Period – Period

Period

From the details just given it is evident that ‘among the Hebrew offerings drawn from the vegetable kingdom, meal, wine, and oil take the chief place, and these were also the chief vegetable constituents of man’s daily food’ (,RS^ 219). The same remark holds good of the animal sacrifices, which were drawn chiefly from ‘the herd,’ i.e. neat cattle, and from the ‘flock,’ i.e. sheep and goats. Excluded from the altar, on the other hand, were not only all unclean animals, but also game and fish, which, not being reared by man, were probably regarded as God’s special property, and therefore inadmissible as a present from man. This idea that only what was a man’s ‘very own’ constituted an appropriate sacrifice is reflected in David’s words to Araunah, 2 Samuel 247 (offerings ‘which cost me nothing’ RV). Males of the various species, — a heifer is mentioned in connexion with ordinary sacriflce only 1 Samuel 16:2 (Genesis 15. Deuteronomy 21:3 ff.: 1 Samuel 6:14 do not belong to this category), — and of these, yearlings, as in the later legislation, were doubtless the commonest victims, although we read of ‘a bullock of three years old’ (1 Samuel 1:24, see RVm; Judges 6 is corrupt, ‘seven years old’).

The question of human sacrifice cannot be passed over, even in this brief sketch of a vast subject. The recent excavations at Gezer and elsewhere (see High Place, § 3) have revealed the surprising extent to which this practice prevailed among the Canaanites (cf . 2 Kings 3:27), , and well-attested instances are recorded even among the Hebrews (Judges 11:30–40. 1 Kings 16:34 RV, for which see HoDSB. § 3), apart altogether from the child sacrifices to Molech. Indeed, the familiar story of Abraham’s frustrated sacrifice of Isaac is now regarded as a polemic against this inhuman custom, which certainly had no sanction in the religion of OT.

As regards the ritual of sacriflce in this period, we have little information, 1 Samuel 2 being the only passage that touches definitely on this subject. This much is certain, that much greater latitude prevailed while the local sanctuaries existed than was afterwards the case; and also, that the priest played a much less conspicuous part in the rite than he does in the developed system of the Priests’ Code. The chief function of the priest in the earliest times was to give ‘direction’ (tBr3,h) by means of the oracle, and to decide in matters pertaining to the sphere of ‘clean and unclean.’ The layman — as father of the family or head of the clan, still more the anointed king — offered his sacrifice without the intervention of the priest. The latter, however, as the custodian of the sanctuary, was entitled to his due (see 1 S I.e., Deuteronomy 18:3). At the more frequented sanctuaries — Jerusalem, Bethel, Beersheba, etc. — a more or less elaborate ritual was gradually evolved, for which the priest, as its depositary, became indispensable.

But even from the first the deity had to be approached with due precaution. The worshippers ‘sanctified’ themselves by ablutions (1 Samuel 16), and by washing (Exodus 19:10) or changing their garments (Genesis 35:2) for only those who were ceremonially ‘clean’ could approach the altar of J". The sacrificer then entered the high place and immolated the sacriflcial victim, originally, it would appear, upon the altar itself (Genesis 22:9, 1 Samuel 14:33 f.), so that the blood ran over it; later, near to the altar, care being taken that the blood was caught and poured out at its base. The victim was next cut up and the fat of the viscera removed. In the case of an ordinary sacriflce (zeback), to judge from 1 Samuel 2:16, the fiesh was boiled for the sacrificial meal, and not until the latter was ready was the fat, J"‘s special portion, burned upon the altar. By this simultaneous consumption of the sacrifice the table-fellowship of J" and His guests was more strikingly realized, the latter "eating and drinking before the Lord,’ as the ‘sweet smoke’ (qetSreih) ascended from the altar, an ‘odour of soothing (EV’ sweet savour’) unto the Lord.’

While the normal attitude of the worshippers on such occasions was one of rejoicings, as became those who, by thus renewing their covenant relation to J" in the way appointed, felt themselves secure of His favour and protection, a more serious note, implying a sense of alienation and the need of propitiation, is not infrequently found even in pre-exilic sacriflce, as will appear in a later section (§ 13).

