Part 57
is a monstrous combination of the words deuteros, "second," and protos, "first," attributable to unskilful attempts at textual emendation on the ])art of copyists. This supposition would, of course, render unnecessary all other efforts to unravel the knotty problem, and, as a matter of fact, deuteroprotos is omitted by many MSS (including X and B). To those not feehng incUned to accept this solution we would suggest the first of the abovenamed explanations as the most natural and protjable one. William Baur SABBATHEUS, sab-a-the'us: AV = RV Sabbateus (q.v.).
SABBATHS, sab'aths, OF YEARS (D^JTIJ nhaiT
, shahbHhoth shanlm; dvairaio-tis eroiv, anapailseis ((o/iILev 25 8]): The seven sabbatic years preceding the Year of Jubilee. See Sabbatical Year; Jubilee Year; Astronomy', I, 5.
SABBATICAL, sa-bat'ik-al, YEAR ( )in3T15 n:ia
sh'nath shahbdthdii; eviauros dva-n-avio-ems, eiiiaulos anapauseos, "a year of solemn rest" ; or 'jinSlp nSlB
, shahbalh shahbdthon; o-dppara dvdirauo-Ls, sdbbala andpausis, "a sabbath of solemn rest" [Lev 26 4];
2635 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sabbath-Breaking Sabbatical Year
12 months of Sabbatical rest; it may have been a period of religious and probably other instruction.
or nCJ'alBn rilll), sh'nath ha-sh'mitlah; «tos t<^s
d(|>^(rcus, elos Its apheseos, "the year of release" [Dt 15 9; 31 10]): We find the first rudi-
In Lev 25 1-7 the central idea of the Sabbatical year is unfolded. Although it has been said we should be careful not to look for too much of the ideal and dogmatic in the institutions of the children of Israel, yet we must never lose sight of the religious and educational character even of their ancient legislation.
1. Primary ments of tiiis institution in the soIntention calledCovenant Boole (Ex 21-23). Its connection with the day of rest (Sabbath) is obvious, although it strikes us as somewhat remarkable that in Ex 23 10-12 the regulation regarding the 7th year should precede the statute respecting the 7th day. Still it seems natural that after the allusion in ver 9, "Ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt," the Covenant Book should put in a good word for the poor in Israel (ver 11 : "Let
One central thought is brought home to them,
viz. God is the owner of the soil, and through His
grace only the chosen people have come
4. Central into its possession. Their time, i.e. Idea they themselves, belong to Him: this
it rest and he fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat"). Even the beasts of the field are remembered (cf Jon 4 11). We must, therefore, conclude that in this early period of the history of Israel the regulation regarding the 7th year was primarily intended for the relief of the poor and for the awakening of a sense of responsibility in the hearts of those better provided with the means of subsistence. It would be wrong, however, to deny its Sabbatic character, for the text says expressly, "But in the 7th year thou shaft
is the deepest meaning of the day of
rest; their land, i.e. their means of subststence, belong to Him: this reveals to us the innermost significance of the year of rest. It was Jeh's pleasure to call the children of Israel into life, and if they live and work and prosper, they are indebted to His unmerited loving-kindness. They should, therefore, put their absolute trust in Him, never doubt His word or His power, always obey Plim and so always receive His unbounded blessings.
If we thus put all the emphasis on the religious character of the Sabbatical year, we are in keeping with the idea permeating the O'T, namely that the children of Israel are the chosen people of Jeh. AU their agricultural, social, commercial and political relations were to be built upon their Divine calling and shaped according to God's sovereign will.
let it rest" (ht. "thou shalt release it"), implying that the land was entitled to a rest because it needed
it; it must be released for a time in order to gain fresh strength and insure its future fertility. Two motives, then, present themselves most clearly, one of a social, the other of an economic character, and both are rooted in God's dealings with Israel (cfEx 21 1).
But did they live up to it? Or, to limit the question to our subject: Did they really observe the Sabbatical year? There are those who hold that the law regarding the Sabbatical year was not observed before the captivity. In order to prove this assertion they point to Lev 26 34f.43; also to 2 Ch 36 21. But all we can gather from these passages
Another evidence of the humane spirit pervading the Mosaic Law may be found in Ex 21 2-6 where, in the
case of a Heb slave, the length of his
2. Mosaic servitude is limited to six years. The con-
- 1 ^- nection with the idea of the Sabbath is i/egisiauon evident, but we fail to detect here any Humane reference to the Sabbatical year. It is clear that the 7th year in which a slave might be set free need not necessarily coincide with the SaiSbatical year, though it might, of course. The same is true of Dt 15 12-18; it has nothing to do with the Sabbatical year. On the other hand it is reasonable to assume that the "release" mentioned in Dt 15 1-3 took glace in the Sabbatical year; in other words, its scope ad been enlarged in later years so as to include the release from pecuniary obligation, i.e. the remission of debts or, at least, their temporary suspension. This means that the children of Israel were now developing from a purely agricultural people to a commercial nation. Still the same spirit of compassion for the poor and those struggling for a living asserts itself as in the
is the palpable conclusion that the law regarding the Sabbatical year had not been strictly obeyed, a deficiency which may mar the effect of any law.
The possibility of observing the precept respecting the Sabbatical year is demonstrated by the post-
exilic history of the Jewish people. Nehemiah registers the solemn fact that the reestablished nation entered into a covenant to keep the law and to maintain the temple worship (Neh 9 38; 10 32 if). In ver 31 of the last-named chapter he alludes to the 7th year, "that we would forego the 7th year, and the exaction of every debt." We are not sure of the exact meaning of this short allu-
earlier period, and it goes without saying that the old regulation concerning the release of the land in the 7th year was still in force (cf ver 2; "because Jeh's release
sion; it may refer to the Sabbatical rest of the land and the suspension of debts.
hatli been proclaimed").
