Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Sacrifice
Subjects in this Topic:
sak´ri-fı̄s, sak´ri-fı̄z:
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 “WRITINGSâ€
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.
זבח, zebhahÌ£, “sacrificeâ€; עולה, ‛oÌ„laÌ„h, “burnt offeringâ€; חט××”, hÌ£ătaÌ„'aÌ„h, חטּ×ת, hÌ£atÌ£tÌ£aÌ„'th, “sin offeringâ€; ×ש××, 'aÌ„shaÌ„m, “guilt†or “trespass offeringâ€: ש×ל×, shelem, ש×למי×, shelaÌ„mı̄m, “peace offeringsâ€; ×ž× ×—×”, minhÌ£aÌ„h, “offering,†“presentâ€; ש××œ×ž×™× ×–×‘×—, zebhahÌ£shelaÌ„mı̄m, “sacrifice of peace offeringsâ€; התּודה זבח, zebhahÌ£ ha-toÌ„dhaÌ„h, “thank offeringsâ€; × ×“×‘×” זבח, zebhahÌ£ nedhaÌ„bhaÌ„h, “free-will offeringsâ€; × ×“×¨ זבח, zebhahÌ£ nedher, “votive offeringsâ€; ×ªÖ¼× ×•Ö¼×¤×”, tenuÌ„phaÌ„h, “wave offeringâ€; תּרוּמה, teruÌ„maÌ„h, “heave offeringâ€; קרבּן, kÌ£orbaÌ„n, “oblation,†“giftâ€; ×שּ××”, 'ishsheh, “fire offeringâ€; × ×¡×š, nesÌ£ekh, “drink offeringâ€; כּליל, kaÌ„lı̄l, “whole burnt offeringâ€; ×—×’, hÌ£agh, “feastâ€; ×œ×‘×•× ×”, lebhoÌ„naÌ„h, “frankincenseâ€; קטורה, kÌ£etoÌ„raÌ„h, קטורת, kÌ£etoÌ„reth, “odor,†“incenseâ€; מלח, melahÌ£, “saltâ€; ש×מן, shemen, “oilâ€:
Zebhaḥ: 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.
‛Olāh: a “burnt offering,†sometimes whole burnt offering. Derived from the verb ‛ālāh, “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 kālı̄l (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.
Ḥătā'āh, ḥattā'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.
'AÌ„shaÌ„m: “guilt offering,†“trespass offering†(King James Version; in , the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) “an offering for sin,†the American Revised Version margin “trespass offeringâ€). 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 'aÌ„shaÌ„m () shows the value attached to this offering.
Shelem, shelāmı̄m: “peace offering,†generally used the plural, shelāmı̄m, only once shēlem (). 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 zebhāḥim, sometimes zebhaḥ shelāmı̄m, and were of different kinds, such as zebhaḥ ha-tōdhāh, “thank offerings,†which expressed the gratitude of the giver because of some blessings, zebhaḥ nedhābhāh, “free-will offerings,†bestowed on the Deity out of a full heart, and zebhaḥ nedher, “votive offerings,†which were offered in fulfillment of a vow.
Minḥāh: “meal offering†(the Revised Version), “meat offering†(the King James Version), a gift or presentation, at first applied to both bloody and unbloody offerings (), 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 minḥāh describes a gift or token of friendship (), an act of homage (; ), tribute (, f), propitiation to a friend wronged (, (Hebrew 14:19)), to procure favor or assistance ( ff; ).
Ṭenūphāh: “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.
Ṭenūmāh: “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.
KÌ£orbaÌ„n: “an oblation,†or “offeringâ€; another generic term for all kinds of offerings, animal, vegetable, or even gold and silver. Derived from the verb kÌ£aÌ„rabh, “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 minḥāh, 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.
Neṣekh: “drink offering,†or “libation,†a liquid offering of wine, rarely water, sometimes of oil, and usually accompanying the ‛ōlāh, but often with the peace offerings.