6. The developed sacrificial system of the post-exilic period — Its general features. — In an earlier section it was shown how intimately connected with the everyday life of the family were the free, joyous sacrifices at the local sanctuaries. The abolition of the latter by Josiah, in accordance with the demands of Deuteronomy (for the justification of this measure, see High Place, § 6), marks an epoch in the history of OT sacrifice. Hitherto every slaughter of a domestic animal tor the entertainment of a guest, or to celebrate a family ‘event,’ was a form of sacriflce (for a remarkable list and description of such ‘immolations’ as practised by the Arabs of Moab at the present day, see Jaussen, Coidumes des Arabes au pays de Moab [1908], 337-363). Henceforward this was no longer so. ‘The restriction of legitimate sacrifice to the one distant sanctuary at Jerusalem meant in practice the divorce from common life of the principal rite of religion. The Temple, from being only one, although certainly the most important, of the local sanctuaries of Judah, became the one national sanctuary; the cultus assumed an official character, while its dignity was enhanced by the presence of a numerous priesthood and a more elaborate ritual. Sacrifice, in short, lost its former spontaneity and became a statutory obligation. The Jewish nation had taken the first step towards becoming the Jewish Church.

A still more potent factor, making for change, soon appeared in the shape of the crushing calamity of the Exile. Then, at last, the words of the prophets came home to men’s hearts and minds, and it was recognized that the nation had received the due reward of its deeds. A deepened sense of sin and a heightened conception of the Divine holiness were two of the most precious fruits of the discipline of the Exile. The confident assurance of J"‘s protection and good-will, which marked the relations of worshipper and worshipped in the days of Israel s prosperity, had passed away. In its place arose a conviction of the need of expiation and propitiation — a conviction reflected in the whole sacriflcial system, as gradually systematized and elaborated, on the basis of the usage of the Temple, by successive generations of Priestly writers from Ezekiel onwards. In its fully developed form, as we find it in the middle books of the Pentateuch, we see how the cultus asa whole has become the affair of the community: the old sacral units, the family and the clan, have disappeared.

Great — one is tempted to say, the main — stress is now laid on the technique of sacrifice, on the proper observance of the prescribed ritual: the slightest want of conformity thereto invalidates the sacrifice; the old latitude and freedom are gone for ever. The necessary corollary is the enhanced status and importance of the priest as the indispensable intermediary between the worshipper and the Deity. Beyond immolating the victims, the laity are no longer competent to perform the sacrificial rites. The relative importance of the two older animal sacrifices, the ‘olah and the sebach, is now reversed. The typical sacrifice is no longer the latter with its accompanying meal, but the’ continual burnt offering,’ an act of worship performed every morning and evening in the Temple in the name of the community, whose presence is unnecessary for its due performance. Still more characteristic of the later period, however, is the emergence of special propitiatory sacrifices(piacula) — the allied sin offering and guilt offering. The older varieties of sacrifice, although still retaining their propitiatory efficacy, are no longer sufficient to express and adequately to satisfy the new consciousness of man’s sinfulness, or, more accurately expressed, of God’s exacting holiness.

7. The five kinds of altab-offerings in P. — The numerous altar-offerings mentioned in the various strata of the Priestly legislation are divided by Josephus into two classes: (i) those offered ‘for private persons,’ and (ii) those offered ‘for the people in general,’ — a classification corresponding to the Roman sacra privata and sacra publica {Ami. iii. ix. 1). The public sacrifices were either stated or occasional, the former and more important group comprising the daily burnt offering (see § 10) and the additional sacrifices at the stated festivals — Sabbath, New Moon, New Year, the three great feasts, and the Day of Atonement.

Since it is impossible within present limits to attempt to enumerate, much less to discuss, the multifarious varieties and occasions of public and private sacrifices, it will be more convenient to follow, as before, the order of the five distinct kinds as given in the systematic manual, Lv 1-7. These are (1) the burnt offering, (2) the cereal or meal ( A V ‘meat ‘) offering, (3) the peace offering and the two propitiatory sacrifices, (4) the sin offering, and (5) the guilt (AV’ trespass’) offering. Arranged according to the material of the offering, these fell into two groups represented by the terms ‘sacrifice’ and ‘offering’ (§ 1); in other words, into animal and vegetable or cereal offerings (including the drink offering). The four animal or bloody offerings may be classified according to the destination of the flesh of the victim, thus (cf. the relative §§ below) —

(i) The flesh entirely consumed upon the altar — the burnt or whole offering.

