Part 59
2. Efficacious When Subjectively Applied VIII The Christian's Life the Life of Sacrifice
1. Consequence of Christ's Sacrifice „, . ^. , 2. Christ's Death the Appeal for Christian s
is prominent, is well-nigh universal in the ethnic
religions, being found among even the most enhghtened peoples like the Greeks and Romans (see art. "Expiation and Atonement" in ERE). Whether
3. Necessary to Fill Out Christ's Sacrifice
4. Content of the Christian's Sacrifice
5. The Supper as a Sacrifice Literature
Sacrifice (NT) THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2652
nant (6 5; 7 1-28). The heart of this author's teaching is that animal sacrifices cannot possibly atone for sin or produce moral transformation, since they are Divinely appointed only as a type or shadow of the one great sacrifice by Christ (8 7; 10 1). To sum up, the NT writers, as well as Jesus, regarded the OT sacrificial system a^ of Divine origin and so obhgatory in its day, but imperfect and only a type of Christ's sacrifice, and so to be supplanted by His perfect sacrifice.
or not the system of animal sacrifices would have ceased, not only in Judaism but also in aU the ethnic religions, had not Jesus hved and taught and died,
is a question of pure speculation. It must be conceded that the sect of the Jews (Essenes) attaining to the highest ethical standard and living the most unselfish lives of brotherhood and benevolence did not believe in animal sacrifices. But they exerted small influence over the Jewish nation as compared with the Pharisees. It is also to be noted that the prophets Amos, Hosea, Micah and Isaiah exalted the ethical far above the ceremonial; even denounced the sacrifice of animals if not accompanied by personal devotion to righteousness (Am 5 21 iT; Hos 6 6; Mic 6 6 ff; Isa 1 11 ff). The Stoic and Platonic philosophers also attacked the sj'stem of animal sacrifices. But these exceptions only accentuate the historical fact that man's sense of the necessity of sacrifice to Deity is well-nigh universal. Only the sacrifice of Christ and the destruction of Jerus caused a cessation of the daily, weekly, monthly and annual sacrifices among the Jews, and only the knowledge of Christ's sacrifice of Himself will finally destroy the last vestige of animal sacrifice.
///. The Sacrificial Idea in the NT.—The one central idea of NT writers is that the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross is the final perfect
sacrifice for the atonement of sin and the salvation of men, a sacrifice t}T)ified in the various sacrifices of the OT, which are in turn abrogated by the operation of the final sacrifice. Only James and Jude among NT writers are silent as to the sacrifice
of Christ, and they -nTite for practical purposes only.
The Baptist, it is true, presents Jesus as the coming Judge in the Synoptic Gospels, but in Jn 1 29.36 he refers to Him as "the Lamb of
1. Teaching God," in the former passage adding of John the "that taketh away the sin of the Baptist world." Westcott {Comm. on St. John, 20) says: "The title as applied to Christ .... conveys the ideas of vicarious suffering, of patient submission, of sacrifice, of redemption, etc." There is scarcely any doubt that the Baptist looked upon the Christ as the one who came to make the great sacrifice for man's
//. Attitude of Jesus and NT Writers to the OT Sacrificial System.—Jesus never attacks the
sacrificial system. He even takes for
1. Jesus' granted that the Jews should offer Attitude sacrifices (Mt 5 24). More than that. He accepted the whole sacrificial system, a part of the OT scheme, as of Divine origin, and so He commanded the cleansed leper to offer the sacrifice prescribed in the Mosaic code (Mt 8 4) . _ There is no record that Jesus Himself ever worshipped by offering the regular sacrifices. But He worshipped in the temple, never attacking the sacrificial system as He did the oral law (Mk 7 6 ff). On the other hand, Jesus undermined the sacrificial system by teaching that the ethical transcends the ceremonial, not only as a general principle, but also in the act of worship (Mt 5 23.24). He endorses Hosea's fine ethical epigram, 'God will have mercy and not sacrifice' (Mt 9 13; 12 7). He also commends as near the kingdom the scribe who put love to God and man above sacrifice (Mk 12 33). But Jesus teaches not merely the inferiority of sacrifice to the moral law, but also the discontinuance of sacrifice as a system, when He said, "This
sins. Professor Burton {Bib. Ideas of Atonement, Burton, Smith and Smith, 107) says that John sees Christ "sufJering under the load of human sin." There are recorded in the SjTioptic Gospels two immistakable references by Jesus to His death as a
i| Mt 20 28; Mk 2. Teach14 24 || Mt 26 28 1| Lk 22 20; cf 1 ing of Cor 11 25). In the former He declares Jesus He came to give His "life a ransom." Thayer (Gr-Eng. Lex. of the NT) says this word means "the price paid for redeeming." Hence the idea in ransom must be of sacrificial significance. But if there could be any doubt as to the sacrificial import of this passage, there is a clear case of the sacrificial idea in Mk 14 24. Practically all -nTiters of the NT theology, Wendt, Weiss, Stevens, Sheldon and others, hold that Jesus considered the death as the ratification sacrifice of the new covenant, just as the sacrifice offered at Sinai ratified the old covenant (Ex 24 3-8). _ Ritschl and Beyschlag deny that this passage is sacrificial. But according to most exegetes, Jesus in this reference regarded His death as a sacrifice. The nature of the sacrifice, as Jesus estimated it, is in doubt and is to be discussed later. What we are pressing here is the fact that Jesus regarded His death as a sacrifice. We have to concede the meagerness of material on the sacrificial idea of His death as taught by Jesus. Yet these two references are unquestioned by Hterary and historical critics. They both occur in Mk, the primitive Gospel (the oldest Gospel record of Jesus' teachings). The first occurs in two of the Synoptists, the second in aU three of them. Luke omits the first for reasons peculiar to his purpose. According to Lk 24 25, Jesus regarded His sufferings and death as the fulfilment of the OT Scriptures.
