Sacrifice

SACRIFICE

An offering made to God on his altar, by the hand of a lawful minister. A sacrifice differed from an oblation; it was properly the offering up of a life; whereas an oblation was but a simple offering or gift. There is every reason to believe that sacrifices were from the first of divine appointment; otherwise they would have been a superstitious will-worship, which God could not have accepted as he did. See ABEL. Adam and his sons, Noah and his descendents, Abraham and his posterity, Job and Melchizedek, before the Mosaic law, offered to God real sacrifices. That law did but settle the quality, the number, and other circumstances of sacrifices. Every one was priest and minister of his own sacrifice; at least, he was at liberty to choose what priest he pleased in offering his victim. Generally, this honor belonged to the head of a family; hence it was the prerogative of the firstborn. But after Moses this was, among the Jews, confined to the family of Aaron.There was but one place appointed in the law for the offering of sacrifices by the Jews. It was around the one altar of the only true God in the tabernacle, and afterwards in the temple, that all his people were to unite in his worship, Lev 17:4,9 Deu 12:5-18 . On some special occasions, however, kings, prophets, and judges sacrificed elsewhere, Jdg 2:5 6:26 13:16 1Sa 7:17 1Ki 3:2,3 18:33. The Jews were taught to cherish the greatest horror of human sacrifices, as heathenish and revolting, Lev 20:2 Deu 12:31 Psa 106:37 Isa 66:3 Eze 20:31 .The Hebrews had three kinds of sacrifices:1. The burnt-offering or holocaust, in which the whole victim was consumed, without any reserve to the person who gave the victim, or to the priest who killed and sacrificed it, except that the priest had the skin; for before the victims were offered to the Lord, their skins were flayed off, and their feet and entrails were washed, Lev 1:1-17 7:8. Every burnt offering contained an acknowledgment of general guilt, and a typical expiation of it. The burning of the whole victim on the altar signified, on the part of the offerer, the entireness of his devotion of himself and all his substance to God; and, on the part of the victim, the completeness of the expiation.2. The sin offering, of which the trespass offering may be regarded as a variety. This differed from the burnt-offering in that it always had respect to particular offences against law either moral through ignorance, or at least not in a presumptuous spirit. No part of it returned to him who had given it, but the sacrificing priest had a share of it, Lev 4:1-6 :30 7:1-10 3. Peace-offerings: these were offered in the fulfillment of vows, to return thanks to God for benefits, (thank-offerings,) or to satisfy private devotion, (freewill-offerings.) The Israelites accordingly offered these when they chose, no law obliging them to it, and they were free to choose among such animals as were allowed in sacrifice, Lev 3:1-17 7:11-34. The law only required that the victim should be without blemish. He who presented it came to the door of the tabernacle, put his hand on the head of the victim, and killed it. The priest poured out the blood about the altar of burntsacrifices: he burnt on the fire of the altar the fat of the lower belly, that which covers the kidneys, the liver, and the bowels. And if it were a lamb, or a ram, he added to it the rump of the animal, which in that country is very fat. Before these things were committed to the fire of the altar, the priest put them into the hands of the offerer, then made him lift them up on high, and wave them toward the four quarters of the world, the priest supporting and direction his hands. The breast and the right shoulder of the sacrifice belonged to the priest that performed the service; and it appears that both of them were put into the hands of him who offered them, though Moses mentions only the breast of the animal. After this, all the rest of the sacrifice belonged to him who presented it, and he might eat it with his family and friends at his pleasure, Lev 8:31 . The peace offering signified expiation of sin, and thus reconciliation with God, and holy communion with him and with his people.The sacrifices of offerings of meal or liquors, which were offered for sin, were in favor of the poorer sort, who could not afford to sacrifice an ox or goat or sheep, Lev 5:10-13 . They contented themselves with offering meal or flour, sprinkled with oil, with spice (or frankincense) over it. And the priest, taking a handful of this flour, with all the frankincense, sprinkled them on the fire of the altar; and all the rest of the flour was his own: he was to eat it without leaven in the tabernacle, and none but priests were to partake of it. As to other offerings, fruits, wine, meal, wafers, or cakes, or any thing else, the priest always cast a part on the altar; the rest belonged to him and the other priests. These offerings were always accompanied with salt and wine, but were without leaven, Lev 2:1-16 .Offerings, in which they set at liberty a bird or a goat, were not strictly sacrifices, because there was no shedding of blood, and the victim remained alive.Sacrifices of birds were offered on three occasions: 1. For sin, when the person offering was not rich enough to provide an animal for a victim, Lev 5:7,8 2. For purification of a woman after childbirth, Lev 12:6,7 . When she could offer a lamb and a young pigeon, she gave both; the lamb for a burnt offering, the pigeon for a sin offering. But if she were not able to offer a lamb, she gave a pair of turtles, or a pair of young pigeons; one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering. 3. They offered two sparrows for those who were purified from the leprosy; one was a burnt offering, the other was a scape-sparrow, as above, Lev 14:4, etc Lev 14:1 27:34.For the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, see PASSOVER.The perpetual sacrifice of the tabernacle and temple, Exo 29:38-40 Num 28:3, was a daily offering of two lambs on the altar of burnt offerings; one in the morning, the other in the evening. They were burnt as holocausts, but by a small fire, that they might continue burning the longer. The lamb of the morning was offered about sunrise, after the incense was burnt on the golden altar, and before any other sacrifice. That in the evening was offered between the two evenings, that is, at the decline of day, and before night. With each of these victims was offered half a pint of wine, half a pint of the purest oil, and an assaron, or about five pints, of the finest flour.Such were the sacrifices of the Hebrews-sacrifices of divine appointment, and yet altogether incapable in themselves of purifying the soul or atoning for its sins. Paul has described these and other ceremonies of the law “as weak and beggarly elements,” Gal 4:9 . They represented grace and purity, but they did not communicate it. They convinced the sinner of his necessity of purification and sanctification to God; but they did not impart holiness or justification to him. Sacrifices were only prophecies and figures of the sacrifice, the Lamb of God, which eminently includes all their virtues and qualities; being at the same time a holocaust, a sacrifice for sin, and a sacrifice of thanksgiving; containing the whole substance and efficacy, of which the ancient sacrifices were only representations. The paschal lamb, the daily burnt-offerings, the offerings of flour and wine, and all other oblations, of whatever nature, promised and represented the death of Jesus Christ, Heb 9:9-15 10:1. Accordingly, by his death he abolished them all, 1Co 5:7 Heb 10:8-10 . By his offering of himself once for all, Heb 10:3, he has superseded all other sacrifices, and saves forever all who believe, Zep 5:2 Heb 9:11-26 ; while without this expiatory sacrifice, divine justice could never have relaxed its hold on a single human soul.The idea of a substitution of the victim in the place of the sinner is a familiar one in the Old Testament, Lev 16:21 Deu 21:1-8 Isa 53:4 Dan 9:26 ; and is found attending all the sacrifices of animals, Lev 4:20,26 5:10 14:18 16:21. This is the reason assigned why the blood especially, as being the very life and soul of the victim, was sprinkled on the altar and poured out before the Lord to signify its utter destruction in the sinner’s stead, Lev 17:11 . Yet the Jews were carefully directed not to rely on these sacrifices as works of merit. They were taught that without repentance, faith, and reformation, all sacrifices were an abomination to God, Pro 21:27 Jer 6:20 1Sa 5:22 Mic 6:6-8 ; that He desires mercy and not sacrifice, Hos 6:6 Mat 9:13, and supreme love to him, Mar 12:33 . “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams,” 1Sa 15:22 Pro 21:3 Mat 5:23 . See also Psa 50:1-23 . Then, as truly as under the Christian dispensation, it could be said, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise,” Psa 51:17 . The Jews, without these dispositions, could not present any offering agreeable to God; and he often explains himself on this matter in the prophets, Psa 40:6 Isa 1:11-14 Hos 6:6 Joe 2:12-18 1Sa 5:21,22, etc.The term sacrifices is sometimes used metaphorically with respect to the services of Christians; implying a giving up of something that was their own, and a dedication of it to the Lord, 1Ch 12:1 Phi 4:18 Heb 13:15,16 1Pe 2:5 .

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Sacrifice

1. Sources.-The sacrificial ideas found in the teaching of the Apostolic Church cast their roots so deeply in the soil of OT ideas and practice that careful reference to the sacrificial system inherited by apostolic writers from Jewish sources is essential. Even more closely than in other subjects, the apostolic literature assumes the genetic connexion of Christianity with Judaism in its doctrine of sacrifice. The OT thought-world is everywhere regarded as the basis for expounding the ultimate and more spiritual exhibitions of the sacrificial principle characteristic of apostolic interpretation. To make accurately and sympathetically the fine adjustments necessary between these transformed and spiritualized sacrificial values and their pre-Christian forms is of first importance. This task is the more difficult because the Jewish sources are themselves in turn inherited from primitive Semitic usages of which the meaning and origin are at present under investigation and the subject of keen discussion. Possibly reminiscences of each of the main theories advocated respecting the origin of sacrifice may be traced in the terms that illustrate apostolic teaching-e.g. the Gift theory (Php 4:18), the Homage theory (Rom 12:1), the Common Meal theory (1Co 10:14-22); the Expiatory theory is too obvious to need references. The one constant element in primitive sacrifice persisting to apostolic times that modern research, both anthropological and psychological, seems to warrant is that sacrifice appears to have pleased the object of worship and secured the favour of the deity-i.e., it was propitiatory in the broadest sense. The most reliable expert opinion of different schools of anthropologists regards sacrifice as devised by man as an institution by which he might indicate and satisfy the instincts of his religious nature, and therefore only indirectly Divine in its origin. Sacrifice thus originated in primitive childlike ideas of God, and developed, through the primary religious instinct of pleasing Him by giving or sharing a meal with Him, into later rites regarded as of expiatory value as the moral consciousness of the race deepened. Some such long course of development lies behind the appearance of sacrifice in the OT.

(a) Early Israel.-Here sacrifice is regarded as a familiar custom at the beginning of human history; it originated in the first family; it was patriarchal. It meets us early in the OT as the comparatively complete and elaborated cultus mirrored in the J document, but no light is thrown upon its origin. Its chief occasions were times of meeting with God; it marked the intimate relationship between the god and his worshippers; the prevailing conception of its significance was that it was a present to God in sign of homage, thanksgiving, desire for communion or Divine gifts. The indications here of the stricter motive of expiation are very slight, although awe of the Divine Presence finds early and constant expression; and there is little doubt that Israel in all ages believed in the effectiveness of sacrifice to preserve or restore the favour of Jahweh. In view of apostolic teaching the early significance of the Covenant Sacrifice should be noted. Its specific object was to make a covenant sure and binding by the interchange of blood between the parties to it; half the animal victims blood was poured upon the altar for God and half sprinkled upon the people (cf. Exo 24:6-8, Heb 8:6 ff; Heb 9:15-22). The religious efficacy of sacrifice was interpreted according to the degree of ethical and spiritual enlightenment of the offerers. The popular idea of a union cemented by blood in its physical and literal character was beginning to be challenged in the early monarchy; the higher theology of the age was already excluding the idea of God as a fellow-guest, and offerings were regarded as worthless without obedience (cf. 1Sa 15:22). God was disposed favourably by sacrifices, but we are not able to say in what manner they were supposed to influence Him. Neither these nor the older Semitic sacrifices were strictly expiatory, as has often been assumed; even where the animal may have been regarded as the offerers substitute, it may not necessarily have been as expiation for sin. Human sacrifices were unquestionably offered in the earlier stages of the Hebrew transition from the prehistoric to the historic development of the doctrine. They were common in Palestinian religion.

(b) Prophetic teaching.-Before touching upon the priestly or Levitical sacrificial system, from which it is evident apostolic teaching chiefly drew its thought-forms and its sacrificial terminology, reference must be made to the attitude taken towards sacrifice by the OT prophets, especially by those of the 8th century. From these the primitive Christian Church drew much of the substance of its teaching on sacrifice as it came to be interpreted in ethical and spiritual values. These two types-prophetic and priestly-dominate the structure of our OT sources; they existed side by side and acted and reacted upon each other. If not distinctly rival systems in the religious thought and practice of Israel, they represent different ideals concerning that which is an acceptable offering to the Lord. To recognize that both of them deeply influenced apostolic views of sacrifice is important. It is not probable that the prophets actually proposed the abolition of sacrifice, as some scholars have maintained. They assumed its legitimacy; they denied its necessity. Their protest was against the exaggerated importance of sacrifice (cf. Amo 5:25, Jer 7:21 f.); it was not essential to forgiveness. The Levitical cultus provided sacrifice as the chief vehicle of Gods grace; forgiveness is mediated through it. The insistent iterance of the prophetic word is that sacrifice is not essential; God requires obedience, not sacrifice. Because He is a righteous God, He can accept nothing in place of righteousness. Righteousness is fundamental religion (Mic 6:6-8); without it sacrifice was an insult to God; He was weary of it; it provoked Him. Whilst they did not demand a religion without a cultus, i.e. a purely spiritual worship, the prophets denied that sacrifice in itself has efficacy with God, and that He has appointed it as essential to the ministry of His grace. In thus setting character before cultus the Psalmists join the prophets, emphasizing at the same time the abiding value in the sight of God of penitential feeling (cf. Psa 40:6-9; Psa 51:16 f.). With the great prophet of the Exile there rises also the commanding figure of the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Out of His personal afflictions for His people grows the vision of a voluntary and personal sacrificial offering of Himself. This transcends in its perfect ethical and spiritual value all lower ideas associated with the offering of animal victims (Isaiah 53). The extent to which this presentation of the Suffering Servant and the prophetic attitude of bare tolerance towards the sacrificial system influenced the apostolic teaching on sacrifice has not been fully appreciated.

(c) Levitical.-Historically this followed the prophetic period referred to. It did not precede it, as was formerly thought. The elaboration of the Levitical Code and the bewildering details of the priestly legislation respecting sacrifice led to the depreciation of the prophetic criticism of it. Levitical conceptions became characteristic of the Judaism with which early Christianity had such intimate and vital connexion. The transition from the ethical ideals of the prophets to the ceremonial ritual of the Levitical system carries us into a different world of sacrificial ideas; in many respects the change marks reaction; ethically it is on a lower plane, though it may possibly as a hard shell have preserved for future generations the kernel of the prophetic teaching regarding sacrifice. Its marvellous completeness provided a basis for typological analogy. It was almost inevitable, in the circumstances in which Christianity arose, that the primitive Church should extensively use this as a vehicle for teaching its doctrine of redemption. We need not refuse to see in the rich detail of Jewish sacrifices an unconscious illustrative preparation for apostolic forms of teaching. Yet it is difficult to hold that this whole ceremonial system was instituted with a conscious reference to, or binding authority for, the spiritual teaching of the sacrificial principle in Christianity, in which the Jewish sacrificial system was at once fulfilled and abrogated. The chief feature of the Levitical system, as distinguished from the sacrifices of the earlier cultus in Israel, was the greater importance attached to piacular or expiatory sacrifices-the guilt-, sin-, and trespass-offerings. This resulted from the deepened sense of sin which had developed during the Exile. Originally not more important than other offerings, the sin-offering now becomes the sacrifice par excellence. Eventually this type of sacrifice appears to have overshadowed the other great type represented by the peace-offerings, which assumed that the covenant relations with Jahweh were undisturbed. It was the expiatory type that constituted the daily sacrifice-the continual burnt-offering-up to apostolic times; it was regarded as most perfectly embodying, through its vicarious character, the sacrificial idea; it was not connected with any particular transgression, but was maintained as the appropriate means of a sinful peoples approach to a Holy God. Essential features in it were the shedding and sprinkling of blood and the conveyance of the sacrifice entire to God and His ministers; it was also accompanied by the imposition of hands. The utmost importance was attached in this type of sacrifice to the disposition of the victims blood: the blood was Gods; it belonged to Him of right; a mysterious potency inhered in it; the life was in it (cf. Lev 17:11); safety for the individual and the nation lay in such sacrifices of blood. It is of great importance, however, in view of apostolic conceptions to note that such sacrifices-the highest in value the Levitical system provided-availed only for sins of ignorance, for unwitting transgression of holy things and for the removal of physical uncleanness, which was regarded as implying moral as well as ceremonial disability in drawing near to God (Num 15:30). For wilful sins-sins with a high hand-no reconciling sacrifice was provided in Israel; the penalty of such sins was death-that soul was cut off from Israel. But even such sins were not beyond the reach of forgiveness. That such sinners might through confession and true penitence approach God, and through His grace, apart from sacrifice, meet with His mercy was the evangelical proclamation of the prophets. It was held, however, by later Jewish interpreters that the scapegoat on the great Day of Atonement expiated the sins of all Israelites who had not deliberately put themselves outside its effects by forsaking the religion of their people; and this expiation was applied so as to include sins the penalty of which was to be cut off from his people, or death (cf. Encyclopaedia Biblica iv. 4219, 4224).

(d) Later Jewish.-The whole question of the expiatory value of Jewish sacrifices generally is keenly debated amongst modern scholars. The theory of the penal substitution of the life of the animal victim in place of the life of the offerer, which was formerly regarded as almost an axiomatic principle of interpretation, now meets with cogent criticism. Whilst this theory is still held on the ground of evidence direct and indirect in biblical and post-biblical ideas or usage, it must be said that probably the majority of modern scholars regard it as no longer tenable. Much in the discussion of these opposing positions turns upon the confidence which should be placed upon the theories of sacrifice prevalent in later Judaism. If the date and adequacy of the valuable materials collected from later Jewish sources, belonging to the time when the institution of the Synagogue was growing up side by side with the sacrificial worship of the Temple, could be depended upon, they would afford data of the highest importance in seeking to interpret the ideas of the apostolic literature, whose writers had been taught in the synagogue or in the Rabbinical schools. The present difficulty, however, of gathering the old Jewish theory of sacrifice from these sources may be illustrated by the contrary judgments of two scholars who have had access to them. Holtzmann sums up the result thus: Everything pressed towards the assumption that the offering of a life, substituted for sinners according to Gods appointment, cancelled the death penalty which they had incurred, and that consequently the offered blood of the sacrificial victims expiated sin as a surrogate for the life of the guilty (Neutest. Theol. i. 68, quoted by W. P. Paterson, article Sacrifice in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 342b; cf. Stevens, Theol. of the NT, p. 409). G. F. Moore holds an opposite opinion: The theory that the victims life is put in place of the owners is nowhere hinted at, perhaps because the Jewish doctors understood better than our theologians what sin offerings and trespass offerings were, and what they were for (Encyclopaedia Biblica iv. 4226). Such a measure of disagreement need not, however, lead to the position assumed by other scholars that no theory underlay the practice of sacrifice in Israel: A precise answer to the question how the sacrificial worship influenced God men were unable to give. When in the blood of the Sin-offering the tie between God and His people was renewed, what was felt was the weird influence of the incomprehensible (Smend, Alttest. Religionsgesch., p. 324). Apostolic writers held that there is a simple answer given in Lev 17:11 to the question how sacrifice expiates-it is the blood that maketh atonement. According to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb 9:22). Two other important tendencies of the later Jewish period also passed as influential principles for sacrificial interpretation into the apostolic teaching: (a) the strong tendency to recognize the sufferings, and especially the death, of righteous men as atoning for the sins of other men. For instance, the merits of Abraham served to cover the sins of his posterity; such expiatory value of suffering is also applied to the sufferings of Moses, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, and to the passion of the martyrs; it was also pre-eminently illustrated in the career of the Suffering Servant of Is 53. These sufferings constituted a ground of forgiveness of sin in Israel; they are expressly compared, in point of efficacy, to the Day of Atonement (Pesiqta, 174b). These tendencies probably influenced profoundly the sacrificial theory of the age; for it was a transition easily made from the vicarious death of the righteous to the belief in substitution of animal victims, or possibly by a fortiori reasoning from the value of the substitutionary death of the animal victim to that of the righteous saint (cf. 2Ma 7:37, 4Ma 6:29). (b) Whilst the sacrificial ceremonies were most scrupulously observed and with great pomp and solemnity, a process was going on which was loosening the hold of sacrifice upon the Jewish religion. A reluctant admission was beginning to be made-which ultimately found its logical and historical completion in apostolic Christianity-that it was not a full expression of the relation of His people to God, and was not wholly essential for their communion with Him. Sacrificial worship was being gradually co-ordinated with that of the synagogue. Owing to the renewed authority of the teaching of the prophets, and the widening distance from the Temple services of the multiplied congregations of the Dispersion, knowledge of the Law and the ethical value of good deeds became recognized forms of religious activity which were regarded as directly well-pleasing to God; the Rabbi and the scribe became at least complementary authorities, often indeed competitors with the priest and the Levite. The destruction of the Second Temple within the Apostolic Age so quickened the rapidity with which traditional authority became superior to sacrificial that it was officially taught that the study of the Law was more valuable in the sight of God than the continual burnt-offering (Megilla, 3b, 16b, Pesiqta, 60b). The fact that within the Apostolic Age the abolition of sacrifice as a national mode of worship in Jewish religion had become, through the destruction of Jerusalem, a necessity may well be helpful in defining the attitude of apostolic writers towards sacrifice.

For careful information on the origin and theory of sacrifice the reader should consult the very full article Sacrifice by W. P. Paterson in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , which favours the substitutionary theory, and that in Encyclopaedia Biblica by G. F. Moore, which opposes it; also Smends discussion of the development of the sacrificial system in Israel in his Alttest. Religionsgeschichte; G. B. Stevens outlines the sacrificial system in Christian Doctrine of Salvation, pt. i. ch. 1.

2. Modifications of the inherited sacrificial system presented in apostolic teaching and in the practice of the Apostolic Church.-The best method of expounding the apostolic views of sacrifice is to notice in what directions and to what extent the writers in the primitive Church modified the sacrificial ideas they carried with them in their passage from Judaism to Christianity. These were the ideas from which controversies and party divisions in the Apostolic Church largely sprang. Jewish and Gentile Christians possessed a different heritage of sacrificial practices; the apostolic literature has reference to both, but the references to the Jewish immeasurably preponderate. The starting-point for the apostolic modifications is found in the Synoptic account of the attitude of Jesus towards the current sacrificial system. (a) He recognized the authority of the sacrificial law as practised in His time by observing it, keeping the Passover and other feasts, worshipping in the Temple, where sacrifice was the central act; by commending its observance to others, e.g. the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing (Mat 8:4; cf. Mar 1:44). (b) He constantly favoured the prophetic rather than the priestly view of sacrifice. He quoted Hos 6:6 I desire mercy and not sacrifice (Mat 9:13; Mat 12:7), and commended the judgment that love is more than all burnt-offering (Mar 12:33); He declared that sacrifice is worthless with unrepented sin (Mat 5:23). (c) He referred to His own death as sacrificial, comparing it especially with the Covenant sacrifice with which the Mosaic system was instituted, My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins (Mat 26:28, Luk 22:20; cf. 1Co 11:25). If we may take the new of the Lucan and Pauline versions as our Lords, we may draw the inference that in the establishing of the new the old Covenant was abrogated, and with it the sacrifices that had initiated it and given it historical continuity in Israel. How long it was after the institution of the New Covenant before the Apostolic Church appreciated all its implications it is not easy to determine. The Petrine attitude, which favoured a policy of continuity or at least compromise towards important parts of the Jewish sacrificial cultus, is exhibited in early, strenuous conflicts of judgment recorded in the Apostolic Church. St. Paul quickly seized the central principle in the changed situation which was to mark the development of Christian thought and usage in reference to the Jewish sacrificial system, but he succeeded only gradually in applying it. The full inferences of the abrogation of the ancient sacrifices are first drawn by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The use made by the apostolic witnesses of the elaborate and technical terminology of the Jewish sacrificial system must be briefly reviewed. The proof-text method of working over this material in fragmentary textual correspondences and coincidences between the old and new is not satisfactory, and has yielded place to the co-ordinated testimonies of typical apostolic teachers. The differences and signs of developing doctrine in this group of writers must be separately considered as constituting together-

3. The apostolic teaching.-The records of the apostolic preaching in the Acts reveal the primary fact that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures (1Co 15:3) was an article of common tradition in the Apostolic Church. The death of Christ appears to have been regarded at a very early period as expiatory; the idea of expiation was closely associated with that of sacrifice; it was natural, therefore, that the death of Christ should be looked upon as a sacrifice and spoken of under sacrificial figures. This sacrificial interpretation of His death is embedded in subsequent types of apostolic teaching (A. Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Vershnung, Bonn, 1870-74, ii. 161; A. Cave, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, p. 280 ff.). No direct mention of the sacrifice of Christ is made by James or Jude; but their silence may be accounted for by the fact that the subject was foreign to the purpose for which they wrote.

(a) Petrine.-In the Epistles of Peter the sacrificial references are clear and interesting; sprinkling of the blood of Jesus (1Pe 1:2; cf. Exo 24:8); ye were redeemed with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ (Exo 1:18); cf. also Isa 53:7 ff. with its clear echo in 1Pe 2:21-25, where the sacrificial idea of vicarious suffering is too obvious to need comment. The characteristic feature of the Petrine references is their close sympathy with OT ideas and usage.

(b) Pauline.-In the Pauline references the contrast between the Jewish and Christian aspects of sacrifice is more pronounced. St. Pauls direct references to Levitical sacrifice are not numerous. Their scarcity, however, does not warrant Bruces suggestion that his ideas were coloured more by the analogy of human sacrifice, with which Greek and Roman story makes us familiar, than by that of the Levitical system (cf. St. Pauls Conception of Christianity, Edinburgh, 1894, p. 169). Whilst St. Paul does allude to pagan ideas of communion through sacrifice (1Co 10:18; 1Co 10:28), he was intimately acquainted with the minutiae of the Levitical system and even definitely associated himself with its observance (Act 21:26; Act 24:11; Act 24:17 f.), though some find it difficult to believe that his action in the Temple could have been so contrary to his clearly expressed precept (cf. Gal 4:9). It should also be noted that St. Paul, unlike the writer to the Hebrews, does not explicitly declare that the sacrifices of the Law came to an end with the death of Christ. Whilst it cannot be denied that St. Paul clearly regards the death of Christ as substitutionary, he expounds this conception so much less in terms of the sacrificial system than might have been expected from him that it has been possible for some expositors to maintain with some plausibility that he did not regard Christs death as a sacrifice (cf. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus2, Leipzig, 1890, p. 144). This is an exaggerated position; for in addition to many traces of sacrificial ideas which he used as suggestive illustrations of the meaning of Christs death, he speaks definitely of the Death as a sacrifice, He gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell (Eph 5:2); Our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ (1Co 5:7). References to the blood of Christ as the ground of the benefits conferred by His death (Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9, 1Co 10:16, Eph 2:13) are not satisfied by regarding the blood as merely an allusion to His violent death; it seems clear from the tenor of St. Pauls teaching that he means sacrificial blood (cf. Rom 8:32, Gal 2:20, Col 1:20, Eph 1:7). It may be maintained, however, that if he has not especially brought out this idea [the interpretation of Christs death] in connection with his allusions to sacrifice, he has done so in other ways, and the inference that this was his conception of Christs death, viewed as a sacrifice, is quite inevitable (Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 63).

(c) Epistle to the Hebrews.-Unlike St. Paul the writer to the Hebrews presents his doctrine of salvation wholly in terms of sacrifice, and thus provides the classical treatment of the significance of sacrifice for apostolic thought. His argument is developed in a running comparison between the sacrifices of the Levitical ritual and the perfect offering presented by Christ in the sacrifice of Himself. The sacrificial institutions associated with the Old Covenant are set forth as types and shadows of the heavenly and eternal reality in which the New Covenant is established in the blood of Christ. The key-word of the Epistle and of the comparison it elaborates is better. The Son whose humanity is perfect, the Mediator of the new and better covenant, is the true High Priest (see article Priest) (cf. Heb 8:6-13; Heb 9:15 ff.). His constitutive function is to offer sacrifice (Heb 8:3). Christ offers Himself; the nature and effect of this perfect sacrifice are contrasted with the sacrifices of the Law (Heb 8:1 to Heb 10:18); the contrast culminates in the parallel between the action of the high priest in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Exo 24:4-8) and Christ entering the heavenly places through his own blood (Heb 9:11 ff.). The superiority of Christs sacrifice is everywhere impressively developed. It was also an offering in close dependence upon the love of God: by the grace of God Christ tasted death for every man (Heb 2:9); it was never spoken of as reconciling God.

Three main truths emerge from the comparison. (i.) The Levitical sacrifices cannot take away sin; they serve rather to bring to mind the sin they cannot expiate (Heb 10:3). At its best the Levitical system contemplated the removal of ceremonial faults only, sins of ignorance and infirmity (Heb 10:4; Heb 10:11); it effected a purification of the body only. The pathetic failure of the whole sacrificial system touches all the writers thought; it was morally ineffective because it belonged to the lower, sensible world (Heb 9:11, Heb 11:3), the visible order of Philo and the Alexandrian thinkers. The absoluteness and finality of Christs sacrifice is demonstrated by relating it to the heavenly and eternal realm of reality (Heb 8:1 f., Heb 9:1; Heb 9:24, Heb 10:1)-the realm which Philo, in the spirit of Platos doctrine of archetypal ideas, calls the intelligible world. Christ has entered with His sacrifice into heaven itself (Heb 9:24) and obtained eternal salvation for us (Heb 7:27, Heb 9:12; Heb 9:15, Heb 10:10), having through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God (Heb 9:14). It was an offering, on our behalf and as our representative, of a pure and spotless life. The solidarity of Christ with mankind is confidently stated: Both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren (Heb 2:11). The Levitical sacrifices were perpetually repeated, just because they had no real efficacy either objective or subjective (Heb 9:6, Heb 10:3 f.); Christs sacrifice is made once for all, perfecting for ever them that are sanctified (Heb 7:27, Heb 9:12; Heb 9:25 f., 28, Heb 10:12; Heb 10:14). Christs sacrifice purged the conscience to serve the living God (Heb 9:14, Heb 10:22), thus dealing with sin ethically and in its deepest seat instead of with its accidental expressions which marked the limits of efficacy in ceremonial sacrifices (Heb 9:9, Heb 10:3). The sacrifices of the Law opened no way of spiritual access to the holy presence of God (Heb 9:8); by the blood of Jesus a new and living way was dedicated by which men could draw near to Him with spiritual confidence (Heb 10:19 f.). Everywhere the writer insists upon the truth that only by better sacrifices than those of the Levitical system could the heavenly places and the spiritual realities be cleansed and consecrated (Heb 7:25, Heb 9:19; Heb 9:21-24); insufficiency marks all material elements and outward aspects of sacrifice; indeed, the whole point of the exposition turns upon contrast, not upon congruity. The interpretation of the Epistle which is frequently met with, that because its author expounds the Christian salvation in the terminology of sacrifice its meaning is therefore to be determined throughout by reading it in the light of the Levitical system, misses entirely the main motive of the writer, which is to mark the radical difference between the Christian and the Levitical conception of sacrifice. The most important fact to be observed is that the author, constrained by the estimate of the Christian values of sacrifice, ethicizes the whole meaning of sacrifice, and ascribes to Christs offering of Himself a wholly different nature from that which belongs to the Levitical oblations.

This is specially seen in the way in which the writer deals with (ii.) the value of the material of Christs sacrifice-His blood. In the Levitical system the manipulation of the blood was of supreme importance. Nothing was cleansed without its use (Heb 9:21 f.). The vital moment in the culmination of the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement was the entering of the Holy of Holies by the high priest, bearing with him sacrificial blood (Heb 9:7). Christs sacrificial act was accomplished also when He entered into the heavenly place through his own blood (Heb 9:11 ff.) to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb 2:17); he offered a sacrifice for sins once for all, when he offered up himself (Heb 7:27; cf. Heb 9:26; Heb 9:28). It is clear that the writer makes distinct use of the conception of substitution. But it is important to notice the evidence that something deeper than the literal substitution and the idea of legal transfer of sin which had gained currency in the later Jewish period was in the writers mind. The value of Christs offering is ethical; it resides in His will; His blood is presented not simply as the evidence of His death, but as the offering of His life. It is life, not death, which is the essence of all true sacrifice. Even in the Levitical system the blood constitutes the sacrifice, because the blood is the life (Lev 17:11). Christs offering of Himself includes more than His dying; it is the willing offering of His life in the perfection of ceaseless filial obedience to the will of God. The writer of this Epistle emphasizes this: Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb 10:8 ff.). This offering with which God was well pleased brought humanity into a new relation to God. It was a positive ethical and religious valuation of Christs sacrifice that went beyond its value as merely legal substitution.

(iii.) The doctrine of the New Covenant. The first Covenant was not dedicated without blood (Heb 9:18; cf. Exo 24:6; Exo 24:8); sacrificial blood was for Israel essentially the blood of the covenant (Heb 9:20; cf. Mat 26:28). The sacrifices of the Mosaic Covenant were the sign of the establishment of the Law; the New Covenant in Christs blood was the sign of its fulfilment, and therefore unto remission of sins (Mat 26:28; cf. Joh 6:53-71; Joh 7:1, 1Jn 1:7). The blood divided by sprinkling between the parties to the covenant was the seal of the friendship it established or restored. It was under the shelter of this covenant relation that the whole system of Levitical sacrifices was instituted; they availed only for those within its bonds. This conditioned its permanence; it could not abide. It was the prophetic attitude towards sacrifice that initiated the conception of the necessity of a New Covenant which should be ethical and spiritual and therefore permanent and universal. Jeremiahs prophecy of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31) is the principal link between the sacrifices of the Law and Christs fulfilment and consequent abolition of them. This is a covenant under which God lays His laws upon the hearts of men and inscribes them upon their minds, and undertakes no longer to remember their sins and iniquities (Heb 10:16 ff., Heb 8:8 ff.). Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin (Heb 10:18). A real remission makes all other sacrifices useless. The sacrifice of Christ, the mediator of a new covenant (Heb 9:15) by which such a new covenant is established, is the one offering by which he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb 10:14). The prophetic idea of the value of the sacrificial sufferings of the Righteous Servant is thus restored in close association with the use of sacrificial ideas which were the current coin of Jewish thought. Henceforth there was no longer room for the sacrifices of the Law (Heb 10:18). The only sacrifice that retained its permanence for the future was a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to his name (Heb 13:15).

(d) Johannine.-These writings probably represent apostolic views on sacrifice towards the close of the Apostolic Age and therefore later than the sources hitherto considered. It is a question for discussion, however, whether the ideas they suggest represent a development of the apostolic thought upon this subject or whether they simply reproduce the common positions to which the Church had become accustomed as traditional interpretations. That so little is said of sacrifice itself and so much of the abiding ethical and spiritual results that Christian thought had learned to connect with the sacrificial death of Christ seems to favour the opinion that the apostolic conception had by this time become more completely separated from the Jewish and more perfectly expressed in purely ethical applications; the mystical rather than the legal aspect of sacrifices prevails. But direct sacrificial terms appear at times in the Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, and probably quite as frequently, proportionately, as in the Pauline writings. (i.) The references to the Lamb of God (Joh 1:29) predominate. The great saying of John the Baptist, whether critically valid or not, is a good illustration of the Johannine type of reference. This sacrificial symbol is definitely applied to Jesus. Whether the reference is to the Paschal Lamb or to the prophetic sacrificial ideal of the Suffering Servant (Isa 53:11) is not certain. But there is no doubt of the expiatory value attached to the symbol; for the Lamb taketh away the sin of the world (Joh 1:29; cf. 1Pe 1:19). Jesus takes away sin by the sacrificial method. Symbol and expiatory idea occur again several times in the Apocalypse, where the Lamb is combined with references to the sacrificial blood; a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain (Rev 5:6; Rev 5:12); those who have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev 7:14); they overcame because of the blood of the Lamb (Rev 12:11). Salvation is ascribed unto our God which sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb (Rev 7:10). These references indicate how easily and naturally sacrificial ideas were associated with the work of Christ and especially with its results. Although textual difficulties attach to the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), it may illustrate how influentially the sacrificial idea applied to Christ persisted in apostolic thought. (ii.) The references of Jesus to eating my flesh, and drinking my blood, in John 6 are sacrificial; they are interesting as references in apostolic times to sacrifice as the sharing in a common meal with a view to enriching human life by communion. Here such ideas, though presented in sacrificial symbolism, are intensely ethical and spiritual in value. (iii.) Illustrations of the elevation of the sacrificial idea to the sublime acts of ethical self-sacrifice by which Christ accomplished His redemptive mission may be traced in the references to the laying down of his life in vicarious surrender; the lifting up (Joh 3:14; Joh 12:32 f.), the good shepherd (Joh 10:11), the prophecy of Caiaphas (Joh 11:50), the corn of wheat (Joh 12:23 ff.). (iv.) And in Joh 17:19 the work of Christ is paralleled, as in Hebrews, by that of the high priest on the Day of Atonement by the use of a word of sacrificial associations. (v.) In the First Epistle of John words and ideas with direct sacrificial implications are frequently observed; the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin (1Jn 1:7); he is the propitiation for our sins (1Jn 2:2, 1Jn 3:16, 1Jn 4:10); he was manifested to take away sins (1Jn 3:5); with these may be read the distinctive saying of the Apocalypse, Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood (Rev 1:5). The contribution these sayings make to the interpretation of the apostolic thought respecting sacrifice is that they everywhere appear as familiar Christian phrases, which suggest how surely the transition had been accomplished in the early Church from the legal and preparatory conception of sacrifice to the permanent Christian view which was ethical and spiritual.

(e) Sub-apostolic.-In this period the sacrificial ideas met with in the Apostolic Age continued with but little change; the tendency, judging from post-apostolic development, was, if anything, towards more ceremonial and material views of sacrifice as applied to illustrate or interpret the death of Christ. The Epistle ascribed to Barnabas deals with the subject in its relation to the sacrifices of the Jewish Temple, which are considered to have been abolished in order that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of necessity, might have a human oblation (ii.).

4. Conclusions.-Sacrifice was taken over by the Apostolic Church as a living institution in Judaism; the value of it as a fundamental principle of religious worship was recognized; the retrospect of its history given by the apostolic writers is reverent and appreciative; it was educative. For a time there appears to have been hesitation as to how far its practice should continue in the Christian environment; the primitive Jewish Christians made use of it by worshipping in the Temple at Jerusalem, and in the observance of ritual associated with the sacrificial system elsewhere within the Christian communities. Others with a quicker spiritual instinct reached the conviction that as Christ was the only perfect sacrifice, the material and historical sacrifices were of relative value only, and transient. Vehement controversy arose when the Judaizing party in the Church sought to lay upon Gentile believers the burden of the ceremonial law of Israel. The sharp contentions of the Petrine and Pauline schools (Act 15:39), the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), the teaching of the Pauline Epistles, particularly Galatians, and ultimately the masterly argument of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews are witnesses to hesitations and tendencies of thought in apostolic times. Sympathy with the ancient ritual of sacrifice and sanction for its practice appear to have accompanied the emergence of Christianity as a separate institution from the Judaism in which it had its rise. Whilst the great principle that in Christ all preparatory sacrificial institutions were fulfilled found early acceptance, it was only slowly that its many-sided implications were fully acknowledged.

(a) Retention of the Jewish sacrificial system as symbolic.-Even when the sacrificial system as a living institution had passed into a condition of obsolescence in the Apostolic Church, it remained permanently influential as an organized system of illustrations for interpreting the spiritual realities of the work of Christ; it became a system of types and symbols which were of service for the teacher and preacher. Whilst the apostles deliberately set aside the belief in the efficacy of Jewish sacrifices, it is evident not only that they could express the work of Christ in no better terms than those associated with sacrificial ritual, but that they found in these terms some real meaning when applied to the shedding of His blood for the remission of sins. Consequently sacrificial terminology came into easy and common usage, and became in fact the most comprehensible and almost necessary medium for the thought-forms which set forth the inward and abiding realities of the Christian redemption. The evidence for this abounds, as we have seen, in the apostolic literature. How close the symbol moved towards the reality in the apostolic teaching respecting the significance of the death of Christ, how far, that is, His death was truly a sacrifice, involves questions that run up into the problems of the grounds on which the efficacy of His death was ultimately based (see Atonement). So far, however, as its efficacy is based on the meaning of sacrifice in the OT, the divergent positions held as satisfying the terms of apostolic teaching may be broadly represented on the one hand by writers who hold that sacrifice in the OT was substitutionary in the sense of providing satisfaction for sin, and, on the other hand, by writers who maintain that such a view rests upon profound misunderstandings of the nature of the OT sacrifices, and entirely ignores Jewish conceptions of the effect and operation of sacrifice (Encyclopaedia Biblica iv. 4232). The kindred question arising from the apostolic use of sacrificial symbols, as to how far Christs death was truly a sacrifice, or merely illustrated by sacrificial language, also leads to opposing replies. On the one hand, it is held that Old Testament conceptions will always be suggestive and historically instructive for the study of Christian teaching, but a direct source of such teaching they cannot be. Christianity rises high above that national and ritualistic religion on whose soil it took its rise (Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 2; cf. W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, Edinburgh, 1882, p. 6). On the other hand, W. P. Paterson writes: Nor for the apostolic age was the description of Christs death as a sacrifice of the nature of a mere illustration. The apostles held it to be a sacrifice in the most literal sense of the word (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 343 f.). One fact stands clearly out. The thought-forms of the Apostolic Church have survived, and are living and apparently necessary thought-forms for modern Christian thinkers. The whole problem of symbolism or typology in Christian teaching will probably receive greater attention in the near future. This will be necessary in order to show how far the detailed correspondences between the precise elements of Jewish ritual and Christian ideas of sacrifice so freely set forth in the apostolic writings afford justification or otherwise for the exegetical methods subsequently adopted by Christian expositors. It is in effect the question whether the minutiae of sacrificial ritual in the ancient economy should be elaborated by them with increasing ingenuity as providentially supplied for literal application as a means of legitimately interpreting the sacrificial work of Christ, or whether the whole Levitical system should be broadly expounded as preparatory because illustrating the sacrificial principle, itself eternal in all true religion, as generally predictive of its final and highest expression in Christ. The latter alternative would have the advantage of co-ordinating the predictive element in sacrificial typology with the same element in prophecy, and applying to it the methods of interpretation which modern critical scholarship has used with success in exhibiting the preparatio evangelica in Messianic prophecies as Christ fulfils them. (These positions are discussed in Cave, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, pp. 131-173; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 348; Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 2 ff.; A. S. Peake, The Bible, London, 1913, pp. 347-361.) Another feature of the retention by the apostolic writers of the sacrificial symbols is their effective application to the beautiful ethical ritual that was to become characteristic of the worship and service of the Christian life. Everything in Christianity, in both its Godward and its manward activities, is regarded as essentially sacrificial in spirit. Christs sacrifice of Himself was not only the fulfilment of all preceding types; it was itself a type; it was typical of the presentation to God as an offering well pleasing to Him, an odour of a sweet smell, of the whole body, soul, and spirit of Christian manhood (Rom 15:16, Jud 1:24). The heart of apostolic teaching was that every Christian was crucified with Christ; he died with Him (Rom 6:4 ff.). But he had also his own cross upon which, as upon an altar, the oblation of his own life was offered; he also was a priest unto God, and it was essential that he should have somewhat to offer. Hence the offering of his body (Rom 12:1), his prayers and his thanksgivings (Heb 13:15), his good deeds (13:16), his gifts of charity (Php 4:18), his entire service for others (Php 2:17), were spoken of as sacrifices after the manner of Christs offering of Himself. Such sacrifices were acceptable to God and were a means of blessing for men. St. Paul is bold enough to say that his sufferings on behalf of others were means whereby he could fill up what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh on behalf of his body, which is the church (Col 1:24). This saying probably reflects in the Christian atmosphere the later Jewish idea of the value of the sufferings of the saints. Its applications in subsequent Christian thought are too subtle and historically too far-reaching for reference here. These and the association of the Eucharist with sacrificial values lie far beyond the limits of apostolic thought both exegetically and historically (cf. T. M. Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, London, 1902, p. 307; J. B. Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry, in Philippians6, London, 1881, pp. 261, 264 f.

(b) Fulfilment in the death of Christ.-The dominant and, with the slight exception of the secondary applications referred to, the sole concern of the apostolic mind was to relate the sacrificial ideas of the past to the supreme fulfilment of their meaning in the death of Christ. There can be no doubt that the death of Christ was very early regarded in this light; it corresponded to these ideas as antitype to type. Not only was the whole sacrificial worship thought of as in a general sense typical of Christs perfect offering of Himself, but the correspondence between His death and the different elements of the Levitical system is indicated; e.g. covenant sacrifice (Heb 9:15); Passover sacrifice (1Co 5:7); peace offering (Eph 5:2); sin offering (Rom 8:3, Heb 13:11, 1Pe 3:18); sacrifices of the Day of Atonement (Heb 9:12 ff.). The ritual acts of the Jewish system are also regarded as having been repeated in the history of Christs dying; e.g. the slaying of the spotless lamb (Rev 5:6; Rev 13:8), the sprinkling of blood in the sin offering (Heb 9:13 ff.), and in the covenant sacrifice (1Pe 1:2); the destruction of the victim without the gate (Heb 13:13). Moreover, spiritual results are attributed so definitely to the fulfilment in Christs death of all the suggestions conveyed historically and typically by the ineffective offering continually of animal sacrifices that this event must inevitably issue in-

(c) The abrogation of sacrifice.-In their pre-Christian days the apostolic writers had believed in the efficiency of the Jewish sacrificial system; now they regarded its oblations as of value chiefly because of the witness of these to their own inadequacy. The reality of the inward experience that they had redemption in his blood, access in worship into the holiest of all through the blood of Jesus, reduced their need of the older sacrifices to a vanishing point. Whilst it may be an open question whether the sacrificial systems of either the Jewish or the Graeco-Roman religion could have maintained their place as permanent institutions in presence of the growing refinement of taste and the more elevated ideas of God, made familiar in the Platonic or Stoic systems of thought current in the Apostolic Age, yet the sure joys of forgiveness of sin, the newness of life and the privileges of direct communion with God in Christ ultimately made it axiomatic for apostolic teaching that all other sacrifices, Jewish or pagan, were abolished in Christ. His sacrifice was effective because it belonged to a different world-the world of heavenly and eternal realities-from that of the temporary, carnal, and ineffectual offering of material gifts. This transition to ethical and final values in sacrifice was accompanied in apostolic thought by a-

(d) Return to prophetic ideas of sacrifice.-These made the real value of sacrifice to depend upon personal relations between God and man, and upon its voluntary quality. This return was, as we have seen, mediated chiefly by means of the influence of the great prophetic figure of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 (cf. Act 8:32; Act 3:13; Act 3:26; Act 4:27 f., Act 4:30, Heb 9:28, 1Pe 2:21-25). It cannot be without significance for the modern mind that sacrificial categories derived from the Levitical order were unable to express fully for the apostolic mind the significance of the sacrificial death of Christ. These were obsolescent and needed the complement and interpretation of the prophetic ideas whose value was permanent. In the recognition of sacrifice as essentially ethical and spiritual the apostolic writers so far anticipated the findings of modern criticism that prophecy, not ceremonial legalism, represented the high-water mark of the religious ideas of Israel. Without implying its priority in time they assumed its priority in value; it was the decline of prophetism and the ascendancy of ritualism which had brought on that night of legalism in later Jewish religion in which the formalism of priest, Pharisee, and scribe, to which apostolic teaching was antithetical, had developed. The exposition of the apostolic meaning of sacrifice has suffered many things, even at the hands of Christian teachers, because the animal victims and not the human servant, law and not prophecy, have given it significance; the OT system of ritual sacrifice has been so fully discussed that the figures of Jeremiah, the suffering Remnant, and the Servant of the Lord, the human forerunners of Christ in sacrificial obedience, have failed in emphasis (cf. G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the OT, London, 1901, p. 170 ff.).