(ii) The flesh not consumed upon the altar — the peace offerings and the two propitiatory offerings.

The second group may again be subdivided thus —

(a) The flesh, apart from the priest’s dues, assigned to the offerer for a sacrificial meal — the peace offering.

(6) The flesh assigned to the priests to be eaten within the sanctuary — the guilt offerings and the less important of the sin offerings.

(c) The flesh burned without the sanctuary — the more important sin offerings.

8. The material of sacrifice in P. — ‘Holy’ and ‘most holy.’ — The material of all these remains the same as in the pre-exilic period (§ 5), with the addition of pigeons and turtle-doves to meet the needs of the poor, but the victim for each special kind of sacrifice, and its qualifications, are now definitely prescribed. As regards neat and small cattle, the victims must be males for the most part, entire and without blemish (see Leviticus 22 for list of imperfections — an exception, however, was made for the freewill offering, v. 23). For the peace offering both sexes were equally admissible (3:1). and a female victim is specially prescribed for the less important sin offerings (4:28, 32). The animals were eligible for sacrifice from the eighth day onwards (22:27). but the typical sacrifice was the yearling. For the material of the cereal offering see below.

Here may be noted an interesting contrast between such offerings as were regarded as merely ‘holy’ and those reckoned ‘most holy.’ The limits of the former category are somewhat vague, but it certainly included firstlings and first-fruits, the tithe and the portions of the peace offerings falling to the priests, whereas the shewbread (Leviticus 24:9). the sacred incense (Exodus 30). the meal offering (Leviticus 2). and the sin and guilt offerings (e^*- " 7:1, 6) are all classed as ‘most holy.’ One practical effect of the distinction was that the ‘most holy things’ could be eaten only by the priests, and by them only within the Temple precincts (6:16, 26, Numbers 18:10; cf. Ezekiel 42:13 46:20). As charged with a special potency of holiness, which was highly contagious, the ‘most holy things’ — there were many other entries in the category, such as the altar and the high priest’s dress — rendered all who came in contact with them ‘holy,’ in modern phrase ‘taboo’ (Leviticus 6:18, 27). The ‘holy thmgs," on the other hand, might be eaten by the priests and their households, if ceremonially clean, in any’ clean place,’ i.e. practically in Jerusalem (10:14 22, Numbers 18:11 ff.).

9. The Ritual of post-exilic sacrifice. — This is now, like all else, matter of careful regulation. The ritual, as a whole, doubtless continued and developed that of the pre-exilic Temple, where the priest had long taken the place of the lay offerer in the most significant parts of the rite. After the offerer had duly ‘sanctified’ himself as explained in § 5, and had his sacrifice examined and passed by the Temple officials, the procedure comprised the following ‘actions ‘: —

(1) The formal presentation of the victim to the priest officiating at the altar.

(2) The semlkhah or laying on of hands; the offerer leaned his right hand — in the later praxis, both hands — ■ upon the head of the victim, in token of its being withdrawn from the sphere of the ‘common’ and transferred to the sphere of ‘holy things’ (cf. for the two spheres, 1 Samuel 21:4), and of his personal assignation of it to the Deity. There is no suggestion in this act of the victim being thereby made the substitute in a penal sense of its owner and donor (see the Comm., and, for recent discussions, the refl. in DB Ext. Vol. 720).

(3) The immolation of the victim, on the north side of the altar (Leviticus 1:11 6:25), by severing the arteries of the neck. In private sacrifices this was always done by the person presenting them.

(4) The manipulation of the blood by the priest. This, the central action of the whole rite, varied considerably for the different sacrifices. After being caught by the priest in a large basin, the blood was in most cases tossed against the sides of the altar (‘sprinkle’ of EV, Leviticus 1:5 3:2 etc., is misleading, being the proper rendering of a different term occurring 4:6 16:14, and elsewhere). Generally it may be said that the more pronounced the propitiatory character of the sacrifice, the nearer the blood was brought to the presence of the deity (see § 14), the climax being reached in the blood-rite of the Day of Atonement (16:14, see Atonement [Day of]).