Kālı̄l: “whole burnt offering,†the entire animal being burned upon the altar. Sometimes used synonymously with ‛ōlāh. A technical term among the Carthaginians.
Ḥagh: a “feast,†used metaphorically for a sacrificial feast because the meat of the sacrifices constituted the material of the feast.
Lebhōnāh: “frankincense,†“incense,†used in combination with the meal offerings and burnt offerings and burned also upon the altar in the holy place. See INCENSE.
Ḳetōrāh, ḳetōreth: “smoke,†“odor of sacrifice,†or incense ascending as a sweet savor and supposed to be pleasing and acceptable to God.
Melaḥ: “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.â€
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 f. Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice, and, according to , 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.â€
(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 (). 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 ‛ōlāh 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 ( 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 minḥāh, “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 ( ff). On such a solemn occasion only an ‛ōlāh 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 (). At Beth-el also (), and on his return from Egypt he worshipped there (). Such sacrifices expressed adoration and prayer and probably propitiation. They constituted worship, which is a complex exercise. At Hebron he built an altar (), officiating always as his own priest. In 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 ().
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 (), “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 (-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 ().
9. Of Jacob:
Jacob's first recorded sacrifice was the pouring of the oil upon the stone at Beth-el (). This was consecration or dedication in recognition of the awe-inspiring presence of the Deity. After his covenant with Laban he offered sacrifices (zebhāḥim) and they ate bread (). At Shechem, Jacob erected an altar (). At Beth-el () and at Beer-sheba he offered sacrifices to Isaac's God ().
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 ). 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 (; ff; ). Pharaoh understood and asked who was to go (). Moses demanded flocks and herds for the feast (). Pharaoh would keep the flocks, etc. (), but Moses said they must offer sacrifices and burnt offerings ( f).
The sacrifice of the Passover soon occurs (-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 ‛ōlāh and zebhāḥim and made a feast ().
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 (-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 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 (). 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 ( 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 ( 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 ( 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. ( 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 , 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 ( ff). Joshua, Gideon, Jephthah, Samuel, Saul, David, Elijah and many others used such altars. There were altars at Shechem (, ), Mizpah in Gilead (), Gilgal (). 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 ( (Hebrew 19); )
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. (-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 (), killing it before the tent of meeting (), smearing some blood on the horns of the altar, and pouring the rest at its base (). 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 (, ). This is a sin offering - ḥaṭṭā'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 (-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 (-21). Certain parts are waved before Yahweh along with the bread, and are then burned upon the altar (-25). The breast is offered as a wave offering (tenūphāh), and the right thigh or shoulder as a heave offering (terūmāh). These portions here first mentioned were the priests' portion for all time to come, although this particular one went to Moses, since he officiated (-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 (-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 (-37). The altar of incense is ordered (), 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 (). 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 (-42). The burnt offering is here called kÌ£orbaÌ„n, “oblation.â€
(1) Ritual for the Offerer (-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 (-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 ( f; -8). At the fulfillment of his vow the Nazirite must present it before God and offer it upon the altar through the priest (, ): on the Sabbath, two lambs (); on the first of the month, two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs (); on the day of first-fruits, the same (); on the 1st day of the 7th month, one bullock, one ram, seven lambs (); 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 (, ). Non-Israelites were permitted to offer the ‛ōlāh, but no other sacrifices (; , ).
(4) Laws in , , , ; .
Anticipating a central sanctuary in the future, the lawgiver counsels the people to bring their offerings there (, ); they must be careful not to offer them in any place (), but must patronize the central sanctuary (). In the meantime common altars and customary sacrifices were allowable and generally necessary (; ).