According to ver 1, this proclamation occurred at the end of every 7 years, or, rather, during the 7th year;
For a certainty we know that the Sabbatical year was observed by the Jews at the time of Alexander the Great. When he was petitioned by the Samaritans "that he would remit the tribute of the 7th year to them, because they did not sow therein, he asked who they were that made such a petition'
for we must be careful not to strain the expression ' at the end" (cf ver 9, where the 7th year is called "the year
of release"; it is quite natural to identify this 7th year with the Sabbatical year).
Moreover we are now almost compelled to assert that the Sabbatical year by this time had become an institution observed simultaneously all over the country. Prom the wording of the regulation regarding the 7th year in the Covenant Book we are not certain about this in those early times. But now it is different. Jeh s
he was told they were Hebrews, etc (Jos, Ant, XI,
viii, 6).
During Maccabean and Asmonean times the law regarding the Sabbatical year was strictly observed, although it frequently weakened the cause
release hath been proclaimed."
It was a solemn and general proclamation, the date
of the Jews (1 Mace 6 49.53; Jos, Anf, XIII, viii,
of which was very hkely the day of atonement in
1; cf BJ, I, ii, 4; Ant, XIV, x, 6; XV, i, 2). Again we may find references to the Sabbatical year in Jos, Ant, XIV, xvi, 2, etc; Tac. Hist. v. 4, etc, all of which testifies to the observance of the Sabbatical year in the Herodian era. The words of Tacitus show the proud Roman's estimate of the Jewish character and customs: "For the 7th day they are
the 7th month (the Sabbatical month).
3. General The celebration of the Feast of TaberObservance nacles (booths) began five days later and
it lasted from the 1.5th day to the 21st
of the 7th month (Tisri) . In the Sabbatical year at
that time, the Law was read "before all Israel m
their hearing," a fact which tends to prove that the
said to have prescribed rest because this day ended
Sabbatical year had become a matter of general and
their labors; then, in addition, being allured by
simultaneous observance (cf Dt 31 10-13). An-
their lack of energy, they also spend the 7th year
other lesson may be deduced from this passage:
in laziness." See also Astronomy, I, 5, (3), (4); Jubilee Year. William Baur
it gives us a hint respecting the use to which the
people may have put their leisure time during the
Sabbeus Sacraments THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2636
which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated
SABBEUS, sa-be'us (Sappatas, Sabbaias): In
to sacred uses; (2) as a mihtary term to designate the oath of obedience taken by newly
I Esd 9 32, the same as "Shemaiah" in Ezr 10 31.
1. The enlisted soldiers. Whether referring to Term an oath of obedience or to something
SABI, sa'bl:
(1) A, Sa/3el, Sabd, B, Tw^eis, Tobels. Fritzsche; AV Sami) : Eponym of a family of porters who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esd 5 28) = "Shobai" in Ezr 2 42; Neh 7 45.
set apart for a sacred purpose, it is evident that sacramentum would readily lend itself
to describe such ordinances as Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the Gr NT, however, there is no word nor even any general idea corresponding
(2) AV = RVSabie (q.v.).
to "sacrament," nor does the earliest history of Christianity afford any trace of the apphcation of the term to certain rites of the church. Pliny
SABIAS, sa-bi'as (SapCas, Sabias, Fritzsche, 'Ao-apCas, Asabias; AV Assabias): One of the six "captains over thousands" who supplied the Levites with much cattle for'Josiah's Passover (1 Esd 1 9) = "Hashabiah" in 2 Ch 35 9.
(c 112 AD) describes the Christians of Bithynia
as "binding themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime" [Epp. x.97), but scholars are now pretty generally agreed that Pliny here uses the word in its old Rom sense of an oath or solemn obligation, so that its occurrence in this passage is nothing more than an interesting coincidence.
SABIE, sa'bi-e (Sapei-ii, Saheit, or SaPirj, Sabie; AV Sabi) : In 1 Esd 5 34 both AV and RV, following A, read "the sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabie" (AV "Sabi") for the "Pochereth-hazzebaim" of Ezr 2 57; Neh 7 59. B reads correctly as one proper name: "Phacareth Sabie."
It is in the writings of TertuUian (end of 2d and beginning of 3d cent.) that we find the first evidence
of the adoption of the word as a technical term to designate Baptism, the Eucharist, and other rites
SABTA, or SABTAH, sab'ta (SnnO, sabhta', nri?D, sabhiah): Third son of Cush '(Gen 10 7 = 1 Ch 19). A place Sabta is probably to be looked for in South Arabia. Arab geographers give no exact equivalent of the name. Al Bekri (i.65) quotes a line of early poetry in which Dhu '1 Sabta is mentioned, and the context might indicate a situation in Yemamah ; but the word is possibly not a proper name. It is usually identified with Saubatha (Ptol., vi.7, 38) or with the Sabota of Pliny (vi.32;
of the Christian church. This Christian adoption
of sacramentum' may have been partly occasioned by the evident analogies which the word suggests with Baptism and the Eucharist; but what appears to have chiefly determined its history in this direction was the tact that in the Old Lat VSS (as afterward in the Vulg) it had been employed to translate the Gr fiv<TT-fipiov, musttrion, "a mystery" (e.g. Eph 5 32; 1 Tim 3 16; Rev 1 20; 17 7)—an association of ideas which was greatly fostered in the early church by the rapidly growing tendency to an assimilation of Christian worship with the mystery-practices of the Gr-Rom world.