Literature.-A. A. Sykes, Essay on the Nature of Sacrifice, London, 1748; W. Magee, Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, do., 1812; J. Davison, Origin and Intent of Primitive Sacrifice, do., 1825; P. Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, Edinburgh, 1845-47; A. Cave, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement, new and revised ed., do., 1890; J. F. D. Maurice, Doctrine of Sacrifice, new ed., London, 1879; H. C. Trumbull, The Blood Covenant and its Bearings on Scripture, New York, 1885; A. Scott, Sacrifice: its Prophecy and Fulfilment, London, 1894; W. Sanday, Different Conceptions of Priesthood and Sacrifice, do., 1900; G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, Edinburgh, 1905, pt. i., chs. i., ii., v., vii., Theology of the NT, do., 1899, pts. iii., v.; G. Milligan, Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, do., 1899; T. V. Tymms, Christian Idea of Atonement, London, 1904, lects. v., vii.; C. von Weizscker, The Apostolic Age2, do., 1897; W. H. Ward, The NT Doctrine of the Relation of Christs Death to the OT Sacrificial System, in Bibl. Sac. lxiv. [1894] 246 ff.; article Sacrifice in Encyclopaedia Biblica by G. F. Moore, and in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) by W. P. Paterson (both valuable); Comm. on Hebrews by B. F. Westcott, London, 1889, F. Delitzsch, Eng. translation , Edinburgh, 1878-80, A. B. Davidson, do., 1882, A. B. Bruce, do., 1899; R. W. Dale, The Jewish Temple and the Christian Church5, London, 1880; H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutest. Theologie, Freiburg i. B., 1896-97. For more general reference to sacrifice: J. H. Kurtz, Der alttest. Opfercultus, Mitau, 1862, Eng. translation , Edinburgh, 1863; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin, 1883, Eng. translation with additions, Edinburgh, 1885; W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem., new ed., London, 1894, pp. 213-440; R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttest. Religionsgeschichte2, Freiburg i. B., 1899; H. Schultz, Alttest. Theologie4, Gttingen, 1888, Eng. translation 2, Edinburgh, 1898, The Significance of Sacrifice in the Old Testament, in AJTh [Note: JTh American Journal of Theology.] iv. [1900] 257 ff.; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture3, London, 1891; F. B Jevons, An Introduction to the History of Religions3, do., 1904, chs. xi., xii.; D. G. Brinton, Religions of Primitive Peoples, New York, 1897; J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough2, London, 1900; J. Donaldson, Expiatory and Substitutionary Sacrifices of the Greeks, Edinburgh, 1875.

Frederic Platt.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

SACRIFICE

An offering made to God on an altar, by means of a regular minister: as an acknowledgment of his power, and a payment of homage. Sacrifices (though the term is sometimes used to comprehend all the offerings made to God, or in any way devoted to his service and honour) differ from mere oblations in this, that in a sacrifice there is a real destruction or change of the thing offered; whereas an oblation is only a simple offering or gift, without any such change at all: thus, all sorts of tithes, and first fruits, and whatever of men’s worldly substance in consecrated to God for the support of his worship and the maintenance of his ministers, are offerings, or oblations; and these, under the Jewish law, were either of living creatures, or other things; but sacrifices, in the more peculiar sense of the term, were either wholly or in part consumed by fire. They have, by divines, been divided into bloody and unbloody. Bloody sacrifices were made of living creatures; unbloody, of the fruits of the earth. They have also been divided into expiatory, impetratory, and eucharistical. The first kind were offered to obtain of God the forgiveness of sins; the second, to procure some favour; and the third, to express thankfulness for favours already received. Under one or other of these heads may all sacrifices be arranged, though we are told that the Egyptians had six hundred and sixty-six different kinds; a number surpassing all credibility. Various have been the opinions of the learned concerning the origin of sacrifices.

Some suppose that they had their origin in superstition, and were merely the inventions of men; others, that they originated in the natural sentiments of the human heart; others imagine that God in order to prevent their being offered to idols, introduced them into his service, though he did not approve of them as good in themselves, or as proper rites of worship. “But that animal sacrifices, ” says a learned author, “were not instituted by man, seems extremely evident from the acknowledged universality of the practice; from the wonderful sameness of the manner in which the whole world offered these sacrifices; and from the expiation which was constantly supposed to be effected by them. “Now human reason, even among the most strenuous opponents of the divine institutions, is allowed to be incapable of pointing out the least natural fitness or congruity between blood and atonement; between killing of God’s creatures and the receiving a pardon for the violation of God’s laws. This consequence of sacrifices, when properly offered, was the invariable opinion of the heathens, but not the whole of their opinion in this matter; for they had also a traditionary belief among them, that these animal sacrifices were not only expiations, but vicarious commutations, and substituted satisfactions; and they called the animals so offered the ransom of their souls. “But if these notions are so remote from, nay, so contrary to, any lesson that nature teaches, as they confessedly are, how came the whole world to practise the rites founded upon them? It is certain that the wisest Heathens, Pythagoras, Plato, Porphyry, and others, slighted the religion of such sacrifices, and wondered how an institution so dismal (as it appeared to them, ) and so big with absurdity, could diffuse itself through the world.

An advocate for the sufficiency of reason (Tindall) supposes the absurdity prevailed by degrees; and the priests who shared with their gods, and reserved the best bits for themselves, had the chief hand in this gainful superstition. But, it may well be asked, who were the priests in the days of Cain and Abel? Or, what gain could this superstition be to them, when the one gave away his fruits, and the other his animal sacrifice, without being at liberty to taste the least part of it? And it is worth remarking, that what this author wittily calls the best bits and appropriates to the priests, appear to have been the skin of the burnt-offering among the Jews, and the skin and feet among the Heathens.” Dr. Spencer observes (De Leg. Heb. lib. 3: &2.) that “sacrifices were looked upon as gifts, and that the general opinion was, that gifts would have the same effect with God as with man; would appease wrath, conciliate favour with the Deity, and testify the gratitude and affection of the sacrificer; and that from this principle proceeded expiatory, precatory, and eucharistical offerings. This is all that is pretended from natural light to countenance this practice. But, how well soever the comparison may be thought to hold between sacrifices and gifts, yet the opinion that sacrifices would prevail with God must proceed from an observation that gifts had prevailed with men; an observation this which Cain and Abel had little opportunity of making.

And if the coats of skin which God directed Adam to make, were the remains of sacrifices, sure Adam could not sacrifice from this observation, when there were no subjects in the world upon which he could make these observations.” (Kennicott’s second Dissert. on the Offerings of Cain and Abel, p. 201, &c.) But the grand objection to the divine origin of sacrifices is drawn from the Scriptures themselves, particularly the following (Jer 7:22-23.) “I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them, at the time that I brought them out of Egypt, concerning the matters of burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but only this very thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.” The ingenious writer above referred to, accounts for this passage (p. 153 and 209.) by referring to the transaction at Marah, (Exo 15:23; Exo 15:26, ) at which time God spake nothing concerning sacrifices: it certainly cannot be intended to contradict the whole book of Leviticus, which is full of such appointments. Another learned author, to account for the above, and other similar passages, observes, “The Jews were diligent in performing the external services of religion; in offering prayers, incense, sacrifices, oblations: but these prayers were not offered with faith; and their oblations were made more frequently to their idols than to the God of their fathers.

The Hebrew idiom ixcludes with a general negative, in a comparative sense, one of two objects opposed to one another, thus: ‘I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.’ (Hos 6:6.) For I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them, concerning burnt- offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice.'” (Lowth on Isa 43:22; Isa 43:24.) The ingenious Dr. Doddridge remarks, that, according to the genius of the Hebrew language, one thing seems to be forbidden, and another commanded, when the meaning only is, that the latter is generally to be preferred to the former. The text before us is a remarkable instance of this; as likewise Joe 2:13. Mat 6:19-20. Joh 6:27. Luk 12:4-5. and Col 3:2. And it is evident that Gen 45:8. Exo 16:8. Joh 5:30. Joh 7:19. and many other passages, are to be expounded in the same comparative sense. (Paraph. on the New Test. sect. 59.) So that the whole may be resolved into the apophthegm of the wise man. (Pro 21:3 🙂 “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.”

See Kennicott, above referred to; Edwards’s History of Redemption, p. 76. note: Outram de Sacrificiis; Warburton’s Divine Leg. b. 9, 100: 2; Bishop Law’s Theory of Rel. p. 50 to 54; Jennings’s Jewish antiq. vol. 1: p. 26, 28; Fleury’s Manners of the Israelites, part 4: ch. 4.; McEwen on the Types.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

sacrifice

(Latin: sacrificium, sacrifice)

In a less rigorous or a figurative sense, a sacrifice is any offering made to God with a view to honoring Him, such as acts of virtue, almsgiving, and prayer. In true or rigorous sense is the offering to God of a sense-perceptible substance, which is either really or symbolically destroyed, or at least transformed and withdrawn from profane use; and this offering must be made by a duly authorized person in recognition of God’s Infinite Majesty and man’s absolute dependence on Him. This definition contains generic and specific elements. By its generic element, sacrifice is an external act of the virtue of religion (by which God is honored on account of His transcendent excellence) and belongs to the cult of latria. It is clear that the external act derives all its moral value from a corresponding act of the human will. By its specific elements, sacrifice is marked off from other acts of the virtue of religion. Four constituent elements enter into its very notion and must be present in every sacrifice.

THE SACRIFICIAL INTENTION

This is the intention of the sacrificing minister to offer to God a sacrifice in the true sense by means of a sacrificial act (forma metaphysica sacrificii). It has for its primary object the acknowledgment of God’s Supreme Majesty and man’s entire dependence on God (finis intrinsecus) but does not, on that account, exclude such secondary intentions (finis extrinsecus) as the sacrificing minister may add of his own choice.

THE SACRIFICING MINISTER

Under the law of nature, there were private sacrifices (Abel; Abraham) for which no special authorization was needed on the part of the community. Under the same law, public sacrifices required a minister duly authorized by family or tribe. Revealed religions, Judaism and Christianity, have public sacrifices only, which are at the same time cult sacrifices. They require an authorized minister who is a priest in the proper sense of the term. Under the Old Law the priesthood was restricted to members of the tribe of Levi; under the new, priests are constituted, without alty restrictions as to descent, by the reception of the sacrament of Holy Orders, through which sacrificial power and authority are conferred on them by Christ, the eternal and sole high priest.

THE SACRIFICIAL GIFT

Since sacrifice is part of the external worship of God, the gift to be offered to Him must be a physical substance: something material, sensible, living (as an animal), or non-living (as bread or wine). There are accordingly bloody and unbloody sacrifices.

THE SACRIFICIAL ACT

This consists in the actual offering of the sacrificial gift to God, performed in such a way that it is the external expression of the internal intention of the minister. This external manifestation of his intention affects the gift itself, which is thereby altered or transformed or withdrawn from profane use and consecrated to God. There is a controversy among Catholic authors as to whether this change or alteration requires a physical destruction (either in the strict or an equivalent sense) or is sufficiently expressed by a moral consecration. There are no absolutely convincing arguments for either view. This much is certain: if God has instituted a sacrifice, it must possess all essential elements of a sacrifice. The formal essence (forma physica) of the sacrificial act lies in the oblation, sensibly manifested, whereby the oblation, sensibly manifested, whereby the ritual slaying or destruction or alteration is directed to God in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion. This oblation is necessary, for without it the destruction of a thing is not a sufficient expression of the sacrificial intention.

The proximate matter of the sacrifice (the destruction of the gift) and the oblation are often distinct in concept only (inasmuch as the actual slaying is directed to God), but it does not follow that, when the two are really distinct, the slaying of the sacrificial animal must be performed by the offering priest; it suffices that this be done at his command or under his direction. Sacrifices may be variously divided. Viewed in reference to the object, there are sacrifices of adoration, thanksgiving, petition, propitiation; in reference to the nature of the gift, sacrifices are either bloody or unbloody; in reference to their complete or incomplete character, they are either absolute or relative. The former are complete and perfect in themselves; the latter are preferred for their completeness and perfection to a sacrifice that is absolute. Revealed religion knows only one perfectly absolute sacrifice, that of the Cross, offered perpetually in the Mass; all others are referred to it as to their center either by a typical foreshadowing or by a mystical renewal.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Sacrifice

(Lat. sacrificium; Ital. sacrificio; French sacrifice.)

This term is identical with the English offering (Latin offerre) and the German Opfer; the latter is derived, not from offerre, but from operari (Old High German opfâron; Middle High German opperu, opparôn), and thus means “to do zealously, to serve God, to offer sacrifice” (cf. Kluge “Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache”, Strassburg, 1899, p. 288). By sacrifice in the real sense is universally understood the offering of a sense-perceptible gift to the Deity as an outward manifestation of our veneration for Him and with the object of attaining communion with Him. Strictly speaking however, this offering does not become a sacrifice until a real change has been effected in the visible gift (e. g. by slaying it, shedding its blood. burning it, or pouring it out). As the meaning and importance of sacrifice cannot be established by a priori methods, every admissible theory of sacrifice must shape itself in accordance with the sacrificial systems of the pagan nations, and especially with those of the revealed religions, Judaism and Christianity. Pure Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and Protestantism here call for no attention, as they have no real sacrifice; apart from these there is and has been no developed religion which has not accepted sacrifice as an essential portion of its cult. We shall consider successively: I. Pagan Sacrifice; II. Jewish Sacrifice; III. Christian Sacrifice; IV. Theory of Sacrifice.

I. PAGAN SACRIFICE (1) Among the Indians

The Vedism of the ancient Indies was, to an extent never elsewhere attained, a sacrificial religion connected with the deities Agni and Soma. A Vedic proverb runs: “Sacrifice is the navel of the world”. Originally regarded as a feast for the gods, before whom food-offerings (cakes, milk, butter, meat, and the soma drink) were set on the holy grass before the altar, sacrifice gradually became a magical agency for influencing the gods, such as might be expressed in the formula, “Do ut des”, or in the Vedic proverb: “Here is the butter; where are thy gifts?” The Vedic sacrificial prayers express no spirit of humility or submission; even the word “thank” is unknown in the Vedic language. The gods thus sank to the level of mere servants of man, while the high-priests or Brahmins entrusted with the complicated rites gradually acquired an almost divine dignity. In their hands the sacrificial ceremonial, developed to the extremest detail, became an irresistible power over the gods. A proverb says: “The sacrificer hunts Indra like game, and holds him fast as the fowler does the bird; the god is a wheel which the singer understands how to turn.” The gods derive their whole might and power from the sacrifice as the condition of their existence, so that the Brahmins are indispensable for their continued existence.

However, that the gods were not entirely indifferent to man, but gave him their assistance, is proved among other things by the serious expiatory character which was not quite eliminated from the Vedic sacrifices. The actual offering of the sacrifices, which was never effected without fire, took place either in the houses or in the open air; temples were unknown. Among the various sacrifices two were conspicuous: the soma offering and the sacrifice of the horse. The offering of the soma (Agnistoma) — a nectar obtained by the pressing of some plants — took place in the spring; the sacrifice lasted an entire day, and was a universal holiday for the people. The triple pressing of the soma, performed at certain intervals during the day, alternated with the offering of sacrificial cakes, libations of milk, and the sacrifice of eleven he-goats to various gods. The gods (especially Indra) were eager for the intoxicating soma drink: “As the ox bellows after the rain, so does Indra desire the soma.” The sacrifice of the horse (açvamedha), executed at the command of the king and participated in by the whole people, required a whole year’s preparation.

It was the acme, “the king of the sacrifices”, the solemnities lasting three days and being accompanied by all kinds of public amusements. The idea of this sacrifice was to provide the gods of light with another steed for their heavenly yoke. At first, instead of the sacrifice of the horse, human sacrifice seems to have been in vogue, so that here also the idea of substitution found expression. For the later Indians had a saying: “At first the gods indeed accepted men as sacrificial victims. Then the sacrificial efficacy passed from them to the horse. The horse thus became efficacious. They accepted the horse, but the sacrificial efficacy went to the steer, sheep, goat, and finally to rice and barley: Thus for the instructed a sacrificial cake made of rice and barley is of the same value as these [five] animals” (cf. Hardy, “Die vedisch-brahmanisehe Periode der Religion des alten Indiens”, Münster, 1892, p. 150). Modern Hinduism with its numberless sects honours Vishnu and Shiva as chief deities. As a cult it is distinguished from ancient Vedism mainly by its temple service. The Hindu temples are usual artistic and magnificent edifices with numerous courts, chapels, and halls, in which representations of gods and idols are exposed. The smaller pagodas serve the same purpose. Although the Hindu religion centres in its idolatry sacrifice has not been completely evicted from its old place. The symbol of Shiva is the phallus (linga); linga stones are indeed met throughout India (especially in the holy places) in extraordinary numbers. The darker shades of this superstition, degenerated into fetichism, are somewhat relieved by the piety and elevation of many Hindu hymns or songs of praise (stotras), which surpass even the old Vedic hymns in religious feeling.

(2) Among the Iranians

The kindred religion of the ancient Iranians centres, especially after its reform by Zoroaster, in the service of the true god Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda), whose will is the right and whose kingdom is the good. This ethically very elevated religion promotes especially a life of purity, the conscientious fulfilment of all liturgical and moral precepts, and the positive renunciation of the Devil and all demoniacal powers. If the ancient Indian religion was essentially a religion of sacrifice, this religion of the ancient Persians may be described as a religion of observance. Inasmuch as, in the old Avesta (q. v.), the sacred book of the Persians, the war between the good god Ormuzd and the Devil ends eschatologically with the complete victory of the good god, we may designate the earliest Parseeism as Monotheism. However, the theological Dualism taught in the later Avesta, where the wicked anti-god Ahriman is opposed to the good god Ormuzd as an absolute principle, is already foreshadowed and prepared for in many didactic poems (gâthas) of the old Avesta. Sacrifice and prayer are intended to paralyze the diabolical machinations of Ahriman and his demons. The central feature of the Avestic divine service was the worship of fire, a worship, however, unconnected with special fire-temples. Like the modern Mobeds in India, the priests carried portable altars with them, and could thus offer sacrifice everywhere. Special fire-temples were, however, early erected, in which five times daily the priests entered the sacred fire-chamber to tend the fire in a metal vessel, usually fed with odoriferous wood. In a roomy antechamber the intoxicating haoma (the counterpart of the Indian soma drink) was brewed, the holy water prepared, and the sacrifice of flesh (myazda) and cakes (darun) offered to the gods. The precious haoma, the drink of immortality, not only conduced in the case of mankind to eternal life, but was likewise a drink for the gods themselves. In the later Avesta this drink, originally only a medium of cult, was formally deified, and identified with the divinity; nay even the very vessels used in the fabrication of this drink from the haoma branches were celebrated and adored in hymns of praise. Worthy of mention also are the sacrificial twigs (baresman, later barsom), which were used as praying twigs or magical wands and solemnly stretched out in the hand. After the reduction of the kingdom of the Sassanids by the Arabians (A. D. 642) the Persian religion was doomed to decay, and the vast majority of its followers fell away into Islamism. Besides some small remnants in modern Persia, large communities still exist on the west coast of India, in Guzerat and Bombay, whither many Parsees then immigrated.

(3) Among the Greeks

The universal religion of ancient Greece was a glad and joyous Polytheism most closely connected with civic life. Even the ancient Amphictyonic Council was a confederacy of states with the object of maintaining in common a certain shrine. The object of the religious functions, which consisted in prayer, sacrifice, and votive offerings, was the winning of the favour and assistance of the gods, which were always received with feelings of awe and gratitude. The sacrificial offerings, bloody and unbloody, were generally taken from articles of human food; to the gods above pastry, sacrificial cakes, pap, fruits, and wine were offered, but to the nether gods, cakes of honey and, as a drink, a mixture of milk, honey, and water. The sacrificial consecration often consisted merely in the exposition of the foods in pots on the roadsides or on the funeral mounds with the idea of entertaining the gods or the dead. Usually a portion was retained wherewith to solemnize a sacrificial feast in union with the gods; of the sacrifices to the nether gods in Hades, however, nothing was retained. Great banquets of the gods (theoxenia) were well known to the Greeks as were the Leotisternia to the Romans. As a rule, however, the sacrifices were burned on the altar, at times as holocausts. Incense was added as a subsidiary offering with most sacrifices, although there were also special offerings of incense. The offerer of sacrifice wore clean clothes and chaplets around his head, sprinkled his hands and the altar with holy water, and strewed with solemn prayers sacrificial meal over the heads of the victims (pigs, goats, and cocks). Flutes were played while the victim was being slain, and the blood was allowed to drop through holes into the sacrificial trenches. The meritoriousness of the sacrifice was regarded as to a great extent dependent on its costliness. The horns of the victims were gilded, and on great festivals whole hecatombs were slain; sacrifices of twelve, and especially of three victims (trittues) were the most usual. In times of great affliction human sacrifices were offered even down to the historical era. The sacrifice was the centre of the Greek cult, and no meal was partaken of until a libation of the wine about to be consumed was poured out to the gods. Among the characteristic peculiarities of the Greek religion may be mentioned the votive offerings (anathemata), which (besides firstlings, tithes, votive tablets, and objects of value) consisted chiefly of chaplets, cauldrons, and the popular tripods (tripodes). The number of the votive offerings, which were frequently hung up on the sacred oaks, grew in time so immeasurably that various states erected their special treasuries at Olympia and Delphi.

(4) Among the Romans

To a still greater extent than among the Greeks was religion and the whole sacrificial system a business of the state among the ancient Romans. Furthermore, no other people of antiquity developed Polytheism to such extremes. Peopling the world with gods, genii, and lares, they placed almost every action and condition under a specially-conceived deity (god or goddess). The calendar prepared by the pontifices gave the Romans detailed information as to how they should conduct themselves with respect to the gods throughout the year. The object of sacrifice was to win the favour of the gods and to ward off their sinister influence. Sacrifices of atonement (piacula) for perpetrated crimes and past errors were also scheduled. In the earliest times the ancient Indo-Germanic sacrifice of the horse, and also sacrifices of sheep, pigs, and oxen were known. That human sacrifices must have been once usual may be concluded from certain customs of a later period (e. g. from the projection of straw puppets into the Tiber and the hanging of woollen puppets at the crossways and on the doors of the houses). Under the empire various foreign cults were introduced, such as the veneration of the Egyptian deities Isis and Osiris, the Syrian Astarte, the Phrygian goddess Cybele, etc. The Roman Pantheon united in peace the most incongruous deities from every land. Finally, however, no cult was so popular as that of the Indo-Iranian Light-god Mithra, to whom especially the soldiers and officials of the empire, even in such distant places as the Danube and the Rhine offered their sacrifices. In honour of the steer-killing Mithra the so-called taurobolia were introduced from the East; by taurobolium is meant the loathsome ceremony wherein the worshippers of Mithra let the warm blood of a just-slaughtered steer flow over their naked backs as they lay in a trench with the idea of attaining thereby not only physical strength, but also mental renewal and regeneration.

(5) Among the Chinese

The religion of the Chinese, a peculiar mixture of nature and ancestor-worship, is indissolubly connected with the constitution of the state. The oldest Sinism was a perfect Monotheism. However, we are best acquainted with the Chinese sacrificial system in the form which was given it by the great reformer, Confucius (sixth century before Christ), and which it has retained practically unaltered after more than two thousand years. As the “Son of Heaven” and the head of the State religion, the Emperor of China is also the high-priest who alone may offer sacrifice to heaven. The chief sacrifice takes place annually during the night of the winter solstice on the “altar of heaven” in the southern section of Peking. On the highest terrace of this altar stands a wooden table as the symbol of the soul of the god of heaven; there are in addition many other “soul tables” (of the sun, moon, stars, clouds, wind, etc.), including those of the ten immediate predecessors of the emperor. Before every table are set sacrificial offerings of soup, flesh, vegetables, etc. To the ancestors of the emperor, as well as to the sun and moon, a slaughtered ox is offered; to the planets and the stars a calf, a sheep, and a pig. Meanwhile, on a pyre to the south-east of the altar, a sacrifice of an ox lies ready to be burned to the highest god of heaven. While the ox is being consumed, the emperor offers to the soul-table of heaven and the tables of his predecessors a staff of incense, silk, and some meat broth. After the performance of these ceremonies, all the articles of sacrifice are brought to special furnaces and there consumed. Similarly the emperor sacrifices to the earth at the northern wall of Peking, the sacrificial gifts being in this case not burned, but buried. The gods of the soil and of corn, as well as the ancestors of the emperor, have also their special places and days of sacrifice. Throughout the empire the emperor is represented in the sacrifices by his state officials. In the classical book of ritual, “Li-ki”, it is expressly stated: “The son of heaven sacrifices to the heaven and the earth; the vassals to the gods of the soil and of corn.” Besides the chief sacrifices, there are a number of others of the second or third rank, which are usually performed by state officials. The popular religion with its innumerable images, which have their special temples, is undisguised idolatry.

(6) Among the Egyptians

The ancient religion of the Egyptians, with its highly developed priesthood and its equally extensive sacrificial system, marks the transition to the religion of the Semites. The Egyptian temple contained a dark chapel with the image of the deity; before it was a pillared hall, (hypostyle) faintly lit by a small window under the roof, and before this hall a spacious court-yard, enclosed by a circular series of pillars. The ground-plan proves that the temple was not used either for assemblies of the people or as the residence of the priests, but was intended solely for the preservation of the images of the gods, the treasures, and the sacred vessels. To the sanctuary proper only the priests and the king were admitted. The sacrifices were offered in the great court-yard, where also the highly popular processions, in which the images of the gods were borne in a ship, took place. The rites of the daily service of the temple, the movements, words, and prayers of the officiating priest, were all regulated down to the smallest detail. The image of the god was entertained daily with food and drink, which were placed on the sacrificial table. At the laying of the foundation-stone of a new temple human sacrifices were offered, being abolished only in the era of the Ramassides; a trace of this repulsive custom survived in the later ceremony of impressing on the sacrificial victim a seal bearing the image of a man in chains with a knife in his throat. To the favourite god of the Egyptians, Ammon-Râ, the rulers of the New Empire made such extraordinarily numerous and costly votive offerings that the state became almost bankrupt. The Egyptian religion, which finally developed into abominable bestiolatry, fell into decay with the destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria by the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius I (391).

(7) Among the Semites

Among the Semites the Babylonians and Assyrians deserve first mention. The Babylonian temple contained in the sanctuary the image of the god to whom it was consecrated, and in adjoining chambers or chapels the images of the other gods. The Babylonian priests were a private caste, the mediators between the gods and man, the guardians of the sacred literature, and the teachers of the sciences. In Assyria, on the other hand, the king was the high-priest, and offered up sacrifice. According to the Babylonian idea, sacrifice (libations, offerings of foods, bloody sacrifices) is the due tribute of mankind to the gods, and is as old as the world; sacrifices are the banquets of the gods, and the smoke of the offerings is for them a fragrant odour; a joyous sacrificial banquet unites the sacrificers with their divine guests. Both burnt and aromatic offerings were common to the Babylonians and the Assyrians. The sacrificial gifts included wild and tame animals, fowl, fish, fruit, curds, honey, and oil. Sacrificial animals were usually of the male sex; they had to be without defects, strong and fat, for only the unblemished is worthy of the gods. Only in the rite of purification were female animals allowed, and only in the lesser ceremonies defective animals. The offering of bread on tables (showbread) was also usual. To the sacrifices was attributed a purifying and atoning force, and the idea of substitution, the sacrificial victim being substituted for man, was clearly expressed. In the Babylonian penitential psalms especially, the deep consciousness of sin and guilt often finds touching expression. Men were slain only with lamentations for the dead.

The demonstration that the Chanaanites originally came from Arabia (that ancient home of the races) to Palestine, and there disseminated the culture of the ancient Arabians, is an achievement of modern investigators. While the Babylonian religion was governed by the course of the stars (astrology), the spiritual horizon of the Chanaanites was fixed by the periodical changes of dying and reawakening nature, and thus depended secondarily on the vivifying influence of the stars, especially of the sun and the moon. Wherever the force of nature revealed evidence of life, there the deity had his seat. At fountains and rivers temples arose, because water brings life and drought, death. Feeling themselves nearest to the deity on mountains, hill-worship (mentioned also in the Old Testament) was the most popular among the Chanaanites. On the height stood an altar with an oval opening, and around it was made a channel to carry off the blood of the sacrificial victim. To the cruel god Moloch sacrifices of children were offered — a horrible custom against which the Bible so sternly inveighs. The kindred cult of the Phœnicians originated in a low idea of the deity, which inclined towards gloominess, cruelty, and voluptuousness. We need only mention the worship of Baal and Astarte, Phallism and the sacrifice of chastity, the sacrifice of men and children, which the civilized Romans vainly strove to abolish. In their sacrificial system the Phœnicians had some points in common with the Israelites. The “sacrificial table of Marseilles”, which, like the similar “sacrificial table of Carthage”, was of Phœnician origin, mentions as sacrificial victims: steers, calves, stags, sheep, she-goats, lambs, he-goats, fawns, and fowl, tame and wild. Sick or emaciated animals were forbidden. The Phœnicians were also acquainted with holocausts (kalil), which were always supplicatory sacrifices and partial offerings, which might be sacrifices of either supplication or thanks. The chief efficacy of the sacrifice of men and animals was regarded as lying in the blood. When the victim was not entirely consumed, the sacrificers participated in a sacrificial banquet with music and dancing.

II. JEWISH SACRIFICE (1) In General

That many general ideas and rites, which are found in pagan religions, find their place also in the Jewish sacrificial system, should excite as little surprise as the fact that revealed religion in general does not reject at all natural religion and ethics, but rather adopts them in a higher form. The ethical purity and excellence of the Jewish sacrificial system is at once seen in the circumstance that the detestable human sacrifices are spurned in the official religion of Jahweh (cf. Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Abraham’s trial (Gen. xxii 1 sqq.) ended with the prohibition of the slaying of Isaac, God ordering instead the sacrifice of the ram caught in the briers. Among the Children of Israel human sacrifice meant the profanation of Jahweh’s name (Leviticus 20:1 sqq., etc.). The later prophets also raised their mighty voices against the disgraceful service of Moloch with its sacrifice of children. It is true that the baneful influence of pagan environment won the upper hand from the time of King Achaz to that of Josias to such an extent that in the ill-omened Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem thousands of innocent children were sacrificed to Moloch. To this infectious pagan example, not to the spirit of the religion of Jahweh, is also to be referred the sacrifice which Jephte, in consequence of his vow, reluctantly performed by slaying his own daughter (Judges 11:1 sqq.). The assertion of many investigators (Ghilany, Daumer, Vatke) that even in the legitimate service of Jahweh human sacrifices occurred, is historically untenable; for, though the Mosaic Law contained the provision that, not only the firstlings of beasts and Fruits, but also the firstborn of men were due to Jahweh, it was expressly provided that these latter should be redeemed, not sacrificed. The offering of the blood of an animal instead of a human life originated in the profound idea of substitution, and has its justification in the prophetical metaphorical references to the unique vicarious sacrifice offered by Christ on Golgotha. The Israelitic blood vengeance (cherem), in accordance with which impious enemies and things were utterly exterminated (cf. Joshua 6:21 sqq.; 1 Kings 15:15, etc.), had absolutely nothing to do with human sacrifice. The idea of the blood vengeance originated, not as in various pagan religions in the thirst of God for human blood, but in the principle that the powers hostile to God should be removed by a bloody chastisement from the path of the Lord of life and death. The accursed were not sacrificed but removed from the face of the earth. According to Jewish tradition, sacrifice in its bloody and its unbloody form extends back to the beginning of the human race. The first and oldest sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is that of Cain and Abel (Gen. iv, 3 sq.). With sacrifice an altar was associated (Genesis 12:7 sq.). Even in patriarchal times we meet also the sacrificial meal, especially in connexion with treaties and the conclusion of peace. The conclusion of the covenant at Mount Sinai was also effected under the auspices of a solemn sacrifice and banquet (Exodus 24:5 sqq.). Subsequently Moses, as the envoy of Jahweh, elaborated the whole sacrificial system, and in the Pentateuch fixed with most scrupulous exactness the various kinds of sacrifice and their ritual. Like the whole Mosaic cult, the sacrificial system is governed by the one central idea, peculiar to the religion of Jahweh: “Be holy because I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44).

(2) Material of the Sacrifices

The general name for Jewish sacrifice was originally minchah (anaphora, donum), afterwards the special technical term for the unbloody food-offering. To the latter was opposed the bloody sacrifice (thysia, victima). According to the method of offering, sacrifices were known as korban (“bringing near”) or ‘õlah (“ascending”), the latter term being used especially of the holocaust (q.v.). The material of the bloody sacrifice must be taken from the personal possessions of the offerer, and must belong to the category of clean animals. Thus, on the one hand, only domestic animals (oxen, sheep, goats) from the stock of the sacrificer were allowed (Leviticus 22:19 sqq.), and hence neither fish nor wild animals; on the other hand, all unclean animals (e. g. dogs, pigs, asses, camels) were excluded, even though they were domestic animals. Doves were about the only sort of birds that could be used. The substitution of turtle doves or young pigeons for the larger animals was allowed to the poor (Leviticus 5:7; 12:8). Concerning the sex, age, and physical condition of the animals there were also exact precepts; as a rule, they had to be free from defect, since only the best were fit for Jahweh (Leviticus 22:20 sqq.; Malachi 1:13 sq.). The material of the unbloody sacrifices (usually additions to the bloody sacrifice or subsidiary sacrifices) was chosen from either the solid or the liquid articles of human food. The fragrant incense, the symbol of prayer ascending to God, was an exception. The sacrifice of solids (minchah) consisted partly of toasted ears of corn (or shelled grain) together with oil and incense (Leviticus 2:14 sqq.), partly of the finest wheaten flour with the same additional gifts (Leviticus 2:1 sqq.), and partly of unleavened bread (Leviticus 2:4 sqq.). Since not only leaven, but also honey produced fermentation in bread, which suggests rottenness, the use of honey was also forbidden (Leviticus 2:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6 sqq.). Only the bread of the first fruits, which was offered on the feast of Pentecost, and the bread added to many sacrifices of praise were leavened, and these might not be brought to the altar, but belonged to the priests (Leviticus 2:4 sqq.; 7:13 sq., etc.). On the other hand salt was regarded as a means of purification and preservation, and was prescribed as a seasoning for all food-offerings prepared from corn (Leviticus 2:13). Consequently, among the natural productions supplied to the (later)Temple, was a vast quantity of salt, which, as “salt of Sodom” was usually obtained from the Dead Sea, and stored up in a special salt chamber (Ezra 6:9; 7:22; Josephus, “Antiquities”, XII, 3:3). As an integral portion of the food-offering we always find the libation (spondeion, libamen), which is never offered independently. Oil and wine were the only liquids used (cf. Genesis 28:18; 35:14; Numbers 28:7,14): the oil was used partly in the preparation of the bread, and partly burned with the other gifts on the altar; the wine was poured out before the altar. Libations of milk, such as those of the Arabs and the Phœnicians, do not occur in the Mosaic Law.

The fact that, in addition to the subsidiary sacrifices, unbloody sacrifices were also customary, has been unjustifiably contested by some Protestants in their polemics against the Sacrifice of the Mass, of which the sacrifices of food and drink were the prototypes. Passing over the oldest sacrifices of this kind in the case of Cain and Abel (see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE), the Mosaic cult recognized the following independent sacrifices in the sanctuary: (a) the offering of bread and wine on the showbread table; (b) the incense offering on the altar of incense; (c) the light offering in the burning lamps of the golden candle-stick. And in the outer court: (d) the daily minchah of the high-priest, which, like every other priestly minchah, had to be entirely consumed as a holocaust (Leviticus 6:20 sqq. cf. Josephus, “Antiquit.”, III, 10:7); (e) the bread of the first fruits on the second day of the Pasch; (f) the bread of the first fruits on the feast of Pentecost.

Of the independent unbloody sacrifices at least a portion was always burnt as a memorial (askara, memoriale) for Jahweh; the rest belonged to the priests, who consumed it as sacred food in the outer court (Leviticus 2:9 sq.; 5:12 sq.; 6:16).

(3) The Rites of the Bloody Sacriflce

The ritual of the bloody sacrifice is of special importance for the deeper knowledge of Jewish sacrifice. Despite other differences, five actions were common to all the categories: the bringing forward of the victim, the imposition of hands, the slaying, the sprinkling of the blood, and the burning. The first was the leading of the victim to the altar of burnt sacrifices in the outer court of the tabernacle (or of the Temple) “before the Lord” (Exodus 29:42; Leviticus 1:5; 3:1; 4:6). Then followed on the north side of the altar the imposition of hands (or, more accurately, the resting of hands on the head of the victim), by which significant gesture the sacrificer transferred to the victim his personal intention of adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and especially of atonement, If sacrifice was about to be offered for the whole community, the ancients, as the representatives of the people, performed the ceremony of the imposition of hands (Leviticus 4:15). This ceremony was omitted in the case of certain sacrifices (first fruits, tithes, the paschal lamb, doves) and in the case of bloody sacrifices performed at the instance of pagans. From the time of Alexander the Great the offering of burnt sacrifices even by Gentiles was permitted in recognition of the supremacy of foreign rulers; thus, the Roman Emperor Augustus required a daily burnt offering of two lambs and a steer in the Temple (cf. Philo, “Leg. ad Caj.,” 10; Josephus, “Contra Ap.”, II, vi). The withdrawal of this permission at the beginning of the Jewish War was regarded as a public rebellion against the Roman rule (cf. Josephus, “De bello jud.”, II, xvii, 2). The ceremony of the imposition of hands was usually preceded by a confession of sins (Leviticus 16:21; 5:5 sq.; Numbers 5:6 sq.), which, according to Rabbinic tradition, was verbal (cf. Otho, “Lex rabbin.”, 552). The third act or the slaying, which effects as speedy and complete a shedding of the blood as possible by a deep cut into the throat, had also, like the leading forward and the imposition of hands, to be performed by the sacrificer himself (Leviticus 1:3 sqq.); only in the case of the offering of doves did the priest perform the slaying (Leviticus 1:15). In later times, however, the slaying, skinning, and dismemberment of the larger animals were undertaken by the priests and Levites, especially when the whole people were to offer sacrifice for themselves on great festivals (2 Chronicles 29:22 sqq.). The real sacrificial function began with the fourth act, the sprinkling of blood by the priest, which, according to the Law, pertained to him alone (Leviticus 1:5; 3:2; 4:5; 2 Chronicles 29:23, etc.). If a layman undertook the blood-sprinkling, the sacrifice was invalid (cf. Mischna Sebachim, II, 1).

The oblation of the blood on the altar by the priest thus formed the real essence of the bloody sacrifice. This idea was indeed universal, for “everywhere from China to Ireland the blood is the chief thing, the centre of the sacrifice; in the blood lies its power” (Bähr, “Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus”, II, Heidelberg, 1839, p. 62). That the act of slaying or the destruction of the victim was not the chief element, is evident from the precept that the sacrificers themselves, who were not priests, had to care for the slaying. Jewish tradition also expressly designated the priestly sprinkling of the blood on the altar as “the root and principle of the sacrifice”. The explanation is given in Lev., xvii, 10 sq.: “If any man whosoever of the house of Israel, and of the strangers that sojourn among them, eat blood, I will set my face against his soul an will cut him off from among his people: Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul.” Here the blood of the victim is declared in the clearest terms to be the means of propitiation, and the propitiation itself is associated with the application of the blood on the altar. But the propitiation for the guilt-laden soul is accomplished by the blood only in virtue of the life contained in it, which belongs to the Lord of death and life. Hence the strict prohibition of the “eating” of blood under penalty of being cut off from among the people. But inasmuch as the blood, since it bears the life of the victim, represents or symbolizes the soul or life of man, the idea of substitution finds clear expression in the sprinkling of the blood, just as it has been already expressed in the imposition of hands. But the blood obtained by the slaying exerts its expiatory power first on the altar, where the soul of the victim symbolically laden with sin comes into contact with the purifying and sanctifying power of God. The technical term for the reconciliation and remission of sin is kipper “to expiate” (Piel from the word meaning “to cover”), a verb which is connected rather with the Assyrian kuppuru (wipe off, destroy) than with the Arabic “to cover, cover up”. The fifth and last act, the burning, was performed differently, according as the whole victim (holocaust) or only certain portions of it were to be consumed by fire. By the altar and the “consuming fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24) Jahweh symbolically appropriated, as through His Divine mouth, the sacrifices offered; this was strikingly manifested in the sacrifices of Aaron, Gedeon, and Elias (cf. Leviticus 9:24; Judges 6:21; 1 Kings 18:38).

(4) Different Categories of the Bloody Sacrifices

(a) Among the various classes of bloody sacrifice, the burnt offering takes the first place. It is called both the “ascent sacrifice” (‘õlah) and the “holocaust” (kâlil); Sept. holokautoma; in Philo, holokauston), because the whole victim — with the exception of the hip muscle and the hide — is made through fire to ascend to God in smoke and vapour (see HOLOCAUST). Although the idea of expiation was not excluded (Leviticus 1:4), it retired somewhat into the background, since in the complete destruction of the victim by fire the absolute submission of man to God was to find expression. The holocaust is indeed the oldest, most frequent, and most widespread sacrifice (cf. Genesis 4:4; 8:20; 22:2 sqq.; Job 1:5; 42:8). As the “ever enduring” sacrifice, it had to be offered twice daily, in the morning and in the evening (cf. Exodus 29:38 sqq.; Leviticus 6:9 sqq.; Numbers 28:3 sqq., etc.). As the sacrifice of adoration par excellence, it included in itself all other species of sacrifice. [Concerning the altar, see ALTAR (IN SCRIPTURE).]

(b) The idea of expiation received especially forcible expression in the expiatory sacrifices, of which two classes were distinguished, the sin and the guilt-offering. The distinction between these lies in the fact that the former was concerned rather with the absolution of the person from sin (expiatio), the latter rather with the making of satisfaction for the injury done (satisfactio). Turning first to the sin-offering (sacrificium pro peccato, chattath), we find that, according to the Law, not all ethical delinquencies could be expiated by it. Excluded from expiation were all deliberate crimes or “sins with raised hand”, which involved a breech of the covenant and drew upon the transgressor as punishment ejection from among the people because he had “been rebellious against the Lord” (Numbers 15:30 sq.). To such sins belonged the omission of circumcision (Genesis 17:14), the desecration of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14), the blaspheming of Jahweh (Leviticus 24:16), failure to celebrate the Pasch (Numbers 9:2 sqq.), the “eating of blood” (Leviticus 7:26 sq.), working or failure to fast on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:21). Expiation availed only for misdeeds committed through ignorance, forgetfulness, or hastiness. The rites were determined not so much by the kind and gravity of the transgressions as by the quality of the persons for whom the sacrifice of expiation was to be offered. Thus, for the faults of the high-priest or the whole people a calf was prescribed (Leviticus 4:3; 16:3); for those of the prince of a tribe (Leviticus 4:23), as well as on certain festivals, a he-goat; for those of the ordinary Israelites, a she-goat or ewe lamb (Leviticus 4:28; 5:6); for purification after child-birth and certain other legal uncleannesses, turtle doves or young pigeons (Leviticus 12:6; 15:14, 29). The last-mentioned might also be used by the poor as the substitute for one of the small cattle (Leviticus 5:7; 14:22). The very poor, who were unable to offer even doves, might in the case of ordinary transgressions sacrifice the tenth of an ephi of flour, but without oil or incense (Leviticus 5:11 sqq.). The manner of the application of the blood was different according to the various degrees of sin, and consisted, not in the mere sprinkling of the blood, but in rubbing it on the horns of the altar for burnt-offerings or the incense altar, after which the remainder of the blood was poured out at the foot of the altar. Concerning the details of this ceremony the handbooks of Biblical archæology should be consulted. The usual and best sacrificial portions of the victims (pieces of fat, kidneys, lobes of the liver) were then burned on the altar of burnt-offerings, and the remainder of the victim eaten by the priests as sacred food in the outer court of the sanctuary (Leviticus 6:18 sq.). Should any of the blood have been brought into the sanctuary, the flesh had to be brought to the ash-heap and there likewise burned (Leviticus 4:1 sqq.; 6:24 sqq.), The guilt-offering (sacrificium pro delicto, asham) was specially appointed for sins and transgressions demanding restitution, whether the material interests of the sanctuary or those of private persons were injured — e.g. by misappropriating gifts to the sanctuary, defrauding one’s neighbour, retaining the property of another, etc. (cf. Leviticus 5:15 sqq.; 6:2 sq.; Numbers 5:6 sqq.), The material restitution was reckoned at one-fifth higher than the loss inflicted (six fifths had thus to be paid). In addition, a guilt-sacrifice had to be offered, consisting of a ram sacrificed at the north side of the altar. The blood was sprinkled in a circle around the altar, on which the fatty portions were burnt; the rest of the flesh as sacrosanct was eaten by the priests in the holy place (Leviticus 7:1 sqq.).