(5) The skinning and dismemberment of the animal, including the removal of the internal fat, as specified 3:3, 4 and 4:8 f.: The hide fell to the officiating priest, except in the case of the sin offering, when it was burned with the fiesh (Exodus 29:14).

(6) The arrangement of all the pieces upon the altar in the case of the burnt offering, of the specified portions of the inwards’ in the case of the others; and finally —

(7) The burning— lit. the turning into ‘sweet smoke’ — of these upon the altar of burnt offering, the fire on which was Isept continually burning (Leviticus 6:13).

Of these various elements of the ritual, those requiring contact with the altar as a ‘most holy thing,’ viz. (4), (6), and (7), represent the priest’s, the rest the layman’s, share in the rite of sacrifice.

10. The burnt offering (Leviticus 1:1–17 e*-", Exodus 29). The first place in the manual of sacrifice, Lv 1-7, is occupied by the sacrifice which alone was entirely consumed upon the altar, hence the older and more correct designation ‘whole offering’ (§ 2) — a feature which constituted it the typical honorific sacrifice, the fullest expression of homage to J" on the part alike of the community and of the individual. The victim from the flock and the herd was always a male — young bull, ram, or he-goat. The turtle-dove and the young pigeon of the poor had their special ritual (1). The most important of the stated sacrifices in the period under review was the ‘continual burnt offering’ (Exodus 29, Numbers 28:3–8), so called because it was presented every morning and evening along with a cereal oblation by the particular ‘course’ of priests on duty in the Temple. The victim was a yearling lamb, which was offered on behalf of the whole community of Israel throughout the world. An interesting survival of the primitive anthropomorphic conception of sacrifice, as affording a complete meal to the deity, is seen in the provision that every burnt offering (as also every peace offering) must be accompanied by both a meal offering and a drink offering (see next §).

11. The meal (AV meat) offering (Leviticus 2. 6:14–23. Nu 15:1–16 etc.). — As pointed out in an early section, the term minchah, which originally was applicable both to an animal and to a cereal offering, is in the later legislation limited to the latter species. As such it appears in a large variety of forms, and may be either an independent offering, as contemplated in Leviticus 2, or, as in most cases, an accompaniment of the burnt and peace offerings (Numbers 15:1–16). One of the oldest forms of the minchah was, undoubtedly, the ‘meal offering of first-fruits,’ as described Leviticus 2:14–16; another antique form survived in the unique offering of barley meal in the jealousy offering (Numbers 5:15). As an ordinary altar-offering the minchah consisted of ‘fine flour,’ and was presented either cooked or uncooked, as prescribed in detail in Leviticus 2:1–7. In the latter case the flour was placed in a vessel and mixed with oil, the equivalent of our butter in matters culinary. The dough was then covered with frankincense, when it was ready for presentation at the altar. The priest took off all the frankincense, then removed a handful of the dough, which he put into another vessel, added salt, the unfailing accompaniment of every species of altar-offering (2:13. Mark 9:44). and the frankincense, and proceeded to burn the whole upon the altar. The portion burned was termed the ‘azkarah (§ 2), or’ memorial’ (so EV from Vulg. memoriale). The remainder of the offering fell to the priests, by whom it was eaten as ‘a thing most holy’ (§ 8). The priests’ own meal offerings, on the other hand, were wholly burned (Leviticus 6:23).

In Numbers 15:1–16 and elsewhere, minute instructions are given as to the precise amounts of fine flour, oil, and wine which should accompany the burnt and peace offerings (cf. Ezekiel 46:5–14 and the tabular comparison of the quantities in the two passages in Gray, ‘Numbers’ [7CC], 170). These were regulated by the importance of the animal sacrificed, the drink or wine offering (Hosea 9:4), for example, being uniformly i bin for a bullock, J hin for a ram, and i hin for a lamb, — the hin may be taken approximately as 12 pints.