xii.32), an old mercantile city in South Arabia celebrated for its trade in frankincense and, according to Ptolemy, possessing 60 temples. It is said also to have been the territory of a king Elisarus, whose name presents a striking resemblance to Dhu '1-Adhar, one of the "Tubbas" or Himyarite kings of Yemen. Another conjecture is the Saphtha of Ptolem5' (vi.7, 30) near the Arabian shore of the Pers Gulf. A. S. FrLTON
Though esp. employed to denote Baptism and the Eucharist, the name "sacraments" was for long
used so loosely and vaguely that it
2. Nature was applied to facts and doctrines of and Christianity as well as to its symbolic Number rites. Augustine's definition of a sacrament as "the visible form of an invisible grace" so far limited its application. But we see how widely even a definition like this might be stretched when we find Hugo of St. Victor (12th cent.) enumerating as many as 30 sacraments that had been recognized in the church. The Council of Trent was more exact when it declared that visible forms are sacraments only when they represent an invisible grace and become its channels, and when
SABTECA, sab't5-ka (X?ri3p , sabhi'kha' : SapaKa6d, Sabakathd, Stpteaxa, Sebethachd; AV Sabtechah) : The 5th named of the sons of Cush in the genealogy of Gen 10 .5-7. In 1 Ch 1 8.9 AV reads "Sabtecha," RV "Sabteoa." Many conjectures have been made as to the place here indicated. Recently Glazer (Skizze, II, 252) has revived the suggestion of Bochart that it is to be identified with Samydake in Carmania on the E. of the Pers Gulf. This seems to rest on nothing more than superficial resemblance of the names; but the phonetic changes involved are difficult. Others have thought of various places in Arabia, toward the Pers Gulf; but the data necessary for any satisfactory decision are not now available.
it sought further to delimit the sacramental area by reenacting (1547) a decision of the Council of Florence (1439), in which for the first time the authority of the church was given to a suggestion of Peter Lombard (r2th cent.) and other schoolmen that the number of the sacraments should be fixed at seven, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony—a suggestion which was supported by certain fanciful analogies designed to show that seven was a sacred number.
W. EwiNG SACAR, sa'kar (ID© , sakhar)
(1) Father of Ahiam, a follower of David (1 Ch II 35, B, 'Axdp, ^c/iiir. A, 2(ix<ip, iSacMr="Sha.rar" of 2 S 23 33; Sharar is favored as the original reading).
The divergence of the Protestant churches from this definition and scheme was based on the fact that these proceeded on no settled principles. The notion that there are seven sacraments has no NT authority, and must be described as purely arbitrary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. It is perfectly arbitrary, for example, to place Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ as ordinances of the church, in the same category with marriage, which rests not on His appointment but on a natural relationship between the sexes that is
(2) Eponym of a family of gatekeepers (1 Ch 26 4).
SACKBUT, sak'but. See Mu.sic, III, 1, (/).
SACKCLOTH, sak'kloth. See Bubi.^l.
SACRAMENTS, sak'ra-ments: The word "sacrament" comes from the Lat sacramentum, which in the classical period of the language was used in two chief senses: (1) as a legal term to denote the sum of money deposited by two parties to a suit
2637 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sabbeus Sacraments
as old as the human race. While, therefore, tlie Reformers retained the term "sacrament" as a convenient one to express the general idea that has to be drawn from the characteristics of the rites classed together under this name, they found the distinguishing marks of sacraments (1) in their institution by Christ, (2) in their being enjoined by Him upon His followers, (3) in their being bound up with His word and revelation in such a way that they become "the expressions of Divine thoughts, the visible symbols of Divine acts." And as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only two rites for which such marks can be claimed, it follows that there are only two NT sacraments. Their unique place in the original revelation justifies us in separating them from all other rites and ceremonies that may have arisen in the history of the church, since it raises them to the dignity of forming an integral part of the historical gospel. A justification for their being classed together under a common name may be found, again, in the way in which they are associated in the NT (Acts 2 41.42; 1 Cor 10 1-4) and also in the analogy which Paul traces between Baptism and the Lord's Supper on the one hand, and Circumcision and the Passover—the two most distinctive rites of the Old Covenant—on the other (Col 2 11; 1 Cor 5
farewell supper with His disciples, and that it never occurred to Him to institute a feast of commemoration. It has further been maintained that the views of Jesus regarding the speedy consummation of His kingdom make it impossible that He should have dreamed of instituting a sacrament to commemorate His death. The significance of the feast was eschatological merely; it was a pledge of a glorious future hour in the perfected kingdom of God (see Mt 26 29 and parallels) . And the theory has even been advanced that the institution of this sacrament as an ordinance of the church designed to commemorate Christ's death was due to the initiative of Paulj who is supposed to have been influenced in this direction by what he had seen in Corinth and elsewhere of the mystery-practices of the Gr world.