(c) The third class of bloody sacrifice embraced the “peace offerings” (victima pacifica, shelamim), which were sub-divided into three classes: the sacrifice of thanks or praise, the sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow, and entirely voluntary offerings. The peace sacrifices in general were distinguished by two characteristics:

(i) the remarkable ceremony of “wave” and “heave”; (ii) the communal sacrificial meal held in connexion with them.

All animals allowed for sacrifice (even female) might be used and, in the case of entirely “voluntary sacrifices”, even such animals as were not quite without defects (Leviticus 22:23). Until the act of sprinkling the blood the rites were the same as in the burnt-sacrifice, except that the slaying did not necessarily take place at the north side of the altar (Leviticus 3:1 sqq.; 7:11 sqq.). The usual portions of fat had, as in the case of the sacrifice of expiation, to be burned on the altar. In the cutting up of the victim, however, the breast and the right shoulder (Sept. brachion; Vulg. armus) had to be first separately severed, and the ceremony of “wave” (tenupha) and “heave” (teruma) performed with them. According to Talmudic tradition the “wave” was performed as follows: the priest placed the breast of the victim on the hands of the offerer, and then, having placed his own hands under those of this person, moved them backward and forward in token of the reciprocity in giving and receiving between God and the offerer. With the right shoulder the same ceremony was then performed, except that the “heave” or “teruma” consisted in an upward and downward movement. The breast and shoulder used in these ceremonies fell to the share of the priests, who might consume them in a “clean place” (Leviticus 10:14). They also received a loaf from the supplementary food-offering (Leviticus 7:14). The offerer assembled his friends at a common meal on the same day to consume in the vicinity of the sanctuary the flesh remaining after the sacrifice. Levitically clean guests, especially the Levites and the poor, were admitted (Deuteronomy 16:11; Leviticus 19 sqq.), and wine was freely drunk at this meal. Whatever remained of a sacrifice of thanksgiving or praise had to be burned on the following day; only in the case of the vowed and entirely voluntary sacrifices might the remainder be eaten on the second succeeding day, but all that thereafter remained had to be burned on the third day (Leviticus 7:15 sqq.; 19:6 sqq.). The idea of the peace-offering centres in the Divine friendship and the participation at the Divine table, inasmuch as the offerers, as guests and table-companions, participated in a certain manner in the sacrifice to the Lord. But, on account of this Divine friendship, when all three classes of sacrifice were combined, the sacrifice of expiation usually preceded the burnt-offering, and the latter the peace-offering.

In addition to the periodical sacrifices just described, the Mosaic Law recognized other extraordinary sacrifices, which must at least be mentioned. To these belong the sacrifice offered but once on the occasion of the conclusion of the Sinaitic covenant (Exodus 24:4 sqq.), those occurring at the consecration of the priests and Levites (Exodus 29:1 sqq.; Leviticus 8; Numbers 8:5 sqq.) and certain occasional sacrifices, such as the sacrifice of purification of a healed leper (Leviticus 14:1 sqq.), the sacrifice of the red cow (Numbers 19:1 sqq.), the sacrifice of jealousy (Numbers 5:12 sqq.), and the sacrifice of the Nazirites (Numbers 6:9 sqq.). On account of its extraordinary character one might include the yearly sacrifice of the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:3 sqq.; Deuteronomy 16:1 sqq.) and that of the two he-goats on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1 sqq.) among this class. With the appearance of the Messias, the entire Mosaic sacrificial system was, according to the view of the Rabbis, to come to an end, as in fact it did after the destruction of the Temple by Titus (A. D. 70). Concerning the sacrificial persons see PRIESTHOOD.

(5) Modern Criticism

A detailed examination of modern criticism concerning Jewish sacrifice cannot be attempted here, since the discussion involves the whole Pentateuch problem (see PENTATEUCH). What is called the “Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis” denies that the ritual legislation in the Pentateuch comes from Moses. It is claimed that the setting down of the sacrificial legislation first began in the exilic period. From the time of Moses to the Babylonian Captivity sacrifice was offered freely and without any legal compulsion, and always in connexion with a joyous sacrificial meal. The strict forms of the minutely-prescribed sacrificial rite were first established by the Priest’s Code (=P), Divine authority being afterwards claimed for them by artificially projecting them into the Mosaic era. Even during the time of the Great Prophets nothing was known of a Mosaic sacrificial thora, as is proved by their disparaging remarks Concerning the worthlessness of sacrifice (cf. Isaiah 1:11 sqq.; Jeremiah 6:19 sq.; Amos 5:21 sqq.; Hosea 8:11 sqq., etc.). With Ezechiel, however, a change is visible, the ritual forms of sacrifice being highly cherished as a Divine law. But it is impossible to refer this law to Moses.

We may briefly reply that the disparaging statements of the pre-exilic Prophets are no proof for the assertion that in their time there was no sacrificial law regarded as Mosaic. Like the Psalms (xl, 7 sqq.; l, 8 sqq.; lxix, 31 sq.), the Prophets emphasized only the ancient and venerable truth that Jahweh valued most highly the interior sacrifice of obedience, and rejected as worthless purely external acts without pious dispositions. He demanded of Cain the right sentiment of sacrifice (cf. Gen iv 4 sq.), and proclaimed through Samuel: “Obedience is better than sacrifices” (1 Samuel 15:22). This requirement of ethical dispositions is not equivalent to the rejection of external sacrifice. Nor can one accept the statement that Moses did not legally regulate the Jewish sacrificial system. How otherwise could he have been regarded among the Jews as the God-appointed founder of the religion of Jahweh, which is inconceivable without Divine service and sacrifice? That during the centuries after Moses the sacrificial cult underwent an internal and external development, which reached its climax in the extant priest’s code, is a natural and intelligible assumption, indications of which appear in the Pentateuch itself. The whole reorganization of the cult by the Prophet Ezechiel shows that Jahweh always stood above the letter of the law, and that he was nowise bound to maintain in unalterable rigidity the olden regulations. But the changes and deviations in Ezechiel are not of such magnitude as to justify the view that not even the foundation of the sacrificial code originated with Moses. The further statement that a sacrificial meal was regularly connected with the ancient sacrifices, is an unjustifiable generalization. For the burnt-offering (holocaustum, ‘õlah), with which no meal was associated, belonged to the most ancient sacrifices (cf. Genesis 8:20), and is at least as old as the peace-offering (shelamim), which always terminated with a meal. Again, it is antecedently at least improbable that the older sacrifices always had, as is asserted, a gay and joyous character, since the need of expiation was not less, but rather more seriously felt by the Israelites than by the pagan nations of antiquity. Where there was a consciousness of sin, there must also have been anxiety for expiation.

III. CHRISTIAN SACRIFICE

Christianity knows but one sacrifice, the sacrifice which was once offered by Christ in a bloody manner on the tree of the Cross. But in order to apply to individual men in sacrificial form though a constant sacrifice the merits of redemption definitively won by the sacrifice of the Cross, the Redeemer Himself instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be an unbloody continuation and representation of the bloody sacrifice of Calvary. Concerning this eucharistic sacrifice and its relation to the sacrifice on the Cross, see the article MASS. In view of the central position which the sacrifice of the Cross holds in the whole economy of salvation, we must briefly discuss the reality of this sacrifice.

(1) The Dogma of the Sacrifice of the Cross

The universal conviction of Christianity was expressed by the Synod of Ephesus (431), when it declared that the Incarnate Logos “offered Himself to God the Father for us for an odour of sweetness” (in Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion,” n. 122), a dogma explicitly confirmed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. cap. i-ii; can. ii-iv). The dogma is indeed nothing else than a clear echo of Holy Writ and tradition. If all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and especially the bloody sacrifice, were so many types of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross (Cf. Hebrews 8-10), and if the idea of vicarious atonement was present in the Mosaic bloody sacrifices, it follows immediately that the death on the Cross, as the antitype, must possess the character of a vicarious sacrifice of atonement. A striking confirmation of this reasoning is found in the pericope of Isaias concerning God’s “just servant,” wherein three truths are clearly expressed: (a) the substitution of the innocent Messias for guilty mankind; (b) the deliverance of the guilty from sin and punishment through the suffering of the Messias; (c) the manner of this suffering and satisfaction through the bloody death on the Cross (cf. Isaiah 53:4 sqq.).

The Messianity of the passage, which was unjustifiably contested by the Socinians and Rationalists, is proved by the express testimony of the New Testament (cf. Matthew 8:17; Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37; Acts 8:28 sqq.; 1 Peter 2:22 sqq.). The prophecy found its fulfilment in Christ. For, although His whole life was a continuous sacrifice, yet the sacrifice culminated in His bloody death on the Cross, as He Himself says: “He came to give His life a redemption for many” (Matthew 20:28). Three factors are here emphasized: sacrifice, vicarious offering, and expiation. The phrase, “to give his life” (dounai ten psychen), is, as numerous parallel passages attest, a Biblical expression for sacrifice; the words, “for many” (anti pollon), express the idea of vicarious sacrifice, while the term, “redemption” (lytron), declares the object of the expiation (cf. Ephesians 5:2; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Rationalism (Socinus, Ritschl) seeks in vain to deny that St. Paul had this idea of vicarious expiation on the ground that the expression anti pollon (in the place of many) is foreign to him. For, apart from the fact that he clearly expresses in other terms the idea of substitution (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians 3:13), his phrase “for many” (hyper pollon instead of anti pollon), taken in connexion with the idea of sacrifice current in his writings, bears the pregnant meaning “instead of many,” not merely “for the advantage of many”. This is clearly indicated by I Tim., ii, 6: “Who gave himself a redemption for all [antilytron hyper panton].”

As in the Old Testament the expiatory power of the sacrifice lay in the blood of the victim, so also the expiation for the forgiveness of sins is ascribed to the “Blood of the New Testament” (see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE). There is thus nothing more precious than the Blood of Christ: “. . . you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold and silver . . . . , but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled” (1 Peter 1:18 sq.). While the foregoing considerations refute the assertion of modern “critics” that the expiatory sacrifice of Christ was first introduced by Paul into the Gospel, it is still true that the bloody sacrifice of the Cross occupied the central position in the Pauline preaching. He speaks of the Redeemer as Him “whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation [hilasterion], through faith in his blood” (Romans 3:25). Referring to the types of the Old Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews especially elaborates this idea: “For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works” (Hebrews 9:13 sq.). With the multiplicity and variety, the inefficacy and inadequacy of the Mosaic bloody sacrifices is contrasted the uniqueness and efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Heb., ix, 28: “So also was Christ once [apax] offered to exhaust the sins of many”; x, 10: “In the which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the body [dia tes prosphoras tou somatos] of Jesus Christ once”). The bloody death on the Cross is specially characterized as a “sin offering”: “But this man offering one sacrifice for sins [mian hyper amartion prosenegkas thysian], for ever sitteth on the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21). The “heavenly sacrifice” of Christ, the existence of which is assumed by Thalhofer, Zill, and Schoulza, cannot be deduced from the Epistle to the Hebrews. In heaven Christ no longer sacrifices Himself, but simply, through His “priestly intercession”, offers the sacrifice of the Cross (Hebrews 7:25; cf. Romans 8:34).

While the Apostolic Fathers and the apologist Justin Martyr merely repeat the Biblical doctrine of the sacrificial death of Christ, Irenæus was the first of the early Fathers to consider the sacrifice of the Cross from the standpoint of a “vicarious satisfaction” (satisfactio vicaria); this expression, however, did not come into frequent use in ecclesiastical writings during the first ten centuries. Irenæus emphasizes the fact that only a God-Man could wash away the guilt of Adam, that Christ actually redeemed mankind by His Blood and offered “His Soul for our souls and His Flesh for our flesh” (” Adv. hær.”, V, i, 1, in P. G. VII, 1121). Though Irenæus bases the redemption primarily on the Incarnation, through which our vitiated nature was restored to its original holiness (” mystical interpretation” of the Greeks), he nevertheless ascribes in a special manner to the bitter Passion of the Saviour the same effects that he ascribes to the Incarnation: viz. the making of man like unto God, the forgiveness of sin, and the annihilation of death (Adv. hær., II, xx, 3; III, xviii, 8). It was not so much “under the influence of the Græco-Oriental mysteries of expiation” (Harnack) as in close association with Paul and the Mosaic sacrificial ritual, that Origen regarded the death on the Cross in the light of the vicarious sacrifice of expiation. But, since he maintained preferentially the Biblical view of the “ransom and redemption”, he was the originator of the one-sided “old patristic theory of the redemption”. Incidentally (“In Matt., xvi, 8,” in P. G., XIII, 1397 sqq.) he makes the rash statement that the ransom rendered on the Cross was paid to the Devil — a view which Gregory of Nyssa later systematized. This statement was, however, repudiated by Adamantius (“De recta in Deum fide”, I, xxvii, in P. G., XI, 1756 sqq.) as “the height of blasphemous folly” (polle blasphemos anoia), and was positively rejected by Gregory of Nazianzus and John of Damascus. This repulsive theory never became general in the Church, although the idea of the supposed “rights of the Devil” (erroneously derived from John 12:31; 14:30; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Peter 2:19) survived among some ecclesiastical writers even to the time of Bede and Peter Lombard. Whatever Origen and Gregory of Nyssa say of our ransom from the Evil One, they are both clear in their statements that Christ offers the sacrifice of expiation to the Heavenly Father and not to the Devil; the redemption from the slavery of the Devil is effected by Christ through His sacrifice on the Cross. As, according to Harnack’s admission, the idea of vicarious expiation “is genuine among the Latins”, we may easily dispense with the testimony of Latin patristic literature. While the Greek Church adhered to the old mystical conception in connexion with the theory of ransom, the doctrine of the Redemption received a further development in the “juristic theory of satisfaction” of St. Anselm of Canterbury (“Cur Deus homo” in P. L., CLVIII, 359 sqq.); this was freed of some crudities by St. Thomas Aquinas and deepened by the “ethical theory of reconciliation”. A comprehensive theory, employing dialectically all the Biblical and patristic factors, is still a desideratum in speculative theology.

(2) Theological Problems

Other difficult questions concerning the sacrifice of the Cross have been already more successfully dealt with by theologians. On account of the remarkable and unique coincidence of the priest, victim, and acceptor of the sacrifice, a first question arises as to whether Christ was victim and priest according to His Divine or according to His human nature. On the basis of the dogma of the hypostatic union the only answer is: although the God-Man or the Logos Himself was at once both priest and victim, He was both, not according to His Divine nature, but through the function of His humanity. For, since the Divine nature was absolutely incapable of suffering, it was no more possible for Christ to act as priest according to His Divine nature, than it was for God the Father or the Holy Ghost. As regards the relation between the priest and the acceptor, it is usually stated in explanation that Christ acts only as sacrificing priest, and that God the Father alone receives the sacrifice. This view is false. Even though God the Father is mentioned as the only acceptor by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), this is merely an appropriation, which excludes neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost in the matter of acceptance. The acceptor of the sacrifice of the Cross is thus the offended God, or the whole Trinity, to which Christ as Logos and Son of God also belongs. One must, however, distinguish between the Divinity and the Humanity of Christ and say: while Christ as God, together with the Father and the Holy Ghost accepted His own sacrifice in expiation of the offended Deity, He offered this same sacrifice as Man vicariously to the Blessed Trinity. While this coincidence of the three functions of priest, victim, and acceptor in the same Christ may constitute a mystery, it yet contains no contradiction (cf. Augustine, “De civ. Dei”, X, xx). A third problem of great importance concerns the nature of the actio sacrifica in the sacrifice of the Cross. Did the sacrificial act consist in the slaying of Christ on the Cross? This question must be answered with a decided negative; otherwise one would have to say that the function of high-priest at the sacrifice of the Cross was exercised, not by Christ, but by his torturers and their myrmidons, the Roman soldiers. In the Mosaic sacrifices also the essence of the sacrifice lay, not in the actual slaying of the victim, but in the letting, or rather in the sprinkling, of the blood. Consequently, the sacrifice of the Cross, at which Christ functions as sole priest, must likewise be referred to the free offering of His blood for us men, inasmuch as the Redeemer, while outwardly submitting to the forcible shedding of His blood by His executioners, simultaneously offered it to God in the spirit of sacrifice (cf. John 10:17 sq.; Hebrews 9:22; 1 Peter 1:2).

IV. THEORY OF SACRIFICE

In view of the comprehensive historical material which we have gathered both from pagan practice and from the religions Divinely revealed, it is now possible to essay a scientific theory of sacrifice, the chief lines being drawn naturally from the Jewish and Christian sacrificial systems.

(1) Universality of Sacrifice

One of the specially characteristic features which the history of religions places before us is the wide diffusion, even the universality, of sacrifice among the human race. It is true that Andrew Lang (“The Making of a Religion”, London, 1899) maintains the improbable view that originally the supreme, majestic, and heavenly God was as little venerated with sacrifices as He is to-day among certain tribes of Africa and Australia; that even in the Jahwehism of the Israelites the sacrificial cult was rather a degeneration than an ethico-religious advance. In agreement with this (other investigators add) is the fact that in many features the Mosaic sacrificial ritual was simply borrowed from the pagan ritual of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and other Semitic peoples. It is remarkable also that many Fathers of the Church (e. g. Chrysostom) and Scholastics, and among the Jews, Maimonides represented the Mosaic sacrifices as merely a concession which God made to the weakness of the Jewish character in order to restrain the Chosen People from the horrors of bloody sacrifice to idols.. This one-sided view, however, cannot be maintained before the bar of the history or the psychology of religion. Nothing is psychologically so intelligible as the derivation of sacrifice from the naturally religious heart of man, and the history of all peoples similarly proves that scarcely a single religion has ever existed or exists to-day without Some sacrifice. A religion entirely without sacrifice seems almost a psychological impossibility, and is at least unnatural. It is the complete want of sacrifice among some African and Australian tribes, rather than the numerous sacrifices of Mosaism, that has resulted from degeneration. Had God conceded the bloody sacrifices simply on account of the weakness of the Israelites, as above asserted, He would have promoted, rather than checked, the spread of pagan idolatry, especially if the sacrificial ritual were also taken from pagan religions. Here as elsewhere parallels in other religions prove no borrowing, unless such is supported by strict historical evidence, and even the actual borrowings may in their new home have been inspired with an entirely new spirit. The adoption of the substance of paganism into Mosaism is disproved especially by the anti-pagan and unique idea of holiness with which the whole Jewish cult is stamped (cf. Leviticus 11:44), and which shows the sacrificial thora as of one piece. A later editor could never have imprinted the stamp of holiness on a ritual composed of pagan fragments without the pure paganism peeping through the seams and joinings. One must therefore, both before and after the Priest’s Code (save for later additions and accommodations to new circumstances) regard the sacrificial thora as truly Mosaic, and see in them the expression not only of human nature, but also of the Divine will. A remarkable exception from the general rule is Islamism, which knows neither sacrifice nor priest; sacrifice is replaced by a strict ritual of prayer, with which religious ablutions and almsgiving are associated. Again, while genuine Buddhism rejects sacrifice, this rule was far from obtaining in practice, for Lamaism in Tibet has sacrifices for the dead, and the average Buddhist of the people offers unbloody sacrifices to his buddha. The Hindu offers flowers, oil, food, and incense to his idols, and slays victims to the god Shiva and his spouse. And not even the believing Protestant is without a sacrifice, since, in spite of his rejection of the Mass, he at least recognizes Christ’s death on the Cross as the great sacrifice of Christianity.

(2) Species of Sacrifice

The two chief kinds of sacrifice, the bloody and the unbloody, were suggested to mankind by nature itself, and were thus known in the earliest times. To which of the two historical priority is to be conceded, can scarcely be decided. For the greater antiquity of the unbloody sacrifice equally good grounds can be offered as for that of the bloody sacrifice. The earliest historical mentions of sacrifice found in the Bible would make them coeval, for Cain as the husband-man offered the fruits of the field, while his brother Abel as the shepherd offered bloody victims (Genesis 4:3 sq.). As regards pagan religions, many historians of religion plead for the priority of the unbloody sacrifice. Porphyrius and Theophrastus also expressed the view that the first sacrifices consisted of plants and flowers, which were burned in honour of the Deity. The soma-haoma, a drink-offering common to both Indian Vedism and Iranian Parseeism, must be dated back to primeval times, when the Indians and the Iranians still formed one great people. How the Indians came to offer their very ancient horse sacrifice is unknown. It is a mere surmise to suppose that perhaps the general transition from a vegetable to a flesh diet, as related by Noe (cf. Genesis 9:3 sqq.), occasioned the rise of animal sacrifices. The rare occurrence of slaying an animal was turned into a festival, which was celebrated with sacrifices. Among the earliest Hebrews sebach (bloody sacrifice) was a “slaying festival”, with which bloody sacrifice was inseparably associated. The introduction of bloody sacrifices among the Iranians is more easily explained, since, especially in Zoroastrianism, it was esteemed a great merit to destroy the harmful animals belonging to the wicked god Ahriman, and eventually to sacrifice them to the good god Ormuzd. Further than surmises, however, we are unable to go. That the unbloody sacrifice was practised among the ancient Greeks, classical archæologists maintain with good reason, arguing that in Homer the word thyein (Lat. suffire) did not mean “to slay” or “to offer as a bloody sacrifice” (as it did in post-Homeric Greek), but rather to “offer a smoking sacrifice” (incense). It is not impossible that even the cruel and voluptuous cults of Anterior Asia also offered at first only vegetable sacrifices, since the fundamental idea of their religion, the death and renascence of nature, is expressed most evidently and impressively in the plant world. All this is however purely hypothetical. The observation that human sacrifice once extended over the whole earth, leaves room also for the supposition that the bloody sacrifice in the form of slaughtered men claims chronological priority, the hideous custom being replaced, as civilization advanced, by the sacrifice of animals. But among many peoples (e. g. the Chanaanites, Phœnicians, and the ancient Mexicans) not even the possession of a high culture succeeded in abolishing the detestable human sacrifices. But, whatever view may be taken of the priority question, it is undoubted that both the bloody and the unbloody sacrifices reach back to prehistoric times.

Not without its significance for the scientific idea of sacrifice is the fact that the material of the bloody and unbloody sacrifices was regularly taken from things used as food and drink, and indeed from the best of these commodities. This very general circumstance affords evidence that the sacrificial gift must be taken from the belongings of the sacrificer and must be associated, as a means of sustenance, with his physical life. The independent sacrifice of incense alone requires another explanation; this is supplied by the fragrant odour, which symbolizes either the sweetness of the ascending offering of prayer or the gracious acceptance of the sacrifice by the Deity. The bloody sacrifice, on account of its symbolical connexion with the life of man, was especially expressive of complete self-oblation to the Divinity. In the cruder views of naive natural man, the ascending odour of the incense offering soothed the olfactory organs of the gods. Especially crude was this unworthy materializing of sacrifice in Indian Vedism (the soma drink) and in the Babylonian story of the Flood, where it is said: “The gods suck in the fragrant odour; like flies, the gods gathered over the sacrificer.” Even the Old Testament expression, “a sweet savour for God” (odor suavitatis), was originally an accommodation to the ingenuous ideas of the uncultured nomadic people (cf. Genesis 8:21; Leviticus 1:17, etc.), an anthro-pomorphism which was ever more clearly recognized as such according as the Israelites progressed in their ethical refinement of the idea of God. Not on the greatness or material worth of the sacrificial gifts should store be laid, since Jahweh was above necessity, but on the true sentiment of sacrifice, without which, as declared by the Prophets (cf. Isaiah 1:11 sqq.; Hosea 4:5; Malachi 1:10), all external sacrifices were not only worthless, but even reprehensible.

(3) Rites of Sacrifice

While sacrifice itself originates spontaneously in the natural prompting of religious-minded man, the particular rites, dependent on law and custom, display a manifold variety at different times and places. Among the different peoples the ceremonial of sacrifice offers indeed a very variegated picture. If we emphasize only that which was general and common to all, the simplest sacrificial rite consists in the mere exposition of the gifts in a holy place, as for example the show-bread (panis propositionis) of the Israelites and Babylonians, or the votive offerings (anathemata) of the Greeks. Frequently the idea of entertaining the gods or the dead is evidently associated with the offering of food and drink, e. g. among the Indians, Egyptians, and Greeks. Even in the oldest history of Israel this idea of entertainment, although spiritualized, is perceptible (Judges 6:17 sqq.; 13:15 sqq.). As true sacrifices in the strict sense were regarded only those in which a real alteration was effected in the sacrificial gift at the time of offering it. By this immutation the gifts were not only withdrawn from all profane usage, but were also completely given over to the service and possession of God or the gods. With this object in view edibles or sacrificial victims were either completely or partly burned, while libations were poured out as drink offerings. The earliest form seems to have been the whole or burnt-offering (holocaust). While only special portions of the victims (for the most part the best portions) were burned, the remainder of the flesh was regarded as holy sacrificial food, and was eaten either by the priests or by the offerers in a holy place (or even at home) with the idea of entering into communion. The chief element in the sacrifice, however, was not the sacrificial meal, but rather the sprinkling of the blood, which, as the bearer of life, was clearly intended in many religions to represent man himself. This idea of substitution is seen with overwhelming clearness in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Among all peoples the sacrifice, as the chief and most perfect function of religion, was surrounded with the greatest pomp and solemnity; the celebration was usually of a light and joyous character, especially in the case of the sacrifices of praise, petition, and thanksgiving. With joyous heart man consecrated himself to the Deity through the medium of the gifts he offered. External adornment, music, song, prayer, and dance heightened the festive joy. On the other hand the expiatory sacrifice was of a serious character, whether it was intended to atone for misdeeds or to avert misfortune. Not every private person was competent to offer sacrifice; this function pertained only to certain persons or priests, whose office was immediately connected with the sacrifices. In the earliest time the head of the family or tribe performed the functions of priest — in ancient Egypt the king, as even to-day the emperor in China (see PRIESTHOOD). Sacrifice and altar (q.v.) are, like sacrifice and priest, correlative terms. Originally the altar consisted of a single stone, which by consecration became the dwelling of God (cf. Genesis 12:7 sq.; 13:4; 28:18 sqq.). Among many peoples the place of sacrifice was either the house (for private sacrifices) or the open air (for public sacrifices). In the latter case specially selected places (trees, groves, heights) in an elevated position were preferred for sacrifice. Among the Romans altar and hearth (ara et focus) were regarded as indispensable requisites for sacrifice.

(4) Origin of Sacrifice

Since sacrifice is a regular concomitant of every religion, sacrifice must, according to the law of causality, have originated simultaneously with religion. Consequently, sacrifice is as old as religion itself. It is evident that the nature of the explanation given of sacrifice will depend on the views one takes of the origin of religion in general.

(a) Widely held to-day is the theory of evolution, which, in accordance with the principles of Darwin, endeavours to trace the origin of religion from the degraded stage of the half-animal, religionless primeval man, and its gradual development to higher forms. The scheme of development is naturally different according to the personal standpoint of the investigator. As the starting-point for the comparative study of the lowest religious forms is usually taken the uncivilized savage of to-day, the true portrait of the primeval man (Lubbock, Tyler, etc.). An attempt is made to construct an ascending scale from the crudest Fetichism to naturalistic Polytheism, from which develops ethical Monotheism, as the highest and purest product. Until recently the Animism (q, v.) proposed by Tylor was the prevalent theory; this traced religion from the ancient worship of souls, ghosts, spirits of ancestors, etc. (under the influence of fear). At this original stage sacrifice had no other purpose than the feeding and entertaining of these deified beings, or their appeasement and conciliation, if hostile dispositions were ascribed to them (demons). In recent times this explanation, once honoured as dogma in the history of religions, is most vigorously combated by the experts themselves as untenable. It has been recognized that Animism and the kindred Fetichism and Totemism represent only secondary elements of many nature-religions, not the essence. “In any case,” says Chantepie de la Saussaye, “a purely animistic basis of religion can nowhere be shown” (“Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte”, I, Tübingen, 1905, p. 12). But if the origin of the idea of God cannot be explained from Animism, entertainment cannot have been the original idea of sacrifice, especially since, according to the most recent investigations, the primeval religions seem to converge rather towards Monotheism. Just as in the consciousness of all sacrificing peoples the gods remained sublime above souls, spirits, and demons, sacrifice as a religious gift far transcended food and drink. But, wherever the gods are represented as companions at the banquet, there always appeared the right idea, that by his participation in the sacrificial gifts man enters into communion with the gods, and (e. g. in the case of the ancient Indian soma drink) even partakes of divine strength. The obscuring of this idea by anthropomorphic errors, fostered by priestly deceit, did indeed here and there lead to the one-sided “feeding of the gods” (cf. Dan., xiv, 2 sqq.), but this may by no means be regarded as a primitive institution, Animism (q. v.) is most successfully refuted by Andrew Lang (‘The Making of a Religion”, London, 1898).

(b) A second naturalistic explanation, which may be called the “social theory”, derives religion from social instincts and accordingly sacrifice from the communal meal which was established to strengthen and seal in religious manner the tribal community. These communal meals are supposed to have given the first impulse to sacrifice. These fundamental thoughts may be developed in several ways. As Totemism, in addition to its religious, has also a distinctly social element, and in this respect is on a far higher level than Animism, some authors (especially W. Robertson Smith, “The Religion of the Semites”, London, 1894) believe that the origin of animal sacrifices can be traced back to Totemism. When the different clans or divisions of a tribe partook at the communal meal of the sacred animal (totem) which represented their god and ancestors, they believed that by this meal they participated in the divine life of the animal itself. Sacrifice in the sense of offering gifts to the Deity, the symbolic replacing of human life by an animal, the idea of expiation, etc., are declared to belong to a much later period of the history of sacrifice. Originally the gifts of cereals had rather the character of a tribute due to the gods, and this idea was later transferred to the animal sacrifices. It is however very questionable whether this totemistic theory, notwithstanding some excellent suggestions, entirely meets the facts. Certainly the social force of religion and its significance in the formation of communities should not be underestimated; but, apart from the fact that Totemism is not, any more than Animism, an explanation of the origin of religion, the hypothesis is contradicted by the certain fact that in the earliest epoch the whole or burnt offering existed side by side with the communal meal, the former being equally old, if not older than the latter. In the consciousness of the peoples the sacrificial meal constituted not so much an element of the sacrifice, as the participation, confirmation, and completion of the same. On the same ground what is called the “banquet theory” of the late Bishop Bellord must also be rejected; this theory refers the essence of the sacrifice to the meal, and declares a sacrifice without a meal impossible (cf. The Ecclesiastical Review, XXXIII, 1905, pp. 1 sqq., 258 sqq.). This theory is not in accordance with the facts; for, as it is compelled to refer the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass solely to the priest’s communion, instead of to the twofold transubstantiation, the truth of the sacrifice of the Cross can be maintained only on the forced and false supposition that the Last Supper in its organic connexion with the Crucifixion imprinted on the latter its sacrificial character. (For further particulars, see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE.)

(c) So far as we may gather from revelation, the most natural and probable view seems to be that sacrifice originated in the positive command of God, since, by the original revelation in Paradise, the whole religion of mankind appears to have been established in advance on a supernatural basis. The Greek legend of the invention of sacrifice by Prometheus and the giant Chiron, together with similar legends of Asiatic religions, might be interpreted as reminiscences of the Divine origin of sacrifice. The positive command to sacrifice might even after the Fall have been preserved by tradition among the descendants of Adam, and thus spread among the pagan nations of all lands. The idolatrous deviations from the paradisaic idea of sacrifice would thus appear as regrettable errors, which, however, would not be more difficult to explain than the general fall of the human race. But, however plausible and probable this hypothesis may be, it is unprovable, and indeed unnecessary for the explanation of sacrifice. Regarding sacrifice in Paradise the Bible gives us no information; for the explanation of “eating of the Tree of Life” as a sacramental food offering is a later theologumenon which the acuteness of theologians, following Augustine’s lead, has devised. But without recurring to a Divine ordinance, the origin of sacrifice may easily be explained by purely psychological motives. In consideration of the relation of sonship between man and God, which was felt more deeply in primitive times than subsequently, the only evidence of sincere inner adoration that the creature could give was by sacrificing some of his own possessions, thus visibly expressing his absolute submission to the Divine Majesty. Nor was it less in keeping with the inner promptings of man to declare his gratitude to God by gifts offered in return for benefits received, and to give through the medium of sacrificial presents expression to his petitions for new favours. Finally, the sinner might hope to free himself of the oppressive consciousness of guilt, when in the spirit of contrition he had to the best of his ability repaired the wrong done to the Divinity. The more childlike and ingenuous the conception of God formed by primitive man, the more natural and easy was for him the introduction of sacrifice. A truly good child offers little gifts to his parents, though he does not know what they will do with them. The psychological theory thus seems to offer the best explanation of the origin of sacrifice.

(5) Object of Sacrifice

As its “metaphysical form”, the object first gives sacrifice its full spiritual content, and quickens the external rites with a living soul. The developed pagan religions agree with revealed religion in the idea that sacrifice is intended to give symbolical expression to man’s complete surrender of himself into the hands of the Supreme God in order to obtain communion with Him. In the recognition of the absolute supremacy of God lies the juridical, and in the correlative absolute subjection to God the ethical side of sacrifice. In both moments the latreutic character of the sacrifice stands out clearly, since to God alone, as the First Cause (Causa prima) and the Last End (Finis ultimus) of all things, may sacrifice be offered. Even the idolatrous sacrifices of pagans did not entirely lose sight of this fundamental idea, since they esteemed their idols as gods. Even sacrifices of thanksgiving and petition never exclude this essential latreutic feature, since they concern thanksgivings and petitions to the ever-adorable Divinity. From our sinful condition arises the fourth object of sacrifice, i. e. the appeasing of the Divine anger. The fourfold object of sacrifice supplies an immediate explanation of the four kinds of sacrifice (cf. St. Thomas, I-II, Q. cii, a. 3). With the sentiments of sacrifice incorporated in these objects is closely connected the high importance of prayer, which accompanies the rite of sacrifice in all the higher religions; Grimm thus simply declares: “Sacrifice is only a prayer offered with gifts.” Where we are to seek the culminating point of the sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), in which the object of sacrifice is especially expressed, is the most freely debated question, and concerning it the theorists are not in agreement. While some see the culmination of the sacrifice in the real alteration (immutatio), and especially in the destruction of the gift, others refer the essence of the sacrificial act to the external oblation of the gift, after it has been subjected to any change whatsoever; a third, but not very numerous party make the sacrificial meal the chief element. This last view has already been set aside as untenable. That the meal is not essential is likewise shown by numerous sacrifices, with which no meal is associated (e. g. the primitive burnt-sacrifice, and the sacrifice of the Cross). Again, the importance of the blood, which as a means of nourishment was avoided, spurned by, and even forbidden to the Jews, finds no expression in the banquet-theory. That the destruction of the gift (especially the slaying) cannot constitute the essence of the sacrifice is clear from the fact that the sprinkling of the blood (aspersio sanguinis) was regarded as the culmination, and the killing as only the preparation for the real sacrificial act. In fact the “destruction theory”, settled in Catholic theology since the time of Vasquez and Bellarmine, harmonizes neither with the historical pagan conception of sacrifice nor with the essence of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, nor finally with the fundamental ideas of the Mosaic cult. The destruction is at most the material, and the oblation the formal element of the sacrifice. Consequently, the idea of sacrifice lies in the self-surrender of man to God, not with the object of (symbolical) self-destruction, but of final transformation, glorification, and deification. Wherever a meal is associated with the sacrifice, this signifies merely the confirmation and certification of the communion with God, already existing or reacquired by expiation. We may thus define sacrifice as the external oblation to God by an authorized minister of a sense-perceptible object, either through its destruction or at least its real transformation, in acknowledgement of God’s supreme dominion and for the appeasing of His wrath. In so far as this definition refers to the sacrifice of the Mass, see SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

———————————–

I. Concerning pagan sacrifice in general see CREUZER, Symbolik u. Mythologie der alten Völker (3rd ed., Darmstadt, 1877); WERNER, Die Religionen u. Kulte des vorchristl. Heidentums (Ratisbon, 1888); VOLLERS, Die Weltreligionen in ihrem geschichtl. Zusammenhang (Jena, 1909); DE LA SAUSSAYE, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch. (2 vols., 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1905). Concerning the sacrifices of the ancient Indians see MÜLLER, Hibbert Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of India (London, 1878); LINDNER, Die Dîkshâ oder die Weihe für das Somaopfer (1878); BERGAIGNE, La religion védique (3 vols., Paris, 1878-83); WEBER, Zur Kenntnis des ved. Opferrituals in Indische Studien, X and XIII; HILLEBRANDT, Das altind. Neu- u. Vollmondsopfer (1879); IDEM, Ritual-Literatur, ved. Opfer u. Zauber (1897); MUIR, Original Sanscrit Texts, III-V (London, 1890); HOPKINS, The Religions of India (London, 1893); HARDY, Die vedischbrahmanische Periode der Religion des alten Indiens (1893); IDEM, Indische Religionsgesch. (1898); OLDENBERG, Die Religion des Veda (1894); SCHWAB, Das altindische Tieropfer (1896); MACDONELL, Vedic Mythology (1897); DAHLMANN, Der Idealismus der indischen Religionsphilos. im Zeitalter der Opfermystik (Freiburg, 1901); ROUSSELL, La religion védique (Paris, 1909). Concerning Hinduism consult: MONIER-WILLIAMS, Brahmanism and Hinduism (London, 1891); GURU PROSAD SEN, An Introduction to the Study of Hinduism (Calcutta, 1893); CROOKE, Introduction to the Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India (London, 1896); DUBOIS, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies (Oxford, 1897); SLATER, The higher Hinduism in relation to Christianity (London, 1902). Concerning the Iranians, cf. HYDE, Historia religionis veterum Persarum (Oxford, 1700); WINDISCHMANN, Zoroastrische Studien (1863); SPIGEL, Eranische Altertumskunde, II (1878); DE HARLEZ, Les origines du Zoroastrisme (Paris, 1879); HAUG, Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsis (London, 1884); DOSABHAI FRANIJI KARAKA, History of the Parsis, including their Manners, Customs, Religion and Present Position (2 vols., London, 1884); CASARTELI, La philos. religeuse du Mazdéisme sous les Sassanides (Paris, 1884); JACKSON, Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran (New York, 1899). Concerning the Greeks, Cf. MAURY, Hist. des religions de la Grèce antique (3 vols., Paris, 1857-9); GIRARD, Le sentiment religieux en Grèce d’Homère à Eschyle (Paris, 1879); ROSCHER, Ausführliches Lexikon der griech. u. röm. Mythologie (1884); REISCH, Griechische Weihegeschenke (Vienna, 1890); STENGEL, Die griech. Sakralaltertümer (1890); RHODE, Psyche (1891); GARDENER AND JEVONS, Manual of Greek Antiquities (London, 1895); USENER, Götternamen (1896); FARNELL, Cults of the Greek States (2 vols., London, 1896); GRUPPE, Griech. Mythologie u. Religionsgesch. (Munich, 1897-1906); ROUSE, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge, 1910); REITZENSTEIN, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (1910); PIEPERS, Qu stiones anathematic (Leiden, 1903). Concerning the Romans, cf. BOUCHÉ-LECLERC, Manuel des institutions romaines (Paris, 1896); WISSOWA, Religion u. Kultus der Römer (Munich, 1902); VON PÖHLMANN, Die röm. Kaiserzeit u. der Untergang der antiken Welt (1910); GASQUET, Essai sur le culte et les mystères de Mithra (Paris, 1899); CUMONT, Die Mysterien des Mithra (Leipzig, 1903); PRELLER, Römische Mythologie (3rd ed., 1881-83); BEURLIER, Le culte rendu aux empereurs romains (Paris, 1890); WENDLAND, Die hellenist.-röm. Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum Judentum u. Christentum (1907); DIETERICH, Eine Mithrasliturgie (2nd ed., 1910). Concerning the Chinese, cf. DOUGLAS, Confucianism and Taoism (London, 1892); DE HARLEZ, Les religions de la Chine (Brussels, 1891); DVORAK, Chinas Religionen (2 Vols., Leipzig, 1895-1903). Concerning the Egyptians, cf. LE PAGE RENOUF, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of Ancient Egypt (London, 1879); ERMAN, Aegypten u, ägyptisches Leben im Altertum (2 vols., 1885-88); IDEM, Die ägyptische Religion (2nd ed., Berlin, 1909); BRUGSCH, Religion u. Mythologie der alten Aegypter (1888); BUDGE, The Mummy (London, 1893); IDEM, The Gods of the Egyptians (London, 1904); IDEM, History of Egypt (8 vols., London, 1902-); WIEDEMANN, Die Religion der alten Aegypter (1890); FLINDERS PETRIE, History of Egypt (London, 1894); SAYCE, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia (London, 1902); OTTO, Priester u. Tempel im hellenist. Aegypten (2 vols., 1902-08). Concerning the Semites. cf. VON BAUDISSIN, Beiträge zur semitischen Religionsgesch. (Berlin, 1875-78); ROBERTSON SMITH, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London, 1899); LAGRANGE, Sur les religions sémitiques (Paris, 1903); ZIMMER, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylon. Religion (1896); HAUPT, Babylonian Elements in the Levitical Ritual (1900); HILPRECHT, Die Ausgrabungen im Bel-Tempel zu Nippur (1903); JEREMIAS, Montheistische Strömungen innerhalb der babylonischen Religion (1904); WINCKLER, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (1904); JASTROW, Die Religion Babyloniens u. Assyriens (1905); KOLDEWEY, Die Tempel von Babylon (1911); MOVERS, Das Opferwesen der Karthager (1847); CHEYNE-BLACK, Encycl. biblica, s. v. Phœnicia; SCHOLZ, Götzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebräern u. benachbarten Völkern (1877); SCHANZ, Apologie des Christentums, II (1905). See also the literature to PRIESTHOOD.

II. LIGHTFOOT, Ministerium templi (Rotterdam, 1699); BÄHR, Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus, II (Heidelberg, 1839); THALHOFER, Die unblutigen Opfer des mosaischen Kultus (Ratisbon, 1848); RIEHM, Der Begriff der Sühne im A. T. (Gotha, 1876); IDEM, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums (Leipzig, 1884-); IDEM, Alttestamentl. Theologie (Halle, 1889); KURTZ, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, tr. (Edinburgh, 1863); WANGEMANN, Das Opfer nach der hl. Schrift (1866); SCHOLZ, Die hl. Altertümer des Volkes Israel (Ratisbon, 1868); IDEM, Götzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebräern (Ratisbon, 1877); HANEBERG, Die reliqiösen Altertümer der Bibel (Munich, 1869); SCHEGG, Biblische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1887); LAOUENAN, Du Brahmanisme et ses rapports avec le Judaisme et le Christianisme (Paris, 1888); CAVE, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement (Edinburgh, 1890); SCHÄFER, Die religiösen Altertümer der Bibel (1891); SCHMOLLER, Das Wesen der Sühne in der alttestamentlich. Opferthora in Studien u. Kritiken (1891); NOWACK, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1894); VOLCK, De nonnullis V. T. prophet. locis ad sacrificia spectantibus (Leipzig, 1893); SCOTT, Sacrifice, its Prophecy and Fulfilment (Edinburgh, 1894); BAXTER, Sanctuary and Sacrifice (London, 1895); SCHULTZ, Old Testament Theology, tr. (Edinburgh, 1898); FREY, Tod, Seelenglaube u. Seelenkult im alten Israel (1898); MATTHIEU, La notion de sacrifice dans l’ancien Testament et son évolution (Toulouse, 1902); GOLD, Sacrificial Worship (NeW York, 1903); NIKEL, Genesis u. Keilschriftforschung (Freiburg, 1903); SCHRADER, Die Keilinschriften u. das A. T. (3rd ed., Berlin, 1903); ZAPLETAL, Alttestamentliches (Freiburg, 1903); KÖBERLE, Sünde u. Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christus (Munich, 1905); HERRMANN, Die Idee der Sühne im A. T. (Leipzig, 1905); SCHÖPFER, Gesch, des A. T. (4th ed., 1906); KENT, Israel’s Laws and Legal Precedents (NeW York, 1907); BENZINGER, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1907); MADER, Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer u. der benachbarten Völker (Freiburg, 1908); ENGELKEMPER, Heiligtum u, Opferstätten in den Gesetzen des Pentateuch (Münster, 1908); SMITH, The Biblical Doctrine of Atonement in Biblical World, XXXI (1908), 22 sqq.; KITTEL, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II (Gotha, 1909); PETERS, Die jüdische Gemeinde von Elephantine-Syene u. ihr Tempel im 5. Jahrh. vor Chr. (Freiburg, 1910); ALLGEIER, Ueber Doppelberichte in der Genesis. Eine kritische Untersuchung u. eine prinzipielle Prüfung (Freiburg, 1911).