No instructions have been preserved as to how the wine was to be offered, but from later evidence it appears that, like the blood, it was ‘poured out at the foot of the altar’ (Sirach 50:15; cf. Jos. Ant. in. ix. 4). For the importance of incense in the later ritual, see Incense.

12. The peace or thank offering (Leviticus 3 7 m.ii 17:1–9 22 etc.). The latter rendering, which is that of RVm. is nearer what we consider to be the meaning of the original term, ‘sacrifice of recompense’ (§2). Its distinguishing feature continued to be the sacrificial meal which followed the actual sacrifice. Three varieties are named — (a) the thanksgiving offering (7:13, 15 tSdhah, also rendered ‘thank offering’ in the narrower sense, 2 Chronicles 29). in recognition of some special mercy; (6) the votive offering (EV ‘vow,’ Leviticus 7:16). in discharge of a vow; and (c) the freewill offering, a spontaneous and unpresoribed recognition of God’s goodness. The last was clearly of less importance than the others, since for it alone imperfect victims were admitted to the altar (22:23). As a fourth variety may be reckoned ((2) the priests’ installation offering (Exodus 29:19–26).

The modus operandi was essentially the same as for the burnt offering,— female victims, however, being admitted equally with males. Special instructions are given as to the removal of the fat adhering to the inwards(see the coloured illustrations in SBOT, ‘Levit.,’ in loc. ), along with the ‘caul of the liver,’ i.e. the caudate lobe (G. F. Moore; see EBi iv. col. 4206, and the ref. in Oxf. Heb. Lex. 1124). and the two kidneys. The parts falling to the priests, the breast and the right hind leg, — these varied at different times, cf. Deuteronomy 18:3 with Exodus 29:26. Leviticus 7:31 f. — were symbolically presented to and returned by J", by being ‘waved’ towards the altar (see § 2 for this ceremony, and for the expressions ‘heave thigh’ and ‘wave breast’). The fat was then salted and burned, while the remainder of the flesh furnished the characteristic meal. Both sexes, if ceremonially clean, might partake of this meal, but only on the day of the sacrifice or the day following (Leviticus 7:16–18 19). The flesh of the special thanksgiving offering iiBdhah), however, had to be eaten on the day it was offered (7:15 22:29 f.).

13. The special propitiatort sacrifices. — The sin offering and the guilt offering. — One of the characteristic features of the later period, as has already been pointed out, is the stress laid on the propitiatory aspect of sacrifice. It is not, of course, to be supposed that this element was absent in the earlier period. Such passages as 1 Samuel 3:14 26:19. 2 Samuel 24. Micah 6:6, 7 and others prove the contrary, even were it not the fact that the idea of propitiating the unseen powers is one lying at the root of all sacrifice (see above, § 3). But, as shown by the passages now cited, expiation and propitiation were sought through the medium of the ordinary sacrifices. The special propitiatory sacrifices with which we have now to deal probably made their appearance in the dark days which preceded the fall of the Jewish monarchy, although, so far as our literary evidence goes, Ezekiel is the first to differentiate them by name, as the chatta’th (sin) and the ‘asham (guilt), from the older types of offering (40 42 etc.).

The study of these newer sacrifices is complicated, in the first place, by the divergent regulations found in the different sections of the completed Pentateuch, which seem to reflect the practice of different periods, or perhaps the views of different schools; and, in the second place, by the consequent difficulty of detecting a clear line of demarcation between the two allied offerings (see §15). From the point of view of ritual, the chief points of difference are these: (1) In the guilt offering the manipulation of the blood agrees with that prescribed for the older sacrifices; in the sin offering, on the other hand, the blood ritual is more complicated and varies in intensity according to the theocratic and social position of the offerer. This feature alone is sufficient to distinguish the sin offering as par excellence the sacrifice of expiation and atonement. (2) For the guilt offering the victim is uniformly a ram (‘the ram of atonement,’ Numbers 5:8) for the sin offering the victim varies according to the same principle as the blood ritual, the higher the position of the offerer in the theocratic community the more valuable the victim. On the other hand, both agree as compared with the older sacrifices: (1) in the disposal of the flesh of the sacrifice in so far as it was neither entirely burned on the altar as in the whole offering, nor assigned to the offerer for a sacred meal as in the peace offering, but was otherwise disposed of (see next §§); and (2) in the absence of the cereal and wine offerings which were the regular accompaniments of the other animal sacrifices.