All these hypothetical fabrics fall, of course, to the ground if the underlying assumption that Jesus never said, "This do in remembrance of me," is shown to be unwarrantable. And it is unwarrantable to assume that a saying of Jesus which is vouched for by Paul and Luke cannot be authentic because it does not occur in the corresponding narratives of Matthew and Mark. In these narratives, which are highly compressed in any case, the first two evangelists would seem to have confined themselves to setting down those sayings which formed the essential moments of the Supper and gave its sjinbolic contents. The command of its repetition they may have regarded as sufficiently embodied and expressed in the universal practice of the church from the earliest days. For as to that practice there is no question (Acts 2 42.46; 20 7; 1 Cor 10 16; 11 26), and just as little that it rested upon the belief that Christ had enjoined it. "Every assumption of its having originated in the church from the recollection of intercourse with Jesus at table, and the necessity felt for recalling His death, is precluded" (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, II, 279). That the simple historical supper of Jesus with His disciples in the upper room was converted by Paul into an institution for the gentile and Jewish churches alike is altogether inconceivable. The primitive church had its bitter controversies, but there is no trace of any controversy as to the origin and institutional character of the Lord's Supper.
7; 11 26). The assumption made above, that both Baptism and the Lord's Sapper owe their origin as sacraments of the church to their definite
3. Instituappointment by Christ Himself, has tion by been strongly challenged by some Christ modern critics.
(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mk 16 15 f occurs in a passage (vs 9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mt 28 19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more esp. as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narra-
tives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mt 28 19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical
situation, that its universalism is contrary to the
facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula "foreign to the mouth of Jesus" (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given) . It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural presuppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises
In the NT the sacraments are presented as means of grace. Forgiveness (Acts 2 38), cleansing (Eph 5 25 f), spiritual quickening (Col 2
4. Efficacy 12) are associated with Baptism; the Lord's Supper is declared to be a participation in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10 16). So far all Christians are agreed; but wide divergence shows itself thereafter. According to the doctrine of the Rom church, sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato, i.e. in virtue of a power inherent in themselves as outward acts whereby they communicate saving benefits to those who receive them without opposing any obstacle. The Reformed doctrine, on the other hand, teaches that their efficacy lies not in themselves as outward acts, but in the blessing of Christ and the operation of His Spirit, and that it is conditioned by faith in the recipient. The traditional Lutheran doctrine agrees with the Reformed in affirming that faith is necessary as the condition of saving benefits in the use of the sacraments, but resembles the Rom teaching in ascribing the efficacy of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, not to the attendant working of the Holy Spirit, but to a real inherent and objective virtue resident in them—a virtue, however, which does not lie (as the Rom church says) in the mere elements and actions of the sacraments, but in the power of the Divine word which they embody. See Baptism; Lord's Supper.
are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite
of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Acts 2 38.41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all
his freedom of thought and spiritual interpreta-
tion of the gospel, never questioned its necessity
(cf Rom 6 3ff; 1 Cor 12 13; Eph 4 5). On any
other supposition than that of its appointment by Our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death
of Jesus and the apostle's earliest references to the
subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and gentile Christians alike.
(2) In the case of the Lord's Supper the challenge
of its institution by Christ rests mainly upon the
fact that the saying, "This do in remembrance of me," is absent from the Mk-Mt text, and is found
only in the Supper-narratives of Paul (1 Cor 11
24.25) and his disciple Luke (Lk 22 19). Upon
this circumstance large structures of critical hy-
pothesis have been reared. It has been affirmed
that in the upper room Jesus was only holding a
Sacrifice (OT) THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2638
Literature.—Candlish, The Christian Sacraments; Lambert. The Sacraments in the NT; Bartlet. Apostolic Age. 495 fl; Hodge, Systematic Theology, III. ch xx,
10. Vicarious Expiation Theory; Objections 11. Typology of Sacrifice Literature
/. Terms and Definitions.—Ti^T, ^ebhah. " sa,cv\ace" ; nbiy. 'ofd*," burnt offering"-, nsbn, hataah. nsDn
J. C. Lambert SACRIFICE, sak'ri-fis, sak'ri-fiz:
hattath, " sin offering" ; DUJS . 'asAam, "guilt" or "tres-
In the Old Testament
; nbip, sheleni, QTob© , sA'iamtm, "peace
pass offering "
I. Terms .\nd Definitions II. Origin and Nature of Sacrifices
offerings"; nn?iO . minhah, "offering." "present";
1. Theory of a Divine Revelation 2. Tiieories of a Human Origin
D"''!3bTlJ niT , ^zebhah sh'lamim, "sacrifice of peace offer-
ings"; rninn n3T. zeiAaft^ia-iodAa/i," thank offerings"; nD~5 nit, zebhah n'dhabhah, "free-wiU offerings";
(1) Tlie Gilt-Tiieorv (2) Tlie Magic Theory (3) The Table-Bond theory (4) The Sacramental Comniunion Theory
"1"; nST, zebhah nedher, "votive offerings"; nS^rP
(.5) The Homage Theory (6) The Piacular Theory (7) Originating in Religious Instincts III. Classification of S.\crifices
t'niphah, "wave offering"; H^liri . t'rHmdh, "heave
offering"; "S^lp korbdn, "oblation," "gift"; HIBN
'ishsheh, " fire offering " ; TTCS, nesefc/i, "drink offering";
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. Among Arabians and Syrians, etc 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 S.4.crificial System
b'^bs , kalll, " whole burnt offering " ; yn < hagh, "feast";
ni'l^b, I'bhonah, "frankincense"; mlUp. kHordh,
rriiljp . k'toreth, "odor," "incense"; nb^, melah,
"salt": 'i.'ty^ , shemen, "oil": Zebhah:\ " slaughtered animal," a "sacrifice," general term for animals used in sacrifice, including burnt offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings, and all sacrifices offered to the Deity and eaten at the festivals. More particularly it refers to the flesh eaten by the worshippers after the fat parts had been burned on the altar and the priest had received his portion.