sacrifice (Mk 10 45
is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mk 14 24; Mt 26 28; Lk 22 20). Not only is the ethical superior to the ceremonial, but His sacrifice of Himself is as superior to the sacrifices of the old system as the new covenant is superior to the old.
Paul's estimate of the Jewish sacrifices is easily seen, although he does not often refer to them. Once only (Acts 21 26) after his 2. Paul's conversion does he offer the Jewish Attitude sacrifice, and then as a matter of ex-
_ pediency for winning the Judaistic wing of Christianity to his universal gospel of grace. He regarded the sacrifices of the OT as types of the true sacrifice which Christ made (1 Cor 5 7). The author of the Ep. to the He discusses the OT sacrifices more fully than other NT writers. He regards the bloody sacrifices as superior 3. Attitude to the unbloody and the yearly sacriof the fice on the Day of Atonement by the Author of high priest as the climax of the OT Hebrews system. The high priest under the old covenant was the type of Christ under the new. The sacrifices of the old covenant could not take away sin, or produce moral transformation, because of the frailties of men (10 1-11), shown by the necessity of repeating the offerings (5 2), and because God had appointed another high priest, His Son, to supplant those of the old cove-
Though the head apostle does not in the early chapters of Acts refer to Christ as the sacrifice for
sin, he does imply as much in 2 36 3. Teach- (He is Lord and Christ in spite of His ing of crucifixion); 3 18.19 (He fulfilled the Peter prophecies lay suffering, and by means of repentance sins are to be blotted out); 4 10-12 (only in His name is salvation) and in 5 30.31 (through whose death Israel received
2653 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sacrifice (NT)
Col 1 14). In the pastoral letters (1 Tim 2 6) he teaches that Christ gave "himself a ransom for
remission of sins). In his First Ep. (1 18.19) he expressly declares that we are redeemed by the blood of the spotless Christ, thus giving the sacrificial significance to His death. The same is implied in 1 2; 3 18. Paul ascribes saving efficacy to the blood of Christ in Rom 3 25; 5 9; 1 Cor 10 16; Eph 1 7; 2 13; Col 1 20. He identifies Christ with 4. Paul's a sin offering in Rom 8 3, and perhaps Teaching also in 2 Cor 5 21, and with the paschal lamb in 1 Cor 5 7. In other passages he implies that the death of Christ secured redemption, forgiveness of sins, justification and adoption (Rom 3 24-26; 5 10.11; 8 15.17, etc). The argument of the author of He to prove the finaUty of Christianity is that Christ is superior to the Aaronic high priest, being a royal, 5. Teaching eternal high priest, after the order of of Hebrews Melchizedek, and offering Himself as the final sacrifice for sin, and for the moral transformation of men (4 14; 10 18).
all." This is the only NT passage in which occurs the strong word anliluiron for "ransom." In his old age the apostle feels more positively than ever before that Christ's death is the ransom price of man's deliverance from sin.
The author of He asserts that Christ by the sacri-
fice of Himself "obtained eternal redemption" for man (9 12). John says that Christ "loosed [Xi^w, Mo] us from our sins by his blood" (Rev 1 5). This idea in John is akin to that of redemption or deliverance by ransom. Peter teaches the same truth in 1 Pet 1 19. So, we see, Jesus and all the NT writers regard Christ's sacrifice as the procuring cause of human redemption.