14. The sin ofiering (Leviticus 4:1 &»-ia. Exodus 29:11–14. Numbers 15:22–29 etc.). — Leaving aside the question of the relation of these sections to each other as to origin and date — all-important as this is for the evolution of the sin offering — we find from a comparison of Leviticus 4. S’-", the most systematic as it is probably the latest exposition of the subject, with other sections of the code where this special sacrifice is required, that the latter was the prescribed medium of expiation for two main classes of offences. These are (1) sins committed in ignorance or by inadvertence (i^- "■ 22, Numbers 15:24–29) as opposed to sins committed ‘with an high hand’ (v. 30 RV), i.e. in conscious and wilful defiance of the Divine law, for which no sacrifice could atone; (2) cases of defilement or uncleanness, contracted in various ways and having no connexion with ‘sin’ in the modern sense of a breach of the moral law, such as the defilement of childbirth and of leprosy, the uncleanness of the altar and the like.

At this point it will repay us to examine the origin of the term ckattd’th, omitted from § 2, as likely to afford a clue to the true significance 9f the sacrifice. Derived from the verb signifying ‘to sin’ in the sense of to miss (the mark or the way),’ ckattd’th denotes sin, then a sacrifice for sin. It may be questioned, however, whether this transference of meaning was as direct as is usually implied. The intensive stems of the root- verb are repeatedly used in the ‘privative’ sense best expressed by ‘to unsin’ (Germ, enisundigen\ by some rite of purification, as Leviticus 8:15. Ezekiel 43:20–23. of ‘unsinning,’ i.e. purifying or purging the altar; Numbers 19:19. of ‘unsinning’ a person defiled by contact with a corpse; 8:21 ‘the Levites imsiimed themselves (RV purified themselves from sin) and washed their clothes,’ where the ‘sin’ of RV refers only to ceremonial uncleanness. From this use of the verb, chaiid’th itself acguired the secondary sense of ‘purification,’ e.g. Numbers 8:7 ( AV nghtly ‘water of punfying’ — RV ‘expiation’) and 19:9–17. where the red neifer and her ashes are described as a ckattd’th^ that is, as the means of removing the uncleanness caused by the dead. It follows from the above that ‘purification offering’ better expresses to_ the modem mind the purposes of the ckattd’th than does ‘sin offering.’ with its misleading associations.

These considerations lead us directly to the heart of the sacrificial doctrine, if the term may be allowed, of Ezekiel and the Priests’ Code. Sacrifice is the Divinely appointed means b_y which the ideal hohness of the theocratic community IS to be maintained. God’s all-devouring holiness requires that the people shall keep themselves free not only from moral imperfection, but also from every ceremonial defilement that would interrupt the relations between them and God. In the sphere of morals only ‘unwitting faults’ are contemplated, for ‘these are the only faults of which the redeemed and restored people will be guilty’ (A. B. Davidson), and( in so far as the ritual of the sin offering provides for their expiation, these sins of inadvertence are conceived as defiling the sinner who, because of his uncleanness, becomes a source of danger to the community. From this point of view the gradation in the victims prescribed first becomes intelligible; for the higher the theocratic rank of the sinner, the greater, according to the antique view of the contagion both of holiness and of uncleanness, was his power of contamination. It is to be noted, finally, that the order is first the removal of the defilement by means of the sacrifice, and then the Divine forgiveness of his sin as amoral offence (see Leviticus 4. 35).

Returning to Leviticus 4:1, we find that, apart from the gradation of the prescribed victims already referred to, the distinguishing feature in the ritual of the sin offering is the more intense application of the blood. In this respect two grades of sin offering are distinguished, a higher and a lower. In the higher grade, which comprises the offering of the high priest and that of the ‘whole congregation,’ the blood is carried by the officiating priest into the Holy Place of the Tent of Meeting — in practice the Temple. There some of it is sprinkled with the finger seven times before the veil, and some applied to the horns of the altar of incense, while the rest is poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering. The victim in both cases is a young bull, the flesh of which is so sacrosanct that it has to be burned without the camp.