III. TANNER, Cruentum Christi sacrificium, incruentum Missæ sacrificium explicatum (Prague, 1669); CONDREN. Das Priestertum u. das Opfer Jesu Christi (Ratisbon, 1847); VON CICHOWSKI, Das alttestamentl. Pascha in seinem Verhältnis sum Opfer Christi (Munich, 1849); THALHOFER, Die Opfer des Hebräerbriefes (Dillinger, 1855); IDEM, Das Opfer des alten u. neuen Bundes (Ratisbon, 1870); BICKEL, Messe u. Pascha (Mainz, 1871); PELL, Das Dogma von der Sünde u. Erlösung im Lichte der Vernunft (Ratisbon, 1886); IDEM, Die Lehre des hl. Athanasius von der Sünde u. Erlösung (Passau, 1888); OSWALD, Die Erlösung in Christo Jesu (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1887); STRÄTER, Die Erlösungslehre des hl. Athanasius (Freiburg, 1894); ANRICH, Das antike Mysterien. wesen u. sein Einfluss auf das Christentum (Göttingen, 1894): SCHENZ, Die priesterl. Tätigkeit des Messias nach dem Propheten Isajas (Ratisbon, 1892); SEEBERG, Der Tod Christi in seiner Bedeutung für die Erlösung (Leipzig, 1895); DÖRHOLT, Die Lehre von der Genugtuung Christi (Paderborn, 1896); CHARRE, Le sacrifice de l’Homme-Dieu (Paris, 1899); GRIMM, Gesch. des Leidens Jesu, I (Ratisbon, 1903); FUNKE, Die Satisfactionstheorie des hl. Anselm (Münster, 1903); RITTER, Christus der Erlöser (Linz, 1903); BELSER, Gesch. des Leidens u. Sterbens, der Auferstehung u. Himmelfahrt des Herrn (Freiburg, 1903); JENTSCH, Hellentum u. Christentum (Leipzig, 1903); MUTH, Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertretende Genugtuung (Ratisbon, 1904); RIVIÈRE, Le dogme de la Rédemption (Paris, 1905); CROMBRUGGHE, De soteriologiæ christianæ primis fontibus (Louvain, 1905); KLUGE, Das Seelenleiden des Welterlösers (Mainz, 1905); WEIGL, Die Heilslehre des hl. Cyrill von Jerusalem (Mainz, 1905); WEISS, Die messianischen Vorbilder im A. T. (Freiburg, 1905); FIEBIG, Babel u. das N. T. (Tübingen, 1905); FELDMANN, Der Knecht Gottes in Isajas Kap. 40-55 (Freiburg, 1907); STAAB, Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung Christi (Paderborn, 1908); POHLE, Dogmatik, II (Paderborn, 1909); BAUER, Vom Griechentum zum Christentum (Leipzig, 1910); HARNACK, Dogmengesch., I-II (Tübingen, 1901). For other literature see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE, and PRIESTHOOD.

IV. BECANUS, De triplici sacrificio natur , legis, grati (Lyons, 1631); OUTRAM, De sacrificiis libri duo (Amsterdam, 1678); STÖCKL, Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen u. seiner Gesch. (Mainz, 1861); VON LASAULX, Ueber die Gebete der Griechen u. Römer (Würzburg, 1842); IDEM, Die Sühnopfer der Griechen u. Römer u. ihr Verhältnis zum Einen auf Golgatha (Ratisbon, 1854); DE MAISTRE, Eclaircissements sur le sacrifice (Paris, 1862); DÖLLINGER, Heidentum u. Judentum (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1868); WANGEMANN, Das Opfer nach der Lehre der hl. Schrift des A. u. N. Testamentes (Berlin, 1866); LÜCKEN, Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts (Münster, 1869); SCHULTZE, Der Fetischismus (Leipzig, 1871); MÜLLER, Introduction to the Science of Religion (London, 1873); IDEM, Lectures on the Origin of Religion (London, 1878); IDEM, Natural Religion (London, 1899); IDEM, Physical Religion (London, 1890); IDEM, Anthropological Religion (London, 1892); FAIRBAIRN, Studies in the Philosophy of Religion and History (London, 1876); FREEMAN-CLARKE, Ten Great Religions (2 vols., London, 1871-83); CAIRD, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (London, 1880); VON HARTMANN, Das religiöse Bewusstsein der Menscheit in Stufengang seiner Entwickelung (Berlin, 1882); LIPPERT, Allgemeine Gesch. des Priestertums (2 vols., Berlin, 1883); SCHNEIDER, Die Naturvölker (2 vols., Paderborn, 1885-86); PELEIDERER, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtl. Grundlage (2 vols., Leipzig, 1883-89); KÖPPLER, Priester u. Opfergabe (Mainz, 1886); ROBERTSON-SMITH, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London, 1889); KELLOG, The Genesis and Growth of Religion (New York, 1892); SIEBECK, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch. (Freiburg, 1883); JEVONS, An Introduction to the History of Religion (London and New York, 1896); SABATIER, La doctrine de l’expiation et son évolution historique (Paris, 1896); TIELE, Elements of the Science of Religion (New York, 1896); BRINTON, Religions of Primitive Peoples (New York, 1897); LANG, The Making of a Religion (London and New York, 1898); DE LA GRASSERIE, La psychologie des religions (Paris, 1899); LETOURNEAU, L’évolution religieuse (Paris, 1897); VON ORELLI, Allgemeine Religionsgesch. (Bonn, 1899); FRAZER, The Golden Bough (London and New York, 1900); IDEM, Totemism and Exogamy (London 1910); BORCHERT, Der Animismus oder Ursprung der Religion aus dem Seelen-, Ahnen- u. Geisterkult (Leipzig , 1900); ZAPLETAL, Der Totemismus u. die Religion Israels (Freiburg, 1900); MORRIS-JASTROW, The Study of Religion (London, 1901); RENZ, Die Gesch. des Messopferbegriffs, I (Freising, 1901); LUBBOCK, The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man (6th ed., London, 1902); TYLOR, Primitive Culture (2 Vols., 6th ed., London, 1902); BOUSSET, Das Wesen der Religion (Leipzig, 1903); DORNER, Grundriss der Religionsphilosophie (Leipzig, 1903); POHLE, Dogmatik, III (Paderborn, 1910), 317-27; PELL, Noch ein Lösungsversuch zur Messopferfrage unter Revision des Opferbegriffs (2nd ed., Passau, 1911), Cf. GOURD in Revus de métaphysique et de morale (1902), 131 sqq.; MESCHLER in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, LXIX (1905), 156 sqq.; Zeitschr. für Religionspsychologie, II (1908), 81 sqq.

J. POHLE Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIIICopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Sacrifice

properly so called, is the solemn infliction of death on a living creature, generally by effusion of its blood, in a way of religious worship; and the presenting of this act to the Deity as a supplication for the pardon of sin, and a supposed mean of compensation for the insult and injury thereby offered to his majesty and government. Among the Hebrews it was an offering made to God on his altar by the hand of a lawful minister. Sacrifice differed from oblation: in a sacrifice there was a real change or destruction of the thing offered, whereas an oblation was but a simple offering or gift. In the Mosaic economy it was the main public form of worship. SEE SACRIFICIAL OFFERING.

I. Scripture Terms.-The following are the original words used in the Bible to express the sacrificial act:

1. , minchah, from the obsolete root , to give; used in Gen 32:13; Gen 32:20-21, of a gift from Jacob to Esau (Sept. ); in 2Sa 8:2; 2Sa 8:6 (), in 1Ki 4:21 (), in 2Ki 17:4 (), of a tribute from a vassal king; in Gen 4:3; Gen 4:5, of a sacrifice generally ( and , indifferently); and in Lev 2:1; Lev 2:4-6, joined with the word korban, of an unbloody sacrifice, or meat offering (generally ). Its derivation and usage point to that idea of sacrifice which represents it as a eucharistic gift to God our King. SEE MINCHAH.

2. , korban (derived from the root , to approach, or [in Hiphil] to make to approach); used with minchah in Lev 2:1; Lev 2:4-6 (Sept. ), generally rendered (see Mar 7:11, , ) or . The idea of a gift hardly seems inherent in the root. which rather points to sacrifice, as a symbol of communion or covenant between God and man. SEE CORBAN.

3. , zebach (derived from the root , to slaughter animals, especially to slay in sacrifice), refers emphatically to a bloody sacrifice, one in which the shedding of blood is the essential idea. Thus it is opposed to nminchah in Psa 40:6 ( ), and to olah (the whole burned offering) in Exo 10:25; Exo 18:12, etc. With it the expiatory idea of sacrifice is naturally connected. SEE VICTIM.

4. In the New Test. the comprehensive term is (from , which seems radically to express the fuming up of the sacrificial smoke), which is used both of the victim offered and of the act of immolation, whether literal or figurative. Distinct from these general terms, and often appended to them, are the words denoting special kinds of sacrifice. SEE OFFERING.

5. , olah (Sept. generally ), the whole burned offering. SEE BURNED OFFERING.

6. , shelem (Sept. ), used frequently with , and sometimes called , the peace- or thank offering. See each of these words.

7. , chattath (Sept. generally ), the sin offering (q.v.).

8. , asham (Sept. generally ), the trespass offering (q.v.).

9. , ishsheh (from , fire), a sacrifice made by fire; spoken of every kind of sacrifice and offering, as commonly burned (Lev 2:3; Lev 2:10), and even of those not consumed by fire (Lev 14:7; Lev 14:9); but usually in the ritual formula, a sacrifice of sweet odor to Jehovah (Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13; Lev 1:17; Lev 2:2; Lev 2:9; Lev 3:5; comp. Exo 29:41; Lev 8:12; briefly, Exo 29:18; Exo 29:25; Lev 2:16). SEE FIRE.

10. , todah, is used in a figurative sense only, a a sacrifice of praise. SEE PRAISE.

11. , chag (from , to dance in religious joy), is s properly a festival only; but by metonymy is occasionally used for the sacrificial victims of such occasions (Exo 23:18; Psa 118:27; Mal 2:3). SEE FESTIVAL. The term sacrifice is sometimes used figuratively for deep repentance (Psa 51:17), for the good works of believers (Php 4:18; Heb 13:16), and for the duties of prayer and praise (Rom 12:1; Heb 13:15; 1Pe 2:5).

II. Origin of Sacrifice. Did it arise from a natural instinct of man, sanctioned and guided by God, or was it the subject of some distinct primeval revelation? This is a question the importance of which has probably been exaggerated. There can be no doubt that sacrifice was sanctioned by God’s law, with a special typical reference to the atonement of Christ; its universal prevalence, independent of, and often opposed to, man’s natural reasonings on his relation to God, shows it to have been primeval, and deeply rooted in the instincts of humanity. Whether it was first enjoined by an external command, or whether it was based on that sense of sin and lost communion with God which is stamped by his hand on the heart of man, is a historical question, perhaps insoluble, probably one which cannot be treated at all, except in connection with some general theory of the method of primeval revelation, but certainly one which does not affect the authority and the meaning of the rite itself. We need not discuss here the theory of the old English deists, such as Blount and Tyndale, that, as cruel men delighted in bloodshed, so they conceived God to be like themselves, and sought to please and appease him by the slaughter of innocent beasts; or the specious improvement of this theory which Spencer (De Leg. Hebr. Rit. 1. 3, diss. 2) framed, that men sacrificed originally because of the savage wildness of their nature, and that God accepted and ratified their grim worship to restrain them from what was worse. The question is now proposed in this form: Did sacrifice arise from the natural religious instinct of man, with or without (for both views are held) an unconscious inspiration of the Divine Spirit, or did it originate in a distinct divine revelation? Those who advocate the former view speak of sacrifice as the free expression of the divinely determined nature of man (Neumann). Man sacrifices because of his inalienable divine likeness, according to which he cannot cease to seek that communion with God for which he was created, even through such an effectual self sacrifice as is exhibited in sacrifice. Sacrifices have thus been as little an arbitrary invention of man as prayer. Like prayer, they have originated in an inner necessity to which man freely surrenders himself (Oehler, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl. 10, 617).

1. One recent writer on the subject (Davison, Inquiry into the Origin and Intent of Primitive Sacrifice, 1825) adduces (on the authority of Spencer and Outram) the consent of the fathers in favor of the human origin of primitive patriarchal sacrifice, and alleges that the notion of its divine origin is a mere modern figment, excogitated in the presumptively speculative age of innovating Puritanism. This assertion has, in part, been met by Faber (Treatise on the Origin of Expiatory Sacrifice, 1827), who shows that the only authorities adduced by Outram (De Sacrificiis) and Spencer (De Leg. Hebr.) are Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, the author of the work called Apostolical Constitutions, and the author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, commonly printed with the works of Justin Martyr. Of the early theologians thus adduced, the last three are positive and explicit in their assertion, while the sentiments of Justin Martyr are gathered rather by implication than in consequence of any direct avowal. He says, As circumcision commenced from Abraham, so the Sabbath, and sacrifices, and oblations, and festivals commenced from Moses; which clearly intimates that he considered primitive sacrifice as a human invention until made by the law a matter of religious obligation. The great body of the fathers are silent as to the origin of sacrifice; but a considerable number of them, cited by Spencer (De Leg. Hebr. p. 646 sq.), held that sacrifice was admitted into the law through condescension to the weakness of the people, who had been familiarized with it in Egypt, and, if not allowed to sacrifice ta God, would have been tempted to sacrifice to the idols of their heathen neighbors. The ancient writers who held this opinion are Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Irenaeus, Jerome, Procopias, Eucherius, Anastatius, and the author of the Apostolical Constitutions.

But out. of the entire number, only the four already mentioned allege incidentally the human origin of primitive sacrifice; the rest are silent on this point. Outram, indeed (De Sacrif. lib. 1, cap. 1, 6, p. 8, 9), thinks that in giving this opinion they virtually deny the divine origin of sacrifice. But it is fairly answered that the assertion, be it right or be it wrong, that sacrifice was introduced into the law from condescension to the Egyptianizing weakness of the people, furnishes no legitimate proof that the persons entertaining this opinion held the mere human origin of primitive patriarchal sacrifice, and affords no ground for alleging the consent of Christian antiquity in favor of that opinion. Such persons could not but have known that the rite of sacrifice existed anterior to the rise of pagan idolatry; and hence the notion which they entertained leaves the question as to the primitive origin of sacrifice entirely open, so far as they are concerned. Paganism, whether in Egypt or elsewhere merely borrowed the rite from pure patriarchism, which already possessed it; and unless a writer expressly declares such to be his opinion, we are not warranted in concluding that he held the human origin of primitive patriarchal sacrifice, simply because he conceives that a system of sacrificial service had been immediately adopted into the law from paganism out of condescension to the weakness of the people. Besides, some of these very fathers held language with respect to primitive sacrifice not much in favor of the interpretation which has, on this ground, been given to their sentiments. Thus, according to Cyril, God accepted the sacrifice of Abel and rejected the sacrifice of Cain, because it was fitting that posterity should learn from thence how they might blamelessly offer unto God his meet and due honor. If, then, these authorities be taken as neutral on the question, with the four exceptions already indicated, we shall find whatever authority we ascribe to these more than counterbalanced by the testimony of other ancient witnesses in favor of the divine origin of primitive sacrifice. Philo-Judoeus says, Abel brought neither the same oblation as Cain, nor in the sane manner; but, instead of things inanimate, he brought things animate; and instead of later and secondary products, he brought the older and the first: for he offered in sacrifice from the firstlings of his flock, and from their fat, according to the most holy command (De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini in Opp. p. 145). Augustine, after expressly referring the origin of sacrifice to the divine command, more distinctly evolves his meaning by saying, The prophetic immolation of blood, testifying, from the very commencement of the human race, the future passion of the Mediator, is a matter of deep antiquity; inasmuch as Abel is found in Holy Scripture to have been the first who offered up this prophetic immolation (Cont. Faust. Manich. in Opp. 6, 145). Next we come to Athanasius, who, speaking of the consent of the Old Testament to the fundamental doctrines of the New, says: What Moses taught, these things his predecessor Abraham had preserved; and what Abraham had preserved, with those things Enoch and Noah were well acquainted; for they made a distinction between the clean and the unclean, and were acceptable to God. Thus, also, in like manner, Abel bore testimony; for he knew what he had learned from Adam, and Adam himself taught only what he had previously learned from the Lord (Synod. Nicen. contra Hoer. Arian. decret. in Opp. 1, 403). Eusebius of Caesarea, in a passage too long for quotation, alleges that animal sacrifice was first of all practiced by the ancient lovers of God (the patriarchs), and that not by accident, but through a certain divine contrivance, under which, as taught by the Divine Spirit, it became their duty thus to shadow forth the great and venerable victim, really acceptable to God, which was, in time then future, destined to be offered in behalf of the whole human race (Demonst. Evang. 1, 8, 24, 25).

Among the considerations urged in support of the opinion that sacrifice must have originated in a divine command, it has been suggested as exceedingly doubtful whether, independently of such a command, and as distinguished from vegetable oblations, animal sacrifice, which involves the practice of slaughtering and burning an innocent victim, could ever, under any aspect, have been adopted as a rite likely to gain the favor of God. Our own course of scriptural education prevents us, perhaps, from being competent judges on this point; but we have means of judging how so singular a rite must strike the minds of thinking men not in the same degree prepossessed by early associations. The ancient Greek masters of thought not unfrequently expressed their astonishment how and upon what rational principles so strange an institution as that of animal sacrifice could ever have originated; for as to the notion of its being pleasing to the Deity, such a thing struck them as a manifest impossibility (Iamblic. De Vit. Pythag. p. 106-118; Porphyr. De Abstin. p. 96; Theophrast. et Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Proep. Evang. p. 90, 91). Those who do not believe that sacrifices were of divine institution must dispose of this difficulty by alleging that, when men had come to slay animals for their own food, they might think it right to slay them to satisfy their gods; and, in fact, Grotius, who held the human origin of sacrifices, and yet believed that animal food was not used before the Deluge, is reduced to the expedient of contending that Abel’s offering was not an animal sacrifice, but only the produce-the milk and wool-of his best sheep. This, however, shows that he believed animal sacrifice to have been impossible before the Deluge without the sanction of a divine command, the existence of which he discredited.

A strong moral argument in favor of the divine institution of sacrifice, somewhat feebly put by Hallet (Comment. on Heb 11:4, cited by Magee, On the Atonement), has been reproduced with increased force by Faber (Prim. Sacrifice, p. 183). It amounts to this:

(1.) Sacrifice, when uncommanded by God, is a mere act of gratuitous superstition; whence, on the principle of Paul’s reprobation of what he denominates will-worship, it is neither acceptable nor pleasing to God.

(2.) But sacrifice during the patriarchal ages was accepted by God, and was plainly honored with his approbation.

(3.) Therefore, sacrifice during the patriarchal ages could not have been an act of superstition uncommanded by God.

(4.) If, then, such was the character of primitive sacrifice that is to say, if primitive sacrifice was not a mere act of gratuitous superstition uncommanded by God it must, in that case, indubitably have been a divine, and not a human, institution. If it be held that any of the ancient sacrifices were expiatory, or piacular, the argument for their divine origin is strengthened. as it is hard to conceive the combination of ideas under which the notion of expiatory sacrifice could be worked out by the human mind. This difficulty is so great that the ablest advocates of the human origin of primitive animal sacrifice feel bound also to deny that such sacrifices as then existed were piacular. It is strongly insisted that the doctrine of an atonement by animal sacrifice cannot be deduced from the light of nature or from the principles of reason. If, therefore, the idea existed, it must either have arisen in the fertile soil of a guessing superstition, or have been divinely appointed. Now, we know that God cannot approve of unwarranted and presumptuous superstition; if, therefore, he can be shown to have received with approbation a species of sacrifice undiscoverable by the light of nature, or from the principles of reason, it follows that it must have been of his own institution.

The question of the existence of expiatory sacrifice before the law, however, is more difficult, and is denied by Outram, Ernesti, Doderlin, Davison, and many others, who believe that it was revealed under the law, as well as by those who doubt its existence under the Mosaical dispensation. The arguments already stated in favor of the divine institution of primitive sacrifice go equally to support the existence of piacular sacrifice, the idea of which seems more urgently to have required a divine intimation. Besides, expiatory sacrifice is found to have existed among all nations in conjunction with eucharistic and impetratory sacrifices; and it lies at the root of the principle on which human sacrifices were offered among the ancient nations. The expiatory view of sacrifice is frequently produced by heathen writers: Take heart for heart, fibre for fibre. This life we give you in the place of a better (Ovid, Fasti, 6, 161). This being the case, it is difficult to believe but that the idea was derived, along with animal sacrifice itself, from the practice of Noah, and preserved among his various descendants. This argument, if valid, would show the primitive origin of piacular sacrifice. Now there can be no doubt that the idea of sacrifice which Noah transmitted to the postdiluvian world was the same that he had derived from his pious ancestors, and the same that was evinced by the sacrifice of Abel, to which we are, by the course of the argument, again brought back. Now if that sacrifice was expiatory, we have reason to conclude that it was divinely commanded; and the supposition that it was both expiatory and divinely commanded makes the whole history far more clear and consistent than any other which has been or can be offered. It amounts, then, to this-that Cain, by bringing a eucharistic offering, when his brother brought one which was expiatory, denied virtually that his sins deserved death, or that he needed the blood of atonement. Some go further, and allege that in the text itself God actually commanded Cain to offer a piacular sacrifice. (See this question discussed below.)

2. On the other hand, the great difficulty in the theory which refers it to a distinct command of God is the total silence of Holy Scripture-a silence the more remarkable when contrasted with the distinct reference made in Genesis 2 to the origin of the Sabbath. Sacrifice when first mentioned, in the case of Cain and Abel, is referred to as a thing of course; it is said to have been brought by men; there is no hint of any command given by God. This consideration, the strength of which no ingenuity has been able to impair, although it does not actually disprove the formal revelation of sacrifice, yet at least forbids the assertion of it, as of a positive and important doctrine. See, for example (as in Faber’s Origin of Sacrifice), the elaborate reasoning on the translation of in Gen 4:7. Even supposing the version a sin offering coucheth at the door to be correct, on the ground of general usage of the word, of the curious version of the Sept., and of the remarkable grammatical construction of the masculine participle with the feminine noun (as referring to the fact that the sin offering was actually a male), still it does not settle the matter. The Lord even then speaks of sacrifice as existing, and as known to exist: he does not institute it. The supposition that the skins of beasts in Gen 3:21 were skins of animals sacrificed by God’s command is a pure assumption. The argument on Heb 11:4, that faith can rest only on a distinct divine command as to the special occasion of its exercise, is contradicted by the general definition of it given in Heb 11:1. (See below.)

Nor is the fact of the mysterious and supernatural character of the doctrine of atonement, with which the sacrifices of the O.T. are expressly connected, any conclusive argument on this side of the question. All allow that the eucharistic and deprecatory ideas of sacrifice are perfectly natural to man. The higher view of its expiatory character, dependent, as it is, entirely on its typical nature, appears but gradually in Scripture. It is veiled under other ideas in the case of the patriarchal sacrifices. It is first distinctly mentioned in the Law (Lev 17:11, etc.); but even then the theory of the sin offering, and of the classes of sins to which it referred, is allowed to be obscure and difficult; it is only in the N.T. (especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews) that its nature is clearly unfolded. It is as likely that it pleased God gradually to superadd the higher idea to an institution, derived by man from the lower ideas (which must eventually find their justification in the higher), as that he originally commanded the institution when the time for the revelation of its full meaning was not yet come. The rainbow was just as truly the symbol of God’s new promise in Gen 9:13-17, whether it had or had not existed as a natural phenomenon before the flood. What God sets his seal to he makes a part of his revelation, whatever its origin may be. It is to be noticed (see Warburton, Div. Leg. 9, c. 2) that, except in Gen 15:9, the method of patriarchal sacrifice is left free, without any direction on the part of God, while in all the Mosaic ritual the limitation and regulation of sacrifice, as to time, place, and material, is a most prominent feature, on which much of its distinction from heathen sacrifice depended. The inference is at least probable that when God sanctioned formally a natural rite, then, and not till then, did he define its method.

See on the question, in addition to the above treatises, Sykes, Essay on the Nature, Origin, and Design of Sacrifices; Taylor, Scripture Doctrine of the Atonement (1758); Ritchie, Criticisms upon Modern Notions of Sacrifices (1761); Magee, Discourses on Atonement and Sacrifices. SEE ATONEMENT.

III. Biblical History of Sacrifice.

1. Ante-Mosaic Instances. In examining the various sacrifices recorded in Scripture before the establishment of the law, we find that the words specially denoting expiatory sacrifice ( and ) are not applied to them. This fact does not at all show that they were not actually expiatory, nor even that the offerers had not that idea of expiation which must have been vaguely felt in all sacrifices; but it justifies the inference that this idea was not then the prominent one in the doctrine of sacrifice.

The sacrifice of Cain and Abel is called minchah. although in the case of the latter it was a bloody sacrifice. (So in Heb 11:4 the word is explained by the below.) In the case of both it would appear to have been eucharistic, and the distinction between the offerers to have lain in their faith (Heb 11:4). Whether that faith of Abel referred to the promise of the Redeemer and was connected with any idea of the typical meaning of sacrifice, or whether it was a simple and humble faith in the unseen God, as the giver and promiser of all good, we are not authorized by Scripture to decide. SEE CAIN.

The sacrifice of Noah after the flood (Gen 8:20) is called burned offering (olah). This sacrifice is expressly connected with the institution of the covenant which follows in Gen 9:8-17. The same ratification of a covenant is seen in the burned offering of Abraham, especially enjoined and defined by God in Gen 15:9; and is probably to be traced in the building of altars by Abraham on entering Canaan at Bethel (Gen 12:7-8) and Mamre (Gen 12:13; Gen 12:18), by Isaac at Beersheba (v. 26, 25), and by Jacob at Shechem (v. 33, 20), and in Jacob’s setting-up and anointing of the pillar at Bethel (Gen 25:18; Gen 35:14). The sacrifice (zebach) of Jacob at Mizpah also marks a covenant with Laban, to which God is called to be a witness and a party. In all these, therefore, the prominent idea seems to have been what is called the federative, the recognition of a bond between the sacrificer and God, and the dedication of himself, as represented by the victim, to the service of the Lord. SEE NOAH. The sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:1-13) stands by itself as the sole instance in which the idea of human sacrifice was even for a moment, and as a trial, countenanced by God. Yet in its principle it appears to have been of the same nature as before: the voluntary surrender of an only son on Abraham’s part, and the willing dedication of himself on Isaac’s, are in the foreground; the expiatory idea, if recognised at all, holds certainly a secondary position. SEE ISAAC.

In the burned offerings of Job for his children (Job 1:5) and for his three friends (Job 42:8), we, for the first time, find the expression of the desire of expiation for sin accompanied by repentance and prayer, and brought prominently forward. The same is the case in the words of Moses to Pharaoh as to the necessity of sacrifice in the wilderness (Exo 10:25), where sacrifice (zebach) is distinguished from burned offering. Here the main idea is at least deprecatory; the object is to appease the wrath and avert the vengeance of God.

2. The Sacrifices of the Mosaic Period. These are inaugurated by the offering of the Passover and the sacrifice of Exodus 24. The Passover, indeed, is unique in its character, and seems to embrace the peculiarities of all the various divisions of sacrifice soon to be established. Its ceremonial, however, most nearly resembles that of the sin offering in the emphatic use of the blood, which (after the first celebration) was poured at the bottom of the altar (see Lev 4:7), and in the care taken that none of the flesh should remain till the morning (see Exo 12:10; Exo 34:25). It was unlike it in that the flesh was to be eaten by all (not burned, or eaten by the priests alone), in token of their entering into covenant with God, and eating at his table, as in the case of a peace offering. Its peculiar position as a historical memorial, and its special reference to the future, naturally mark it out as incapable of being referred to any formal class of sacrifice; but it is clear that the idea of salvation from death by means of sacrifice is brought out in it with a distinctness before unknown. SEE PASSOVER.

The sacrifice of Exodus 24, offered as a solemn inauguration of the covenant of Sinai, has a similarly comprehensive character. It is called a burned offering and peace offering in Exo 24:5; hut the solemn use of the blood (comp. Heb 9:18-22) distinctly marks the idea that expiatory sacrifice was needed for entering into covenant with God, the idea of which the sin and trespass offerings were afterwards the symbols.

The law of Leviticus now unfolds distinctly the various forms of sacrifice:

(a.) The burned offering. Self dedicatory.

(b.) The meat offering (unbloody). Eucharstic.

The peace offering (bloody).

(c.) The sin offering.

The trespass offering. Expiatory.

(d.) The incense offered after sacrifice in the Holy Place, and (on the Day of Atonement) in the Holy of Holies, the symbol of the intercession of the priest (as a type of the Great High priest), accompanying and making efficacious the prayer of the people.

In the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8) we find these offered in what became ever afterwards the appointed order: first came the sin offering, to prepare access to God; next the burned offering, to mark their dedication to his service; and, thirdly, the meat offering of thanksgiving. The same sacrifices, in the same order, with the addition of a peace offering (eaten, no doubt, by all the people), were offered a week after for all the congregation, and accepted visibly by the descent of fire upon the burned offering. Henceforth the sacrificial system was fixed in all its parts, until He should come whom it typified. It is to be noticed that the law of Leviticus takes the rite of sacrifice for granted (see Lev 1:2; Lev 2:1, etc., If a man bring an offering, ye shall, etc.), and is directed chiefly to guide and limit its exercise. In every case but that of the peace offering the nature of the victim was carefully prescribed, so as to preserve the ideas symbolized, but so as to avoid the notion (so inherent in heathen systems, and finding its logical result in human sacrifice) that the more costly the offering, the more surely must it meet with acceptance. At the same time, probably in order to impress this truth on the mind, and also to guard against corruption by heathenish ceremonial, and against the notion that sacrifice in itself, without obedience, could avail (see 1Sa 15:22-23), the place of offering was expressly limited, first to the Tabernacle, afterwards to the Temple. (For instances of infringement of this rule uncensored, see Jdg 2:5; Jdg 6:26; Jdg 13:19; 1Sa 11:15; 1Sa 16:5; 2Sa 6:13; 1Ki 3:2-3. Most of these cases are special, some authorized by special command; but the law probably did not attain to its full strictness till the foundation of the Temple.) This ordinance also necessitated a periodical gathering as one nation before God, and so kept clearly before their minds their relation to him as their national King. Both limitations brought out the great truth that God himself provided the way by which man should approach him, and that the method of reconciliation was initiated by him, and not by them.

In consequence of the peculiarity of the law, it has been argued (as by Outram, Warburton, etc.) that the whole system of sacrifice was only a condescension to the weakness of the people, borrowed, more or less, from the heathen nations, especially from Egypt, in order to guard against worse superstition and positive idolatry. The argument is mainly based (see Warburton, Div. Leg. 4, 6:2) on Eze 20:25, and similar references in the Old and New Test. to the nullity of all mere ceremonial. Taken as an explanation of the theory of sacrifice, it is weak and superficial; it labors under two fatal difficulties, the historical fact of the primeval existence of sacrifice, and its typical reference to the one atonement of Christ, which was foreordained from the very beginning, and had been already typified, as, for example, in the sacrifice of Isaac. But as giving a reason for the minuteness and elaboration of the Mosaic ceremonial so remarkably contrasted with the freedom of patriarchal sacrifice, and as furnishing an explanation of certain special rites, it may probably have some value. It certainly contains this truth: that the craving for visible tokens of God’s presence, and visible rites of worship, from which idolatry proceeds, was provided for and turned into a safe channel by the whole ritual and typical system, of which sacrifice was the centre. The contact with the gigantic system of idolatry which prevailed in Egypt, and which had so deeply tainted the spirit of the Israelites, would doubtless render such provision then especially necessary. It was one part of the prophetic office to guard against its degradation into formalism, and to bring out its spiritual meaning with an ever-increasing clearness.

3. Post-Mosaic Sacrifices. It will not be necessary to pursue, il; detail, the history of Post-Mosaic sacrifice, for its main principles were now fixed forever. The most remarkable instances of sacrifice on a large scale are by Solomon at the consecration of the Temple (1Ki 8:63), by Jehoiada after the death of Athaliah (2Ch 23:18), and by Hezekiah at his great Passover and restoration of the Temple-worship (2Ch 30:21-24). In each case the lavish use of victims was chiefly in the peace offerings, which were a sacred national feast to the people at the table of their Great King.

The regular sacrifices in the Temple service were:

(a.) Burned offerings.

1. The daily burned offerings (Exo 29:38-42).

2. The double burned offerings on the Sabbath (Num 28:9-10).

3. The burned offerings at the great festivals (Num 28:11 to Num 29:39).

(b.) Meat offerings.

1. The daily meat offerings accompanying the daily burned offerings (flour, oil, and wine) (Exo 29:40-41).

2. The shew bread (twelve loaves with frankincense), renewed every Sabbath (Lev 24:5-9).

3. The special meat offerings at the Sabbath and the great festivals (Num 28:29).

4. The first fruits, at the Passover (Lev 23:10-14), at Pentecost (28:17-20), both wave offerings; the first fruits of the dough and threshing floor at the harvest time (Num 15:20-21; Deu 26:1-11), called heave offerings.

(c.) Sin offerings.

1. Sin offering (a kid) each new moon (Num 28:15).

2. Sin offerings at the Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, and Tabernacles (Num 28:22; Num 28:30; Num 29:5; Num 29:16; Num 29:19; Num 29:22; Num 29:25; Num 29:28; Num 29:31; Num 29:34; Num 29:38).

3. The offering of the two goats (the goat sacrificed, and the scapegoat) for the people, and of the bullock for the priest himself on the Great Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).

(d.) Incense.

1. The morning and evening incense (Exo 30:7-8).

2. The incense on the Great Day of Atonement (Lev 16:12). Besides these public sacrifices, there were offerings of the people for themselves individually: at the purification of women (Leviticus 12); the presentation of the firstborn, and circumcision of all male children; the cleansing of the leprosy (ch. 14) or any uncleanness (ch. 15); at the fulfilment of Nazaritic and other vows (Num 6:1-21); on occasions of marriage and of burial, etc., besides the frequent offering of private sinofferings. These must have kept up a constant succession of sacrifices every day, and brought the rite home to every man’s thought and to every occasion of human life. SEE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS.

IV. Significance of the Levitical Sacrifices. In examining the doctrine of sacrifice, it is necessary to remember that, in its development, the order of idea is not necessarily the same as the order of time. By the order of sacrifice in its perfect form (as in Leviticus 8) it is clear that the sin offering occupies the most important place, the burned offering comes next, and the meatoffering, or peace offering, last of all. The second could only be offered after the first had been accepted; the third was only a subsidiary part of the second. Yet, in actual order of time, it has been seen that the patriarchal sacrifices partook much more of the nature of the peace offering and burned offering; and that, under the law, by which was the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20), the sin offering was for the first time explicitly set forth. This is but natural, that the deepest ideas should be the last in order of development.

It is also obvious that those who believe in the unity of the Old and New Tests., and the typical nature of the Mosaic covenant, must view the type in constant reference to the antitype, and be prepared, therefore, to find in the former vague and recondite meanings which are fixed and manifested by the latter. The sacrifices must be considered, not merely as they stand in the law, or even as they might have appeared to a pious Israelite, but as they were illustrated by the prophets, and perfectly interpreted in the N.T. (e.g. in the Epistle to the Hebrews). It follows from this that, as belonging to a system which was to embrace all mankind in its influence, they should be also compared and contrasted with the sacrifices and worship of God in other nations, and the ideas which in them were dimly and confusedly expressed.

1. Contrast with Heathenism. It is needless to dwell on the universality of heathen sacrifices (see Magee, Dis. on Sacrifice, vol. 1, dis. 5, and Ernst von Lasaulx, Treatise on Greek and Roman Sacrifice, quoted in notes 23, 26 to Thomson’s Bampton Lectures, 1853), and it is difficult to reduce to any single theory the various ideas involved therein. It is clear that the sacrifice was often looked upon as a gift or tribute to the gods; an idea which, for example, runs through all Greek literature, from the simple conception in Homer to the caricatures of Aristophanes or Lucian, against the perversion of which Paul protested at Athens, when he declared that God needed nothing at human hands (Act 17:25). It is also clear that sacrifices were used as prayers to obtain benefits or to avert wrath, and that this idea was corrupted into the superstition, denounced by heathen satirists as well as by Hebrew prophets, that by them the gods’ favor could be purchased for the wicked, or their envy be averted from the prosperous. (On the other hand, that they were regarded as thank offerings, and the feasting on their flesh as a partaking of the table of the gods (comp. 1Co 10:20-21), is equally certain. Nor was the higher idea of sacrifice as a representation of the self devotion of the offerer, body and soul, to the god, wholly lost, although generally obscured by the grosser and more obvious conceptions of the rite. But, besides all these, there seems always to have been latent the idea of propitiation; that is, the belief in a communion with the gods, natural to man, broken off in some way, and by sacrifice to be restored. The emphatic shedding of the blood as the essential part of the sacrifice, while the flesh was often eaten by the priests or the sacrificer, is not capable of a full explanation by any of the ideas above referred to. Whether it represented the death of the sacrificer, or (as in cases of national offering of human victims, and of those self devoted for their country) an atoning death for him; still, in either case, it contained the idea that without shedding of blood is no renission, and so had a vague and distorted glimpse of the great central truth of revelation. Such an idea may be, as has been argued, unnatural, in that it could not be explained by natural reason; but it certainly was not unnatural if frequency of existence and accordance with a deep natural instinct be allowed to preclude that epithet.

Now, the essential difference between these heathen views of sacrifice and the scriptural doctrine of the O.T. is not to be found in its denial of any of these ideas. The very names used in it for sacrifice, as is seen above, involve the conception of the rite as a gift, a form of worship, a thank offering, a self devotion, and an atonement. In fact, it brings out, clearly and distinctly, the ideas which, in heathenism, were uncertain, vague, and perverted. But the essential points of distinction are two:

(1.) Whereas the heathen conceived of their gods as alienated in jealousy or anger, to be sought after, and to be appeased by the unaided action of man, Scripture represents God himself as approaching man, as pointing out and sanctioning the way by which the broken covenant should be restored. This was impressed on the Israelites at every step by the minute directions of the law as to time, place, victim, and ceremonial, and by its utterly discountenancing the will worship which in heathenism found full scope, and rioted in the invention of costly or monstrous sacrifices. It is especially to be noted that this particularity is increased as we approach nearer to the deep propitiatory idea; for whereas the patriarchal sacrifices generally seem to have been undefined by God, and, even under the law, the nature of the peace offerings, and, to some extent, the burned offerings, was determined by the sacrificer only, yet the solemn sacrifice of Abraham in the inauguration of his covenant was prescribed to him, and the sin offerings under the law were most accurately and minutely determined (see. for example, the whole ceremonial of Leviticus 16). It is needless to remark how this essential difference purifies all the ideas above noticed from the corruptions which made them odious or contemptible, and sets on its true basis the relation between God and fallen man.

(2.) The second mark of distinction is closely connected with this, inasmuch as it shows sacrifice to be a scheme proceeding from God, and, in his foreknowledge, connected with the one central fact of all human history. It is to be found in the typical character of all Jewish sacrifices, on which, as the Epistle to the Hebrews argues, all their efficacy depended. It must be remembered that, like other ordinances of the law, they had a twofold effect, depending on the special position of an Israelite as a member of the natural theocracy, and on his general position as a man in relation with God. On the one hand, for example, the sin offering was en atonement to the national law for moral offenses:of negligence, which in presumptuous i.e. deliberate and wilful crime was rejected (see Num 15:27-31; and comp. Heb 10:26-27). On the other hand, it had, as the prophetic writings show us, a distinct spiritual significance as a means of expressing repentance and receiving forgiveness, which could have belonged to it only as a type of the great atonement. How far that typical meaning was recognised at different periods and by different persons, it is useless to speculate; but it would be impossible to doubt, even if we had no testimony on the subject, that, in the face of the high spiritual watching of the law and the prophets, a pious Israelite must have felt the nullity of material sacrifice in itself, and so believed it to be availing only as an ordinance of God, shadowing out some great spiritual truth or action of his. Nor is it unlikely that, with more or less distinctness, he connected the evolution of this, as of other truths, with the coming of the promised Messiah. But, however this be, we know that, in God’s purpose, the whole system was typical; that all its spiritual efficacy depended on the true sacrifice which it represented, and could be received only on condition of faith; and that, therefore, it passed away when the Antitype had come.

2. The nature and meaning of the various kinds of sacrifice are partly gathered from the form of their institution and ceremonial, partly from the teaching of the prophets, and partly from the N.T., especially the Epistle to the Hebrews.

(1.) Old-Testament Relations. Here all had relation, under different aspects, to a covenant between God and man.

(a.) The sin offering represented that covenant as broken by man, and as knit together again, by God’s appointment, through the shedding of blood. Its characteristic ceremony was the sprinkling of the blood before the veil of the sanctuary, the putting some of it on the horns of the altar of incense, and the pouring out of all the rest at the foot of the altar of burned offering. The flesh was in no case touched by the offerer; either it was consumed by fire without the camp, or it was eaten by the priest alone in the holy place, and everything that touched it was holy (). This latter point marked the distinction from the peace offering, and showed that the sacrificer had been rendered unworthy of communion with God. The shedding of the blood, the symbol of life, signified that the death of the offender was deserved for sin, but that the death of the victim was accepted for his death by the ordinance of God’s mercy. This is seen most clearly in the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, when, after the sacrifice of the one goat, the high priest’s hand was laid on the head of the scapegoat which was the other part of the sin offering with confession of the sins of the people, that it might visibly bear them away, and so bring out explicitly what in other sin offerings was but implied. Accordingly, we find (see quotation from the Mishna in Outram, De Sacr. 1, ch. 15: 10) that in all cases it was the custom for the offerer to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, to confess, generally or specially, his sins, and to say, Let this be my expiation. Beyond all doubt, the sin offering distinctly witnessed that sin existed in man, that the wages of that sin was death, and that God had provided an atonement by the vicarious suffering of an appointed victim. The reference of the Baptist to a Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world was one understood and hailed at once by a true Israelite. SEE SIN OFFERING.

(b.) The ceremonial and meaning of the burned offering were very different. The idea of expiation seems not to have been absent from it, for the blood was sprinkled round about the altar of sacrifice; and, before the Levitical ordinance of the sin offering to precede it, this idea may have been even prominent. But in the system of Leviticus, it is evidently only secondary. The main idea is the offering of the whole victim (to God, representing (as the laying of the hand on its head shows) the devotion of the sacrificer, body and soul, to him. The death of the victim was (so to speak), an incidental feature, to signify the completeness of the devotion; and it is to be noticed that, in all solemn sacrifices. no burned offering could be made until a previous sin offering had brought the sacrificer again into covenant with God. The main idea of this sacrifice must have been representative, not vicarious; and the best comment upon it is the exhortation, in Rom 12:1, to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.

(c.) The meat offerings the peace or thank offering, the first fruits, etc. were simply offerings to God of his own best gifts, as a sign of thankful homage, and as a means of maintaining his service and his servants. Whether they were regular or voluntary, individual or national, independent or subsidiary to other offerings, this was still the leading idea. The meat offering, of flour, oil, and wine, seasoned with salt and hallowed by frankincense, was usually an appendage to the devotion implied in the burned offering; and the peace offerings for the people held the same place in Aaron’s first sacrifice (Lev 9:22), and in all others of special solemnity. The characteristic ceremony in the peace offering was the eating of the flesh by the sacrificer (after the fat had been burned before the Lord, and the breast and shoulder given to the priests). It betokened the enjoyment of communion with God at the table of the Lord, in the gifts which his mercy had bestowed, of which a choice portion was offered to him, to his servants, and to his poor (see Deu 14:28-29). To this view of sacrifice allusion is made by Paul in Php 4:18; Heb 13:15-16). It follows naturally from the other two. SEE MEAT OFFERING.

It is clear, from this, that the idea of sacrifice is a complex idea, involving the propitiatory, the dedicatory, and the eucharistic elements. Any one of these, taken by itself, would lead to error and superstition. The propitiatory alone would tend to the idea of atonement by sacrifice for sin, as being effectual without any condition of repentance and faith; the self-dedicatory, taken alone, ignores the barrier of sin between man and God, and undermines the whole idea of atonement; the eucharistic, alone, leads to the notion that mere gifts can satisfy God’s service, and is easily perverted into the heathenish attempt to bribe God by vows and offerings. All three, probably, were more or less implied in each sacrifice, each element predominating in its turn: all must be kept in mind in considering the historical influence, the spiritual meaning, and the typical value of sacrifice.

Now, the Israelites, while they seem always to have retained the ideas of propitiation and of eucharistic offering, even when they perverted these by half-heathenish superstition, constantly ignored the self dedication which is the link between the two, and which the regular burned offering should have impressed upon them as their daily thought and duty. It is, therefore, to this point that the teaching of the prophets is mainly directed; its key- note is contained in the words of Samuel Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams (1Sa 15:22). So Isaiah declares (as in Isa 50:10-11) that the Lord delights not in the blood of bullocks, or lambs, or goats; that to those who cease to do evil and learn to do well. though their sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow. Jeremiah reminds them (Jer 7:22-23) that the Lord did not command burned offerings or sacrifices under Moses, but said, Obey my voice, and I will be your God. Ezekiel is full of indignant protests (see Eze 20:39-44) against the pollution of God’s name by offerings of those whose hearts were with their idols. Hosea sets forth God’s requirements (Hos 6:6) in words which our Lord himself sanctioned: I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burned offerings. Amos (Amo 5:21-27) puts it even more strongly, that God hates their sacrifices, unless judgment run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream. And Micah (Mic 6:6-8) answers the question which lies at the root of sacrifice Wherewith shall I come before the Lord? by the words, What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God? All these passages, and many others, are directed to one object not to discourage sacrifice, but to purify and spiritualize the feelings of the offerers.