'Olah: a "burnt offering." sometimes whole burnt offering. Derived from the vb. 'd/d/z, "to go up." Itmay mean "that which goes up to the altar" (Knobel, Welliiausen, Nowack, etc), or "that which goes up in smoke to the sky" (Bahr, Delitzsch, Dillmann, etc); sometimes used synonymously with kdUl (q.v.). 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.
1. The Covenant Sacrifice 2. The Common Altars 3. The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons 4. Before the Golden Calf 6. The Law of the Burnt Offering (1) Ritual for the Offerer (2) Ritual for the Priest (3) General Laws for the Priest (4) Laws in Deuteronomy 6. The Law of the Meal Offering (1) Ritual for the Offerer (2) Ritual for the Priest (3) General Laws for the Priest 7. The Law of the Peace Offering (1) Ritual for the Offerer (2) Ritual for the Priest (3) General Laws for the Priest 8. The Law of the Sin Offering (1) At the Consecration of Aaron (2) Laws
Hdtd'dh, hattd'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 olfering: (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.
'Ashdm: " guilt offering," " trespass offering " (AV; in Isa 53 10. AV and RV "an offering for sin," ARVm" trespass offering"). A special kind of sin offering introduced in the ISIosaic Law and concerned with offences 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 coifld 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 calUng of the Servant an 'dshdm (Isa 63 10) shows the value attached to this offering.
(a) The Occasion and Meaning (b) Ritual for the Offerer (c) Ritual for the Priest (d) General Laws for the Priest (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 (2) Special Laws: Leper, Nazirite, etc 10. The Wave Offering 11. The Heave Offering 12. Drink Offerings 13. Primitive Nature of the Cultus VI. S.^cRiFicES in the History of Isr.ael
Shelem, shHdmlm: "peace offering," generally used in the pi., sh'lamim, only once shelem (Am 5 22). These were sacrifices of friendship expressing or promoting peaceful relations with the Deity, and almost invariably accompanied by a meal or feast, an occasion of great joy. They are sometimes caUed z'bhdhim. sometimes zebkah sh'lamim , and were of different kinds, such as zebhah ha-todhdh, "thank offerings," which expressed the gratitude of the giver because of some t)lessings, zebhah n'^- dhabhah, "free-will offerings," bestowed on the Deity out of a full heart, and zebhah nedher, "votive offerings," which were offered in flUfilmeut of a vow.
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-exihc Periods 9. At Elephantine 10. Human Sacrifices 11. Certain Heathen Sacrifices VII. The Prophets and Sacrifices VIII. Sacrifice in the "Writings"
Minhah: "meal Offering" (RV), "meat offering" (AV), a gift or presentation, at first applied to both bloody and unbloody offerings (Gen 4 5), but in Moses' time confined to cereals, whether raw or roasted, 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 hfe, if not life itself. They were the invariable accompaniment of animal sacriflces, and in one instance could be substituted for them (see Sin Offering). The term minhah describes a gift or token of friendship (Isa 39 1), an act of homage (1 S 10 27; 1 K 10 25), tribute (,lgs 3 15.17 f), propitiation to a friend wronged (Gen 32 13.18 [Heb 14 19]), to procure favor or assistance (Gen 43 11 fl; Hos 10 fj). T'nUphdh: "wave offering," usually the breast, the priest's share of the peace oirerings, which was waved before the altar by both offerer and priest together (the exact motion is not certain), symbolic of its presentation
1. Proverbs 2. The Psahns IX. The Idea and Efficacy of Sacrifices
1. A Gift of P'ood 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 Lite b. View of Ritschl
7. The Sacramental View 8. Symbol or Expression of Prayer . 9. View of Kautzsch
2639 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sacrifice (OT)
to Deity and given back by Him to the offerer to be used in the priests' service.
logians, and was based mainly on the narrative in Gen 4 4 f . Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice, and, according to He 11 4, this was
T'rumdii: "heave offering," sometiung lifted up, or, properly, separated from the rest and given to the service ot the Deity. Usually the right shoulder or thigh was thus separated (or the priest. The term is apphed to products of the soil, or portion of land separated unto the Divine service, etc. Korban: "an oblation," or "offering"; another generic term for all kinds of offerings, animal, vegetable, or even gold and silver. Derived from the vb. karabh, "to draw near," it signifies what is drawn or brought near and given to God.
1. Theory because of his faith. Faber makes a of a Divine strong plea as follows: Since faith was Revelation 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 Bib. 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.
'Ishsheh: " flro offering," applied to offerings made by Are and usually bloody offerings, but at times to the minhdh. 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 etlierealized food.
Nesekh: "drink offering," or "hbation," a liquid offering of wine, rarely water, sometimes of oil, and usually accompanying the 'oldh, but often with the peace offerings.
Kdlil: "whole burnt offering," the entire animal being burned upon the altar. Sometimes used synonymously with 'olah. A technical term among the Carthaginians.
Hagh: a "feast," used metaphorically for a sacrificial feast because the meat ot the sacrifices constituted the material of the feast.
L^bhondh: "frankincense," "incense," used in combination with the meal offerings and burnt offerings and burned also upon the altar in the holy place. See Incense.
KHordh, k^oreih: "smoke," "odor of sacrifice," or incense ascending as a sweet savor and supposed to be pleasing and acceptable to God.
(1) The gift-theory.—By this it is held that sacri-
fices were originally presents to the deity which the
Melah: "salt," used in all sacrifices because of its purifying and preserving qualities.
offerer took for granted would be re-
Shemen: "oil," generally olive oil, used with the meal offerings of cakes and wafers, etc.