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-offeringâ€), and was first used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons (). These must not be offered on the altar of incense (); were used at the completion of the tabernacle (); 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 (bikkūrı̄m), 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 (-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 (, ; ; ). The meal offerings accompanied the other offerings on all important occasions, such as the consecration of Aaron (, ); cleansing of a leper (, , , ); feast of first-fruits (); Pentecost (); set feasts (). Special charge was given to Eleazar to care for the continual meal offerings (). The Nazirite must offer it (, ). When the tribes presented their offerings, meal offerings were always included (, , etc.); when the Levites were set apart (); with vows of freewill offerings (, ); with the sin offerings (); 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 ( 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 (), as feasts had been thus celebrated from time immemorial. At the feast before God on the Mount, peace offerings provided the food (); also before the golden bull (). 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 ( (Hebrew 5); ff).
The fat was to be burned on the altar of burnt offering. If it was a thank offering (zebhaḥ ha-tōdhāh), 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 (). If it was a votive offering (zebhaḥ nedher) or a freewill offering (zebhaḥ nedhābhāh), it might be eaten on the first and second days, but not on the third day; it should then be an abomination ( 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 (-34), the remainder was to be eaten by the worshippers. At Aaron's consecration an ox and a ram were the peace offerings (, , ). The priest's portion was to be eaten in a clean place by the priest's family (). When Israel should have a central sanctuary, all were to be brought there (, ). When they had no central place, the common altars would suffice. All peace offerings must be made in an acceptable manner (). Votive offerings must be perfect (-22), but certain imperfections are allowable in freewill offerings (). At Pentecost two he-lambs of the first year could be offered as peace offerings (). The Nazirite at the end of his separation must offer one ram for a peace offering with unleavened bread (, ), and the hair shaved from his head must be burned under the peace offerings (). 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 (). Some further regulations are given ( 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 ( 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 ().
(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 (sheghāghāh), 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 (-12), the whole congregation (-21), a ruler (-26), one of the common people (-35), forswearing (), touching an unclean thing () or the uncleanness of man (), or rashly sweating in ignorance (). 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 (-5, , 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 (-5, , 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 (-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 (, , ) was similar to that of , , 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 (), and the congregation offered a he-goat (). In this case Aaron performed the ceremony, as in , . 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 (-20).
(ii) Purifications from Uncleannesses:
Purifications from uncleannesses required after childbirth a young pigeon or turtledove (-8). The leper must bring a guilt offering (a special kind of sin offering), a he-lamb (-14, ); if too poor for a lamb, a turtledove or young pigeon (, ). Special use of the blood is required (). In uncleanness from issues a sin offering of a turtledove or young pigeon must be offered by the priest (, ).
(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 ().
(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 ( ff); when the days of the separation were fulfilled a ewe-lamb with the other offerings () was to be offered; the twelve tribes included in each case a he-goat for sin offering ( ff); at the consecration of the Levites a young bullock (, ). For unwitting sins of the congregation a he-goat was to be offered (, ). If one person erred, a she-goat was permitted (). A sin offering was required at the feast of the new moon (), at the Passover (), at Pentecost (), on the 1st day of the 7th month (), and on the 10th, 15th-22nd days (Nu 29:10-38). The ceremony of the red heifer (-10, ) 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 (-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 offeringâ€) (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 (-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 (). 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 -8; ).
(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 (-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 (, ). The Nazirite, if defiled during his period of separation, must bring a he-lamb for a guilt offering (). All guilt offerings were the priests' and most holy ().
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 (-27), when the breast and bread were waved before Yahweh. , 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 (). On the 8th day Aaron did the waving (). The priests were to eat it in a clean place ( f) . The leper's he-lamb was to be waved by the priest, before being offered (); the lamb of the guilt offering also (). At the feast of first-fruits the sheaf must be waved before Yahweh (, , ); two loaves also (, ). 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 ( 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 (, ). The offering consisted of the right shoulder or thigh and was the fixed due of the priest (, ) One cake of the peace offering must be heaved (). The offering must be eaten in a clean place () by the priest's family only (, ). Of the Nazirite's offering the heave thigh also went to the priest (). When the Israelites should come into the promised land to eat bread