The same truth, here enunciated from without, is recognised from within by the Psalmist. Thus he says, in Psa 40:8-11, Sacrifice and meat offering, burned offering and sin offering, thou hast not required; and contrasts with them the homage of the heart Mine ears hast thou bored, and the active service of life Lo! I come to do thy will, O God. In Psalm 1:13, 14, sacrifice is contrasted with prayer and adoration (comp. Psa 141:2): Thinkest thou that I will eat bulls’ flesh, and drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows to the Most High: and call upon me in the day of trouble. In Psa 51:16-17, it is similarly contrasted with true repentance of the heart: The sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit, a broken and a contrite heart. Yet here also the next verse shows that sacrifice was not superseded, but purified: Then shalt thou be pleased with burned offerings and oblations; then shall they offer young bullocks upon thine altar. These passages are correlative to the others, expressing the feelings, which those others in God’s name require. It is not to be argued from them that this idea of selfdedication is the main one of sacrifice. The idea of propitiation lies below it, taken for granted by the prophets as by the whole people, but still enveloped in mystery until the Antitype should come to make all clear. For the evolution of this doctrine we must look to the N.T.; the preparation for it by the prophets was (so to speak) negative, the pointing out the nullity of all other propitiations in themselves, and then leaving the warnings of the conscience and the cravings of the heart to fix men’s hearts on the better atonement to come.

(2.) New-Testament Explanation. Without entering directly on the great subject of the atonement (which would be foreign to the scope of this article), it will be sufficient to refer to the connection established in the N.T. between it and the sacrifices of the Mosaic system. To do this, we need do little more than analyze the Epistle to the Hebrews, which contains the key of the whole sacrificial doctrine.

(a.) In the first place, it follows the prophetic books by stating, in the most emphatic terms, the intrinsic nullity of all mere material sacrifices. The gifts and sacrifices of the first tabernacle could never make the sacrificers perfect in conscience ( ); they were but carnal ordinances, imposed on them till the time of reformation () (Heb 9:9-10). The very fact of their constant repetition is said to prove this imperfection, which depends on the fundamental principle that it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin (Heb 10:4). But it does not lead us to infer that they actually had no spiritual efficacy if offered in repentance and faith. On the contrary, the object of the whole epistle is to show their typical and probationary character, and to assert that in virtue of it alone they had a spiritual meaning. Our Lord is declared (see 1Pe 1:20) to have been foreordained as a sacrifice before the foundation of the world; or (as it is more strikingly expressed in Rev 13:8) slain from the foundation of the world. The material sacrifices represented this great atonement as already made and accepted in God’s foreknowledge; and to those who grasped the ideas of sin, pardon, and self dedication symbolized in them they were means of entering into the blessings which the one true sacrifice alone procured. Otherwise the whole sacrificial system could have been only a superstition and a snare. The sins provided for by the sin offering were certainly in some cases moral. The whole of the Mosaic description of sacrifices clearly implies some real spiritual benefit to be derived from them, besides the temporal privileges belonging to the national theocracy. Just as Paul argues (Gal 3:15-29) that the promise and covenant to Abraham were of primary, the law only of secondary importance so that men had under the law more than they had by the law so it must be said of the Levitical sacrifices. They could convey nothing in themselves; yet, as types, they might, if accepted by a true, though necessarily imperfect faith, be means of conveying in some degree the blessings of the Antitype. SEE TYPE.

(b.) This typical character of all sacrifice being thus set forth, the next point dwelt upon is the union in our Lord’s person of the priest, the offerer, and the sacrifice. SEE PRIEST. The imperfection of all sacrifices, which made them, in themselves, liable to superstition and even inexplicable, lies in this: that, on the one hand, the victim seems arbitrarily chosen to be the substitute for, or the representative of, the sacrificer; and that, on the other, if there be a barrier of sin between man and God, he has no right of approach, or security that his sacrifice will be accepted; that there needs, therefore, to be a mediator, i.e. (according to the definition of Heb 5:1-4), a true priest, who shall, as being one with man, offer the sacrifice, and accept it, as being one with God. It is shown that this imperfection, which necessarily existed in all types, without which indeed they would have been substitutes, not preparations for the antitype, was altogether done away in him: that in the first place he, as the representative of the whole human race, offered no arbitrarily chosen victim, but the willing sacrifice of his own blood; that in the second place he was ordained by God, by a solemn oath, to be a highpriest forever, after the order of Melchisedek, one in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, united to our human nature, susceptible to its infirmities and trials, yet, at the same time, the true Son of God, exalted far above all created things, and ever living to make intercession in heaven, now that his sacrifice is over; and that, in the last place, the barrier between man and God is by his mediation done away forever, and the most holy place once for all opened to man. All the points in the doctrine of sacrifice which had before been unintelligible were thus made clear.

(c.) This being the case, it next follows that all the various kinds of sacrifices were, each in its measure, representatives and types of the various aspects of the atonement. It is clear that the atonement in this epistle, as in the N.T. generally, is viewed in a twofold light.

(1.) On the one hand, it is set forth distinctly as a vicarious sacrifice which was rendered necessary by the sin of man, and in which the Lord bare the sins of many. It is its essential characteristic that in it he stands absolutely alone, offering his sacrifice without any reference to the faith or the conversion of menoffering it, indeed, for those who were still sinners and at enmity with God. Moreover, it is called a propitiatiols ( or ), Rom 3:24; 1Jn 2:2; a ransom (), Rom 3:25; 1Co 1:30, etc.; which, if words mean anything, must imply that it makes a change in the relation between God and man, from separation to union, from wrath to love, and a change in man’s state from bondage to freedom. In it, then, he stands out alone as the mediator between God and man; and his sacrifice is offered once for all, never to be imitated or repeated.

Now, this view of the atonement is set forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews as typified by the sin offering, especially by that particular sin offering with which the high priest entered the most holy place on the great day of atonement (Heb 9:7-12), and by that which hallowed the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant and cleansed the vessels of its ministration (Heb 9:13-23). In the same way Christ is called our Passover, sacrificed for us (1Co 5:7); and is said, in even more startling language, to have been made sin for us, though he knew no sin (2Co 5:21). This typical relation is pursued even into details, and our Lord’s suffering without the city is compared to the burning of the public or priestly sin offerings without the camp (Heb 13:10-13). The altar of sacrifice () is said to have its antitype in his passion (13:10). All the expiatory and propitiatory sacrifices of the law are now for the first time brought into full light. Although the principle of vicarious sacrifice still remains, and must remain, a mystery, yet the fact of its existence in him is illustrated by a thousand types. As the sin offering, though not the earliest, is the most fundamental of all sacrifices, so the aspect of the atonement which it symbolizes is the one on which all others rest.

(2.) On the other hand, the sacrifice of Christ is set forth to us as the completion of that perfect obedience to the will of the Father which is the natural duty of sinless man, in which he is the representative of all men, and in which he calls upon us, when reconciled to God, to take up the cross and follow him. In the days of his flesh he offered up prayers and supplications… and was heard, in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered: and being made perfect (by that suffering; see 2:10), he became the author of salvation to all them that obey him (5:7, 8, 9). In this view his death is not the principal object; we dwell rather on his lowly incarnation, and his life of humility, temptation, and suffering, to which that death was but a fitting close. In the passage above referred to the allusion is not to the cross of Calvary, but to the agony in Gethsemane, which bowed his human will to the will of his Father. The main idea of this view of the atonement is representative rather than vicarious. In the first view the second Adam undid by his atoning blood the work of evil which the first Adam did; in the second he, by his perfect obedience, did that which the first Adam left undone, and, by his grace making us like himself, calls upon us to follow him in the same path. This latter view is typified by the burned offering; in respect of which the N.T. merely quotes and enforces the language already cited from the O.T., and especially (see Heb 10:6-9) the words of Psa 40:6, etc., which contrast with material sacrifice the doing the will of God. It is one which cannot be dwelt upon at all without a previous implication of the other: as both were embraced in one act, so are they inseparably connected in idea. Thus it is put forth in Rom 12:1, where the mercies of God (i.e. the free salvation, through the sin offering of Christ’s blood, dwelt upon in all the preceding part of the epistle) are made the ground for calling on us to present our bodies, a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, inasmuch as we are all (see Rom 5:5) one with Christ, and members of his body. In this sense it is that we are said to be crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20; Rom 6:6); to lave the sufferings of Christ abound in us (2Co 1:5); even to fill up that which is behind ( ) thereof (Col 1:24); and to be offered () upon the sacrifice of the faith of others (Php 2:17; comp. 2Ti 4:6; 1Jn 3:16). As without the sin offering of the cross this, our burned offering, would be impossible, so also without the burned offering the sin offering will to us be unavailing.

(d.) With these views of our Lord’s sacrifice on earth, as typified in the Levitical sacrifices on the outer altar, is also to be connected the offering of his intercession for us in heaven, which was represented by the incense. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, this part of his priestly office is dwelt upon with particular reference to the offering of incense in the most holy place by the highpriest on the great day of atonement (Heb 9:24-28, comp. Heb 4:14-16; Heb 6:19-20; Heb 7:25). It implies that the sin offering has been made once for all to rend asunder the veil (of sin) between man and God, and that the continual burned offering is now accepted by him for the sake of the great interceding High priest. That intercession is the strength of our prayers, and with the smoke of its incense they rise up to heaven (Rev 8:4). SEE INCENSE.

(e.) The typical sense of the meat offering or peaceoffering is less connected with the sacrifice of Christ himself than with those sacrifices of praise, thanksgiving, charity, and devotion which we, as Christians, offer to God, and with which he is well pleased (Heb 13:15-16) as with an odor of sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable to God (Php 4:18). They betoken that through the peace won by the sin offering we have already been enabled to dedicate ourselves to God, and they are, as it were, the ornaments and accessories of that self dedication. SEE PEACE OFFERING.

Such is a brief sketch of the doctrine of sacrifice. It is seen to have been deeply rooted in men’s hearts, and to have been, from the beginning, accepted and sanctioned by God, and made by him one channel of his revelation. In virtue of that sanction it had a value, partly symbolical, partly actual, but in all respects derived from the one true sacrifice, of which it was the type. It involved the expiatory, the self dedicatory, and the eucharistic ideas, each gradually developed and explained, but all capable of full explanation only by the light reflected back from the antitype.

Literature. This is very copious, as may be seen from the lists of works cited by Danz (Worterb. s.v. Opfer), Darling (Cyclop. Bibliog. [see Index]), and Malcolm (Theol. Index, s.v.), as also from the references in the following articles. See especially Kurtz, Der alttestam. Oefercultus (Mitau, 1862); transl. Sacrificial Worship of the Old Test. (Edinb. 1863).

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Sacrifice

The offering up of sacrifices is to be regarded as a divine institution. It did not originate with man. God himself appointed it as the mode in which acceptable worship was to be offered to him by guilty man. The language and the idea of sacrifice pervade the whole Bible.

Sacrifices were offered in the ante-diluvian age. The Lord clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of animals, which in all probability had been offered in sacrifice (Gen. 3:21). Abel offered a sacrifice “of the firstlings of his flock” (4:4; Heb. 11:4). A distinction also was made between clean and unclean animals, which there is every reason to believe had reference to the offering up of sacrifices (Gen. 7:2, 8), because animals were not given to man as food till after the Flood.

The same practice is continued down through the patriarchal age (Gen. 8:20; 12:7; 13:4, 18; 15:9-11; 22:1-18, etc.). In the Mosaic period of Old Testament history definite laws were prescribed by God regarding the different kinds of sacrifices that were to be offered and the manner in which the offering was to be made. The offering of stated sacrifices became indeed a prominent and distinctive feature of the whole period (Ex. 12:3-27; Lev. 23:5-8; Num. 9:2-14). (See ALTAR)

We learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews that sacrifices had in themselves no value or efficacy. They were only the “shadow of good things to come,” and pointed the worshippers forward to the coming of the great High Priest, who, in the fullness of the time, “was offered once for all to bear the sin of many.” Sacrifices belonged to a temporary economy, to a system of types and emblems which served their purposes and have now passed away. The “one sacrifice for sins” hath “perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

Sacrifices were of two kinds: 1. Unbloody, such as (1) first-fruits and tithes; (2) meat and drink-offerings; and (3) incense. 2. Bloody, such as (1) burnt-offerings; (2) peace-offerings; and (3) sin and trespass offerings. (See OFFERINGS)

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Sacrifice

Every sacrifice was assumed to be vitally connected with the spirit of the worshipper. Unless the heart accompanied the sacrifice God rejected the gift (Isa 1:11; Isa 1:13). Corban included all that was given to the Lord’s service, whether firstfruits, tithes (Lev 2:12; Lev 27:30), and gifts, for maintaining the priests and endowing the sanctuary (Num 7:3; Num 31:50), or offerings for the altar. The latter were:

1. Animal

(1) burnt offerings,

(2) peace offerings,

(3) sin offerings.

2. Vegetable:

(1) meat and drink offerings for the altar outside,

(2) incense and meat offerings for the holy place within.

Besides there were the peculiar offerings, the Passover lamb, the scape-goat, and the red heifer; also the chagigah peace offering during the Passover. (See PASSOVER.) The public sacrifice as the morning and evening lamb, was at the cost of the nation. The private sacrifice was offered by the individual, either by the ordinance of the law or by voluntary gift. Zebach is the general term for “a slaughtered animal”, as distinguished from minchah, “gift,” a vegetable offering, our “meat (i.e. food) offering.” ‘Owlah is the “burnt offering”, that which ascends (from ‘alah) or “is burnt”; also kaleel, “whole,” it all being consumed on the altar; “whole burnt sacrifice.” Shelem is the “peace offering”. Todah the “thank offering”. Chattath (“sin and punishment”) the “sin offering”. ‘Asham, “trespass offering”, accompanied by pecuniary fine or forfeit, because of injury done to some one (it might be to the Lord Himself) in respect to property. The burnt offering was wholly burnt upon the altar; the sin offering was in part burnt upon the altar, in part given to the priests, or burnt outside the camp. The peace offering was shared between the altar, the priests, and the sacrificer.

The five animals in Abraham’s sacrifice of the covenant (Gen 15:9) are the five alone named in the law for sacrifice: the ox, sheep, goat, dove, and pigeon. They fulfilled the three legal conditions: (1) they were clean; (2) used for food; (3) part of the home property of the sacrificers. They must be without spot or blemish; but a disproportioned victim was allowed in a free will peace offering (Lev 7:16-17; Lev 22:23). The age was from a week to three years old; Jdg 6:25 is exceptional. The sacrificer (the offerer generally, but in public sacrifice the priests or Levites) slew the victim at the N. side of the altar. The priest or his assistant held a bowl under the cut throat to receive the blood. The sacrificial meal was peculiar to the peace offering. The priest sprinkled the blood of the burnt offering, the peace offering, and the trespass offering “round about upon the altar.”

But in the sin offering, for one of the common people or a ruler, he took of the blood with his finger and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and poured out what blood remained at the bottom of the altar; in the sin offering for the congregation and for the high priest he brought some of the blood into the sanctuary and sprinkled it seven times before the veil, and put some on the horns of the altar of incense (Lev 4:3; Lev 4:6; Lev 4:25; Lev 4:30). The “sprinkling” (hizah) of the blood of the sin offering with the finger or hyssop is distinct from the “casting abroad” (as the Hebrew zarak expresses) with the bowl in which the victim’s blood was received as it flowed. The Mishna says the temple altar was furnished with two holes at the S.W. corner, through which the blood made its way down to Kedron. The Hebrew for burning (hiktir) on the altar means to send up or make to ascend in smoke, rather than to consume (Lev 1:9). The offering was one of sweet smelling savour sent up in flame to Jehovah, not merely consumed.

The fat burned on the altar was mainly “sweet fat” or suet, cheleb (Exo 29:13; Exo 29:22; Lev 3:4; Lev 3:10; Lev 3:15; Lev 4:9; Lev 7:4), distinct from mishman or shameen (Num 12:20). The cheleb, as the blood, was not to be eaten (Lev 3:17); the other fat might be eaten (Neh 8:10). A different word, peder, denotes the fat of the burnt offering, not exclusively selected for the altar as the cheleb of the other sacrifices (Lev 1:8; Lev 1:12; Lev 8:20). The significance of its being offered to Jehovah was that it is the source of nutriment of which the animal economy avails itself on emergency, so that in emaciation or atrophy it is the first substance that disappears; its development in the animal is a mark of perfection. The shoulder belonging to the officiating priest was “heaved,” the breast for the priests in general was “waved” before Jehovah.

The wave offering (tenuphah) was moved to and fro repeatedly; applied to the gold and bronze, also to the Levites, dedicated to Jehovah. The heave offering (terumah) was lifted upward once; applied to all the gifts for the construction of the tabernacle. Abel offered “a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” because in “faith” (Heb 11:4). Now faith must have some revelation from God on which to rest. The revelation was doubtless God’s command to sacrifice animals (“the firstlings of the flock”) in token of man’s forfeiture of life by sin, and a type of the promised Bruiser of the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15), Himself to be bruised as the one sacrifice. This command is implied in God’s having made coats of skins for Adam and Eve (Gen 3:21); for these must have been taken from animals slain in sacrifice (for it was not for food they were slain, animal food not being permitted until after the flood; nor for clothing, as clothes might have been made of the fleeces, without the needless cruelty of killing the animal).

A coat of skin put on Adam from a sacrificed animal typified the covering or atonement (kaphar) resulting from Christ’s sacrifice (“atone” means to cover). Wycliffe translated Heb 11:4 “a much more sacrifice,” one which partook more largely of the true virtue of sacrifice (Magee). It was not intrinsic merit in “the firstling of the flock” above “the fruit of the ground.” It was God’s appointment that gave it all its excellency; if it had not been so it would have been presumptuous will worship (Col 2:23) and taking of a life which man had no right over before the flood (Gen 9:2-4). Fire was God’s mode of “accepting” (“turn to ashes” margin Psa 20:3) a burnt offering. Cain in unbelieving self righteousness presented merely thank offering, not like Abel feeling his need of the propitiatory sacrifice appointed for sin. God “had respect (first) unto Abel, and (then) to his offering” (Gen 4:4). Our works are not accepted by God, until our persons have been so, through faith in His work of grace.

The general prevalence of animal sacrifice among the pagan with the idea of expiation, the victim’s blood and death removing guilt and appeasing divine wrath, is evidently a relic from primitive revelation preserved by tradition, though often encrusted over with superstitions. The earliest offering recorded as formally commanded by Jehovah, and of the five animals prescribed, is that of Abraham (Gen 15:9-17). The intended sacrifice of Isaac and substitution of a ram vividly represented the one only true sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, in substitution for us (Genesis 22). (See ISAAC.) Jacob’s sacrifices at Mizpeh when parting with Laban, and at Beersheba when leaving the land of promise, were peace offerings (Gen 31:54; Gen 46:1). That sacrifice was known to Israel in Egypt appears from Moses alleging as a reason for taking them out of Egypt that they might hold a feast and sacrifice to Jehovah (Exo 3:18; Exo 5:1; Exo 5:3; Exo 5:8; Exo 5:17).

Jethro’s offering burnt offerings and peace offerings when he met Israel shows that sacrifice was common to the two great branches of the Semitic stock (Exo 18:12). Balaam’s sacrifices were burnt offerings (Num 23:2-3; Num 23:6; Num 23:15); Job’s were also (Job 1:5; Job 42:7-8). Thus the oldest sacrifices were burnt offerings. The fat is referred to, not the blood. The peace offering is later, answering to a more advanced development of social life. Moses’ order of the kinds of sacrifices in Leviticus answers to this historical succession. Therefore, the radical idea of sacrifice is in the burnt offering; figuring THE ASCENT of the reconciled, and accepted creature to Jehovah: “‘olah” (Lev 1:9): his self-sacrificing surrender wholly of body, soul, and spirit to Jehovah. In the sacrifice of Job (Job 1:5; Job 42:7-8; Lev 1:4) atonement is connected with the burnt offerings, mediation for the guilty resting on the sacrifice. The blood symbolized the life of the offerer represented by the victim’s blood, the material vehicle of life. In contrast with flesh and bones it represents the immaterial principle which survives death (Lev 17:11).

The Passover lamb’s sprinkled blood represented its life substituted for the people’s life, which therefore escaped (Exo 12:7; Exo 12:22-23). The first mention of throwing the blood upon the altar (the established mode afterward in the burnt offerings, peace offerings, and trespass offering, but not the sin offering) was when Moses “threw (so Hebrew) half of the blood on the altar” (Exo 24:4-8), and after reading the covenant, and after that the people assented, he took the blood in the basins and “threw it on them, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words” (Heb 9:19-20; Heb 13:20).

In the sin offering, on the contrary, part of the blood was offered to Jehovah by being put on the horns of the altar, and on certain occasions by being sprinkled within the tabernacle, while the rest was poured at the altar base (Lev 4:6-7; Lev 4:17-18; Lev 4:25, etc.; Lev 16:18, etc.). In Moses’ consecration of the people the blood represented their collective life consecrated to Jehovah; so in the priests’ consecration with the ram’s blood, and in the blood thrown on their persons, the consecrated life was given back to them to be devoted to Jehovah’s service. The Mosaic law accords remarkably with modern research: “the blood is the fountain of life, the first to live, the last to die, the primary seat of the animal soul; it lives, and is nourished of itself and by no other part of the human body” (Harvey); “all other parts of the frame are formed and nourished by it” (John Hunter).

The sin offering was first introduced by the law, the province of which is to awaken in man the consciousness of sin. Every sacrifice was Based on atonement, and at the same time included the idea of the burnt offering, a portion ascending up to Jehovah in the flame (Lev 1:4). The order of the law was: (1) the sin offering, (2) the burnt offering, (3) the peace offering (Lev 8:14-22; Lev 9:8-22; Lev 12:8; Lev 14:19-20). So the spiritual order; the sinner needs

(1) atonement expressed in the sin offering; then

(2) he could in the burnt offering offer himself accepted as a sweet savour (Psa 51:19) ascending to God; in virtue of this acceptanc

(3) he enjoyed communion with Jehovah and with God’s people in the peace offering.

The burnt offering came before the sin offering in the princes’ offerings in dedicating the altar and in reconsecrating the Nazarite, where personal holiness was subordinate to the idea of national consecration (Num 6:14; Num 7:15, etc.; Eze 45:17). The additions to sacrificial ritual made by the law were the one altar and the national priesthood and the details peculiar to the sin offering and the trespass offering. The law showed that sin must be removed before the sinner can be accepted. Bringing his victim to the tabernacle door he presented it before the Lord, and slew and cut it in pieces. Then his need of a mediator appeared in the priest’s taking the victim from the worshipper, sprinkling of the blood within the tabernacle, and putting some upon the horns (the highest part toward heaven) of the altar, also placing in the altar fire some of the fat a “sweet savour” to Jehovah (Lev 4:31). Thus the priest “made atonement for him.”

Except the parts assigned to the altar, the whole flesh of the sin offering (as being “most holy,” i.e. by its blood consecrated for making atonement) was eaten by the priests only within the sacred precincts (Lev 6:25-30; Lev 17: 11). (Note that Hebrew chay, Greek zoee, means life opposed to death. Nephesh, psuchee (Greek), anima (Latin), is the soul distinguished from the body, the life in man or beast: Gen 2:7. Ruach, pneuma (Greek), is the spirit opposed to the flesh: Rom 8:4-6; Gal 5:17; 1Pe 3:18; distinguished from “the life of the flesh,” it is man’s highest part, holding communion with God. See Mat 6:25; Mat 10:28; Mat 10:39; Mat 16:25-26; Mar 8:35; Luk 12:22-23; 1Co 15:44; 1Th 5:23; Heb 4:12.)

The offerer’s sin, and the victim’s freedom from blemish, and the priest’s atoning for him, all pointed to the spotless Saviour, at once the perfect Victim and Priest, so entering into God’s presence for us as a sweet savour (Lev 4:20; Lev 4:26; Lev 5:6; Lev 6:7; Lev 12:8; Heb 10:19-21; Eph 5:2). The offering of innocent animals in substitution for man is no arbitrary invention; it is founded on man’s close connection with animals. He could not offer his own forfeited life to divine justice, but in the life of the innocent fellow creature was found a suitable typical representative. Jesus Himself is called “the Lamb of God,” “the Firstborn of every creature.” The propitiatory, dedicatory, and eucharistic elements combine to give the perfect idea of sacrifice. Anyone divorced from the other two would convey a wrong idea. The propitiatory alone would give the idea of atonement without consequent repentance, faith, and thankful loving obedience.

Dedication alone would ignore God’s holy justice, between which and our sin there must be an insuperable barrier without atonement. Thanksgiving alone would make gifts the essence of God’s service, as the pagan bribe their gods by vows and offerings. The prophets take for granted sacrificial propitiation, and add that self-dedicating obedience which the Bunt offering taught is what the worshippers must spiritually aim at, else their sacrifice is vain (1Sa 15:22; Isa 1:10-20; Jer 7:22-23; Eze 20:39-44; Hos 6:6; Amo 5:21-27; Mic 6:6-8; Psa 40:8-11; Psa 50:13-14; Psa 51:16-17).

The sacrifice had no intrinsic efficacy, and could never “make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience” (Heb 9:9; Heb 10:1; Heb 10:11); but they vividly typified “Christ who through the eternal Spirit offering Himself without spot to God purges the conscience front dead works to serve the living God” (Heb 9:14); so that we can “draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience” (Heb 10:22). Their need of repetition implies their intrinsic incompleteness (Heb 10:1-3); also “bulls” and “goats” are so much inferior to man that “it is not possible their blood could take away sins” (Heb 10:4). Christ’s atonement was made and accepted in God’s foreordaining before the foundation of the world (1Pe 1:20; Rev 13:8), so that penitent and believing offerers of sacrifices in the Old Testament were accepted on the ground of it.

Their victims were arbitrary and inadequate representatives of the offerer; but He is one with man the offerer, and one with God the Accepter of the sacrifice, so our true and only mediating Priest, representative Offerer, and Victim (Heb 5:1-4), ordained by God with an oath a High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, “tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin,” yet as Son of God above all creatures, ever living to intercede for us, opening once for all access into the holiest by a new and living way (not by dead sacrifce: Heb 10:19-22; Heb 4:14-16). His vicarious sacrifice is asserted (Isa 53:6), “the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all”; (Isa 53:12) “He bore the sin of many.” Mat 20:28, “a ransom (lutron, apolutroosis; Rom 3:25; 1Co 1:30) for (anti, substituted for) many.”

He is the Atonement for sinners as such, still enemies to God (Rom 5:6-8); the Propitiation (hilasmos, hilasteerion; Rom 3:24; 1Jo 2:2), changing God’s relation to man from estrangement to union from wrath to love (Isa 12:1-2) only remember it was God’s love that first provided this sacrifice to make scope for love being harmonized with His unchangeable hatred of sin. (Compare Heb 9:7-12 on the typical sin offering on the day of atonement; the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant, Heb 9:13-23; the Passover, 1Co 5:7; the burning of the public or priestly sin offerings without the camp, Heb 13:10-13; the altar of sacrifice typifying His passion, which “we have” as a present and us” though He “knew no sin,” 2Co 5:21). His self-dedicating obedience, answering to the burnt offering, is our pattern next after having appropriated the Atonement (Heb 2:10; Heb 5:7-9; Heb 10:7-9).

As He removed our guilt by His death, so by His obedience He fulfills all which the first Adam left undone (Rom 5:19, though His “obedience” in this verse includes His atoning death; Phi 2:8; Joh 10:18). Our obedience is as necessary a complement of our faith in His atonement as the burnt offering was of the sin offering and Christ’s self dedicating obedience was of His atoning sacrifice (Rom 6:6; Rom 12:1; Gal 2:20; 2Co 1:5; Col 1:24; 1Jo 3:16; 2Ti 4:6; Phi 2:17). Christ’s sin offering was made once for all, rending the veil between man and heaven; our continual burnt offering is accepted now through the mediation of our ever living Intercessor within the veil; the incense of tits merits makes our prayers a sweet savour unto God (Rev 8:4; Heb 9:24-28; Heb 4:14-16; Heb 6:19-20; Heb 7:25).

Our peace offerings are sacrifices of praise, almsgiving, and love (Phi 4:18; Heb 13:15-16). Atonement by Christ’s sacrifice as substitute for the penalty of God’s broken law was necessary in the interests of God’s moral government of the universe, to show His displeasure against sin. “It is the blood that maketh atonement by means of (Hebrew) the soul” (Lev 17:11). The ceremonies of sacrifice were:

(1) the victim’s presentation at the altar;

(2) the laying on of hands, signifying consecration to death (Lev 24:14);

(3) slaughtering, being the completion of the penal death, whereby the blood became the medium of expiation;

(4) the sprinkling of the blood against the altar, completing the expiation;

(5) the burning of the flesh;

(6) the sacrificial meal at the sanctuary.

That sacrifices were offered for moral as well as for ceremonial transgressions appears in Lev 6:2-7; Lev 19:20; Lev 19:22. The vicarious nature of sacrifice appears in Lev 1:4; Lev 16:21-22; Isa 53:4-6; Isa 53:8;Isa 53:10-12. Hebrew nasa’ (compare Lev 5:1; Lev 5:17; Lev 17:16; Lev 20:19-20; Lev 24:15; Lev 10:17) implies He not only entered into the fellowship of our sufferings, but took upon Himself the sufferings which we had to bear in order to take them away. Mat 8:17; He bore their punishment and atoned for them. So more explicitly cabal (compare 1Pe 2:25).

In Mat 26:28 Christ declares His blood not merely ratifies the new testament or covenant, but was “shed for many for the remission of sins,” referring back to the Old Testament (Exo 24:5-8; Heb 9:18-21). John the Baptist calls Him “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (Joh 1:29). The flocks passing the ford where John baptized, on their way to Jerusalem; suggested the image the Lamb led to the “slaughter,” not merely the shearing (Isa 53:7). The Passover was near (Joh 2:13); Christ combined the Passover lamb, the atonement scape-goat (Lev 16:21), and the morning and evening sacrifice of a lamb. The time of John’s pointing to the Lamb of God was about “the tenth hour,” just after the evening sacrifice (Joh 1:39; Rev 5:8-12), a coincidence connecting Him with the typical daily sacrifice. The Passover was sacrificial: for it is called

(1) qorban (Num 9:7), an offering to Jehovah, and

(2) zebach, the special designation of a bloody sacrifice. (See PASSOVER.)

(3) Philo and Josephus confirm Mar 14:12 margin and 1Co 5:7, that it is a sacrifice.

(4) It had the notes of a sacrifice; the blood was poured out and sprinkled on the altar (Exo 23:18; Exo 34:25; 2Ch 30:15; 2Ch 35:11.

(5) The Mishna and Karaite Jews, who reject all tradition not founded on Scripture, say the fat and entrails were burnt on the altar.

(6) Priests offered it at Hezekiah’s Passover.

Other leading passages representing Christ’s death as a sacrifice are 1Co 15:3; Heb 1:3 (Greek “made purgation of (our) sins”); Heb 9:12-13; Heb 9:14-28; Heb 10:10; Heb 10:12; Heb 10:18; 1Pe 1:18-20, “not redeemed with silver but … lamb,” etc., i.e. not with the daily offered lamb purchased with the half-shekel soul-redemption money of every Israelite (Exo 30:12-16), but, etc. As “Christ offered Himself to God” He was a real priest, having “somewhat to offer” (Heb 8:3); but if He had only a figurative sacrifice to offer He would have no superiority to the Aaronic priests (Rev 1:5; Rev 1:8-9; Rev 1:12). The Aaronic sacrifices were allusions to Christ’s one atonement, not His to them. The epistle to the Hebrew makes the legal sacrifices to have no inherent efficacy, but Christ’s sacrifice on the contrary to be intrinsically efficacious. The analogy between the Aaronic sacrifices and Christ’s does not mean that both are empty figures, or that they exactly resemble one another, but that they have similarity in their relations.

(1) Sacrifice restored an Israelite to his status in the theocracy, forfeited by sin; it was his public confession of guilt, satisfaction of the law, and means of removing legal disability, i.e. “sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh.”

(2) Offering sacrifice in penitence and faith he received atonement or reconciliation with God, on the ground of the foreordained sacrifice of Christ.

This second effect must have pertained to John’s sacrifice who had no status in the Hebrew theocracy to fall from or be restored to. Christ’s death was not only a sacrifice for sin, but a substitution, propitiation, and ransom to God for us: Mat 20:28 (anti); Mar 10:45; Eph 1:7; 1Ti 2:6; 1Co 7:23; Gal 3:13; 2Pe 2:1. There was a claim against man, Christ’s death met that claim, therefore we are freed froth it. God Himself provided the ransom (Joh 3:16; 2Co 5:19), so that He is not only “just” but also “the justifier of him that believes in Jesus” (Rom 3:26). Christ’s work has that excellency which God’s unerring justice has seen to be an actual doing of that which was requisite to compensate for the injury perpetrated, and to restore the moral harmony which had been violated; so it is rightly called a “satisfaction” (Pye Smith), though the term is not in Scripture.

Christ did not need to undergo the very penalty we incurred, namely, eternal death, but such a penalty as, taking into account Who and what He was, He on our behalf must suffer. The fact of God’s appointment of Him as our atonement guarantees that His death is an amply sufficient satisfaction. There was a real and intrinsic worthiness in Jesus’ propitiation which was the reason of the divine appointment and justifies it. We cannot define the value of Christ’s death, nor its exact mode of satisfying divine justice, but we know it was “precious blood” in God’s sight, and therefore appointed as the propitiation adequate to atone for our sin (1Pe 1:19; 1Co 6:20; Rom 8:32; Heb 9:14). God’s just wrath against sin is as real as His love to us (Psa 7:11; Joh 3:36). The sacrificial atonement or reconciliation covers sin out of God’s sight, so that wrath is removed, and He “who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity” sees us in Christ at peace with Him (Isa 12:1-3; Psa 32:1; Rom 3:24-25). (See ATONEMENT; RECONCILIATION; PROPITIATION.)

Christ’s sacrifice did not make God placable, but was God’s own appointed means through which to bestow mercy (Heb 2:17; 1Jo 1:7; 1Jo 2:2; 1Jo 4:10), and to produce reconciliation between God and man (Rom 5:10-11; Col 1:20; Eph 2:16). At-one may be from two at variance becoming at one, or from German aussohnen, “to expiate.” It is objected that it is opposed to God’s justice that the innocent should suffer for the guilty; but in the daily experience of life and the course of nature the innocent often suffer, sometimes voluntarily, oftener involuntarily, for the guilty; philanthropists, patriots, and missionaries voluntarily. Christ’s knowing and voluntary suffering in our stead is palpably no injustice (Joh 10:17-18; Psa 40:6-8). The vast benefit to be gained for man vindicates it as lawful, as certainly it was in His power, to lay down His life for us. It is objected guilt cannot be transferred, it is purely personal. True: Jesus was personally innocent, but it is just Because He was so, and therefore free, which other men through sin are not, that He could atone for sin.

The animal sacrifice similarly was innocent and spotless, but appointed to die for the guilty. The transfer of guilt to the Saviour was only legal, not moral; imputation, not pollution; He took the penalty, not the moral consciousness of our guilt, not the stain but the liability to suffer, the obligation to die. A solvent man, generously paying for an insolvent, does not become insolvent himself, but takes the obligation that really belongs to the debtor. Christ became “sin” and a “curse” for us (i.e. took on Him sin’s penal consequences), but not a sinner (2Co 5:21; Gal 3:13). Hence the serpent of brass lifted up by Moses was the type of Christ, for it had the form of the animal cursed above all beasts of the field, but not the venom; harmless in itself, but resembling the deadly serpent of the wilderness. So Christ was “made in the likeness of sinful flesh,” but not in sinful flesh. He died “for sin,” all our sin being laid on Him, though no sin was in Him (Num 21:9; Joh 3:14; Rom 8:3). It is also objected that the atonement is opposed to God’s love and goodness.

But in the moral and physical world we see daily sure punishment following violation of its laws; this attests what Scripture asserts, namely, the reality of God’s judicial anger. The flood that destroyed the antediluvians, and the fire that consumed Sodom, contradict the notion that punishment’s sole end is the sinner’s reformation. Since then God’s benevolence is consistent with punishment following sin, it cannot be inconsistent with His appointing His Son’s voluntary, sacrificial, substitutional, atoning death to be the means of harmonizing divine justice with mercy to the sinner, and besides of effectively renewing and reforming the sinner, just because His death was of that atoning, redeeming nature. It is objected also that the atonement is unfavourable to virtue, and leads men to trust in another’s work, instead of amending their lives. But God’s wrath against sin, so awfully shown in Christ’s death, never leads men, really believing in it, to trifle with sin; and His love first to us, when felt, constrains us to love Him in turn and try to obey Him.

Others object we are taught to forgive because God has forgiven us, but if the atonement be true we ought to imitate God in exacting from our brother the uttermost farthing. We answer: the atonement is the act of God as a holy Judge, but the pardon comes to us perfectly gratuitous; in this its effect, viewed from our human standpoint, God’s forgiving mercy to us is our model for forgiving others. The judge’s and magistrate’s duly is often not to forgive but punish; only in our private relations to fellow men is forgiveness our duty, as opposed to personal revenge. The Socinian view derogates from the love of God: for if Christ were mere man, His death was His own act, not God’s; just as any virtuous deed or death of a good man for others. Suffering lighting on an innocent man can give no declaration of God’s readiness to pardon the guilty on repentance. No view but that of His death being expiatory can make it a manifestation of God’s love (1Jo 4:9-10).

If love be estimated by the greatness of its gifts, God’s gift of His divine Son to die in our stead is an infinitely greater manifestation of love than that of His allowing a good man to die in self sacrifice. Socinianism sacrifices God’s justice, and so lowers His moral character of holiness of which His justice is one phase, and confounds the eternal distinctions of right and wrong. A human judge who lets criminals escape punishment is counted unjust, however merciful criminals might call him. Love of right is not a whit more virtuous than hatred of evil. A being without anger against wrong would be morally imperfect (Mar 3:5). If God, moreover, were a God of benevolence only, one cannot see why Christ should have been allowed by God to die at all. If it be unjust to punish the innocent for the guilt of others, must it not be much more unjust to punish him for no guilt whatever?

Again, if the object of His death was only to show an example of fortitude, patience, and self denial, since there is nothing of this kind in the sacrificial ritual of the Old Testament, there is no analogy between the sacrifices and Christ’s death, and the sacrificial Old Testament language applied to Christ’s death is meaningless. The Homily of Salvation truly says “reason is satisfied by God’s great wisdom in this mystery of our redemption, who hath so tempered His justice and mercy together, that He would neither by His justice condemn us unto the everlasting captivity of the devil and his prison of hell, remediless forever without mercy, nor by His mercy deliver us clearly without justice or payment of a just ransom; but with His endless mercy He joined His most upright and equal justice.” See Hollywood’s admirable “Bishop Jeune’s Prize Essay on the Atonement,” from which the latter part of the above is mainly condensed.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

SACRIFICE

From earliest times people expressed their devotion to God through presenting to him offerings and sacrifices. Some sacrifices expressed thanks, as people presented to God the best of their crops or animals (Gen 4:4; Gen 8:20). Others emphasized fellowship, both with God and with others, as the offerers ate part of the sacrifice in a meal with relatives and friends (Gen 31:54). Other sacrifices were for forgiveness of sins, a slaughtered animal bearing the penalty that the offerers, because of their sins, should have suffered (Job 42:8). These basic elements of the sacrifices were later developed in the ceremonial law of Israel.

Offerers and their offerings

Whether before or after the institution of Israels ceremonial law, the heart attitude of the worshipper was always more important than his gifts. Abel offered his sacrifice in humble faith and God accepted it. Cain offered his sacrifice in a spirit of arrogance and God refused it. Even if Cains sacrifice, like Abels, had involved the shedding of blood, it would still have been unacceptable to God, because Cain himself was ungodly and unrepentant (Gen 4:2-5; Gen 4:7; Heb 11:4; 1Jn 3:12).

The Bibles first specific statement concerning the particular significance of blood did not come till the time of Noah. The first clear revelation of the value of blood for atonement had to wait till the time of Moses (Gen 9:3-6; Lev 17:11).

God revealed his purposes progressively as people were able to understand them, but always his acceptance of the offering depended on the spiritual condition of the offerer. The sacrificial system of Israel did not ignore this principle; rather it had this principle as its basis. Therefore, when people carried out the rituals mechanically, without corresponding faith and uprightness, the prophets condemned their sacrifices as worthless (Isa 1:13-20; Amo 5:21-24; Mic 6:6-8).

Gods gift of the blood of atonement

The Passover in Egypt marked an important stage in Gods revelation of the special significance of blood. Blood was a symbol of life; shed blood was therefore a symbol of death; in particular, death through killing (Gen 9:4-6; Num 35:19; Num 35:33; see BLOOD). In the original Passover, the blood of the lamb was important, not because of any chemical property in the blood itself, but because it represented the animals death. The blood around the door showed that an animal had been killed instead of the person under judgment (Exo 12:13).

In Israels sacrificial system God provided a way of atonement through the shed blood of animals. Through sin people were separated from God and under the penalty of death, and there was nothing they could do to save themselves. There could be no forgiveness of their sin, no releasing them from its consequences, apart from death. God, however, provided a way of salvation through the blood (that is, the death) of a guiltless substitute. The blood of atonement was not an offering people made in the hope of squeezing pardon from an unwilling God. On the contrary it was the merciful gift of a God who was eager to forgive (Lev 17:11). The escaping of divine punishment was not something that sinners brought about, but was due to God himself (see PROPITIATION).

Although an animal substitute had to bear the death penalty so that the sinner could be forgiven (Heb 9:22), the blood of an animal could not itself take away sins (Heb 10:4). Nevertheless, it enabled the sinner to see that God, in forgiving sins, was not ignoring those sins but dealing with them. The only blood that can bring forgiveness of sins is the blood of Jesus his death on the cross. God knew of Jesus atoning death even though it had not yet occurred (1Pe 1:18-20), and because of that he was able to pass over, temporarily, the sins of believers of former generations. He forgave them, one might say, on credit, for their sins could not be actually removed till Christ died (Rom 3:25-26; Heb 9:15).

The sacrificial system helped people see what salvation involved, but it was not in itself a means of salvation. Under the old covenant, as under the new, people were saved not through their works, but through the grace of a merciful God. The repentant sinner could do nothing but accept Gods salvation by faith (Rom 4:13; Rom 4:16; Rom 4:22; Gal 3:17-19; Eph 2:8-9). The benefit of the sacrificial system was that it gave people a means of communication with God, by which they could demonstrate their faith and seek Gods forgiveness (1Sa 1:3; Isa 56:7).

Ritual requirements

God set out the legal requirements for the various sacrifices in great detail, and these details should have helped the Israelites understand the meaning of what they were doing. The sacrificial animal, for instance, had to be without defects, to symbolize that it was free from condemnation and therefore fit to be the guiltless substitute for the guilty sinner (Lev 1:3; Lev 1:10; see LAMB).

No matter what people offered, it had to be their own property, so that it had meaning as part of them personally, so to speak. As an offering, it was a personal possession they gave. As a sacrifice, it cost them something. It impressed upon them that they could not treat the removal of sin lightly. Devotion to God was not to be treated cheaply.

At the same time God did not want to drive people into poverty. In many cases he therefore allowed grades of offerings, so that people could make offering that were suited to their varying financial capacities (Lev 1:3; Lev 1:10; Lev 1:14; Lev 5:7-13).

By laying their hands on the animals head, offerers indicated that it bore their guilt and they wanted God to accept it on their behalf (Lev 1:4; Lev 16:21). The unpleasant task of killing the animal (which was carried out beside the altar, not on it) reminded them of the horror of sin (Lev 1:11). The priest collected the blood in a basin to apply to various places as a visible sign that a life had been taken to bear the curse and penalty of sin. Unused blood was poured out on the ground beside the altar (Lev 1:5; Lev 4:7; Lev 16:14).

Some burning occurred with all the sacrifices, though the amount that was burnt varied. The parts to be burnt were usually burnt on the altar of sacrifice, though in some cases they were burnt in an isolated place away from the central camp (Lev 1:9; Lev 2:2; Lev 3:3-5; Lev 4:10-12; Lev 4:35; Lev 7:5). The portions not burnt were eaten, sometimes by the worshippers and the priests (including the priests families) and sometimes by the priests alone (Lev 2:3; Lev 2:10; Lev 6:26; Lev 7:15-17; Lev 7:32; Lev 22:11).

Five main offerings

Israels sacrificial system had five main categories of sacrifice, though there were variations of these on certain occasions. The major categories were the burnt offering (Leviticus 1; Lev 6:8-13), the cereal (or grain) offering (Leviticus 2; Lev 6:14-23), the peace (or fellowship) offering (Leviticus 3; Lev 7:11-38), the sin offering (Lev 4:1-5; Lev 4:13; Lev 6:24-30) and the guilt (or repayment) offering (Lev 5:14-19; Lev 6:1-7; Lev 7:1-10). Although the different types of sacrifices were for different purposes, elements of atonement and devotion were associated with them all (Lev 1:5; Lev 2:2; Lev 3:2; Lev 3:5; Lev 4:5-7; Lev 5:18).

The burnt offering, so called because the whole animal was burnt upon the altar, indicated the complete consecration, or self-dedication, of the offerer to God (Lev 1:9; cf. Gen 8:20; Gen 22:2; Exo 10:25; Rom 12:1). A burnt offering, offered on behalf of the entire nation, was kept burning on the altar constantly, as a symbol of the nations unbroken dedication to God (Exo 29:38-42).

The cereal (or grain) offering and its associated wine (or drink) offering demonstrated thanks to God for his daily provision of food. Cereal and wine offerings were not offered alone, but always with burnt offerings or peace offerings. The wine was poured over the animal sacrifice on the altar, and a handful of cereal was burnt with it (Lev 2:4-10; Lev 23:13; Lev 23:18; Num 15:1-10).

The peace offering expressed fellowship, a truth demonstrated in the meal that accompanied it. After initial blood ritual, burning ritual and presentation of a portion to the priest, the worshipper joined with his family, friends, the poor and the needy in eating the remainder of the animal in a joyous feast (Lev 7:11-18; Deu 12:7; Deu 12:12; 1Sa 9:12-13).