2. Theories ceived with pleasure and even gratiof a Human tude. Good relations would thus be Origin 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 fetiches 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.
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,
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 dispo.sition to them will be, since even a good man will refuse to accept presents from the wicked" UIDB, IV, 3:31a). 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 Bib. sacrifices.
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."
(2) The magic theory.—There are two slightly variant forms of this: (a) that of R. C. Thompson (Sem Magic, lU 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;
//. Origin and Nature of Sacrifices.—The beginnings of sacrifice are hidden in the mysteries of pre-
historic life. The earliest narrative in Gen 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-estabhshed custom was adopted and systematized in the Mosaic Law. The practice was almost universal. The Vedas have their elaborate rituals. Some Sem peoples, Greeks, Romans, Africans, and Indians
(6) 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 ot the blood to the altar, or by the sacrifice ot tlie animal and the contact ot the sacrificer with its blood. Such theories give no account of the burnt offerings, meal offerings and sin offermgs, disconnect them entirely from any sense ot sm 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.
of Mexico offered human sacrifices. It is unknown
in Austraha, 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.
One view maintains that God Himself initiated
(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 fellowshiip between them. Sykes (Nature of
the rite by Divine order at the beginnmgs 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 theo-
Sacrifice (OT) THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2640
Sacrifices, 75) first advocated this, holding that the efScacy of sacrifices
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
' is the fact that eating and drinking were the Icnown 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 worsliipper 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."
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 piacu-
(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 beheved 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 phj'sical, 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 (RS^, 31.3). In some cases the blood
lum, 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 (2 S 24 24a). 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 [OT 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 ''oldh and others. In most cases the joyous feast followed the killing of the animal by which the ex-
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 carcase was eaten up before morning.
The brilhant work of W. R. Smith has not been universally accepted. L. MariUier 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 estabhshed 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 apphcable to some of the heathen or savage feasts of the Arabs, but not to the practices of the Hebrews (see Enc Brit, XXIII, 981).
piation was accomplished, and the feast was joyoua 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 instiyicts.—Neither the 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 reUgious
(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.
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
(6) The piacular theory.—This holds that sacri-
fices 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
2641 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sacrifice (OT)
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 tlie 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. Tliat the culture and civilization of Babylon was known to Egypt and Israel with other nations is shown clearly by the Am Tab. Special sacrifices on special occasions were offered in Babylonia as in Israel. As Jastrow says. "In the Heb codes, both as regards the purely legal portions and those sections dealing with religious ritual, Bab methods of legal procedure and of ritual developed in Bab temples must be taken into consideration as determining factors." We do not doubt that Moses made use of many elements found in the Egyp and Bab 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. Among the nomads and tribes of Arabia and Syria, sacrifices had been common for millenniiuns before Moses.
abuses, that the sense of sin would be obscured or lost among some peoples, and the idea of sacrifice correspondingly degraded. Such has heen' 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.
///. Classification of Sacrifices.—Maimonides was among the first to classify them, and he divided them
into two Idnds: (1) Those on behalf of the
1. Maimon- "whole congregation, fixed by statute, time.
j J number and ritual being specified. This laes 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, sin and guilt offerings with their accompaniments.
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 2. W. R. offerings; (2) piacular, designed to exQmi+ln anH piate or make atonement for the errors omim ana q, ^^g people, i.e. burnt, sin and guilt Others offerings; (3) communistic, intended to establish the bond between the god and the worshipper, such as peace offerings.
The researches of WelUiausen and W. R. n ivrrtmoile Smith are valuable here, whatever one
Oehler divides them into two classes, viz. ; (1) those which assume that the covenant relation is undisturbed,
J ™-u ™^y think ol their theories. The offerand Tribes ings were usually from the fiocks and herds. of Arabia sometimes from the spoils taken in war and "^vrifl which had been appropriated as their own. ana oyna r^j^g 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. Assyr kings sometimes sacrificed captive Itings. The Canaanites and others constantly sacrificed children, esp. the firstborn.
such as peace offerings ; (2) those intended « Oplilpr ^^ *^° away with any disturbance in the 0. v-»eiiier relation and to set it right, such as burnt, sin and guilt offerings. Professor Pat«rson and others divide them into three: (1) animal sacrifices, burnt, peace, sin and guilt offerings; (2) vegetable sacrifices, meal offerA Patpr<:nTi '"^s, shewbread, etc; (3) liquid and *' .rauci&uii incense offerings; wine, oil, water, etc. H. M. Wiener offers a more suggestive and scientific division {Essai/s 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, viz. burnt, meal and peace offerings; (2) statutory individual offerings, introduced by Moses, offered by laymen with priestly assistance and at the religious capital, i.e. burnt, peace, meal, sin and guilt offerings; (3) statutory national offerings introduced by Moses and offered by the priest at the religious capital, viz. burnt, meal, peace and sin offerings.
6. Wiener
The account of the offerings of Cain and Abel (Gen 4 4 f) shows that the ceremony dates from almost the beginnings of the human
4. Cain race. The custom of offering the firstand Abel hngs and first-fruits had already begun. Arabian tribes later had a similar custom. Cain's offering was cereal and is called minhah, "a gift" or "presentation." The same term is applied to Abel's. There is no hint that the bloody sacrifice was in itself better than the unbloody one, but it is shown that sacrifice without a right attitude of heart
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.
is not acceptable to God. This same truth is emphasized by the prophets and others, and is needed
In Egypt—probably from the beginning of the 4th millennium BO—there were sacrifices and sacrificial systems. Temples at Abydos, Thebes,
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 pro-
1 T I7,v^m<. On, etc, were great priestly centers with 1. in Hgypt ijjgij priests, lower priests, rituals and sac-
rifices 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,
pitiation.
