etc.
On Sacrifices in General:

Wellhausen, Reste des arabischen Heidenthums; W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites; J. G.

Frazer, Golden Bough, II, III; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture; E. Westermarck, Origin of Moral
Ideas; H. Hubert et Mauss, Annee sociologique, II; L. Marillier, Revue de l'histoire des
religions, XXXVI, 208; S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion of Today.

Biblical Sacrifices:

F. Bahr, Symbolik des Mosdischen Kultus; J. H. Kurtz, Der alttestamentliche Opfercultus; A.

Stewart, The Mosaic Sacrifices; J. G. Murphy, Sacrifice as Set Forth in Scripture; A. Cave,
Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice; F. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice; J. M. P. Smith, Biblical
Doctrine of Atonement. See also:

Schultz, AJT, 1900, 257; Smoller, Studien und Kritiken, 1891; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal
Criticism; Pentateuchal Studies; Driver, ERE, VI.