The sin offering was compulsory for those who became aware that they had broken one of Gods laws. In cases of sin by priests or the nation as a whole, the priests sprinkled the animals blood inside the Holy Place, burnt parts of the animal on the altar of sacrifice, and burnt the remainder outside the camp (Lev 4:7; Lev 4:10; Lev 4:12). In cases of sin by private citizens, the priests sprinkled the blood at the altar of sacrifice, burnt parts of the animal on the altar, and ate what remained (Lev 4:27-30; Lev 6:26; Lev 6:30).

The guilt offering was offered in those cases where the persons wrongdoing could be given a monetary value. Such wrongdoing would include forgetting to pay tithes, causing damage to property, or failing to pay for goods (Lev 5:15; Lev 6:1-5). The person presented an offering (similar to the sin offering for a private citizen) and repaid the loss, along with a fine of one fifth of its value (Lev 5:16; Lev 6:5).

Limitations of the offerings

In general, the sacrifices detailed in the Israelite law were available only for unintentional sins. None of the five categories of sacrifice set out a procedure to deal with deliberate sin, even though that is the sin that most troubles the repentant sinner (Lev 4:2; Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:15; Lev 5:17; Num 15:30). The sacrificial system demonstrated that no system could solve the problem of sin or provide automatic cleansing. Sinners had no right to forgiveness. They could do nothing except turn to God and cast themselves on his mercy (2Sa 24:14; Psa 51:1-2; Psa 51:16-17).

This does not mean that the sacrifices were useless or could be ignored. They still provided a means of communication by which repentant sinners could approach God, express their repentance and ask Gods forgiveness. The sacrifices pointed beyond themselves to something higher, the merciful love of God (Mic 7:18-20).

Cleansing and response

Animal sacrifices could not in themselves remove sin (Heb 10:1-4), but they at least showed that sacrificial death was necessary for the removal of sin (Heb 9:22). The one sacrificial death that has achieved what all the Old Testament sacrifices could not achieve is the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ (Heb 10:11-14; Heb 10:17-18). Unlike the animal sacrifices, Christs sacrifice removes sin, cleanses the conscience, brings total forgiveness and secures eternal redemption (Heb 9:9-14; Heb 9:25-26; Heb 10:14-18).

The book of Hebrews goes to some length to display the perfection of Christs work, presenting him as both priest and sacrifice. In particular, it contrasts his sacrificial work with the sacrificial work of the Israelite high priest on the Day of Atonement (Heb 9:6-7; Heb 9:11-12; Heb 9:25-26; see DAY OF ATONEMENT; PRIEST).

Besides being the only way of atonement, the sacrifice of Christ is an example to Christians of the sort of life they should live. Christs sacrifice was a willing sacrifice, an act of obedience and love. God wants his people to show their obedience and love by willingly sacrificing themselves for the sake of others (Eph 5:2; Eph 5:25; cf. Joh 15:12-13; Rom 5:8; Heb 10:7; Heb 10:10).

The sacrifices of Christians, then, are spiritual sacrifices, which are offered in response to Gods love and mercy (1Pe 2:5). They are not atoning sacrifices, for Christs one sacrifice has already brought complete release from sins penalty (Heb 10:17-18). Christians offer to God the sacrifices of worship, praise and service (Rom 15:16; Php 4:18; Heb 13:15). But they will be able to present such sacrifices properly only when they have first given themselves to God as living sacrifices (Rom 12:1; 2Co 8:5).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Sacrifice

SACRIFICE.The saving significance of the death of Jesus Christ is of necessity the most important part of any article on the NT idea of sacrifice; for it is in the light of the sacrifice of Christ that all Christian sacrifice must be viewed.

It is now universally admitted that there is development and difference in the doctrinal standpoint of the NT writers. The old method of taking texts at haphazard from the various Gospels and Epistles, and setting them side by side, has been given up. The only satisfactory results are to be obtained by examining in turn the teaching of each writer; and this is the method which it is proposed to adopt in considering the subject of the sacrifice of Christ.

1. We begin with the teaching of our Lord as set forth in the Synoptic Gospels. Here there is nothing to be found in the nature of dogmatic assertion. The statements of our Lord as to the significance of His death are far from numerous, and in no case can they be looked at wholly by themselves. His whole life and teaching is their context. To any one carefully reading the Synoptic Gospels it becomes plain that it is only towards the end of His life on earth that the meaning of His death begins to occupy anything like a prominent place in the consciousness of Christ. There is not a single word regarding it in the Sermon on the Mount. There He is the second Moses, the new Lawgiver, the Revealer of the Father and His will, the Preacher of that new Kingdom whose laws should be written upon the hearts of men. Man is to be transformed inwardly by the renewal of his mind as leaven works in dough. All external religious practices are valueless except in so far as they manifest inward spiritual life. But it is already a Father of infinite tenderness and love, a Father only waiting to be gracious, whom He reveals, not a God full of wrath against sinful man, who must be propitiated and reconciled by the death of His Son before He can pardon. Forgiveness is already offered to all who will do the Fathers will, to all who in love forgive the trespasses of their brethren. There is not one word to suggest that pardon and reconciliation are conditional upon the sacrifice of Himself still to be offered. Here Christ is the Teacher of morality, with an authority greater than that of Moses, it is true; but He has not yet revealed Himself as the Way and the Truth and the Life. He is implicitly the Saviour in that His Person and work are alone the guarantee of the will of the Father, in that He embodies the attractive power of righteousness, in that He is the source of healing grace to all afflicted ones who come with faith in Him; but He has not yet made surrender to Himself the only way of salvation. It is only in consequence of the opposition of His countrymen that He gives expression to the thought that He is Himself the Mediator of salvation, the only Revealer of God (Mat 11:25-30). He realizes that it is offence at His humility and lowliness that keeps the wise and prudent from hearing His word, and that it is love to Him that draws the poor and despised and sin-laden to the knowledge of the Father and the doing of His will. From that time the thought that He is the personal Mediator is frequently upon His lips (Mat 10:40; Mat 12:30; Mat 18:20, Luk 12:8 etc.). It is opposition, too, that arouses in Him the consciousness of being the Conqueror and Dethroner of Satan and all the powers of darkness (Mat 12:29, Mar 3:27, Luk 10:18-19; Luk 11:21). As time goes on, this opposition develops into a bitter hatred which threatens His life. Selfishness and world-love array themselves against Him and His doctrine of world-renunciation. His power is too great to be overlooked. The world-spirit which dominates the bulk of His countrymen demands His death; and even His most faithful followers are still enslaved by the worlds toilsbound to earth by that material glory which, according to their selfish hopes, His Messiahship is to procure for them. While He lives, they will still buoy themselves up with false hopes: they will not understand the pure spirituality of His life and workthat His kingdom is not of this world. The perception of these dangers, thenof that which from the outside threatened His life, of that which from within threatened the purity of His disciples faithbecame to Him a further revelation of the Fathers will,a revelation that His death was decreed, and that by it He should accomplish that for which His whole life had been but the preparation. But we must not expect many explicit statements on the subject. His followers were not yet fit to bear this truth. He was leaving this to be made plain to them by the Holy Spirit after Hisdeparture. Yet there are hints enough to lead us to a right understanding. I have a baptism to be baptized with, He says on one occasion, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (Luk 12:49-50). Manifestly the baptism was the baptism of death (cf. Mat 20:22-28). In Mat 20:28 the reason for the necessity of His death is made plainto give his life a ransom for many. The idea clearly is that men are enslaved, and that Christ gives His life to set them free; but the question still remains as to the nature of the bondage. From death, from the guilt of sin and its punishment, says the old theology, or, as it is sometimes expressed, from the wrath of God. But there is not a single word upon the lips of Christ to justify this interpretation; and, as we shall see later, wherever in the NT the death of Christ is called a deliverance or a ransom, it is always a being purchased for God, a being delivered from the bondage of sin to serve God, that is thought of (Rom 6:1-11, 1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:23, 1Pe 1:18 ff. etc.). Moreover, the whole mission of our Lord and the whole meaning of His teaching was to deliver man from sin, to make him love, and long for, righteousness. It is impossible to imagine the Preacher of the Sermon on the Mount accounting it the great work of His life merely to deliver men from the consequences of their sins. Can any one believe that such a Moralist would be content with less than the deliverance from sin itself, the worst bondage of all to which man is subject? The context of the words, too (Mat 20:17-29), must lead us to the same conclusion. There is no thought of death or even of guilt; but there is a thought of sinof the sin of self-seeking, bound up as it was with the expectation of material glory in an earthly kingdom, which had just prompted the request of James and John, and of the selfish indignation of the other disciples who resented that request as an attempt to obtain an unfair advantage over them. That Christ should think of His coming death as certain to break for ever the cords of their worldliness, so that their love for Him might draw them away from the world unto righteousness and God, is perfectly conceivable. His cross, borne for loves sake as the last step in the path of perfect holiness which He was called to tread, must for all time crucify the world unto all who truly believed in Him, and them unto the world. To imagine that Christ in these words represents the Father as requiring a ransom at His hands before He can forgive mankind, is to render His revelation of the Heavenly Father wholly inconsistent, is to give the lie to all His earlier words regarding the mercy and compassion of God. The parable of the Prodigal Son in the light of this later presentation becomes an impossibility.

But let us proceed to the institution of the Lords Supper, whence the most definite teaching as to the saving import of His death is to be drawn (Mat 26:26-28, Mar 14:22-24, Luk 22:19-20). Here He speaks of the surrender of His life as a thing advantageous to those who believe on Him, and St. Matthew adds the wordsfor the remission of sins. In the Sacrament thus instituted there is a twofold reference to the ritual of the Jews(1) to the Passover, in the breaking of bread, the symbol of His broken body; (2) to the sacrifice of the covenant at Sinai, to which the giving of the cup with the wordsThis is my blood of the new covenant clearly alludes. Now the Passover signified exemption from the death of the firstborn which overtook the Egyptians. By the death of the lamb, which the Israelites appropriated to themselves by eating it, forgiveness and life were granted to them. But the Passover meant more than this. It brought them freedom not only from death, but also from bondage. It transformed a multitude of slaves into a free nation; it made them Gods people; and sent them forth to serve Him. Its aim was the service of God. Our Lord, then, in the institution of the bread expressed the thought that His life given up to death is to be appropriated by His followers, that it may become their life, that it may set them free from the bondage of sin, and make them free servants and sons of God. This, too, must be noted, that it is not the fact of His death in itself that is significant. Had He thought of abiding in death, the whole meaning of the institution would have been taken away. The idea is that He surrenders His physical life for their sakes, that His spiritual life may dwell in and inspire them. In the closing chapters of St. Johns Gospel this thought is most clearly expressed. As to the institution of the cup and its reference to the ratification of the Sinaitic covenant, the idea here is that of purification on entering into communion with God. In Exodus 24 the sprinkling of the blood is the completion of the covenant already made: it symbolizes the need of purity in those who would obey God. Just as the baptism of John was valueless without change of mind, and could confer no forgiveness without the bringing forth of fruit worthy of repentance, so the sprinkling of the blood expressed the thought that purity and sincerity are necessary for all who would enter into the covenant relationship with Godthat there can be no forgiveness except it be followed by sincere obedience. There is further present to the mind of our Lord the prophecy of Jeremiah regarding the New Covenant (or Testament) (Jer 31:31-34) which should be an inward relationship, a covenant of regenerationI will put my law in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts. In this covenant forgiveness was to be granted in consequence of an internal reformation (Jer 31:34). When the power of sin is broken and cast out, when the heart is dead to sin, God is just to pardon. Thus Christ called His blood about to be shed the blood of the New Covenant, in the sense that His death of love would inspire His followers with new life, would be to them in the first place a means of breaking the power of sin in their lives, of recreating them in the love of holiness, and only in consequence of that an assurance of pardon. The saving significance of the death of Christ, then, as it is set forth in the Lords Supper, is thisto create in the believer a new power of spiritual life which should make sin hateful and so destroy its bondage, and to assure him of pardon by the guarantee of Gods perfect love as revealed in the life and death of His Son. Christs death is a sacrifice in that it removes for ever all doubt of Gods forgiving love, and makes mans willing, loving obedience possible; in that it proves the absolute victory of good over evil; and, lifting His life beyond the limits of time and space, makes it a spiritual force communicable to all who accept Him as their Saviour.

2. When we turn to the Gospel of St. John, we find at once much to confirm the hints which the Synoptics have already given us. He wrote long after the departure of his Lord, and his experience and spiritual insight had made clear to him the meaning of many words that had been dark to the earlier writers. In the teaching of Jesus as St. John presents it, the thought of His death as setting free a spiritual life-giving principle emerges with much greater distinctness. He is the Bread of Life, the Living Water, that giveth life to men (Joh 6:1-71; Joh 7:37-38; Joh 3:10-15); He is the Resurrection and the Life (Joh 11:25); but that this may act with completed power, it must pass through death to larger life. Except a coin of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, etc. (Joh 12:24). It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come to you, etc. (Joh 16:7). But the death itself has a value apart from the resurrection, for in it is revealed the triumph of holy love over the power of evil: it is the means whereby the Father glorifies the Son (Joh 12:27-28, Joh 13:31-32). All men are subject to this power save Jesus only; and the power of evil is broken through His meek submission to that death which the evil world forces upon Him (Joh 12:31). The spirit of selfishness no longer rules the earth when its utmost wickedness is outdone by the obedience of perfect love even unto death. This power of overcoming the world and its spirit, He will communicate to those who follow Him. He will draw all men unto Him when He is lifted up (Joh 12:32, cf. Joh 16:33). The cleansing power of His death, which in the Synoptics is symbolized by the institution of the Supper, here finds its place in the washing of the disciples feet (Joh 13:2-17). They were already clean by the word which He had spoken unto them (Joh 15:3): the death was but the completion, the final cleansing. According to St. John, then, the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ lay in thisthat it was an act of perfect obedience to the will of the righteous Father (Joh 14:31) and of love to the world (Joh 10:11, Joh 15:13),an example, therefore, and an inspiration; but also that it broke the power of sin, and, through the glorified life which of necessity followed it, became a means of spiritual energizing and sanctification to all believers. Once again there is no word to suggest the judicial theory of satisfaction.

3. Proceeding now to the Acts of the Apostles and to the Epistle of James, we are met by this remarkable fact, that in neither is there a single reference to the saving significance of the death of Christ. The accusation of having put the Holy One to death is brought home most forcibly in the speeches of Peter and Stephen (Act 2:23; Act 3:13-15; Act 7:52); but the Cross is not once spoken of as necessary to salvation. Repentance and conversion are alone mentioned as essential to forgiveness; and even when (Act 8:28 ff.) Philip overhears the Ethiopian reading the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and interprets it for him, though this chapter above all others seems to speak of Messiahs vicarious suffering and death, the all-important passageHe was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, etc. (Act 8:5), is not even quoted. The natural conclusion is that the sacrificial significance of Christs death, so far from having been a cardinal doctrine of the Church from the outset, had not yet dawned upon the disciples minds. The glad facts of the Resurrection and Ascension, with all of spiritual quickening that these had brought them, were the all-important things to them. The death, except in so far as it was the passage to this larger life, was still obscure. They had no thought that Christs sacrifice alone procured their pardon; for if they had, they could not possibly have kept silence regarding it. It was the Resurrection they preached, not the Cross (Act 3:13-16; Act 10:40-41).

4. When we turn to the First Epistle of St. Peter, we find a marked advance upon this early preaching. The Apostle explains the death of the Lord as an example, as a power of redemption, and as a deliverance from the sense of guilt. But throughout, this development is on the lines of Christs own teaching. He does not speak a word to which a parallel could not be found in the Gospels. As the Lord told His disciples that the world would treat them as it treated Him, so St. Peter bids his readers follow in the steps of Christ; for this is thankworthy, he says, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. If, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God (1Pe 2:19-20; cf. 1Pe 3:17; 1Pe 4:1). Here he inculcates a sacrifice on the part of believers similar to the sacrifice of Christ, and asserts its acceptance in Gods sight. Of the redemptive power of Christs sacrifice he speaks in 1Pe 1:18-22, 1Pe 2:21; 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 3:18; and in each of these it is redemption from sins bondage that is thought of, with the end in view of service to God. Forgiveness is never thought of by itself as a consequence of the death of the Saviour, but always in connexion with sanctification, its end and aim. Believers are redeemed from their vain conversation by the blood of the Lamb, that they may purify their souls in obeying the truth. He bears their sins that they should live unto righteousness. He suffered for sins to bring them to God. Christs death is only for those who let it act upon them. It is not a satisfaction of God that removes for ever the guilt of men by bearing their penalty: it is a moral deliverance: it is the impression which it creates upon the hearts of believers that is the delivering powera power increased and fulfilled by the influence of the quickening Spirit (1Pe 1:22). In 1Pe 4:1 St. Peter says, He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin. By following Christs example men are to be delivered. Just as the suffering of a mother for her erring son becomes to that son redemption,a force to make sin hateful in his eyes,so the picture of Christs suffering for us acts upon our hearts; and our imitation of Him, our suffering borne for righteousness sake, breaks the will of the flesh, so that in St. Pauls words we die to sin and live to God. That Christ suffered once for sin, the just for the unjust (1Pe 3:18), means simply that human sin brought Him to death, a death which love and righteousness compelled Him to bear for our sakes, and that the spectacle of that Divine transcendent love becomes to all believers a power of regeneration. But, further, it is also a pledge of Divine forgiveness. In 1Pe 1:2 he mentions the sprinkling of the blood of Christ along with obedience and sanctification of the Spirit, and by it he can mean only the remission of sinsthe removal of the sense of guilt. Moreover, in 1Pe 1:18-21 he speaks of the shedding of the blood of the Lamb as having for one object that your faith and hope may be in God. What can this mean but that the love of the Father manifested in the death of His Son is to be to believers a means of breaking down the barrier which the sense of guilt had erected between them and God? It shows the Father ready to forgive and draw men unto Him (1Pe 3:18). To get rid of sin and to be assured of pardon are the two essentials to salvation, which by His death Christ has procured, but He has procured them only for those who make Christ their example by suffering Him to write Gods law upon their heartswho appropriate Gods life unto themselves.

5. It is in the writings of St. Paul, however, that the Cross of Christ attains its pre-eminent position. The whole gospel is to him the preaching of the Cross. Christ and him crucified is the subject of all his teaching. Yet the emphasis be lays on it is never one-sided; for the death of Christ is but the consummation of His holy life of Divine love, and at the same time the prelude to the fuller life of glory beyond; both of which are essential to the meaning and value of the sacrifice. Nor is it that the mind of the Pharisaic Saul has led him to the contemplation of the Cross because of his close study of the OT ritual. It is his own personal experience of salvation that has caused him to understandthe marvellous change wrought in him by the Lord who appeared to him on the road to Damascus, and which lie has expressed in the words, I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me (Gal 2:20; cf. Gal 6:14).

It certainly cannot be denied that in many passages the Apostle speaks of the death of Jesus as a means of deliverance from guilt, or of justification (Rom 3:25-26, 2Co 5:21, Gal 3:13, Col 2:14 etc.); and in the Epistle to the Romans the first place is certainly given to this doctrine; but justification is always conditioned by faith; Christ is never represented as reconciling God to us, but contrariwise, God through Christ reconciles the world to Himself; even our faith in Christ is useless except Christ be risen (1Co 15:17), i.e. except He be in us a living power to lead to sanctification; and Christ is never said to die , but always ; all of which facts are radically opposed to the theory of legal substitution. But, most important of all, guilt is no more than sins consequence, and we cannot conceive of St. Paul, who above all others understood the meaning of sins bondage, ascribing to Christ a mere redemption from sins consequences and not from sin itself. The Apostle, however, speaks for himself. It was, he says, to deliver us from the evil world, it was that we should live together with Him, it was that men should not henceforth serve sin, that Christ died (Gal 1:6, 1Th 5:10, Rom 6:6). The whole sixth chapter of Romans is on this themedeath to sin in Christ; and the seventh expresses the same thing in reference to the Law. The death of Christ is in his view, then, the direct cause of our death to sin, the breaking of sins bondage, the putting off the sensuous selfish nature, the subjugation of its desires and appetites (Col 2:11, Rom 3:24; Rom 6:3-4; Rom 7:4); and this is the first step to the energizing of the life-giving Spirit of the glorified Lord within us. The passage in 2Co 5:14-15 seems to express St. Pauls view with perfect clearness. Here we are told that it is the love of Christ that constraineththat makes the death of the One a means of death to sin in all. It is as the Lord of humanity, the spiritual Head, spiritually related to all, that He dies; but He rose again and lives now, so that all who recognize the relationship are compelled, by the love which His perfect sacrifice excites, to break for ever with sinsin which slew Himand to live henceforth His life, the life of love and righteousness (cf. Rom 6:10-11; Rom 5:19; Gal 2:19-20). It is not, however, the love of Christ only that is manifested by His death, but also that of the Father. God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8; Rom 5:10). The attitude of the fleshly mind is enmity against God (Rom 8:7). Men are rebels towards Him. It is the sense of guilt that keeps them from Him. They cannot even believe it possible that God can pardon. It is this, then, that God seeks to remove by the death of His Son. He gives an infinite pledge of His desire to forgive (2Co 5:19). Yet it still remains true that this pledge is not the actual justification of the sinner. He must accept Gods offer; he must allow Gods love to enter his heart; and that means death to sin, and makes him a new creature (2Co 5:17). Sanctification in principle is his from that moment. Thenceforth he lives spirituallylives to God. In St. Paul, too, we find that aspect of Christs death as a conquest of evil, an objective breaking of the power of sin, of which we have already spoken. He speaks of Christ coming in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemning sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3). By this he means that Christs death was the completion of a life of righteousness, and the final act of triumph over evil. He condemned sin in that He resisted it all His life, and in the end gave His life to that resistance. He submitted to the shameful death of the Cross, because to that the path of Divine righteousness led Him. It is for this reason that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1). In Him they spiritually delight in the law of God; by their love to Him and life in Him they, too, condemn sin; and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made them free from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2). It is in the same manner that the Apostle represents the death of Christ as a propitiation through faith in his blood (Rom 3:25). It is not a propitiation to God in the sense that it hides sin from His eyes, but in that Christs sacrifice contains the power of breaking sin in all who accept Him by faith. God is Justin forgiving the sin of the believer, because Christs victory is the guarantee of ultimate victory to all who live in Him (cf. 2Co 5:21 and 1Co 5:7). Finally, the importance which St. Paul attaches to the resurrection of Christ enforces all that has been said. Without that fact his whole doctrine of the scheme of salvation would fall to pieces (1Co 15:17). It is not even the death of Christ, but only the risen Saviour that justifies (Rom 4:25). It is in Christtherefore in a Christ who livesthat justification is obtained (2Co 5:21, Eph 1:7), and that sanctification is rendered possible (Rom 5:10; Rom 8:34; Rom 14:9, 2Co 3:17-18, Gal 2:20). It is only because the believer is in living union with the holy Lord that God can justify him; for the union and communion are the guarantee that the work of sanctification begun will be carried to completion, that the believer will be conformed in all things to his Redeemer. To have Christ dwell in our hearts by faith, to be rooted and grounded in love, to know the love of Christ, is to be filled with the fulness of God (Eph 3:17-19). If the old view of legal satisfaction through the sufferings of Christ be accepted, all this becomes absurd.

6. We now come to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, more than any other NT writing, relates the sacrifice of Christ to those of the Mosaic ritual. In this relation the author views the sacrifice of Jesus as the only one that can satisfy the needs of men, the one which alone requires no repetition. Following the example of our Lord Himself in the institution of the Supper, the writer alludes to the covenant sacrifice of Exodus 24; and it is perfectly manifest from the way in which he speaks of it that he no more regards Christs death as having created the New Covenant, than he does the sacrifice at Sinai as having procured the Old. In each case it is but a dedication, a ratification. He also refers to the offering of the great Day of Atonement, and with it he compares the sacrifice of Christ, calling it the great atonement by which the conscience is purged from dead works to serve the living God (Heb 9:14; cf. Heb 10:22). The mention of conscience, of course, suggests deliverance from the sense of guilt; but the immediately following wordsto serve the living Godpoint to something far beyond mere escape from punishment, namely, to sanctification and obedience. Repeatedly he tells us that the sacrifices of the OT could not take away sin (Heb 10:4; Heb 10:11); but if by taking away sin he means merely remission of guilt, his words become meaningless; for why should not obedience to a Divinely appointed ordinance have procured deliverance from guilt? Wherein they failedwhat made their continual repetition necessarywas not that they could not give the sense of pardon, but that they could not give deliverance from the bondage of sin. It was in this that Christs sacrifice was superior to all the Mosaic offerings, that it led to the service of the living God, that it put sin away (Heb 9:26), that it perfected them that are sanctified (Heb 10:14), that it worked a change in the will of the believer, realizing the covenant which Jeremiah foresaw when Gods law should be written on the mind and heart (Heb 10:16). If holiness is the great essential to salvation (Heb 12:14), and Christs sacrifice procured no more than deliverance from guilt, then it did not procure salvation. The old ritual could not make the worshipper perfect as pertaining to conscience (Heb 9:9, Heb 10:1), because it only pointed to the need of purity: it could not create the power to attain that purity: there was no force in it to break the power of sin and set free the will to attain holiness and communion with God. We are accustomed to think of atonement as meaning that God is made willing to pardon; but to make Christs sacrifice an atonement in this sense is to charge it with exactly the same weakness as belonged to the old ritual. Unquestionably Christs death does, in the writers view, guarantee forgiveness; but everywhere this forgiveness is regarded not as an end in itself, but only as the accompaniment of deliverance from the power of sin and the attainment of actual holiness. Indeed, there can be no certainty of pardon to the conscience until it is sensible of sanctification. God forgives not because Christs death has been accepted in lien of the punishment of men, but because the perfect holiness and love of Christs life consummated by a death of shame are a pledge to God for the sanctification of all believers (Heb 10:9-10). Christs life and death established perfection as an actual fact in human history, broke the hitherto victorious power of evil; and by virtue of His resurrection and ascension that power of victory can be communicated to all who believe. It is in this sense that Christ intercedes for men in heaven, in that He is there as a guarantee of the perfectibility of human nature; and because of His pledge that in those who are His, sin is, and will be, conquered and cast out, God is just to forgive (cf. Heb 7:25, Heb 8:1, Heb 9:12; Heb 9:14; Heb 9:24, Heb 13:20, Heb 7:16, Heb 2:11, Heb 5:9).

7. We come, finally, to the Epistles of St. John, with which we shall conclude our consideration. Here, as was to be expected in the Beloved Disciple, the ultimate explanation of the sacrifice of Christ is love, the love of God (1Jn 4:10). There is nowhere a suspicion of the thought that a change is made in God by the offering of Jesus. It was as the manifestation of the Fathers love that the Son was sent to suffer and die, and it is the influence of this love on us that creates love in us (1Jn 4:19), and renders possible the keeping of Gods commandments (1Jn 5:3). To be filled with love is to dwell in God (1Jn 4:12), to be born of God; and this ensures the victory that overcometh the world, and sin, which is the world-spirit (1Jn 5:4-5). Selfishness and hatred are the signs of unregenerateness, because salvation means love to God, and consequently love to all mankind (1Jn 4:20-21). The death of Christ was the proof of His Divinity, because it showed perfect love. Once more, then, in St. Johns view also it is a morally effective sacrifice, a power of renewal, not a substitution. God forgives all in whom sin is broken by the death of Christ, and who are being sanctified by His indwelling life. If we confess our sins, he says, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (1Jn 1:9); for if we confess, it is plain that the holiness and love of Christ are acting upon us, so that we realize our sinfulness, and hate it (cf. 1Jn 1:7). The belief in Christ, as the whole Epistle shows, to which forgiveness and cleansing are granted, is no mere passive acceptance of deliverance from guilt, no mere belief in substitutionary merit, but the perception of the perfect holiness and love of Jesus Christ, so that sin is revealed in all its hideousness as rebellion against a Father of love, and the man is delivered from its power by his hatred of it, and longing to serve and love God and the brethren. It is the creation in man of a spirit akin to that which fired the life of Jesus, that is mans salvation; and it is the power in Christs self-sacrifice to produce this and to perfect it, that is the pledge to God of mans sanctification, and that makes Him just in forgiving sin.

On the whole subject this must be added, that sacrifice is acceptable to God only in virtue of the spirit which lies behind it and which it expresses. It is never the outward value of the offering, never the amount of suffering it entails, that makes it precious in Gods sight. The multiplicity and costliness of the sacrifices under the old ritual became hateful in His eyes whenever they became a mere attempt to bribe Gods favour, and ceased to be the symbol of dependence and gratitude and obedience in man (cf. Isa 1:13-14). Mercy toward man and love to God must always be the underlying, inspiring spirit of sacrifice, else even the minutest observance of ritual becomes worthless (Mat 23:23-33; Mat 9:13; Mat 12:7). Christs sacrifice, then, was acceptable to God, not because of the amount of suffering or the shame of the death,the willingness to undergo so much was but the revelation of the greatness of the love,but because it manifested perfect obedience, perfect holiness, perfect Divine love. It is in the same wayit is in Christ onlythat the sacrifices of Christians are a sweet incense unto God. Men no longer need offer sacrifice for sin, but the Father still asks of the believer burnt offerings of self-dedication (Rom 12:1), thank-offerings of grateful love. These are sacrifices which the love of God and the holiness for which the believer longs make it a joy to offer, because they are a revelation of the spirit which inspires his heart and works in his whole lifethe spirit of Jesus Christ (Eph 5:19-21, Heb 13:15-16, Php 4:17-18, Mat 5:23-24). See also next art. and artt. Atonement and Propitiation.

Literature.Art. Sacrifice in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible and in Encyc. Bibl.; Dorner, Syst. of Chr. Doct. iv. 1124; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 302315; Clarke, Outline of Christian Theol. 308368; Bushnell, Vicarious Sacrifice and Christ and His Salvation; F. D. Maurice, Doctrine of Sacrifice; Beyschlag, NT Theol.; Weiss, do.; Cave, Script Doct. of Sacrifice; Dale, Atonement; Denney, Death of Christ; Fairbairn, Christ in Mod. Theol. 479487; Godet, NT Studies, 148200.

W. J. S. Miller.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Sacrifice

The sacrifices under the Old Testament dispensation were all shadowy representations and types of that one great and all-sufficient sacrifice of the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, whereby “he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

It is proper to observe that though the sacrifices under the law were all typical of Christ, yet sacrifices did not first come in under the law. In the garden of Eden we find their observance. And as a still farther confirmation that every sacrifice, both under the law, and before the law, was typical, we are expressly told by the Holy Ghost that by faith they were offered-that is, faith in the promised seed. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. By faith Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac.” And what could this faith be in but Christ? (See Heb 11:4; Heb 11:17)

The sacrifices under the law were of different kinds, but all signified the same thing. To Jesus Christ, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” they all referred, and in him the whole had their accomplishment. Whether the sacrifice was what was called the burnt offering, or Holocaust, the sacrifice for sin, or expiation, or the peace-offering, or sacrifice of thanksgiving, Christ was the great object set forth in every one. For neither could the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, “sprinkling the unclean, sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, but Jesus, by his own blood, and by entering once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Heb 9:12-13)

It may be proper to observe under this particular of sacrifice, wherein it differed from oblation. In the former there was somewhat done as well as presented. The offering, of whatever sort it was, whether a burnt offering, or a sacrifice for sin, underwent a change; it was either in part or in whole consumed: whereas an oblation simply consisted in the presentation or dedication of it. See Passover.

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Sacrifice

sakri-fs, sakri-fz:

In the Old Testament

I.TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

II.ORIGIN AND NATURE OF SACRIFICES

1.Theory of a Divine Revelation

2.Theories of a Human Origin

(1)The Gift-Theory

(2)The Magic Theory

(3)The Table-Bond Theory

(4)The Sacramental Communion Theory

(5)The Homage Theory

(6)The Piacular Theory

(7)Originating Religious Instincts

III.CLASSIFICATION OF SACRIFICES

1.Maimonides

2.W.R. Smith and Others

3.Oehler

4.Paterson and Others

5.H.M. Wiener

IV.SACRIFICES IN THE PRE-MOSAIC AGE

1.In Egypt

2.In Babylonia

3.Nomads and Tribes of Arabia and Syria

4.The Offerings of Cain and Abel

5.Of Noah

6.Of Abraham

7.Of Job

8.Of Isaac

9.Of Jacob

10.Of Israel in Egypt

11.Of Jethro

12.Summary and Conclusions

V.THE MOSAIC SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM

1.The Covenant Sacrifice

2.The Common Altars

3.The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons

4.Sacrifices before the Golden Calf

5.The Law of the Burnt Offering (‘Olah)

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

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

(3)General Laws for the Priest

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

6.The Law of the Meal Offering (Minchah)

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

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

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

7.The Law of the Peace Offering

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

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

(3)General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:12; 7:1 ff)

8.The Law of the Sin Offering

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

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

(a)The Occasion and Meaning

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

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

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

(e)Special Uses of the Sin Offering

(i) Consecration of Aaron and His Sons

(ii) Purifications from Uncleanness

(iii) On the Day of Atonement

(iv) Other Special Instances

9.The Guilt Offering

(1)The Ritual (Leviticus 5:14 through 6:7)

(2)Special Laws: Leper, Nazirite, etc.

10.The Wave Offering

11.The Heave Offering

12.Drink Offerings

13.Primitive Nature of the Cult

VI.SACRIFICES IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL

1.The Situation at Moses’ Death

2.In the Time of Joshua

3.The Period of the Judges

4.Times of Samuel and Saul

5.Days of David and Solomon

6.In the Northern Kingdom

7.In the Southern Kingdom to the Exile

8.In the Exilic and Post-exilic Periods

9.A Temple and Sacrifices at Elephantine

10.Human Sacrifices in Israel’s History

11.Certain Heathen Sacrifices

VII. THE PROPHETS AND SACRIFICES

VIII. SACRIFICE IN THE WRITINGS

1.Proverbs

2.The Psalms

IX.THE IDEA AND EFFICACY OR SACRIFICES

1.A Gift of Food to the Deity

2.Expression of Adoration and Devotion, etc.

3.Means of Purification from Uncleanness

4.Means of Consecration to Divine Service

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

6.View of Ritschl

7.The Sacramental View

8.Symbol or Expression of Prayer

9.View of Kautzsch

10.Vicarious Expiation Theory; Objections

11.Typology of Sacrifice

LITERATURE

I. Terms and Definitions.

, zebhah, sacrifice; , olah, burnt offering; , hata’ah, , hatta’th, sin offering; , ‘asham, guilt or trespass offering: , shelem, , shelamm, peace offerings; , minhah, offering, present; , zebhahshelamm, sacrifice of peace offerings; , zebhah ha-todhah, thank offerings; , zebhah nedhabhah, free-will offerings; , zebhah nedher, votive offerings; , tenuphah, wave offering; , terumah, heave offering; , korban, oblation, gift; , ‘ishsheh, fire offering; , nesekh, drink offering; , kall, whole burnt offering; , hagh, feast; , lebhonah, frankincense; , ketorah, , ketoreth, odor, incense; , melah, salt; , shemen, oil:

Zebhah: a slaughtered animal, a sacrifice, general term for animals used in sacrifice, including burnt offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings, and all sacrifices offered to the Deity and eaten at the festivals. More particularly it refers to the flesh eaten by the worshippers after the fat parts had been burned on the altar and the priest had received his portion.

Olah: a burnt offering, sometimes whole burnt offering. Derived from the verb alah, to go up. It may mean that which goes up to the altar (Knobel, Wellhausen, Nowack, etc.), or that which goes up in smoke to the sky (Bahr, Delitzsch, Dillmann, etc.); sometimes used synonymously with kall (which see). The term applies to beast or fowl when entirely consumed upon the altar, the hide of the beast being taken by the priest. This was perhaps the most solemn of the sacrifices, and symbolized worship in the full sense, i.e. adoration, devotion, dedication, supplication, and at times expiation.

Hata’ah, hatta’th: a sin offering, a special kind, first mentioned in the Mosaic legislation. It is essentially expiatory, intended to restore covenant relations with the Deity. The special features were: (1) the blood must be sprinkled before the sanctuary, put upon the horns of the altar of incense and poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering; (2) the flesh was holy, not to be touched by worshipper, but eaten by the priest only. The special ritual of the Day of Atonement centers around the sin offering.

‘Asham: guilt offering, trespass offering (King James Version; in Isa 53:10, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) an offering for sin, the American Revised Version margin trespass offering). A special kind of sin offering introduced in the Mosaic Law and concerned with offenses against God and man that could be estimated by a money value and thus covered by compensation or restitution accompanying the offering. A ram of different degrees of value, and worth at least two shekels, was the usual victim, and it must be accompanied by full restitution with an additional fifth of the value of the damage. The leper and Nazirite could offer he-lambs. The guilt toward God was expiated by the blood poured out, and the guilt toward men by the restitution and fine. The calling of the Servant an ‘asham (Isa 53:10) shows the value attached to this offering.

Shelem, shelamm: peace offering, generally used the plural, shelamm, only once shelem (Amo 5:22). These were sacrifices of friendship expressing or promoting peaceful relations with the Deity, and almost invariably accompanied by a meal or feast, an occasion of great joy. They are sometimes called zebhahim, sometimes zebhah shelamm, and were of different kinds, such as zebhah ha-todhah, thank offerings, which expressed the gratitude of the giver because of some blessings, zebhah nedhabhah, free-will offerings, bestowed on the Deity out of a full heart, and zebhah nedher, votive offerings, which were offered in fulfillment of a vow.

Minhah: meal offering (the Revised Version), meat offering (the King James Version), a gift or presentation, at first applied to both bloody and unbloody offerings (Gen 4:5), but in Moses’ time confined to cereals, whether raw or roast, ground to flour or baked and mixed with oil and frankincense. These cereals were the produce of man’s labor with the soil, not fruits, etc., and thus represented the necessities and results of life, if not life itself. They were the invariable accompaniment of animal sacrifices, and in one instance could be substituted for them (see SIN OFFERING). The term minhah describes a gift or token of friendship (Isa 39:1), an act of homage (1Sa 10:27; 1Ki 10:25), tribute (Jdg 3:15, Jdg 3:17 f), propitiation to a friend wronged (Gen 32:13, Gen 32:18 (Hebrew 14:19)), to procure favor or assistance (Gen 43:11 ff; Hos 10:6).

Tenuphah: wave offering, usually the breast, the priest’s share of the peace offerings, which was waved before the altar by both offerer and priest together (the exact motion is not certain), symbolic of its presentation to Deity and given back by Him to the offerer to be used in the priests’ service.

Tenumah: heave offering, something lifted up, or, properly, separated from the rest and given to the service of the Deity. Usually the right shoulder or thigh was thus separated for the priest. The term is applied to products of the soil, or portion of land separated unto the divine service, etc.

Korban: an oblation, or offering; another generic term for all kinds of offerings, animal, vegetable, or even gold and silver. Derived from the verb karabh, to draw near, it signifies what is drawn or brought near and given to God.

‘Ishsheh: fire offering, applied to offerings made by fire and usually bloody offerings, but at times to the minhah, the sacred bread and frankincense placed on the tables as a memorial, part of which was burned with the frankincense, the bulk, however, going to the priest. The gift was thus presented through fire to the Deity as a sort of etherealized food.

Nesekh: drink offering, or libation, a liquid offering of wine, rarely water, sometimes of oil, and usually accompanying the olah, but often with the peace offerings.

Kall: whole burnt offering, the entire animal being burned upon the altar. Sometimes used synonymously with olah. A technical term among the Carthaginians.

Hagh: a feast, used metaphorically for a sacrificial feast because the meat of the sacrifices constituted the material of the feast.

Lebhonah: frankincense, incense, used in combination with the meal offerings and burnt offerings and burned also upon the altar in the holy place. See INCENSE.

Ketorah, ketoreth: smoke, odor of sacrifice, or incense ascending as a sweet savor and supposed to be pleasing and acceptable to God.

Melah: salt, used in all sacrifices because of its purifying and preserving qualities.

Shemen: oil, generally olive oil, used with the meal offerings of cakes and wafers, etc.

Sacrifice is thus a complex and comprehensive term. In its simplest form it may be defined as a gift to God. It is a presentation to Deity of some material object, the possession of the offerer, as an act of worship. It may be to attain, restore, maintain or to celebrate friendly relations with the Deity. It is religion in action – in early times, almost the whole of religion – an inseparable accompaniment to all religious exercises. Few or many motives may actuate it. It may be wholly piacular and expiatory, or an Offering of food as a gift to God; it may be practically a bribe, or a prayer, an expression of dependence, obligation and thanksgiving. It may express repentance, faith, adoration, or all of these combined. It was the one and only way of approach to God. Theophrastus defines it as expressing homage, gratitude and need. Hubert and Mauss define it as a religious act which by the consecration of the victim modifies the moral state of the sacrificer, or of certain material objects which he has in view, i.e., either confers sanctity or removes it and its analogue, impiety.

II. Origin and Nature of Sacrifices.

The beginnings of sacrifice are hidden in the mysteries of prehistoric life. The earliest narrative in Genesis records the fact, but gives no account of the origin and primary idea. The custom is sanctioned by the sacred writings, and later on the long-established custom was adopted and systematized in the Mosaic Law. The practice was almost universal. The Vedas have their elaborate rituals. Some Semitic peoples, Greeks, Romans, Africans, and Indians of Mexico offered human sacrifices. It is unknown in Australia, but even there something akin to it exists, for some natives offer a portion of a kind of honey, others offer a pebble or a spear to their god. For this practically universal habit of the race, several solutions are offered.

1. Theory of a Divine Revelation:

One view maintains that God Himself initiated the rite by divine order at the beginnings of human history. Such a theory implies a monotheistic faith on the part of primitive man. This theory was strongly held by many of the Reformed theologians, and was based mainly on the narrative in Gen 4:4 f. Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice, and, according to Heb 11:4, this was because of his faith. Faber makes a strong plea as follows: Since faith was what made the sacrifice acceptable to God, this faith must have been based upon a positive enactment of God in the past. Without this divine positive enactment to guarantee its truthfulness, faith, in Abel, would have been superstition. In other words, faith, in order to be truly based and properly directed, must have a revelation from God, a positive expression of the divine will. Fairbairn, in his Typology, goes further and holds that the skins wherewith Adam and Eve were clothed were from animals which had been slain in sacrifices. This is entirely without support in the narrative. The theory of a divine order cannot be maintained on the basis of the Biblical narrative. Moreover, it involves certain assumptions regarding the nature of faith and revelation which are not generally held in this age. A revelation is not necessarily a positive divine command, an external thing, and faith may be just as real and true without such a revelation as with it. That there may have been such a revelation cannot be denied, but it is not a necessary or probable explanation.

2. Theories of a Human Origin:

(1) The Gift-Theory.

By this it is held that sacrifices were originally presents to the deity which the offerer took for granted would be received with pleasure and even gratitude. Good relations would thus be established with the god and favors would be secured. Such motives, while certainly true among many heathen people, were obviously based upon low conceptions of the deity. They were either. Nature-spirits, ancestral ghosts or fetishes which needed what was given, and of course the god was placed under obligations and his favor obtained. Or, the god may have been conceived of as a ruler, a king or chief, as was the custom in the East.

Cicero vouches for such a view when he says: Let not the impious dare to appease the gods with gifts. Let them hearken to Plato, who warns them that there can be no doubt what God’s disposition to them will be, since even a good man will refuse to accept presents from the wicked (HDB, IV, 331a). This view of sacrifice prevails in classical literature. Spencer therefore thinks it is self-evident that this was the idea of primitive man. Tylor and Herbert Spencer also find the origin of sacrifices in the idea of a gift, whether to the deity or to dead ancestors, food being placed for them, and this afterward comes to be regarded as a sacrifice. Such a view gives no account of the peculiar value attached to the blood, or to the burnt offerings. It may account for some heathen systems of sacrifice, but can help in no degree in understanding the Biblical sacrifices.

(2) The Magic Theory.

There are two slightly variant forms of this: (a) that of R.C. Thompson (Semitic Magic, Its Origins and Developments, 175-218), who holds that a sacrificial animal serves as a substitute victim offered to a demon whose activity has brought the offerer into trouble; the aim of the priest is to entice or drive the malignant spirit out of the sick or sinful man into the sacrificial victim where it can be isolated or destroyed; (b) that of L. Marillier, who holds that sacrifice in its origin is essentially a magical rite. The liberation of a magical force by the effusion of the victim’s blood will bend the god to the will of the man. From this arose under the cult of the dead the gift-theory of sacrifice. Men sought to ally themselves with the god in particular by purifying a victim and effecting communion with the god by the application of the blood to the altar, or by the sacrifice of the animal and the contact of the sacrificer with its blood. Such theories give no account of the burnt offerings, meal offerings and sin offerings, disconnect them entirely from any sense of sin or estrangement from God, and divest them of all piacular value. They may account for certain depraved and heathen systems, but not for the Biblical.

(3) The Table-Bond Theory.

Ably advocated by Wellhausen and W.R. Smith, this view holds that sacrifices were meals which the worshippers and the god shared, partaking of the same food and thus establishing a firmer bond of fellowship between them. Sykes (Nature of Sacrifices, 75) first advocated this, holding that the efficacy of sacrifices is the fact that eating and drinking were the known and ordinary symbols of friendship and were the usual rites in engaging in covenants and leagues. Thus sacrifices are more than gifts; they are deeds of hospitality which knit god and worshipper together. W.R. Smith has expounded the idea into the notion that the common meal unites physically those who partake of it. Though this view may contain an element of truth in regard to certain Arabian customs, it does not help much to account for Bible sacrifices. As A.B. Davidson says, It fails utterly to account for the burnt offering, which was one of the earliest, most solemn and at times the most important of all the sacrifices.

(4) The Sacramental Communion Theory.