The sacrifices of Noah followed and celebrated the epochal and awe-inspiring event of leaving the ark
fruit vegetables were offered, but not human bemgs. In these offerings there were many resemblances to the Heb 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 in-
and beginning hfe anew. He offered
5. Noah burnt offerings of all the clean animals (Gen 8 20 ff) . On such a solemn occasion only an 'olah would suffice. The custom of using domestic animals had arisen at this time. The sacrifices expressed adoration, recognition of God's power and sovereignty, and a gift to please Him, for it is said He smelled a sweet savor and was pleased. It was an odor of satisfaction or restful-
stitute such a system.
In Babylonia, from the year 3000 BC or thereabouts, according to E. Meyer {GeschirMe des Alterthuma) , there were many centers of worship such as
9 Tt, Rahv Eridu, Nippur, Agade. Erech, Ur, Nisin, i. m oaoy La^sa, Sippar, etc. These and others lonia 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 lit. and tablets, so that Babylonia was studded with temples and edifices for the gods. At all
ness. Whether or not the idea of expiation was included is difficult to prove. Abraham lived at a time when sacrifices and rehgion were virtually identical. No mention is made
of his offering at Ur or Haran, but
these, sacrifices were constantly offered—animal and
6. Abraham on his arrival at Shechem he erected an altar (Gen 12 7). At Beth-el also
vegetable. A long list of the offerings of King Gudea
includes oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (i.e.
(ver 8), and on his return from Egypt he worshipped
eagles and doves), dates, milk, greens (Jastrow. in HDB, V 580 t s v ) The sacrifices provided an income for
there (Gen 13 4). Such sacrifices expressed adora-
Sacrifice (OT) THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2642
tion and prayer and probably propitiation. They constituted worship, which is a complex exercise. At Hebron he built an altar (Gen 13 18), officiating always as his own priest. In 15 4 ff he offers a "covenant" sacrifice, when the animals were slain, divided, the parts set opposite each other, and prepared for the appearance of the other party to the covenant. The exact idea in the killing of these animals may be difficult to find, but the effect is to give the occasion great solemnity and the highest religious sanction. What was done with the carcases afterward is not told. That animals were slain for food with no thought of sacrilice is shown by the narrative in ch 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 cent. BC. In ch 22 Abraham attempts to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering, as was probably the custom of his neighbors. That he attempted it shows that the practice was not shocking to his ethical nature. It tested the strength of his devotion to God, shows the right spirit in sacrifices, and teaches for all time that God does not desire human sacrifice—a beast will do. What God does want is the obedient heart. Abraham continued his worship at Beer-sheba (Gen 21 33), 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 7. Book constantly offered sacrifices on behalf of Job of his children (1 5), "sanctifying" them. His purpose no doubt was to atone for possible sin. The sacrifices were mainly expiatory. This is true also of the sacrifices of his friends (42 7-9).
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.
As a priest of Midian Jethro was an expert in
sacrificing. On meeting Moses and the people he
offered both 'olah and z'bhahim and 11. Jethro made a feast (Ex 18 12). 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 12. Sumconstantly rising heavenward. Burnt mary and offerings and peace offerings were well Conclusions 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.—The fundamental function of Moses' work was to establish the
covenant between Israel and God.
1. The This important transaction took place Covenant at Sinai and was accompanied by Sacrifice solemn sacrifices. The foundation principle was obedience, not sacrifices (Ex 19 4-8). No mention is made of these at the time, as they were incidental—mere by-laws to the constitution. The center of gravity in Israel's religion is now shifted from sacrifices to obedience and lojralty to Jeh. Sacrifices were helps to that end and without obedience were worthless. This
is in exact accordance with Jer 7 21 ff. God did not speak unto the fathers at this time about sacrifices; He did speak about obedience.
Isaac seems to have had a permanent altar at Beer-sheba and to have regularly offered sacrifices.
Adoration, expiation and supplica8. Isaac tion would constitute his chief motives
The covenant having been made, the terms and conditions are laid down by Moses and accepted by the people (Ex 24 3). The Decalogue and Covenant Code are given, an altar is built, burnt and peace offerings of oxen are slain by young men servants of Moses, not by priests, and blood is sprinkled on the altar (24 4 ff). The blood would symbohze the community of hfe between Jeh 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 (24 7f). Ascending the mount, they had a vision of God, held a feast before Him, showing the joys and privileges of the new relationship. The strilting 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 Sem worship.
(Gen 26 25). Jacob's first recorded sacrifice was the pouring of the oil upon the stone at Beth-el (Gen 28 18). This was consecration or dedication 9. Jacob in recognition of the awe-inspiring presence of the Deity. After his covenant with Laban he offered sacrifices (z'bhdhim) and they ate bread (Gen 31 54). At Shechem, Jacob erected an altar (Gen 33 20). At Beth-el (35 7) and at Beer-sheba he offered sacrifices to Isaac's God (46 1). While the Israelites were in Egypt they would be accustomed to spring sacrifices and spring feasts,
for these had been common among the 10. Israel Arabs and Syrians, etc, for centuries. in Egypt Nabataean inscriptions testify to this. Egyp sacrifices have been mentioned (see above). At these spring festivals it was probably customary to offer the firstlings of the flocks (cf Ex 13 15). At the harvest festivals sacrificial feasts were celebrated. It was to some such feast Moses said Israel as a people wished to go in the wilderness (Ex 3 18; 5 3ff; 7 16). Pharaoh understood and asked who was to go (Ex 10 8). Moses demanded flocks and herds tor the feast (10 9). Pharaoh would keep the flocks, etc (10 24), but Moses said they must offer sacrifices and burnt offerings (10 25 f).