In the lower grade, part of the blood was smeared upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, while the rest was poured out, as before, at its base. It is interesting to note, as bearing on the evolution of the ritual, that in a presumably older stratum of P (Exodus 29:11–14). the blood ritual, even for the high priest’s offering, does not exceed that of the lower grade of Leviticus 4. The flesh of the latter, which was also ‘most holy,’ was eaten by the priests within the sanctuary (6:24–30). To meet the requirements of the poor man, provision was made for the admission of ‘two turtle-doves or two young pigeons,’ and in cases of extreme poverty of ‘the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour’ (about 7 pints), offered without oil and without incense (5:11–13).

If the conclusion reached above be accepted, that the chatta’th is essentially a sacriflce of purification, it is evident that the victim cannot be regarded here, any more than in the other sacrifices, as the substitute for the offerer, presumed to have incurred the penalty of death (see, further, for the doctrine of the pcma vicaria, §16).

15. The guilt or trespass ofiering (Leviticus 5:14 7:1–7, Nu SS-8).—

The Heb. word ^dshdm signifies generally a wrong done to another and the guilt thereby incurred, and specially the property of another wilfully withheld (Numbers 5 ‘•‘). In the earner period it came to denote also the gift (1 Samuel 6:3 f.) or money payment (2 Kings 12:16 f.) by which, in addition to restitution, it was sought to make amends for the wrong; in the laterperiod, finally, ‘as^amis thesacrificewMchaccompanied the act of restitution.

The references in the Pentateuch to the guilt (RV) or trespass (AV, RVm) offering are not entirely consistent in their representation of its nature and purpose. The guilt offering of the leper, for example (Leviticus 14:12 ff.). can scarcely be distinguished from the sin offering (cf. 5:17–19). Taking the most explicit of the passages, however, Leviticus 6:1–7. we see that the guilt offering deals with the misappropriation of the property of another. In 5:14–16 this misappropriation takes the form of unwittingly withholding part of the sacred dues, ‘the holy things of the Lord.’ In both cases the offender has to restore the property or due withheld, together with a fine amounting to one-flfth of its value as compensation for the loss sustained, and to offer a sacriflce as expiation of his breach of faith (S’s, EV ‘trespass’). Provision is also made for a public confession (Numbers 5:7). The victim in these typical cases is invariably a ram, and the ritual is that of the ordinary sacrifices, except that the flesh can be eaten, like that of the lower grade of sin offerings, only by the priests ‘in a holy place.’

For the various occasions on which one or more of the five varieties of sacriflce above enumerated had to be offered, see, among others, the following articles: — Atonement [Day of], Clean and Unclean, Covenant, Feasts, Nazirite, Tithe, Vow, etc.

16. The significance of sacbifice in OT. — The origin and significance of sacrifice is a problem on which students of religion are still greatly divided. So far as the OT student is concerned, the question of origins does not necessarily arise, for the institution of sacrifice had already a long life behind it when the Hebrew tribes first entered upon the stage of history. One fact, at least, seems to be well established. The ancestors of the Hebrews, like the Arabs of the present day, had no ‘offermgs made by Are,’ but were content to pour the blood over the sacred stone without burning any part of the flesh. (For the view that the Hebrews of the historic period still retained a recollection of this older custom, see Kittel, Studien zur heb. Archaologie [1908], 96-108.) For the rest the wisest word recently spoken on this subject is that of the late Professor Stade {Bibl. Theol. d. AT, 156): ‘The sacrificial worship of ancient Israel is a very complicated phenomenon, which has grown up out of different conceptions and customs, and is by no means to be derived from a single fundamental idea (aus einem Grundgedanken).’ Let us proceed to illustrate this word of wisdom.