This is a modification of the table-bond theory. The basis of it is the totemistic idea of reverencing an animal which is believed to share with man the divine nature. On certain solemn occasions this animal would be sacrificed to furnish a feast. At this meal, according to men’s savage notions, they literally ate the god, and thus incorporated into themselves the physical, the intellectual and the moral qualities which characterized the animal. If the divine life dwelt in certain animals, then a part of that precious life would be distributed among all the people (RS2, 313). In some cases the blood is drunk by the worshippers, thus imbibing the life. Sometimes, as in the case of the sacred camel, they devoured the quivering flesh before the animal was really dead, and the entire carcass was eaten up before morning.

The brilliant work of W. R. Smith has not been universally accepted. L. Marillier has criticized it along several lines. It is by no means certain that totemism prevailed so largely among Semites and there is no evidence of its existence in Israel. Also, if an original bond of friendship existed between the god and the kin, there is no need to maintain it by such sacrificial rites. There is no clear instance of this having been done. If on the other hand there was no common bond between the god and the people but that of a common meal, it does not appear that the god is a totem god. There is no reason why the animal should have been a totem. In any case, this idea of sacrifice could hardly have been anything but a slow growth, and consequently not the origin of sacrifice. Hubert and Mauss also point out that W. R. Smith is far from having established the historical or the logical connection between the common meal and the other kinds of sacrifices. Under piacula he confuses purification, propitiation and expiations. His attempts to show that purifications of magical character are late and not sacrificial do not succeed. Smith’s theory is mainly the sacramental, though he does recognize the honorific and piacular element. The theory may be applicable to some of the heathen or savage feasts of the Arabs, but not to the practices of the Hebrews (see Encyclopedia Brit, XXIII, 981).

(5) The Homage Theory.

This has been advocated by Warburton and F. D. Maurice. The idea is that sacrifices were originally an expression of homage and dependence. Man naturally felt impelled to seek closer communion with God, not so much from a sense of guilt as from a sense of dependence and a desire to show homage and obedience. In giving expression to this, primitive man had recourse to acts rather than words and thoughts. Thus sacrifice was an acted prayer, rather than a prayer in words. It was an expression of his longings and aspirations, his reverence and submission. There is much truth in this view; the elements of prayer – dependence and submission – enter into some sacrifices, the burnt offerings in particular; but it does not account for all kinds of offerings.

(6) The Piacular Theory.

This holds that sacrifices are fundamentally expiatory or atoning, and the death of the beast is a vicarious expiation of the sins of the offerer. Hubert and Mauss admit that in all sacrifices there are some ideas of purchase or substitution, though these may not have issued from some primitive form. The unifying principle in all sacrifices is that the divine is put in communication with the profane by the intermediary – the victim – which may be piacular or honorific. It is thus a messenger, a means of divination, a means of alimenting the eternal life of the species, a source of magical energy which the rite diffuses over objects in its neighborhood. Westermarck (Origin of Moral Ideas) makes the original idea in sacrifice a piaculum, a substitute for the offerer.

This view is the most simple, the most natural, and the only one that can explain certain sacrifices. Man felt himself under liability to punishment or death. The animal was his, it had life, it was of value, and perchance the god would accept that life in place of his. He felt that it would be accepted, and thus the animal was sacrificed. The offerer in a sense gives up part of himself. The beast must be his own; no sacrifice can be made of another person’s property (2Sa 24:24). The true spirit of sacrifice appears in a willingness to acknowledge God’s right to what is best and dearest (Gen 12).

Objection is raised to this by A. B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology), Paterson (HDB, IV, 331) and others, on the ground that such an origin represents too advanced a stage of ethical thought and reflection for primitive man. We question seriously whether this be an advanced stage of moral reflection. On the contrary, it represents a very simple and primitive stage. The feeling that sin of some kind is never absent from human life, and that its true penalty is death, has been inseparable from the human heart’s sense of sin. What could be more simple and natural than to take an innocent animal and offer it in place of himself, hoping that the Deity would accept it instead? Nor is there much force in Professor Paterson’s objection that sacrifices were preponderantly joyous in character and therefore could not be offered as an expiation. This joyous character belongs to such sacrifices as peace offerings and thank offerings, but does not belong to the olah and others. In most cases the joyous feast followed the killing of the animal by which the expiation was accomplished, and the feast was joyous because atonement had been made. In fact, many sacrifices were of the most solemn character and represented the deepest and most serious emotions of the heart.

(7) 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 f, 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 (Gen 4:4 f) 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 minhah, 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 (Gen 8:20 ff). 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 (Gen 12:7). At Beth-el also (Heb 12:8), and on his return from Egypt he worshipped there (Gen 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 (Gen 13:18), officiating always as his own priest. In Gen 15:4 ff 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 (Gen 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 (Job 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 (Job 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 (Gen 26:25).

9. Of Jacob:

Jacob’s first recorded sacrifice was the pouring of the oil upon the stone at Beth-el (Gen 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 (zebhahim) and they ate bread (Gen 31:54). At Shechem, Jacob erected an altar (Gen 33:20). At Beth-el (Gen 35:7) and at Beer-sheba he offered sacrifices to Isaac’s God (Gen 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 Exo 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 (Exo 3:18; Exo 5:3 ff; Exo 7:16). Pharaoh understood and asked who was to go (Exo 10:8). Moses demanded flocks and herds for the feast (Exo 10:9). Pharaoh would keep the flocks, etc. (Exo 10:24), but Moses said they must offer sacrifices and burnt offerings (Exo 10:25 f).

The sacrifice of the Passover soon occurs (Exo 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 Bough3, 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 zebhahim and made a feast (Exo 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.

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 (Exo 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 Jer 7:21 ff. 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 (Exo 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 (Exo 24:4 ff). 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 (Exo 24:7 f). 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 (Exo 20:24 ff). 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. (Exo 20:24 margin). 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 Deu 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 (Deu 27:5 ff). Joshua, Gideon, Jephthah, Samuel, Saul, David, Elijah and many others used such altars. There were altars at Shechem (Jos 24:1, Jos 24:26), Mizpah in Gilead (Jdg 11:11), Gilgal (1Sa 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 (Exo 22:20 (Hebrew 19); Exo 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. (Exo 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 (Exo 29:10), killing it before the tent of meeting (Exo 29:11), smearing some blood on the horns of the altar, and pouring the rest at its base (Exo 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 (Exo 29:13, Exo 29:14). This is a sin offering – hatta’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 (Exo 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 (Exo 29:19-21). Certain parts are waved before Yahweh along with the bread, and are then burned upon the altar (Exo 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 (Exo 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 (Exo 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 (Exo 29:35-37). The altar of incense is ordered (Exo 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 (Ex 32:1-35).

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

At the setting-up of the tabernacle burnt and meal offerings were sacrificed (Exo 40:29). The law of the burnt offering is found in Lev 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 (Exo 29:38-42). The burnt offering is here called korban, oblation.

(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Lev 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 (Lev 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 (Exo 29:38 f; Num 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 (Num 6:14, Num 6:16): on the Sabbath, two lambs (Num 28:9); on the first of the month, two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs (Num 28:11); on the day of first-fruits, the same (Num 28:27); on the 1st day of the 7th month, one bullock, one ram, seven lambs (Num 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 (Nu 29:12-34); on the 22nd day of this month one bullock, one ram and seven lambs were offered (Num 29:35, Num 29:36). Non-Israelites were permitted to offer the olah, but no other sacrifices (Lev 17:8; Lev 22:18, Lev 22:25).

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

Anticipating a central sanctuary in the future, the lawgiver counsels the people to bring their offerings there (Deu 12:6, Deu 12:11); they must be careful not to offer them in any place (Deu 12:13), but must patronize the central sanctuary (Deu 12:14). In the meantime common altars and customary sacrifices were allowable and generally necessary (Deu 16:21; Deu 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 (Exo 29:41). These must not be offered on the altar of incense (Exo 30:9); were used at the completion of the tabernacle (Exo 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 (bikkurm), 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 (Lev 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 (Lev 7:9, Lev 7:10; Lev 10:12; Num 18:9). The meal offerings accompanied the other offerings on all important occasions, such as the consecration of Aaron (Lev 9:4, Lev 9:17); cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:10, Lev 14:20, Lev 14:21, Lev 14:31); feast of first-fruits (Lev 23:13); Pentecost (Lev 23:16); set feasts (Lev 23:37). Special charge was given to Eleazar to care for the continual meal offerings (Num 4:16). The Nazirite must offer it (Num 6:15, Num 6:17). When the tribes presented their offerings, meal offerings were always included (Num 7:13, Num 7:19, etc.); when the Levites were set apart (Num 8:8); with vows of freewill offerings (Num 15:4, Num 15:6); with the sin offerings (Num 15:24); at all the several seasons (Nu 28:5 through 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 (Lev 24:5 f).

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 (Exo 20:24), as feasts had been thus celebrated from time immemorial. At the feast before God on the Mount, peace offerings provided the food (Exo 24:5); also before the golden bull (Exo 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 (Lev 6:12 (Hebrew 5); Lev 7:1 ff).

The fat was to be burned on the altar of burnt offering. If it was a thank offering (zebhah 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 (Lev 22:30). If it was a votive offering (zebhah nedher) or a freewill offering (zebhah nedhabhah), it might be eaten on the first and second days, but not on the third day; it should then be an abomination (Lev 7:18 f). 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 (Lev 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 (Lev 9:4, Lev 9:18, Lev 9:22). The priest’s portion was to be eaten in a clean place by the priest’s family (Lev 10:14). When Israel should have a central sanctuary, all were to be brought there (Lev 17:4, Lev 17:5). When they had no central place, the common altars would suffice. All peace offerings must be made in an acceptable manner (Lev 19:5). Votive offerings must be perfect (Lev 22:18-22), but certain imperfections are allowable in freewill offerings (Lev 22:23). At Pentecost two he-lambs of the first year could be offered as peace offerings (Lev 23:19). The Nazirite at the end of his separation must offer one ram for a peace offering with unleavened bread (Num 6:14, Num 6:17), and the hair shaved from his head must be burned under the peace offerings (Num 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 (Num 10:10). Some further regulations are given (Num 15:9 f).

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 (Exo 29:10 ff).

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 (Exo 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 (Lev 4:3-12), the whole congregation (Lev 4:13-21), a ruler (Lev 4:22-26), one of the common people (Lev 4:27-35), forswearing (Lev 5:1), touching an unclean thing (Lev 5:2) or the uncleanness of man (Lev 5:3), or rashly sweating in ignorance (Lev 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 (Lev 4:1-5, Lev 4:13, 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 (Lev 4:1-5, Lev 4:13, 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 (Lev 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 (Lev 8:2, Lev 8:14, Lev 8:15) was similar to that of Lev 4:11, Lev 4:12, 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 (Lev 9:2), and the congregation offered a he-goat (Lev 9:3). In this case Aaron performed the ceremony, as in Lev 4:11, Lev 4:12. 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 (Lev 10:16-20).

(ii) Purifications from Uncleannesses:

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

(iii) On the Day of Atonement:

On the Day of Atonement (Lev 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 (Lev 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 (Num 6:10 ff); when the days of the separation were fulfilled a ewe-lamb with the other offerings (Num 6:14) was to be offered; the twelve tribes included in each case a he-goat for sin offering (Num 7:16 ff); at the consecration of the Levites a young bullock (Num 8:8, Num 8:12). For unwitting sins of the congregation a he-goat was to be offered (Num 15:24, Num 15:25). If one person erred, a she-goat was permitted (Num 15:27). A sin offering was required at the feast of the new moon (Num 28:15), at the Passover (Num 28:22), at Pentecost (Num 28:30), on the 1st day of the 7th month (Num 29:5), and on the 10th, 15th-22nd days (Nu 29:10-38). The ceremony of the red heifer (Num 19:1-10, Num 19:17) 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 (Deu 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) (Lev 5:14 through 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 (Lev 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 (Num 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 Num 5:5-8; Deu 22:29).

(1) The Ritual (Leviticus 5:14 through 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 (Lev 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 (Lev 14:21, Lev 14:22). The Nazirite, if defiled during his period of separation, must bring a he-lamb for a guilt offering (Num 6:12). All guilt offerings were the priests’ and most holy (Num 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 (Exo 29:24-27), when the breast and bread were waved before Yahweh. Lev 7:30, Lev 7:34 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 (Lev 8:27). On the 8th day Aaron did the waving (Lev 9:21). The priests were to eat it in a clean place (Lev 10:14 f) . The leper’s he-lamb was to be waved by the priest, before being offered (Lev 14:12); the lamb of the guilt offering also (Lev 14:24). At the feast of first-fruits the sheaf must be waved before Yahweh (Lev 23:10, Lev 23:11, Lev 23:15); two loaves also (Lev 23:17, Lev 23:20). 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 (Num 6:19 f).

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 (Exo 29:27, Exo 29:28). The offering consisted of the right shoulder or thigh and was the fixed due of the priest (Lev 7:32, Lev 7:34) One cake of the peace offering must be heaved (Lev 7:14). The offering must be eaten in a clean place (Lev 7:14) by the priest’s family only (Lev 10:14, Lev 10:15). Of the Nazirite’s offering the heave thigh also went to the priest (Num 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 (Num 15:19, Num 15:20, Num 15:21). The law is repeated in Num 18:8, Num 18:11, Num 18:19, and the Levites are to receive a tithe of the heave offerings of the people (Num 18:24). They were in turn to offer up a tithe of this to the priests (Num 18:26-32). A portion of the spoil of Midian was a heave offering (Num 31:29, Num 31:41). Deuteronomy commands that all heave offerings be brought to the central sanctuary and eaten there (Deu 12:6, Deu 12:11).

12. Drink Offerings:

Jacob poured oil on the stone he had set up (Gen 28:18) in honor of the Deity and consecrated the spot. Jacob later (Gen 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 (Exo 29:40, Exo 29:41). None could be poured upon the altar of incense (Exo 30:9). At all set feasts the Drink offerings must be presented (Lev 23:13, Lev 23:18, Lev 23:37). The Nazirite was not exempt (Num 6:15, Num 6:17). Wine and oil must accompany all votive and freewill offerings (Num 15:4, Num 15:5, Num 15:7, Num 15:10, Num 15:24); the continual burnt offering (Num 28:7, Num 28:8); sabbaths (Num 28:9, Num 28:10) and all the other set feasts (Nu 28:14-31; 29:6-39, passim). That drink offerings were common among the heathen is shown by Deu 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 (Amo 5:25), as it was impracticable. Even circumcision was neglected until the wanderers crossed the Jordan (Jos 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 Exo 20:24; Deu 16:21; Deu 27:7. In the days of Joshua, the Passover was celebrated (Jos 5:10 f). At Ebal an altar was erected, burnt and peace offerings were presented (Jos 8:30-32). The tabernacle was set up at Shiloh with a horned altar doubtless (Jos 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 (Jdg 2:1-5). Gideon rebuilt an altar of Yahweh and offered a bullock as a burnt offering (Jdg 6:25, Jdg 6:26). The kid prepared for the angel was not first a sacrifice, but its acceptance as a gift was indicated by its being burned (Jdg 6:19 f). Jephthah offered up his daughter as a burnt offering, believing such a sacrifice well-pleasing to Yahweh (Jdg 11:31, Jdg 11:39). Manoah and his wife prepared a kid for a burnt offering, a meal offering accompanying it (Jdg 13:16 f). 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 (Jdg 20:26). The feasts at Shiloh imply at least peace offerings (Jdg 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 (1Sa 1:3 f). Such feasts were joyous and tended to excesses, as drunkenness seemed common (1Sa 1:13 f). All Israel came thither (1Sa 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 (1Sa 2:13-17). This shows that such ritual as was prescribed in Lev 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 (1Sa 6:3, 1Sa 6:1, 1Sa 6:8, 1Sa 6:17). 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 (1Sa 6:14 f), going to war (1Sa 7:9 f; 1Sa 13:9-12), victory (1Sa 11:15), etc. Saul met Samuel at a sacrificial feast in a small city (1Sa 9:12, 1Sa 9:13) on a high place. At Gilgal there were burnt and peace offerings (1Sa 10:8; 1Sa 15:15, 1Sa 15:21). Saul offered burnt offerings himself (1Sa 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 (1Sa 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 (1Sa 14:32-35). Family and clan sacrifices and feasts were evidently common (1Sa 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 (1Sa 20:5, 1Sa 20:24-29). The sanctuary at Nob had the shewbread upon the table (1Sa 21:4 ff) according to Exo 25:30. When the ark was brought up to Jerusalem, burnt offerings and peace offerings were offered according to the Law (2Sa 6:17, 2Sa 6:18; 1Ch 16:2, 1Ch 16:40). Ahithophel offered private, sacrifices at Shiloh (2Sa 15:12). David offered up burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings when purchasing the threshing-floor of Araunah (1Ch 21:23-26). The statutory horned altar at this time was at Gibeon (2Ch 1:6; 1Ch 21:29), but was soon removed to Jerusalem (1Ch 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 (1Ch 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 (1Ki 8:63; 2Ch 7:4-7); also burnt offerings and peace offerings with incense triennially (1Ki 9:25). The ritual at the regular seasons, daily, sabbaths, new moons, set feasts, etc., was observed according to the Levitical Law (2Ch 2:4; 2Ch 8:13). Was it written?

6. In the Northern Kingdom:

The golden calf worship was carried on at Dan and Beth-el, with priests, altars and ritual (1Ki 12:27 f). The high places were in use, but very corrupt (1Ki 13:2 ff). A common altar was in use on Mt. Carmel (1Ki 18:30, 1Ki 18:32). Many others were known as Yahweh’s altars (1Ki 19:10). The system was in full swing in Amos’ time (Amo 4:4, Amo 4:5) at Beth-el and Gilgal and probably at Beer-sheba (Amo 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 (1Ki 3:2; 2Ki 14:4; 2Ki 15:4, 2Ki 15:35). 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 (2Ch 13:10 f). Asa removed many strange altars and high places because of their corruption (2Ch 14:3), but not all (2Ch 15:17; 2Ch 20:33).

7. In the Southern Kingdom to the Exile:

In the days of Jehoiada priests and Levites were on duty according to Moses (2Ch 23:18; 2Ch 24:14; 2Ki 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 Lev 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 (2Ki 16:13-15). Hezekiah destroyed many high places (2Ki 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 (2Ch 29:21-24); and so, also, burnt offerings (2Ch 29:27 f), peace offerings and thank offerings, etc., in large number (2Ch 29:31-35; compare Isa 1:10-17). The Passover was celebrated with peace offerings (2Ch 30:1, 2Ch 30:2, 2Ch 30:15, 2Ch 30:22), oblations and tithes (2Ch 31:12); courses of Levites were established (2Ch 31:2), and the king’s portion (2Ch 31:3). All the common altars were abolished as far as possible, and worship centralized in Jerusalem (2Ch 32:12). Reversed by Manasseh (2Ch 33:3 f), the high places were again used (2Ch 33:17). Josiah purged Jerusalem (2Ch 34:3), and on the discovery of the Book of the Law, with its rule regarding a central sanctuary, that law was rigidly enforced (2Ch 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 (Ezr 3:2 f), and likewise at the Feast of Tabernacles, new moons and set feasts (Ezr 3:4-7). Darius decreed that the Israelites should be given what was needed for the sacrifices (Ezr 6:9 f). The band under Ezra offered many sin offerings on their return (Ezr 8:35). At the dedication of the temple many burnt and sin offerings were made for all the tribes (Ezr 6:17). Those who had married foreign wives offered guilt offerings (Ezr 10:19). The firman of Artaxerxes provided money for bullocks, rams, lambs, with meal offerings and drink offerings (Ezr 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 (Neh 10:33-37) and were in full force later (Neh 13:5, Neh 13:9). 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 (Lev 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 (Lev 20:2-5; Deu 12:31; Deu 18:10). The rash vow of Jephthah resulted in the immolation of his daughter, but the incident is recorded as something extraordinary (Jdg 11:31 f). The execution of Zebah and Zalmunna is a case of blood revenge, not sacrifice (Jdg 8:18 ff). Nor is the slaughter of Agag in any sense a sacrifice (1Sa 15:32 f). 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 (2Sa 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 (2Ki 3:27). Ahaz practiced the abomination in times of trouble (2Ki 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 (1Ki 16:34; compare Jos 6:26). Manasseh practiced the custom (2Ki 21:6), but it was stopped by Josiah (2Ki 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 (Mic 6:6-8). Isaiah refers to a heathen custom practiced by Israel of slaying the children in secret places (Isa 57:5), and Jeremiah represents it as practiced in his time (Jer 7:31; Jer 19:5). Ezekiel denounces the same practice (Eze 16:20, Eze 16:21; Eze 23:37).

11. Certain Heathen Sacrifices:

Heathen sacrifices are hinted at in the later books, such as swine, a mouse, a horse, a dog (Isa 65:4; Isa 66:3, Isa 66:17; Eze 8:10; 2Ki 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 Joel is early, the cult is in full practice, as he deplores the cutting-off of the meal offering, or minhah, and the nesekh 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 (Joe 1:7, Joe 1:13; Joe 2:14). Joel emphasized the need for a genuine repentance, telling them to rend their hearts and not their garments (Joe 2:13).

Amos condemns the cult at Beth-el and Gilgal, and sarcastically bids them go on transgressing (Amo 4:4, Amo 4:5), mentions burnt offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings, and freewill offerings (Amo 4:4 f; Amo 5:22), reminds them of the fact that they did not offer sacrifices in the wilderness (Amo 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. (Hos 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 Hos 6:6 anything else than a categorical rejection of sacrifices. Hosea recognizes their place in religion, and deplores the loss during exile (Hos 3:4). The corrupt cults he condemns (Hos 4:13 f), for they are as bad as the Canaanitish cults (Hos 4:9). Yahweh will spurn them (Hos 8:13; Hos 9:4). The defection of the nation began early (Hos 11:2), and they have multiplied altars (Hos 12:11; Hos 13:2). He predicts the time when they shall render as bullocks the calves of their lips (Hos 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 (Mic 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 (Isa 1:11-17; Isa 61:8). The same is true of all pious performances today. It is probable that Isaiah worshipped in the temple (Isa 6:1, Isa 6:6). In his eschatological vision there is freedom to offer sacrifices in Egypt (Isa 19:19, Isa 19:21). The people are to worship in the holy mountain (Isa 27:13). Ariel must let the feasts come around (Isa 29:1).

Jeremiah maintains the same attitude. Your frankincense from Sheba, and the sweet cane, burnt offerings and sacrifices are not pleasing to God (Jer 6:20; Jer 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. (Jer 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 (Jer 33:11, Jer 33:18). Picturing possible prosperity and glory, Jeremiah speaks of burnt offerings and meal offerings, frankincense, thank offerings, etc., being brought into the house of Yahweh (Jer 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 (Eze 40:38-42).

He assigns the north and south chambers for the meal, sin and trespass offerings (Eze 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 Lev 8:1 f (Eze 43:18-27). The Levites are to be ministers and slay burnt offerings and sacrifice for the people (Eze 44:11). The priest must offer his sin offering before he ministers in the sanctuary (Eze 44:27). They are to eat the meal, sin, and trespass offerings as in Eze 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 (Eze 45:13-17). In cleansing the sanctuary the Levitical ritual is followed with added details (Eze 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 (Eze 46:2-4, Eze 46:6, Eze 46:9-12) for the sabbaths, new moons, etc. The daily burnt offerings (Eze 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 (Eze 46:20, 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 (Eze 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 (Isa 43:23 f). Those foreigners who respect the covenant shall offer acceptable sacrifices (Isa 56:7) in the blessed age to come. The Servant of Yahweh is to be a guilt offering (Isa 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 (Isa 66:21, Isa 66:23).

Daniel speaks of the meal offering being caused to cease in the midst of the week (Dan 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 (Zec 14:16-21).

In Malachi’s age the ritual was in practice, but grossly abused. They offered polluted bread (Mal 1:7), blind, lame and sick animals (Mal 1:13 f). Yahweh has the same attitude toward these as toward those in the times of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah (Mal 1:10 f). The Gentiles offer better ones (Mal 1:11). The Israelites covered the altar of Yahweh with tears by their hypocritical, non-ethical actions (Mal 2:13). They robbed God in withholding tithes and heave offerings (Mal 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 (Zep 1:7 f), applying it to the destruction of Israel by Yahweh. Bozrah and Edom are to be victims (Isa 34:6); also Gog and Magog (Eze 39:17, Eze 39:19).

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.

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 (Pro 3:9). A feast usually follows a sacrifice of peace offerings (Pro 7:14). The trespass offering (?) has no meaning to fools (Pro 14:9), and the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination to God (Pro 15:8; Pro 21:27). Righteousness and justice are more acceptable to Yahweh than sacrifices (Pro 21:3), yet to them sacrifices are a regular part of worship. Koheleth speaks of sacrifices as quite the custom, and deprecates the offerings of fools (Ecc 5:1; Ecc 9:2).

2. The Psalms:

The Psalmist admonishes the faithful to offer the sacrifices of righteousness, i.e. sacrifices offered in the right spirit (Psa 4:5). The drink offerings of idolaters are well known (Psa 16:4). Prayer is made for the acceptance of sacrifices (Psa 20:3). It is a coveted privilege to offer them (Psa 27:6; Psa 84:1-4). The true relation between sacrifice and obedience is expressed in Psa 40:6-8. As in Jer 7:21 f, 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. Ps 50 is even more emphatic. The Psalmist knows that sacrifices are in the covenant regulations (Psa 50:5), but repudiates the idea of giving anything to God or of feeding Him (Psa 50:12, Psa 50:13). 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 (Psa 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 (Psa 51:16 f). When the heart is right, then, as an expression of true-heartedness, devotion, repentance and faith, burnt offerings are highly acceptable (Psa 51:19). Another Psalmist promises a freewill offering to God (Psa 54:6; Psa 66:13, Psa 66:15). Sacrifices of thanksgiving are advised (Psa 96:8; Psa 107:22; Psa 118:27) and promised (Psa 116:17). Prayer is likened to the evening sacrifice (Psa 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 (compare Eze 45:19 f).

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 (Deu 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 (Num 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 (Isa 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 ff; Smoller, Studien und Kritiken, 1891; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism; Pentateuchal Studies; Driver, ERE, VI.

In the New Testament

I.TERMS OF SACRIFICE EPITOMIZED

II.ATTITUDE OF JESUS AND NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM

1.Jesus’ Attitude

2.Paul’s Attitude

3.Attitude of the Author of Hebrews

III.THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

1.Teaching of John the Baptist

2.Teaching of Jesus

3.Teaching of Peter

4.Paul’s Teaching

5.Teaching of Hebrews

6.Johannine Teaching

IV.RELATION OF CHRIST’S SACRIFICE TO MAN’S SALVATION

1.Redemption or Deliverance from Curse of Sin

2.Reconciliation

3.Remission of Sins

4.The Cancellation of Guilt

5.Justification or Right Standing with God

6.Cleansing or Sanctification

7.Sonship

V.HOW CHRIST’S SACRIFICE PROCURES SALVATION

1.Jesus’ Teaching

2.Paul’s Teaching

3.Teaching of Hebrews

4.Petrine and Johannine Teaching

VI.RATIONALE OF THE EFFICACY OF CHRIST’S SACRIFICE

1.Jesus’ Teaching

2.Paul’s Teaching

3.The Teaching in Hebrews

VII. THE HUMAN CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION

1.Universal in Objective Potentiality

2.Efficacious When Subjectively Applied

VIII. THE CHRISTIAN’S LIFE THE LIFE OF SACRIFICE

1.Consequence of Christ’s Sacrifice

2.Christ’s Death the Appeal for Christian’s Sacrifice

3.Necessary to Fill Out Christ’s Sacrifice

4.Content of the Christian’s Sacrifice

5.The Supper as a Sacrifice

LITERATURE

I. Terms of Sacrifice Epitomized.

The word offering (, prosphora) describes the death of Christ, once in Paul (Eph 5:2); 5 times in Hebrews (Heb 10:5, Heb 10:8, Heb 10:10, Heb 10:14, Heb 10:18). The verb , prosphero, to offer, is also used, 15 times in Hebrews (Heb 5:1, Heb 5:3; Heb 8:3, Heb 8:4; Heb 9:7, Heb 9:14, Heb 9:25, Heb 9:28; Heb 10:1, Heb 10:8, Heb 10:11, Heb 10:12; Heb 11:4). The noun prosphora occurs 15 times in the Septuagint, usually as the translation of , minhah, sacrifice. This noun in the New Testament refers to Old Testament sacrifices in Act 7:42; Act 21:26; to the offering of money in Act 24:17; Rom 15:16. The verb , anaphero, also occurs 3 times in Hebrews (Heb 7:27; Heb 9:28; Heb 13:15); also in 1Pe 2:5.

The word sacrifice (, thusa in the Septuagint translates 8 different Hebrew words for various kinds of sacrifice, occurring about 350 times) refers to Christ’s death, once in Paul (Eph 5:2) 5 times in Heb (1Pe 5:1; 9:23, 26; 10:12, 26). It refers several times to Old Testament sacrifice and 5 times to Christian living or giving (Phi 2:17; Phi 4:18; Heb 13:15, Heb 13:16; 1Pe 2:5). The verb to sacrifice (, thuo) is used once by Paul to describe Christ’s death (1Co 5:7).

The blood (, hama) of Christ is said to secure redemption or salvation, 6 times in Paul (Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9; 1Co 10:16; Eph 1:7; Eph 2:13; Col 1:20); 3 times in Hebrews (Heb 9:12, Heb 9:14; Heb 10:19; compare also Heb 10:29); 2 times in 1 Peter (1Pe 1:2, 1Pe 1:19) and 5 times in the Johannine writings (1Jo 1:7; 5:62, 8; Rev 1:5). Unmistakably this figure of the blood refers to Christ’s sacrificial death. In any case the phrase ( , en to autou hamati, ‘in his blood,’ Rom 3:25) carries with it the idea of sacrificial blood-shedding (Sanday, Commentary on Epistle to Romans, 91).

, (lutron, ransom, the price paid for redeeming, occurring in Septuagint 19 times, meaning the price paid for redeeming the servant (Lev 25:51, Lev 25:52); ransom for first-born (Num 3:46); ransom for the life of the owner of the goring ox (Exo 21:30, etc.)) occurs in the New Testament only twice (Mat 20:28; Mar 10:45). This word is used by Jesus to signify the culmination of His sacrificial life in His sacrificial death.

, (antlutron, ransom, a word not found in Septuagint, stronger in meaning than the preceding word) occurs only once in the New Testament (1Ti 2:6).

, (apolutrosis, redemption, in Exo 21:8, meaning the ransom paid by a father to redeem his daughter from a cruel master) signifies (1) deliverance from sin by Christ’s death, 5 times in Paul (Rom 3:24; 1Co 1:30; Eph 1:7, Eph 1:14; Col 1:14); once in Hebrews (Heb 9:15); (2) general deliverance, twice (Luk 21:28; Heb 11:35); (3) the Christian’s final deliverance, physical and spiritual (Rom 8:23; Eph 4:30). The simple word , (lutrosis, redemption, 10 times in Septuagint as the translation of 5 Hebrew words) occurs once for spiritual deliverance (Heb 9:12).

, (exagorazo, redeem, only once in Septuagint, Dan 2:8) in the New Testament means (1) to deliver from the curse of the law, twice by Paul (Gal 3:13; Gal 4:5); (2) to use time wisely, twice by Paul (Eph 5:16; Col 4:5). The simple verb (, agorazo, meaning in Lev 27:19 to redeem land) occurs twice in Paul (1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:23) and means to redeem (in a spiritual sense).

, (katallage, reconciliation, only twice in the Septuagint) means the relation to God into which men are brought by Christ’s death, 4 times by Paul (Rom 5:11; Rom 11:15; 2Co 5:18, 2Co 5:19).

, (katallassein, to reconcile, 4 times in Septuagint (3 times in 2 Maccabees)) means to bring men into the state of reconciliation with God, 5 times in Paul (Rom 5:10 twice; 2Co 5:18, 2Co 5:19, 2Co 5:20).

The words with the propitiatory idea occur as follows: , (hilaskomai, to propitiate, 12 times in the Septuagint, translated to forgive) occurs twice (Luk 18:13; Heb 2:17); , (hilasmos, 9 times in Septuagint, Num 5:8; Psa 129:1-8 (130):4, etc.; atonement, forgiveness) occurs twice in 1 Jn (1Jo 2:2; 1Jo 4:10); , (hilasterion, 24 times in the Septuagint, translates mercy-seat, where God was gracious and spake to man) translates in the New Testament propitiation (Rom 3:25), mercy-seat (Heb 9:5).

Christ is called the Lamb, , amnos, twice by the Baptist (Joh 1:29, Joh 1:36); once by Philip applied to Christ from Isa 53:7 (Act 8:32); and once by Peter (1Pe 1:19); , arnon, 28 times in Rev (Isa 5:6, Isa 5:8, Isa 5:12, Isa 5:13; Isa 6:1, 16; Isa 7:9, Isa 7:10, Isa 7:14; Isa 19:7, Isa 19:9; Isa 21:9, Isa 21:14, 22, 23, 27; Isa 22:1, Isa 22:3).

The cross (, stauros) is used by Paul 10 times to describe the sacrificial death of Christ (1Co 1:17, 1Co 1:18; Gal 5:11; Gal 6:12, Gal 6:14; Eph 2:16; Phi 2:8; Phi 3:18; 1Co 1:20; 1Co 2:14) and once by the author of Hebrews (Heb 12:2). Jesus also 5 times used the figure of the cross to define the life of sacrifice demanded of His disciples and to make His own cross the symbol of sacrifice (Mat 10:38; Mat 16:24; Mar 8:34; Luk 9:23; Luk 14:27, with contexts; compare Joh 3:14; Joh 12:32, etc.).

Though it is not our province in this article to discuss the origin and history of sacrifice in the ethnic religions, it must be noted that sacrifice has been a chief element in almost every religion (Jainism and Buddhism being the principal exceptions). The bloody sacrifice, where the idea of propitiation is prominent, is well-nigh universal in the ethnic religions, being found among even the most enlightened peoples like the Greeks and Romans (see article Expiation and Atonement in ERE). Whether or not the system of animal sacrifices would have ceased not only in Judaism but also in all the ethnic religions, had not Jesus lived and taught and died, is a question of pure speculation. It must be conceded that the sect of the Jews (Essenes) attaining to the highest ethical standard and living the most unselfish lives of brotherhood and benevolence did not believe in animal sacrifices. But they exerted small influence over the Jewish nation as compared with the Pharisees. It is also to be noted that the prophets Amos, Hosea, Micah and Isaiah exalted the ethical far above the ceremonial; even denounced the sacrifice of animals if not accompanied by personal devotion to righteousness (Amo 5:21 ff; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6 ff; Isa 1:11 ff). The Stoic and Platonic philosophers also attacked the system of animal sacrifices. But these exceptions only accentuate the historical fact that man’s sense of the necessity of sacrifice to Deity is well-nigh universal. Only the sacrifice of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem caused a cessation of the daily, weekly, monthly and annual sacrifices among the Jews, and only the knowledge of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself will finally destroy the last vestige of animal sacrifice.

II. Attitude of Jesus and New Testament Writers to the Old Testament Sacrificial System

1. Jesus’ Attitude:

Jesus never attacks the sacrificial system. He even takes for granted that the Jews should offer sacrifices (Mat 5:24). More than that, He accepted the whole sacrificial system, a part of the Old Testament scheme, as of divine origin, and so He commanded the cleansed leper to offer the sacrifice prescribed in the Mosaic code (Mat 8:4). There is no record that Jesus Himself ever worshipped by offering the regular sacrifices. But He worshipped in the temple, never attacking the sacrificial system as He did the oral law (Mar 7:6 ff). On the other hand, Jesus undermined the sacrificial system by teaching that the ethical transcends the ceremonial, not only as a general principle, but also in the act of worship (Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24). He endorses Hosea’s fine ethical epigram, ‘God will have mercy and not sacrifice’ (Mat 9:13; Mat 12:7). He also commends as near the kingdom the scribe who put love to God and man above sacrifice (Mar 12:33). But Jesus teaches not merely the inferiority of sacrifice to the moral law, but also the discontinuance of sacrifice as a system, when He said, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many (Mar 14:24; Mat 26:28; Luk 22:20). Not only is the ethical superior to the ceremonial, but His sacrifice of Himself is as superior to the sacrifices of the old system as the new covenant is superior to the old.

2. Paul’s Attitude:

Paul’s estimate of the Jewish sacrifices is easily seen, although he does not often refer to them. Once only (Act 21:26) after his conversion does he offer the Jewish sacrifice, and then as a matter of expediency for winning the Judaistic wing of Christianity to his universal gospel of grace. He regarded the sacrifices of the Old Testament as types of the true sacrifice which Christ made (1Co 5:7).

3. Attitude of the Author of Hebrews:

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews discusses the Old Testament sacrifices more fully than other New Testament writers. He regards the bloody sacrifices as superior to the unbloody and the yearly sacririce on the Day of Atonement by the high priest as the climax of the Old Testament system. The high priest under the old covenant was the type of Christ under the new. The sacrifices of the old covenant could not take away sin, or produce moral transformation, because of the frailties of men (Heb 10:1-11), shown by the necessity of repeating the offerings (Heb 5:2), and because God had appointed another high priest, His Son, to supplant those of the old covenant (Heb 5:5; 7:1-28). The heart of this author’s teaching is that animal sacrifices cannot possibly atone for sin or produce moral transformation, since they are divinely-appointed only as a type or shadow of the one great sacrifice by Christ (Heb 8:7; Heb 10:1).

To sum up, the New Testament writers, as well as Jesus, regarded the Old Testament sacrificial system as of divine origin and so obligatory in its day, but imperfect and only a type of Christ’s sacrifice, and so to be supplanted by His perfect sacrifice.

III. The Sacrificial Idea in the New Testament.

The one central idea of New Testament writers is that the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross is the final perfect sacrifice for the atonement of sin and the salvation of men, a sacrifice typified in the various sacrifices of the Old Testament, which are in turn abrogated by the operation of the final sacrifice. Only James and Jude among New Testament writers are silent as to the sacrifice of Christ, and they write for practical purposes only.

1. Teaching of John the Baptist:

The Baptist, it is true, presents Jesus as the coming Judge in the Synoptic Gospels, but in Joh 1:29, Joh 1:36 he refers to Him as the Lamb of God, in the former passage adding that taketh away the sin of the world. Westcott (Commentary on John, 20) says: The title as applied to Christ … conveys the ideas of vicarious suffering, of patient submission, of sacrifice, of redemption, etc. There is scarcely any doubt that the Baptist looked upon the Christ as the one who came to make the great sacrifice for man’s sins. Professor Burton (Biblical Ideas of Atonement, Burton, Smith and Smith, 107) says that John sees Christ suffering under the load of human sin.

2. Teaching of Jesus:

There are recorded in the Synoptic Gospels two unmistakable references by Jesus to His death as a sacrifice (Mar 10:45 parallel Mat 20:28; Mar 14:24 parallel Mat 26:28 parallel Luk 22:20; compare 1Co 11:25). In the former He declares He came to give His life a ransom. Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) says this word means the price paid for redeeming. Hence, the idea in ransom must be of sacrificial significance. But if there could be any doubt as to the sacrificial import of this passage, there is a clear case of the sacrificial idea in Mar 14:24. Practically all writers of the New Testament theology, Wendt, Weiss, Stevens, Sheldon and others, hold that Jesus considered the death as the ratification sacrifice of the new covenant, just as the sacrifice offered at Sinai ratified the old covenant (Exo 24:3-8). Ritschl and Beyschlag deny that this passage is sacrificial. But according to most exegetes, Jesus in this reference regarded His death as a sacrifice. The nature of the sacrifice, as Jesus estimated it, is in doubt and is to be discussed later. What we are pressing here is the fact that Jesus regarded His death as a sacrifice. We have to concede the meagerness of material on the sacrificial idea of His death as taught by Jesus. Yet these two references are unquestioned by literary and historical critics. They both occur in Mark, the primitive Gospel (the oldest Gospel record of Jesus’ teachings). The first occurs in two of the Synoptists, the second in all three of them. Luke omits the first for reasons peculiar to his purpose. According to Luk 24:25, Jesus regarded His sufferings and death as the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures.

3. Teaching of Peter:

Though the head apostle does not in the early chapters of Acts refer to Christ as the sacrifice for sin, he does imply as much in Act 2:36 (He is Lord and Christ in spite of His crucifixion); Act 3:18, Act 3:19 (He fulfilled the prophecies by suffering, and by means of repentance sins are to be blotted out); Act 4:10-12 (only in His name is salvation) and in Act 5:30, Act 5:31 (through whose death Israel received remission of sins). In his First Epistle (1Pe 1:18, 1Pe 1:19) he expressly declares that we are redeemed by the blood of the spotless Christ, thus giving the sacrificial significance to His death. The same is implied in 1Pe 1:2; 1Pe 3:18.

4. Paul’s Teaching:

Paul ascribes saving efficacy to the blood of Christ in Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9; 1Co 10:16; Eph 1:7; Eph 2:13; Col 1:20. He identifies Christ with a sin offering in Rom 8:3, and perhaps also in 2Co 5:21, and with the paschal lamb in 1Co 5:7. In other passages he implies that the death of Christ secured redemption, forgiveness of sins, justification and adoption (Rom 3:24-26; Rom 5:10, Rom 5:11; Rom 8:15, Rom 8:17, etc.).

5. Teaching of Hebrews:

The argument of the author of Hebrews to prove the finality of Christianity is that Christ is superior to the Aaronic high priest, being a royal, eternal high priest, after the order of Melchizedek, and offering Himself as the final sacrifice for sin, and for the moral transformation of men (Heb 4:14; Heb 10:18).

6. Johannine Teaching:

In the First Epistle of John (1Jo 1:7; 1Jo 2:2; 1Jo 5:6, 1Jo 5:8) propitiation for sin and cleansing from sin are ascribed to the blood of Christ. In Rev 1:5 John ascribes deliverance (not washing or cleansing, according to best manuscripts) from sin, to the blood of Christ. Several times he calls Christ the Lamb, making the sacrificial idea prominent. Once he speaks of Him as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Joh 13:8).

To sum up, all the New Testament writers, except James and Jude, refer to Christ’s death as the great sacrifice for sin. Jesus Himself regarded His death as such. In the various types of New Testament teaching Christ’s death is presented (1) as the covenant sacrifice (Mar 14:24 parallel Mat 26:28 parallel Luk 22:20; Heb 9:15-22); (2) as the sin offering (Rom 8:3; 2Co 5:21; Heb 13:11; 1Pe 3:18); (3) as the offering of the paschal lamb (1Co 5:7); (4) as the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (Heb 2:17; Heb 9:12 ff).

IV. Relation of Christ’s Sacrifice to Man’s Salvation.

The saving benefits specified in the New Testament as resulting from the sacrificial death of Christ are as follows:

1. Redemption or Deliverance from Curse of Sin:

Redemption or deliverance from the curse of sin: This must be the implication in Jesus’ words, The Son of man also came … to give his life a ransom for many (Mar 10:45 parallel Mat 20:28). Man is a captive in sin, the Father sends His Son to pay the ransom price for the deliverance of the captive, and the Son’s death is the price paid. Paul also uses the words redeemed and redemption in the same sense. In the great letters he asserts that we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation … in his blood (Rom 3:24, Rom 3:25). Here the apostle traces justification back to redemption as the means for securing it, and redemption back to the blood (Christ’s death) as the cause of its procurement. That is, Christ’s death secures redemption and redemption procures justification. In Galatians (Gal 3:13), he speaks of being redeemed from the curse of the law. The law involved man in a curse because he could not keep it. This curse is the penalty of the broken law which the transgressor must bear, unless deliverance from said penalty is somehow secured. Paul represents Christ by His death as securing for sinners deliverance from this curse of the broken law (compare Gal 4:5 for the same thought, though the word curse is not used). Paul also emphasizes the same teaching in the Captivity Epistles: In whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses (Eph 1:7; compare Col 1:14). In the pastoral letters (1Ti 2:6) he teaches that Christ gave himself a ransom for all. This is the only New Testament passage in which occurs the strong word antilutron for ransom. In his old age the apostle feels more positively than ever before that Christ’s death is the ransom price of man’s deliverance from sin.

The author of Hebrews asserts that Christ by the sacrifice of Himself obtained eternal redemption for man (Heb 9:12). John says that Christ loosed (, luo) us from our sins by his blood (Rev 1:5). This idea in John is akin to that of redemption or deliverance by ransom. Peter teaches the same truth in 1Pe 1:19. So, we see, Jesus and all the New Testament writers regard Christ’s sacrifice as the procuring cause of human redemption.

2. Reconciliation:

The idea of reconciliation involves a personal difference between two parties. There is estrangement between God and man. Reconciliation is the restoration of favor between the two parties. Jesus does not utter any direct message on reconciliation, but implies God’s repugnance at man’s sin and strained relations between God and the unrepentant sinner (see Luk 18:13). He puts into the mouth of the praying tax-gatherer the words, ‘God be propitious to me’ (see Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, hilaskomai), but Jesus nowhere asserts that His death secures the reconciliation of God to the sinner. Paul, however, does. For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, etc. (Rom 5:10). There can be no doubt from this passage that Paul thought of the death of Christ as the procuring cause of reconciliation. In Eph 2:13, Eph 2:14, Eph 2:18 Paul makes the cross of Christ the means of reconciliation between the hostile races of men. Paul reaches the climax in his conception of the reconciliation wrought by the cross of Christ when he asserts the unifying results of Christ’s death to be cosmic in extent (Eph 1:10).

The author of Hebrews also implies that Christ’s death secures reconciliation when he regards this death as the ratification of the better covenant (Heb 8:6 ff), and when he plays on the double meaning of the word (, diatheke, Heb 9:15 ff), now covenant and now will, testament. The death of Christ is necessary to secure the ratification of the new covenant which brings God and man into new relations (Heb 8:12). In Heb 2:17 the author uses a word implying propitiation as wrought by the death of Christ. So the doctrine of reconciliation is also in the Epistle to the Hebrews. John teaches reconciliation with God through Christ our Advocate, but does not expressly connect it with His death as the procuring cause (1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:2). Peter is likewise silent on this point.