In the Covenant Code, which the people accepted, the customary altars are not abolished, but regu-
lated (Ex 20 24 ff). This law ex2. The pressly applies to the time when they Common shall be settled in Canaan. Tn the Altars whole place where I cause my name to be remembered,' etc (ver 24 m). 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 ehgible. On such rude altars sacrifices were allowed. This same law is implied in Dt 16 21, a passage either ignored or explained away by the Wellhausen school (see Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, 200 f). Moses commanded Joshua in accordance with it (Dt 27 5ff). Joshua, Gideon, Jephthah, Samuel,
The sacrifice of the Passover soon occurs (Ex 12 3-11). That the Hebrews had been accustomed to sacrifice their own firstborn at this season has no support and is altogether improbable (Frazer, Golden Bough', pt. Ill, 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 carcase roasted whole, eaten that night.
2643 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sacrifice (OT)
Saul, David, Elijah and many others used such altars. There were altars at Shechem (Josh 24 1.26), Mizpa,h in Gilead (Jgs 11 11), Gilgal (1 S 13 9). High places were chiefly used until the times of Hezekiah and Josiah, when they were abolished because of their corruptions, etc. All such altars were perfectly legitimate and in fact necessary, until there was a central capital and sanctuary in Jerus. The customary burnt and peace offerings with the worshipper officiating were the chief factors. Heathen sacrifices and the use of heathen altars were strictly forbidden (Ex 22 20 [Heb 19]
(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) The riliial for the priest (Lev 1 3-17).~I! 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 carcase, 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 carcase on the
34 15).
The altar used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons was a "horned" or official altar, the central one. The offerings were a tjullocls, two rams, q The Con- ""'''^^^'"'^'i bread, etc (Ex 29 1-4). and
altar.
(3) General laws for the priest.—The burnt offering must be continued every morning and every evening
(Ex 29 38 f ; Nu 28 3-8). At the fulfiknent of his vow the Nazirite must present it before God and offer it upon the altar through the priest (Nu 6 14.
,7 " were brought to the door of the sanctuary. secration or The ritual consisted of Aaron laying his Aaron and hand on the bullock's head, designating Hi<! Snn<i ** ^*^ ^'^ substitute (29 10). killing it before ouiio ji^g ^gj^j. Qj meeting (ver 11), smearing some blood on the horns of the altar, and pouring the rest at its base (ver 12). The blood consecrated the altar, the life was given as atonement for sins, the fat parts were burned upon the altar as food for God, and the flesh and remainder were burned without tile camp (vs 13.14). Tiiis is a sin offering hatfd'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 Are Cishsheh) unto God as a burnt offering, an odor of a sweet savor (vs 15-18). The naive and primitive nature of this idea is apparent. The other ram, the ram of consecration, is slain, blood is smeared on Aaron's right ear, thumb and great toe; in the case of his sons likewise. The blood is sprinkled on the altar round about; some upon the garments of Aaron and his .sons (vs 19-21J. Certain parts are waved before Jeh along with the bread, and are then burned upon the altar (vs 22-2.5). The breast is offered as a wave offering (fnuphdh), and the right thigh or shoulder as a heave offering {t'-rumdh). These portions here first mentioned were the priests' portion for all time to come, although this particular one went to Moses, since he officiated
16) : on the Sabbath, two lambs (Nu 28 9) ; on the
first of the month, two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs (Nu 28 11); on the day of first-fruits, the same (Nu 28 27) ; on the 1st day of the 7th month, one bullock, one ram, seven lambs (Nu 29 8) ; on the 15th day, 13 bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs, the number of bullocks diminishing daily until the 7th day, when seven bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs were offered (Nu 29 12-34) ; on the 22nd day of this month one bullock, one ram and seven lambs were offered (Nu 29 35.36). Non-Israelites were permitted to offer the 'oldh, but no other sacrifices (Lev 17 8; 22
18.25).
(4) Laws in Dt (12 6.13.14.27; 27 6).—Anticipating a central sanctuary in the future, the lawgiver counsels the people to bring their offerings there (12 6.11); they must be careful not to offer them in any place (ver 13), but must patronize the central sanctuary (ver 14) . In the meantime common altars and customary sacrifices were allowable and generally necessary (16 21; 27 6). The term "meal offering" is here confined to offerings of flour or meal, etc (AV "meat-offering"), and
( vs 26—:30j . 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 (vs 3 1-34) . 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 Jeh, and it was most holy (vs 35-37). The altar of incense is ordered (Ex 30 1), and Aaron
was first used at the consecration of
6. Law of Aaron and his sons (Ex 29 41). These the Meal must not be offered on the altar of Offering incense (Ex 30 9); were used at the (minhaK) completion of the tabernacle (40 29); and always with the morning and evening burnt offerings.
is to put the blood of the sin offering once a year upon its horns to consecrate it.
When the golden calf was made an altar was erected, burnt and peace offerings were presented.
(1) Thi ritual for the offerer (Lev 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
From the latter a feast was made, the
4. Sacrifices people followed the usual habits at such before the festivals, went to excess and Joined in Golden CaU revelry. Moses' ear quickly detected the nature of the sounds. The covenant was now broken and no sacrifice was available