(a) In the whole period covered by the OT literature, sacrifice, as the terminology proves (see § 1), was thought of as a gift or present to God. The motives which prompted the gifts are nowhere stated in so many words, but may be clearly inferred. In the earliest period, at least, the gifts are offered, now as to an earthly ruler in token of homage, now as an expression of gratitude for benefits received; again, particularly in the very numerous cases of vows, with a view to obtain a coveted boon, for among the Hebrews as among the Greeks it was believed that ‘gifts persuade the gods, gifts the revered kings.’ We are not surprised, therefore, to find in the oldest Hebrew law-codes the command that none shall appear before J" ‘empty,’ that is, without a gift (Exodus 23:15 34:20). From first to last, the OT witnesses to this ‘conviction that the gift of piety really produces a gratifying, propitious, and in the end conciliatory effect on God’ (Schultz, ‘Significance of Sacrifice in OT," AJTh iv. 284).

The form which these "gifts of piety’ assumed was chiefly that of food. The Hebrew offered to God of the things with which his own table was furnished, and these only of the best. This naive conception of sacrifice as ‘the food (EV’ bread’) of God’ is still found as an interesting survival in the later literature (Ezekiel 44:7, Leviticus 3:11 21:6 etc.). Cf. ‘my food’ (Numbers 28:2), ‘the table of the Lord’ (Mai 1:7, 12), and the institution of the shewbread. In the historical period, as we have seen, this food of God was always ‘etherealized’ by being converted into ‘sweet smoke’ upon the altar; it thus became, in the recurring phrase, ‘a soothing odour (EV’ a sweet savour’) unto the Lord." Cf. 1 Samuel 26:19 ‘let him accept (lit. smell) an offering’ (as a propitiation).

(b) But this antique conception of sacrifice as the food of the deity by no means exhausts its significance to the Hebrew mind. The typical sacrifice in the pre-exillc period was the peace offering, of which the characteristic feature was the common meal which followed the actual sacrifice. The OT is silent regarding the significance to the Hebrew worshipper of this part of the sacrificial worship. Robertson Smith, as every student knows, would have us see in this ‘act of communion in which the god and his worshippers united by partaking of the flesh and blood of a sacred victim’ (RS’ 226 f., and passim), the unconscious survival of the sacramental eating of then- god by the members of the totem clan of pre-historic days. This is not the place to enumerate the difficulties of this theory when applied to Semitic sacrifice, the absence of convincing proof of the existence of totemism in the Semitic field being not the least of these.

It is more natural, as suggested above (§ 4) , to recognize in the Hebrew sacrificial feast a transference to the sphere of religion of the Semitic idea of the friendship and fellowship which are formed and cemented by partaking of a common meal. By thus sharing, as the guests of God, the common meal of which the worshipped and the worshippers partook within the sanctuary, the latter renewed the bond which united them to their covenant God; they ‘ate and drank before the Lord’ in full assurance of the continuance of all the blessings which the covenant relation implied.

(c) In the later period of Jewish history, this conception of sacrifice as a table-communion with the deity receded in favour of another to which less prominence was given in the early period, and in which, as has been pointed out (§ 14), sacrifice was regarded as the most important of the Divinely appointed means by which the ideal relation of a holy God to a holy people was to be maintained unimpaired. For inadvertent omissions and transgressions, and for all cases of serious ceremonial defilements, which interrupted this ideal relation, sacrifice in all its forms — not the special propitiatory offerings merely — is said to ‘make atonement." .The Heb. is kmper, of which the original signification is still uncertam. But whether this be ‘to cover’ or ‘to wipe off ,’ It gives little help in deciding the special meaning of the word in the terminology of sacrifice. ‘There it is used in neither of the senses given above, but always in close connexion with the verbs signifying’ to purify ‘itihar) and to’ unsin ‘(chilli )-;-term3 Belonging specially to the terminology of purification (see 5 14) . Appfied to material objects, such as the altar, ftiyper is little more than a synonym of tihar and chitte’; applied to persons, it is the summary expression of the rites by which the offender against the honness of God is made fit to receive the Divine forgiveness and to be re-admitted to the fellowship and worship of the theocratic community. The agent is the priest, who performs the propitiatory rites on behalf of the offender. The words in itabcs, clumsy though they are, fairly express the meaning rf this much discussed term of the Heb. ntual (see, further. Driver’s exhaustive study under ‘Propitiation’ in Hastings’ DB iv. esp. p. 131, on the difficulty of finding a satisfactory English rendering). See, further, the small print in 5 14.