3. Remission of Sins:

Reconciliation implies that God can forgive; yea, has forgiven. Jesus and the New Testament writers declare the death of Christ to be the basis of God’s forgiveness. Jesus in instituting the memorial supper said, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins (Mat 26:28). It is true Mark and Luke do not record this last phrase, unto remission of sins. But there is no intimation that this phrase is the result of Matthew’s theologizing on the purpose of Christ’s death (see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, II, 239 ff, who claims this phrase is not from Jesus; also Allen in Mt, ICC, in the place cited.). But Paul leaves no doubt as to the connection between man’s forgiveness by God and Christ’s sacrifice for him. This idea is rooted in the great passage on justification (Rom 3:21 through 5:21; see especially Rom 4:7); is positively declared in Eph 1:7; Col 1:14. The author of Heb teaches that the shedding of Christ’s blood under the new covenant is as necessary to secure forgiveness as the shedding of animal’s blood under the old. John also implies that forgiveness is based on the blood (1Jo 1:7-9).

4. The Cancellation of Guilt:

True reconciliation and forgiveness include the canceling of the offender’s guilt. Jesus has no direct word on the cancellation of guilt. Paul closes his argument for the universality of human sin by asserting that all the world may be brought under the judgment of God (the King James Version guilty before God, Rom 3:19). Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon, in the place cited.) says this word guilty means owing satisfaction to God (liable to punishment by God). But in Rom 8:1, Rom 8:3 Paul exclaims, There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus … God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin (the English Revised Version and the American Revised Version margin as an offering for sin). The guilt, or exposure of the sinner to God’s wrath and so to punishment, is removed by the sin offering which Christ made. This idea is implied by the author of Hebrews (Heb 2:15), but is not expressed in Peter and John.

5. Justification or Right Standing with God:

Right standing with God is also implied in the preceding idea. Forgiving sin and canceling guilt are the negative, bringing into right standing with God the positive, aspects of the same transaction. Him who knew no sin he made to be sin (i.e. the sin offering; so Augustine and other Fathers, Ewald, Ritschl; see Meyer, Commentary, in loc., who denies this meaning) on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2Co 5:21). In this passage Paul makes justification the divine purpose of the sacrificial death of Christ. This thought is elaborated by the apostle in Galatians and Romans, but is not expressed by Jesus, or in Hebrews, in Peter or in John.

6. Cleansing or Sanctification:

Jesus does not connect our cleansing or sanctification with His death, but with His word (Joh 17:17). The substantive cleansing (, katharismos) is not used by Paul, and the verb to cleanse (, katharzo) occurs only twice in his later letters (Eph 5:26; Tit 2:14). He does use the idea of sanctification, and in Rom 6 through 8 teaches that sanctification is a logical consequence of justification which is secured by Christ’s sacrificial death. In Phi 3:10, Phi 3:11, he views Christ’s death and resurrection as the dynamic of transformation in the new life. The author of Hebrews (Heb 1:3; Heb 9:14, Heb 9:22, Heb 9:23; Heb 10:2), following his Old Testament figures, uses the idea of cleansing for the whole process of putting away sin, from atonement to sanctification (see Westcott, Commentary, in the place cited.). He makes Christ’s death the procuring cause of the cleansing. John does the same (1Jo 1:7; Rev 7:14).

7. Sonship:

Divine sonship of the believer is also traced by Paul to the sacrificial death of Christ (Rom 8:17), though this thought is not found in other New Testament writers.

So, we sum up, the whole process of salvation, from reconciliation with God to the adoption of the saved sinner into heaven’s household, is ascribed, to some extent by Jesus, largely by Paul theologian of the New Testament, and, in varying degrees, by other New Testament writers, to the sacrificial death of Christ. Even Holtzmann (Neutest. Theol., II, 111) admits It is upon the moment of death that the grounding of salvation is exclusively concentrated.

V. How Christ’s Sacrifice Procures Salvation.

It must be conceded that the New Testament writers, much less Jesus, did not discuss this subject from the philosophical point of view. Jesus never philosophizes except incidentally. Paul, the author of He, and John had a philosophy underlying their theology, the first and second dealing most with the sacrificial work of Christ, the last with His person. But Paul and the author of Heb did not write their letters to produce a philosophical system explaining how Christ’s sacrificial death can and does procure man’s salvation.

1. Jesus’ Teaching:

By some it is claimed that the word ransom (Mar 10:45) gives us the key to the philosophy of the atonement as presented by Jesus Himself. But the rules of exegesis are against this supposition. Jesus in the context is teaching His disciples that sacrificial service is greatness. To illustrate the truth He refers to His own example of coming to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. That is, Jesus is enforcing a practical principle and not elaborating a theoretical truth. Moreover, the word ransom is used metaphorically, and the laws of exegesis forbid us to press the literal meaning of a figure. The figure suggests captivity in sin and deliverance by payment of a price (the death of Christ). But Jesus does not tell us how His sacrificial death can and does pay the price for man’s redemption from sin. The word ransom does give the clue to the development of the vicarious sacrifice elaborated later by Paul. Ritschl (Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, II, 85) does not do the word ransom justice when he claims that it merely reproduces the meaning of the Hebrew , kopher, covering as a protection, and that Christ’s death, like a covering, delivers us by stimulating us to lead the life of sacrificial service as Christ did. Wendt (Lehre Jesu, II, 237; Teaching of Jesus, II, 226 f) admits the ransom-idea in the word, but says Christ delivers us from bondage to suffering and death, not by His death, but by His teaching which is illustrated by His sacrificial death. Beyschlag (Neutest. Theol., I, 153) thinks Christ’s death delivers us from worldly ambitions and such sins by showing us the example of Jesus in sacrifice. Weiss (Biblical Theology of the New Testament, I, 101-3) thinks Christ’s surrender of His life … avails as a ransom which He gives instead of the many who were not able to pay the price themselves. He also adds, The saying regarding the ransom lays emphasis upon the God-pleasing performance of Jesus which secures the salvation, etc.

Nor does Jesus’ saying at the Last Supper, This is my blood of the covenant (Mar 14:24) give us unmistakable evidence of how His death saves men. It does teach that sinners on entering the kingdom come into a new covenant relation with God which implies forgiveness of sin and fellowship with God, and that, as the covenant sacrifices at Mt. Sinai (Exo 24:3-8) ratified the legal covenant between God and His people, so the death of Christ as a covenant sacrifice ratifies the covenant of grace between God and lost sinners, by virtue of which covenant God on His part forgives the penitent sinner, and the surrendering sinner on his part presents himself to God for the life of sacrifice. But this statement fails to tell us how God can forgive sin on the basis of a covenant thus ratified by Christ’s death. Does it mean substitution, that as the animal whose blood ratified the covenant was slain instead of the people, so Christ was slain in the place of sinners? Or does it suggest the immutability of the covenant on the basis of the animal’s (and so Christ’s) representing both God and man, and killing signifying loss of life or will to change the covenant (so Westcott, Commentary on Hebrews, 301)? It could scarcely mean that Christ’s sacrifice was the offering of a perfect, acceptable life to God (Wendt, op. cit., II, 237), or that Christ’s death is viewed merely as the common meal sacrifice, that God and His people thus enter into a kind of union and communion (so some evolutionists in the study of comparative religion; see Menzies. Hist of Religion, 416 ff).

2. Paul’s Teaching:

Ritschl and many modern scholars are disposed to reject all philosophy in religion. They say, Back to Christ. Paul was only a human interpreter of Jesus. But he was a divinely-guided interpreter, and we need his first-hand interpretations of Jesus. What has he to say as to how Christ’s death saves men?

(1) The Words Expressing the Idea of Redemption.

See above on the terms of sacrifice. The classical passage containing the idea of redemption is Rom 3:24-26 : Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. A fair interpretation of this passage gives us the following propositions: (a) The believer obtains right standing with God by means of, through the channel of (see Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, , Dia, A, III, 2), redemption which is in Christ. (b) This redemption in Christ involves, or is based upon, the divinely-purposed propitiation which Christ made in His death. (c) The design of God in making such a propitiation was the exhibition of His righteousness; i.e., the vindication of that side of His character which demands the punishment of sin, which had not been shown in former generations when His forbearance passed over men’s sins. See Sanday, Commentary on Romans, in the place cited. The classical passage containing the other word to redeem (, exagorazo) is Gal 3:13 : Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, etc. Professor E. D. Burton (AJT, October, 1907) thinks: (a) Law here means law legalistically understood. (b) The curse was the verdict of the law of pure legalism, a disclosure to man of his actual status before God on a basis of merit. (c) The redemption meant is that Christ brought to an end the regime of law … rather than deliverance of individuals through release from penalty. He bases this argument largely on the use of , hemas, us, meaning Jews in antithesis with , ta ethne, the Gentiles (Gal 3:14). Everett (The Gospel of Paul) thinks that Christ was cursed in that He was crucified (the manner not the fact of His death being the curse); that is, as Everett sees it, Christ became ceremonially unclean, and so free from the law. So does His follower by being crucified with Christ become ceremonially unclean and so free from the law. The passage seems to give us the following propositions: (a) Man under law (whether the revealed law of the Old Testament or the moral law) is under a curse, that is, liable to the penalty which the broken law demands. (b) Christ by His death on the cross became a curse for us. (c) By means of Christ thus becoming a curse for us He delivered us, not the Jews as a nation, but all of us, Jews and Gentiles, who believed, from the curse incurred by the breaking of the law. Professor Burton admits that the participle , genomenos, becoming, may be a participle of means (the article cited above, 643), and so we have Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. The passage at least suggests, if it does not declare, that Christ saves us by vicariously enduring the penalty to which we were exposed.

(2) The Idea of Reconciliation.

Paul uses the phrase wrath of God (Rom 1:18, etc.) to express the attitude of God toward sin, an attitude of displeasure and of grief, of revulsion of holy character which demands the punishment of sin. On the other hand, God loves the sinner; love is the prompting cause of redemption through Christ (Rom 5:8; Rom 8:32). That is, wrath is love grieving and righteousness revolting because of sin, and both phases may act simultaneously (Simon, Redemption of Man, 216, to the contrary). So Paul says, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses (2Co 5:19). Now this word reconcile (katallassein) means in the active, to receive into favor, in the passive, to be restored to favor (Thayer). See also Revelation and The Expositor, October, 1909, 600 ff, where Professor Estes shows, from Sophocles, Xenophon, Josephus, Septuagint and passages in the New Testament like Mat 5:24, that the word must mean a change in the attitude of God toward men and not merely a change of men toward God. Practically the same is taught by Meyer (Commentary on 2 Corinthians); Lipsius (Handcomm. zum New Testament); Sanday (Commentary on Romans); Denney (Exegetical Greek Testament on Romans); Lietzmann (Handbuch zum New Testament); Holtzmann (Neutest. Theol.); Weiss (Religion of the New Testament); Pfleiderer (Paulinism); Stevens (Christian Doctrine of Salvation), and in nearly all the great commentaries on Romans and 2 Corinthians, and by all the writers on New Testament theology except Beyschlag. See also RECONCILIATION; RETRIBUTION.

(3) The Idea of Propitiation.

Only once (Rom 3:25) does Paul use the word propitiation. As saw in (1) above, the redemption in Christ is based upon the propitiation which Christ made in His death. Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon, in the place cited.) says the noun signifies a means of appeasing, expiating, a propitiation, an expiatory sacrifice. He thinks it has this meaning in Rom 3:25, but refers it to the mercy-seat in Heb 9:5. Sanday (Comm. on Rom, 88) regards hilasterion as an adjective meaning propitiatory. De Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Lipsius and many others take it in this sense; Gifford, Vaughan, Liddon, Ritschl think it means mercy-seat here as in Hebrews. But with either meaning the blood of Christ is viewed as securing the mercy of God. Propitiation of God is made by the blood of Christ, and because of that men have access to the mercy-seat where shines the glory of God in His forgiveness of man’s sins. See ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE, 9., (3).

(4) The Prepositions.

The prepositions , huper, and , ant. Paul never uses anti (for, instead of, in place of, so Thayer) to express what Christ’s sacrifice does for the sinner, but huper (for one’s safety or advantage, primarily, but also in the place of, instead of, so Thayer). See Rom 5:8; Rom 8:32; Rom 14:15; 1Co 11:24; 2Co 5:15; Gal 3:13; Eph 5:2, Eph 5:25; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14. It is to be noted that in 1Ti 2:6 Paul uses antilutron, ransom, compounded with the preposition anti, but follows it with huper, which may suggest that huper is here used in the sense of anti, in the place of.

Summing up Paul’s teaching as to how Christ’s sacrifice saves: (a) The propitiatory sacrifice does not soften God, or assuage the anger of God (as Bushnell claims the advocates of the satisfaction theories assert, Vicarious Sacrifice, 486). God is already willing to save men, His love makes the propitiatory sacrifice (Rom 5:8). God’s love makes the sacrifice, not the sacrifice His willingness to save. (b) But man by breaking God’s law had come under the curse, the penalty of the broken law (Gal 3:13), and so was under God’s wrath (Rom 1:18), i.e. man’s sin exposed him to punishment, while at the same time God’s love for the sinner was grieved. (c) Christ by His sacrificial death made it possible for God to show His righteousness and love at the same time; i.e. that He did punish sin, but did love the sinner and wish to save him (Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26; Rom 5:8). (d) Christ, who was sinless, suffered vicariously for sinful men. His death was not due to His sins but those of men (2Co 5:21). (e) His death, followed by His resurrection which marked Him off as the sinless Son of God, and so appointed the Saviour of men (Rom 1:4), was designed by God to bring men into right relation with God (Rom 3:26; 2Co 5:21). So, we may say, Paul explained the relation of Christ’s death to the sinner’s spiritual life by thinking of a transfer of the sinner’s curse to Christ, which He bore on the cross, and of God’s righteousness through Christ (Phi 3:9) to the sinner by faith in Christ. But we must not press this vicarious idea too far into a system of philosophy of the atonement and claim that the system is the teaching of Paul. The quantitative, commercial idea of transfer is not in Paul’s mind. The language of redemption, propitiation, ransom, is largely figurative. We must feel the spiritual truth of a qualitative transfer of sin from man to Christ and of righteousness from Christ to man, and rest the matter there, so far as Paul’s teaching goes. Beyond this our conclusions as to substitution as the method of atonement are results of philosophizing on Paul’s teaching.

3. Teaching of Hebrews:

The author of Hebrews adds nothing to Paul’s teaching respecting the method whereby Christ’s sacrifice operates in saving men. His purpose to produce an apology showing forth the superior efficacy of Christ’s high-priestly sacrifice over that of the Aaronic priesthood fixes his first thought on the efficacy of the sacrifice rather than on its mode of operation. He does use the words redemption (Heb 9:12; compare Heb 9:15), propitiate (Heb 2:17), and emphasizes the opening up of the heavenly holy of holies by the high-priestly sacrifice of Christ (the way of access to the very presence of God by Christ’s death, Heb 10:19, Heb 10:20), which gives us data for forming a system based on a real propitiation for sin and reconciliation of God similar to the Pauline teaching formulated above.

4. Petrine and Johannine Teaching:

Peter asserts that Christ suffered vicariously (1Pe 2:22-24), who, although He did no sin, his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree; who suffered for sins once, the righteous for (huper, not anti) the unrighteous (1Pe 3:18). But Peter goes no farther than Paul (perhaps not so far) in elaborating how Jesus’ vicarious suffering saves the sinner. The Johannine writings contain the propitiatory idea (1Jo 2:2; 1Jo 4:10), although John writes to emphasize the incarnation and not the work of the Incarnate One (Jn 1:1-18; 1Jo 4:2, 1Jo 4:3).

To sum up the New Testament teachings on the mode or operation: Jesus asserts His vicarious suffering (Mar 10:45; compare Joh 10:11) and hints at the mode of its operation by using the ransom figure. Paul, Peter and John teach that Christ’s sacrifice was vicarious, and all but Peter suggest the idea of propitiation as to the mode of its operation. There is no direct discussion of what propitiation means.

VI. Rationale of the Efficacy of Christ’s Sacrifice.

1. Jesus’ Teaching:

Jesus emphasizes His voluntary spirit in making the sacrifice. The Son of man also came … to give his life a ransom. The sacrifice was voluntary, not compulsory. God did not force Him to lay down His life; He chose to do so (compare Joh 10:11). But Jesus gives us no philosophy on this or any other element in His sacrifice as being the ground of its efficacy.

2. Paul’s Teaching:

Paul also emphasizes the voluntary gift of Christ (Gal 2:20), but he urges rather the dignity of Him who makes the sacrifice as a ground of its efficacy. It is the sacrifice of God’s Son, shown to be such in His resurrection (Rom 1:4; Rom 4:25). It was no ordinary man but the sinless Son who gave himself (Gal 2:20). It was not merely a dying Christ but the Son who rose again in power (Rom 1:4), who secures our justification (Rom 4:25; 1Co 15:3, 1Co 15:4, 1Co 15:17). Paul also emphasizes the sinless life and character of Jesus as a ground of efficacy in Christ’s sacrifice, who knew no sin in His life experience (2Co 5:21).

3. The Teaching in Hebrews:

The author of Hebrews, most of all New Testament writers, elaborates the grounds of efficacy in Christ’s sacrifice. (1) It was a personal not an animal sacrifice (Heb 9:12-14; Heb 9:26, sacrifice of himself; Heb 10:4). (2) It was the sacrifice of the Son of God (Heb 3:5). (3) It was a royal person who made the sacrifice (Heb 6:20; Heb 7:1, after the order of Melchizedek … king of Salem). (4) It was a sinless person (Heb 7:26, Heb 7:27; Heb 9:14; Heb 10:10, Heb 10:12). Westcott, Commentary on Hebrews, 298, well says, It becomes necessary, therefore, in order to gain a complete view of the Sacrifice of Christ, to combine with the crowning act upon the Cross His fulfillment of the will of God from first to last, the Sacrifice of Life with the Sacrifice of Death. (5) It was an eternal person (Heb 6:20, for ever; Heb 7:16, after the power of an endless (margin indissoluble) life). The author of Hebrews reaches the climax of his argument for the superior efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice when he represents Him as entering the holy of holies in the very presence of God to complete the offering for man’s sin (Heb 8:1, Heb 8:2; Heb 9:11, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:24).

Peter and John do not discuss the ground of efficacy, and so add nothing to our conclusions above. The efficacy of the sacrifice is suggested by describing the glory of the person (1Pe 1:19; 1Pe 2:22, 1Pe 2:23; 1Jo 1:7; 1Jo 2:2).

To sum up our conclusion as to the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice: Jesus and the leading New Testament writers intimate that the efficacy of His sacrifice centers in His personality. Jesus, Peter and John do not discuss the subject directly. Paul, though discussing it more extensively, does not do so fully, but the author of Heb centers and culminates his argument for the finality of Christianity, in the superior efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, which is grounded in His personality, divine, royal, sinless, eternal (see Menegoz, Theol. de l’Ep. aux Hebreux). It is easy to see, from the position taken by the author of He, how Anselm in Cur Deus Homo developed his theory of satisfaction, according to which the Divinity in Christ gave His atoning sacrifice its priceless worth in God’s eyes.

VII. The Human Conditions of Application.

1. Universal in Objective Potentiality:

The sacrificial death of Christ is universal in its objective potentiality, according to Jesus (Luk 24:47, unto all the nations); according to Paul (Rom 1:5; Rom 5:18; Rom 11:32; 2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15; Gal 3:14); according to the author of Hebrews (Heb 2:9, taste of death for every man); according to John (1Jo 2:2, propitiation … for the whole world).

2. Efficacious when Subjectively Applied:

But the objective redemption to be efficacious must be subjectively applied. The blood of Christ is the universally efficacious remedy for the sin-sick souls of men, but each man must make the subjective application. How is the application made? And the threefold answer is, by repentance, by faith, and by obedience.

(1) By Repentance.

The Baptist and Jesus emphasized repentance (change of mind first of all, then change of relation and of life) as the condition of entrance into the kingdom and of enjoyment of the Messianic salvation (Mat 3:2; Mar 1:15). Peter preached repentance at Pentecost and immediately after as a means of obtaining forgiveness (Act 2:38; Act 3:19, etc.). Paul, although emphasizing faith, also stressed repentance as an element in the human condition of salvation (Act 20:21; Rom 2:4, etc.). John (Rev 2; 3, passim) emphasizes repentance, though not stressing it as a means of receiving the benefits of redemption.

(2) By Faith.

Jesus connected faith with repentance (Mar 1:15) as the condition of receiving the Messianic salvation. Paul makes faith the all-inclusive means of applying the work of Christ. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Rom 1:16); whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith (Rom 3:25); faith (not works) is reckoned for righteousness (Rom 4:5); justified by faith (Rom 5:1). In Galatians, the letters to the Corinthians, in the Captivity and the Pastoral Epistles he emphasizes faith as the sole condition of receiving salvation. But what kind of faith is it that appropriates the saving benefit of Christ’s death? Not historical or intellectual but heart faith (Rom 10:10). To Paul heart meant the seat or essence of the whole personality, and so faith which applies the redemption Christ is the personal commitment of one’s self to Christ as Saviour and Lord (2Co 5:15). See Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, , pisteuo, 1, b, gamma, for a particular discussion of the meaning of faith in this sense. The author of Heb discusses especially faith as a conquering power, but also implies that it is the condition of entrance upon the life of spiritual rest and fellowship (chapters 3 and 4, passim). Peter (1Pe 1:9) and John (1Jo 3:23; 1Jo 4:16; 1Jo 5:1, 1Jo 5:5, etc.) also regard faith as a means of applying the saving benefits of Christ’s death.

(3) By Obedience in Sacrificial Service.

Jesus said, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me (Mar 8:34). Here He lays down two elements in the conditions of discipleship, denying one’s self and taking up his cross. The former means the renunciation of self as the center of thought, faith, hope and life. The latter means the life of sacrifice. Jesus was stressing this truth when He uttered that incomparable saying, The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mar 10:45 parallel Mat 20:28). Paul also emphasizes this phase of the human condition of salvation when he shows how sanctification grows spontaneously out of justification (Rom 6:8) and when he says that what avails is faith working through love (Gal 5:6). The author of Hebrews says, He became unto all them that obey him the author (Greek , atios, cause) of eternal salvation (Heb 5:9). Peter and John, the latter especially, emphasize the keeping of His commandments, the life of service, as the means of appropriating to the fullest the saving benefits of Christ’s death. The theologians in classrooms and preachers in the pulpits have failed to emphasize this aspect of saving faith as did Jesus, Paul, the author of He, and John. in the New Testament salvation is a process as well as an instantaneous act on the part of God, and the process is carried on by means of obedience, the life of service, which appropriates by faith the dynamic of Christ’s sacrifice.

VIII. The Christian’s Life the Life of Sacrifice.

This discussion of the faith that obeys leads to the consideration of that climactic thought of New Testament writers, namely, that the Christian’s life is sacrificial living based on Christ’s sacrifice for him. We note in outline the following:

The Christian’s life of sacrifice is the logical consequence of Christ’s sacrificial death. The Christ who sacrificed Himself for the believer is now continuing the sacrifice in the believer’s life (Gal 1:20; Phi 1:21).

1. Consequence of Christ’s Sacrifice:

Paul was crucified when Christ was crucified (in a bold mystic figure), and the life of Christ which sacrificed itself on the cross and perpetuates itself in resurrection power now operates as a mighty dynamic for the apostle’s moral and spiritual transformation (Phi 3:10, Phi 3:11). It is to be noted, Jesus also emphasized this kind of living, though not so expressly connecting the believer’s sacrificial life with His sacrificial death (see Mar 8:34 f).

2. Christ’s Death the Appeal for a Christian’s Sacrifice:

Christ’s sacrificial death becomes the persuasive appeal for the Christian’s sacrificial life, Because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again (2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15). Because He died for us we should live for Him. But what is the appeal which Christ’s sacrificial death makes to the saved sinner? The love of Christ constraineth us (2Co 5:14). Christ’s death on the cross exhibits His love, unspeakable, unthinkable love, for it was love for His enemies (Rom 5:10), and that matchless love kindles love in the forgiven sinner’s heart. He is willing to do anything, even to die, for his Saviour who died for him (Act 21:13; Phi 1:29, Phi 1:30). It is a greater privilege for the saved sinner to suffer for Christ than it is to believe on Him. Peter (1Pe 3:17, 1Pe 3:18), the author of Hebrews (12; Heb 13:13) and John (1Jo 3:16; 1Jo 4:16-19) emphasize this truth.

3. Necessary to Fill out Christ’s Sacrifice:

The Christian’s sacrifice is necessary to fill out Christ’s sacrifice. Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church (Col 1:24). Roman Catholic exegetes have made the apostle teach that the sufferings of the saints, along with Christ’s sufferings, have atoning efficacy. But Paul nowhere intimates that his sufferings avail for putting away sins. We may hold with Weiss (Comm. on the New Testament) that Paul longed to experience in his life the perfect sacrificial spirit as Christ did; or with Alford (in loc.) that he wished to suffer his part of Christ’s sufferings to be endured by him through His church; or, as it seems to us, he longed to make effective by his ministry of sacrificial service to as many others as possible the sacrificial death of Christ. Christ’s sacrifice avails in saving men only when Christians sacrifice their lives in making known this sacrifice of Christ.

4. Content of the Christian’s Sacrifice:

(1) The Christian is to present his personality (Rom 15:16). Paul commends the Macedonians for first giving their own selves to the Lord (2Co 8:5). (2) Christians must present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God (Rom 12:1). In the old system of sacrifices the animals were offered as dead; Christians are to offer their bodies, all their members with their powers, to God a living sacrifice, i.e. a sacrifice which operates in lives of holiness and service (see also Rom 6:13, Rom 6:19). (3) Christians must offer their money or earthly possessions to God. Paul speaks of the gift from the church at Philippi as a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God (Phi 4:18). This gift was to the apostle a beautiful expression of the sacrificial spirit imparted to them because they had the mind of Christ who emptied himself,… becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross (Phi 2:5-8). The author of Hebrews (Heb 13:16) exhorts his readers, But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. (4) The general exercise of all our gifts and graces is viewed by Peter as sacrificial living (1Pe 2:5): Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices etc. All Christians are priests and daily offer up their burnt offerings acceptable to God, if they ‘suffer as Christians’ (1Pe 2:20; 1Pe 3:18) in the exercise of their graces and powers.

But how do these sacrifices of the Christian affect him and God? The New Testament writers never hint that our sacrifices propitiate God, or so win His favor that He will or can on account of our sacrifices forgive our sins. They are well-pleasing to Him a sweet odor; that is, they win His approval of our lives thus lived according to the standard which Christ gives us. Their influence on us is the increase of our spiritual efficiency and power and finally a greater capacity for enjoying spiritual blessings in heaven (1Co 3:14).

5. The Supper as a Sacrifice:

Some scholars (Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, etc.) regard the memorial supper as a kind of sacrifice which the Christian offers in worship. Neither Jesus, Paul, the author of Hebrews, Peter, or John, ever hints that in eating the bread and drinking the wine the Christian offers a sacrifice to God in Christ. Paul teaches that in partaking of the Supper we proclaim the Lord’s death till he come (1Co 11:26). That is, instead of offering a sacrifice ourselves to God, in partaking of the Supper we proclaim the offering of Christ’s sacrifice for us. Milligan argues that as Christ in heaven perpetually offers Himself for us, so we on earth, in the Supper, offer ourselves to Him (Heavenly Priesthood, 266). Even Cave (Spiritual Doctrine of Sacrifice, 439) maintains, In a certain loose sense the Lord’s Supper may be called a sacrifice. See the above books for the argument supporting this position.

To sum up our conclusions on sacrifice in the New Testament:

(1) Jesus and New Testament writers regard the Old Testament sacrificial system as from God, but imperfect, the various sacrifices serving only as types of the one great sacrifice which Christ made.

(2) All the writers, except James and Jude, with Jesus, emphasize the sacrificial idea, Jesus less, giving only two hints of His sacrificial death (in the Synoptic Gospels), the author of Heb putting the climactic emphasis on Christ’s sacrifice as the sacrifice of atonement.

(3) As to the relation of Christ’s sacrifice to man’s salvation, the latter is the achievement of the former, so expressed only twice by Jesus, but emphatically so declared by Paul, the author of Heb, Peter, and John (Paul and Heb laying most emphasis on this point).

(4) As to how Christ’s sacrifice saves men, Jesus, the author of He, Peter and John suggest the idea of propitiation, while Paul emphatically teaches that man is under a curse, exposed to the displeasure of God, and that Christ’s sacrifice secured the reconciliation of God by vindicating His righteousness in punishing sin and His love in saving sinners. Jesus and the leading New Testament writers agree that Christ saves men through His vicarious suffering.

(5) As to the rational basis of efficacy in Christ’s sacrifice, there is no direct discussion in the New Testament except by the author of Hebrews who grounds its final, eternal efficacy in Christ’s personality, divine, royal, sinless and eternal.

(6) As to the conditions of applying Christ’s sacrifice, repentance and faith, which lives and fruits in obedience and sacrificial living, are recognized by Jesus and all the leading New Testament writers as the means of appropriating the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice.

(7) By Jesus, Paul, the author of He, Peter and John the Christian life is viewed as the life of sacrifice. Christ’s death is at once the cause, motive, measure, and the dynamic of the Christian’s sacrificial life.

Literature.

In addition to the great comms. – ICC, Allen on Mt, Gould on Mk, Sanday-Headlam on Rom; Westcott on the Gospel and Epistles of John, and on the Hebrews; Davidson, Delitzsch and Meyer on Hebrews; Meyer on 2 Corinthians; Lightfoot and Abbott on Colossians; and the standard authors of the Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Weiss, Beyschlag, Bovon, Stevens, Sheldon – see the following special works: Cave, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, Edinburgh, 1890; Simon, Redemption of Man, 1886; G. Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Edinburgh, 1899; Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord, London, 1908; W.P. Du Bose, High-Priesthood and Sacrifice; Everett, The Gospel of Paul, Boston, 1893; Burton, Smith, and Smith, Biblical Ideas of Atonement, Chicago, 1909; Denney, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament, London, 1902; Denney, The Atonement and the Modern Mind, London, 1903; Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Versohnung (Justification and Reconciliation), Bonn, 1895-1902, English translations of the Bible, 1900; Menegoz, Theol. del’Ep. aux Hebreux; article Blood, Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, by H. Wheeler Robinson; article Communion with Deity, ibid., by Nathan Soderblom; article Communion with Deity (Christian), ibid., by Darwell Stone and D. C. Simpson; article Expiation and Atonement, ibid., by W. A. Brown (Christian viewpoint), S. R. Driver (Hebrew), H. Loewe (Jewish); article Redemption from the Curse of the Law, in AJT, October, 1907, by Professor E. D. Burton; article Some Thoughts as to the Effects of the Death of Christ, in Revelation and The Expositor, October, 1909.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Sacrifice

As a technical religious term, ‘sacrifice’ designates anything which, having been devoted to a holy purpose, cannot be called back. In the generality of sacrifices offered to God under the law the consciousness is supposed in the offerer that death, as God’s judgement, was on him; hence the sacrifice had to be killed that it might be accepted of God at his hand. In fact the word sacrifice often refers to the act of killing.

The first sacrifice we read of was that offered by Abel, though there is an indication of the death of victims in the fact that Adam and Eve were clothed by God with coats of skins. Doubtless in some way God had instructed man that, the penalty of the fall and of his own sin being that his life was forfeited, he could only appropriately approach God by the death of a substitute not chargeable with his offence; for it was by faith that Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. Heb 11:4. God afterward instructed Cain that if he did not well, sin, or a sin offering, lay at the door.

The subject was more fully explained under the law: “The life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Lev 17:11. Not that the blood of bulls and of goats had any inherent efficacy to take away sins; but it was typical of the blood of Christ which is the witness that they have been taken away for the believer by Christ’s sacrifice.

Christ appeared once in the end of the world “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;” and He having once died, there remains no more sacrifice for sins. Eph 5:2; Heb 9:26; Heb 10:4; Heb 10:12; Heb 10:26. Without faith in the sacrificial death of Christ there is no salvation, as is taught in Rom 3:25; Rom 4:24-25; 1Co 15:1-4.

The Christian is exhorted to present his body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is his intelligent service, Rom 12:1: cf. 2Co 8:5; Php 4:18. He offers by Christ the sacrifice of praise to God, and even to do good and to communicate are sacrifices well pleasing to God. Heb 13:15-16: cf. 1Pe 2:5. For the sacrifices under the law see OFFERINGS.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Sacrifice

Sacrifice. Gen 31:54. Sacrifices were in use from the earliest periods of the world, and among all nations. The universality of sacrificial rites is a powerful argument on behalf of their naturalness; they meet the demand of the sinner for some way of appeasing the offended divinity. But Christians have no need of them, simply because of the one perfect Sacrifice once offered on the cross. See Offerings, Altar, and Lamb.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Sacrifice

Sacrifice. The peculiar features of each kind of sacrifice are referred to under their respective heads.

I. (A) Origin of Sacrifice. — The universal prevalence of sacrifice shows it to have been primeval, and deeply rooted in the instincts of humanity. Whether it was first enjoined by an external command, or whether it was based on that sense of sin and lost communion with God, which is stamped by his hand on the heart of man, is a historical question which cannot be determined.

(B) Ante-Mosaic History of Sacrifice. — In examining the various sacrifices recorded in Scripture, before the establishment of the law, we find that the words specially denoting expiatory sacrifice are not applied to them. This fact does not at all show, that they were not actually expiatory, but it justified the inference that this idea was not then the prominent one in the doctrine of sacrifice. The sacrifices of Cain and Abel are called minehah, and appear to have been Eucharistic. Noah’s, Gen 8:20, and Jacob’s at Mizpah, were at the institution of a covenant; and may be called federative. In the Burnt Offerings of Job for his children, Job 1:5, and for his three friends, Job 42:8 , we, for the first time, find the expression of the desire of expiation for sin. The same is the case in the words of Moses to Pharaoh. Exo 10:26. Here the main idea is at least deprecatory.

(C) The Sacrifices of the Mosaic Period. — These are inaugurated by the offering of the Passover, and the sacrifice of Exo 24:1. The Passover, indeed, is unique in its character, but it is clear that the idea of salvation from death by means of sacrifice is brought out in it with a distinctness before unknown. The law of Leviticus now unfolds distinctly, the various forms of sacrifice:

(a) The Burnt Offering: Self-dedicatory.

(b) The Meat [Meal] Offering: (unbloody): Eucharistic.

(c) The Sin Offering; the Trespass Offering: Expiatory. To these may be added,

(d) The incense offered after sacrifice in the Holy Place, and (on the Day of Atonement), in the Holy of Holies, the symbol of the intercession of the priest, (as a type of the great High Priest), accompanying and making efficacious, the prayer of the people.

In the consecration of Aaron and his sons, Lev 8:1, we find these offered in what became, ever afterward, their appointed order. First came the Sin Offering, to prepare access to God; next came the Burnt Offering, to mark their dedication to his service; and third came the Meat [Meal] Offering of thanksgiving. Henceforth, the sacrificial system was fixed in all its parts, until he should come whom it typified.

(D) Post-Mosaic Sacrifices. — It will not be necessary to pursue, in detail, the history of the Poet Mosaic sacrifice, for its main principles were now fixed forever. The regular sacrifices in the Temple service were —

(a) Burnt offerings.

1, The daily Burnt Offerings, Exo 29:38-42;

2, The double Burnt Offerings on the Sabbath, Num 28:9-10;

3, The Burnt Offerings at the great festivals; Num 26:11; Num 29:39.

(b) Meat [Meal] offerings.

1, The daily Meat [Meal] Offerings accompanying the daily Burnt Offerings, Exo 29:40-41;

2, The shewbread, renewed every Sabbath, Lev 24:6; Lev 24:9]

3, The special Meat [Meal] Offerings at the Sabbath, and the great festivals, Num 28:1; Num 29:1;

4, The first-fruits, at the Passover, Lev 23:10-14; at Pentecost, Lev 23:17-20; the firstfruits of the dough and threshing-floor at the harvest time. Num 15:20-21; Deu 26:1-11.

(c) Sin offerings.

1, Sin offering each new moon, Num 28:15;

2, Sin offerings at the Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, and Feast of Tabernacles, Num 28:22; Num 28:30; Num 29:5; Num 29:16; Num 29:19; Num 29:22; Num 29:25; Num 29:28; Num 29:31; Num 29:34; Num 29:38;

3, The offering of the two goats for the people and of the bullock for the priest himself, on the Great Day of Atonement. Lev 16:1;

(d) Incense.

1, The morning and evening incense Exo 30:7-8;

2, The incense on the Great Day of Atonement. Lev 16:12.

Besides these public sacrifices, there were offerings of the people for themselves individually.

II. By the order of sacrifice, in its perfect form, as in Lev 8:1, it is clear that the Sin Offering occupies the most important place; the Burnt Offering comes next, and the Meat [Meal] Offering or Peace Offering comes last of all. The second could only be offered after the first had been accepted; the third was only a subsidiary part of the second. Yet, in actual order of time, it has been seen that the patriarchal sacrifices partook much more of the nature of the Peace Offering and Burnt Offering, and that under the Law, by which was “the knowledge of sin,” Rom 3:20, the Sin Offering was, for the first time, explicitly set forth. This is but natural that the deepest ideas should be the last in order of development.

The essential difference between heathen views of sacrifice, and the scriptural doctrine of the Old Testament, is not to be found in its denial of any of these views. In fact, it brings out clearly and distinctly, the ideas which in heathenism were uncertain, vague and perverted. But the essential points of distinction are two.

First, that whereas the heathen conceived of their gods as alienated in jealousy or anger, to be sought after and to be appeased by the unaided action of man, Scripture represents God himself as approaching man, as pointing out and sanctioning the way by which the broken covenant should be restored.

The second mark of distinction is closely connected with this, inasmuch, as it shows sacrifice to be a scheme proceeding from God, and in his foreknowledge, connected with the one central fact of all human history.

From the prophets and the Epistle to the Hebrews, we learn that the Sin Offering represented that covenant as broken by man, and as knit together again, by God’s appointment through the shedding of the blood, the symbol of life, signified that the death of the offender was deserved for sin, but that the death of the victim was accepted for his death by the ordinance of God’s mercy. Beyond all doubt, the Sin Offering distinctly witnessed that sin existed in man. That the “wages of that sin was death,” and that God had provided an atonement by the vicarious suffering of an appointed victim.

The ceremonial and meaning of the Burnt Offering were very different. The idea of expiation seems not to have been absent from it, for the blood was sprinkled round about the altar of sacrifice; but the main idea is the offering of the whole victim to God, representing as the laying of the hand on its head shows, the devotion of the sacrificer, body and soul. To him, Rom 12:1, the death of the victim was, so to speak, an incidental feature.

The meat [or, more properly, the meal] offering, the peace or thank offering, the firstfruits, etc., were simply offerings to God of his own best gifts, as a sign of thankful homage, and as a means of maintaining his service and his servants.

The characteristic ceremony in the Peace Offering was the eating of the flesh by the sacrificer. It betokened the enjoyment of communion with God. It is clear from this that the idea of sacrifice is a complex idea, involving the propitiatory, the dedicatory and the Eucharistic elements.

Any one of these, taken by itself, would lead to error and superstition. All three, probably, were more or less implied, in each sacrifice. Each element predominating in its turn. The Epistle to the Hebrews contains the key of the whole sacrificial doctrine. The object of the Epistle is to show the typical and probationary character of sacrifices, and to assert that, in virtue of it alone, they had a spiritual meaning. Our Lord is declared, (see 1Pe 1:20, “to have been foreordained” as a sacrifice, “before the foundation of the world,” or, as it is more strikingly expressed in Rev 13:8, “slain from the foundation of the world.”

The material sacrifices represented this great atonement as already made and accepted in God’s foreknowledge; and to those who grasped the ideas of sin, pardon and self-dedication symbolized in them, they were means of entering into the blessings which the one true sacrifice alone procured. They could convey nothing in themselves, yet as types they might, if accepted by a true though necessarily imperfect faith, be means of conveying, in some degree, the blessings of the antitype. It is clear that the atonement in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as in the New Testament generally, is viewed in a twofold light.

On the one hand, it is set forth distinctly as a vicarious sacrifice, which was rendered necessary by the sin of man, and in which the Lord “bare the sins of many.” It is its essential characteristic that, in it, he stands absolutely alone offering his sacrifice, without any reference to the faith or the conversion of men. In it, he stands out alone as the mediator between God and man; and his sacrifice is offered once for all, never to be imitated or repeated. Now, this view of the atonement is set forth in the Epistle as typified by the Sin Offering.

On the other hand, the sacrifice of Christ is set forth to us, as the completion of that perfect obedience to the will of the Father, which is the natural duty of sinless man. The main idea of this view of the atonement is representative, rather than vicarious. It is typified by the Burnt Offering. As without the Sin Offering of the cross, this, our Burnt Offering, would be impossible, so also, without the Burnt Offering, the Sin Offering will, to us, be unavailing.

With these views of our Lord’s sacrifice on earth, as typified in the Levitical sacrifices on the outer alter, is also to be connected, the offering of his intercession for us in heaven, which was represented by the incense. The typical sense of the Meat [Meal] Offering, or Peace Offering, is less connected, the sacrifice of Christ himself , than with those sacrifices of praise, thanksgiving, charity and devotion which we, as Christians, offer to God, and “with which he is well pleased,” Heb 13:15-16, as with “an odor of sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God.” Phi 4:18.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Sacrifice

properly so called, is the solemn infliction of death on a living creature, generally by the effusion of its blood, in a way of religious worship; and the presenting of this act to God, as a supplication for the pardon of sin, and a supposed means of compensation for the insult and injury thereby offered to his majesty and government. Sacrifices have, in all ages, and by almost every nation, been regarded as necessary to placate the divine anger, and render the Deity propitious. Though the Gentiles had lost the knowledge of the true God, they still retained such a dread of him, that they sometimes sacrificed their own offspring for the purpose of averting his anger. Unhappy and bewildered mortals, seeking relief from their guilty fears, hoped to atone for past crimes by committing others still more awful; they gave their first-born for their transgression, the fruit of their body for the sin of their soul. The Scriptures sufficiently indicate that sacrifices were instituted by divine appointment, immediately after the entrance of sin, to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ. Accordingly, we find Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, and others, offering sacrifices in the faith of the Messiah; and the divine acceptance of their sacrifices is particularly recorded. But, in religious institutions, the Most High has ever been jealous of his prerogative. He alone prescribes his own worship; and he regards as vain and presumptuous ever pretence of honouring him which he has not commanded. The sacrifice of blood and death could not have been offered to him without impiety, nor would he have accepted it, had not his high authority pointed the way by an explicit prescription.

Under the law, sacrifices of various kinds were appointed for the children of Israel; the paschal lamb, Exo 12:3; the holocaust, or whole burnt- offering, Lev 7:8; the sin-offering, or sacrifice of expiation, Lev 4:3-4; and the peace-offering, or sacrifice of thanksgiving, Lev 7:11-12; all of which emblematically set forth the sacrifice of Christ, being the instituted types and shadows of it, Heb 9:9-15; Heb 10:1. Accordingly, Christ abolished the whole of them when he offered his own sacrifice. Above, when he said, Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt- offerings, and offering for sin, thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all, Heb 10:8-10; 1Co 5:7. In illustrating this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, sets forth the excellency of the sacrifice of our great High Priest above those of the law in various particulars. The legal sacrifices were only brute animals, such as bullocks, heifers, goats, lambs, &c; but the sacrifice of Christ was himself, a person of infinite dignity and worth, Heb 9:12-13; Heb 1:3; Heb 9:14; Heb 9:26; Heb 10:10. The former, though they cleansed from ceremonial uncleanness, could not possibly expiate sin, or purify the conscience from the guilt of it; and so it is said that God was not well pleased in them, Heb 10:4-5; Heb 10:8; Heb 10:11. But Christ, by the sacrifice of himself, hath effectually, and for ever, put away sin, having made an adequate atonement unto God for it, and by means of faith in it he also purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God, Heb 9:10-26; Eph 5:2. The legal sacrifices were statedly offered, year after year, by which their insufficiency was indicated, and an intimation given that God was still calling sins to his remembrance, Heb 10:3; but the last required no repetition, because it fully and at once answered all the ends of sacrifice, on which account God hath declared that he will remember the sins and iniquities of his people no more.

The term sacrifice is often used in a secondary or metaphorical sense, and applied to the good works of believers, and to the duties of prayer and praise, as in the following passages: But to do good, and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased, Heb 13:16. Having received of Epaphroditus the things which ye sent, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God,

Php 4:18. Ye are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1Pe 2:5. By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name,

Heb 13:15. I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service, Rom 12:1. There is a peculiar reason, says Dr. Owen, for assigning this appellation to moral duties; for in every sacrifice there was a presentation of something unto God. The worshipper was not to offer that which cost him nothing; part of his substance was to be transferred from himself unto God. So it is in these duties; they cannot be properly observed without the alienation of something that was our own,our time, ease, property, &c, and a dedication of it to the Lord. Hence they have the general nature of sacrifices. The ceremonies used in offering the Jewish sacrifices require to be noticed as illustrative of many texts of Scripture, and some points of important doctrine. See ATONEMENT, See OFFERINGS, See EXPIATION, See PROPITIATION, See RECONCILIATION, and See REDEMPTION.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary

Sacrifice

Heb 13:16 (a) By this word is described any praise or worship rendered to GOD from a grateful heart. (See also 1Pe 2:5). Some of the sacrifices of the Old Testament represented various aspects of the work of CHRIST on the Cross. (See under “OFFERINGS”). Other sacrifices represented various attitudes of the Christian in his relationship to GOD. In some cases the sacrifices represented the attempt of sinners to appease their gods.

Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types