The idea of reconciliation involves a personal difference between two parties. There is estrangement between God and man. Recon-
2. ReconciUation is the restoration of favor beciliation tween the two parties. Jesus does not utter any direct message on reconciliation, but implies God's repugnance at man's sin and strained relations between God and the unrepentant sinner (see Lk 18 13). He puts into the mouth of the praying ta.x-gatherer the words, 'God be propitious to me' (see Thayer, Gr-Eng. Lex., hilaskomai) , but Jesus nowhere asserts that His death secures the reconciliation of God to the sinner. Paul, however, does. "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son," etc (Rom 5 10). There can be no doubt from this passage that Paul thought of the death of Christ as the procuring cause of recon-
_ In the First Ep. of Jn (1 7; 2 2; 5 6.8) propitiation for sin and cleansing from sin are ascribed
to the blood of Christ. In Rev 1 5 6. JohanJohn ascribes deliverance (not washing nine Teachor cleansing, according to best MSS) ing from sin , to the blood of Christ. Several times he calls Christ the Lamb, making the sacrificial idea prominent. Once he speaks of Him as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (13 8). To sum up, all the NT writers, except James and Jude^ refer to Christ's death as the great sacrifice for sm. Jesus Himself regarded His death as such. In the various types of NT teaching Christ's death
ciliation. In Eph 2 13.14.18 Paul makes the cross of Christ the means of reconciUation between the hostile races of men. Paul reaches the climax in his conception of the reconcihation wrought by the cross of Christ when he asserts the unifying results of Christ's death to be cosmic in extent (Eph 1 10).
is presented (1) as the covenant sacrifice (Mk 14 24 II Mt 26 28 || Lk 22 20; He 9 15-22); (2) as the sin offering (Rom 8 3; 2 Cor 5 21; He 13 11; 1 Pet 3 18); (3) as the offering of the paschal lamb (1 Cor 6 7); (4) as the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (He 2 17; 9 12 ff). IV. Relation of Christ's Sacrifice to Man's Salvation.—The saving benefits specified in the NT as resulting from the sacrificial death of Christ are as follows:
The author of He also implies that Christ's death secures reconciliation when he regards this death as the ratification of the "better covenant" (8 611), and wlien he plays on the double meaning of the word ScaSiiKri {diathtke, 9 15 IT), now "covenant" and now "will,"
' testament. " The death of Christ is necessary to secure the ratification of the new covenant which brings God and man into new relations (8 12). In 2 17 the autlior uses a word implying propitiation as wrought by the death of Christ. So the doctrine of reconciliation is also in the Ep. to the He. John teaches reconciliation with God through Christ our Advocate, but does not expressly connect it with His death as the procuring cause (1 Jn 2 1.2). Peter is hkewise silent on this point.
Redemption or dehverance from the curse of
sin: This must be the implication in Jesus' words,
"The Son of man also came ....
1. Redempto give his life a ransom for many"
tion or (Mk 10 45 || Mt 20 28). Man is a Deliverance captive in sin, the Father sends His from Ctxrse Son to pay the ransom price for the
Reconciliation imphes that God can forgive; yea, has forgiven. Jesus and the NT writers declare the death of Christ to be the basis
of Sin deliverance of the captive, and the Son's death is the price paid. Paul
also uses the words "redeemed" and "redemption"
3. Remisof God's forgiveness. Jesus in instision of Sins tuting the memorial supper said, "This
in the same sense. In the great letters he asserts that we are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God
is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins" (Mt 26 28). It is true Mk and Lk do not record this last phrase, "unto remission of sins." But there is no intimation that this phrase is the result of Matthew's theologizing on the purpose of Christ's death
set forth to be a propitiation .... in his blood" (Rom 3 24.25). Here the apostle traces justifica-
tion back to redemption as the means for securing
it, and redemption back to the "blood" (Christ's
death) as the cause of its procurement. That is,
(see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, II, 239 ff, who claims this phrase is not from Jesus; also Allen in "Mt," ICC, in loc). But Paul leaves no doubt as to the connection between man's forgiveness by God and Christ's sacrifice for him. This idea is rooted in the great passage on justification (Rom 3 21—5 21; see esp. 4 7); is positively declared in Eph 1 7; Col 1 14. The author of He teaches that the shedding of Christ's blood under the new covenant
Christ's death secures redemption and redemption procures justification. In Gal (3 13), he speaks of
being redeemed "from the curse of the law." The law involved man in a curse because he could not keep it. This curse is the penalty of the broken law which the transgressor must bear, unless deliverance from said penalty is somehow secured. Paul
represents Christ by His death as securing for
sinners deliverance from this curse of the broken law (cf Gal 4 5 for the same thought, though the word "curse" is not used). Paul also emphasizes
is as necessary to secure forgiveness as the shedding of animal's blood under the old. John also implies that forgiveness is based on the blood (1 Jn 1 7-9).
the same teaching in the Captivity Epp.: "In whom we have our redemption through his blood,
True reconciliation and forgiveness include the canceling of the offender's guilt. Jesus has no direct
the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 17; cf
Sacrifice (NT) THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2654
By some it is claimed tliat the word "ransom" (Mlj 10 4.5) gives us ttie \Ley to ttie philosophy of the atonement as presented by Jesus Himself.
word on the cancellation of guilt. Paul closes his argument for the universality of human sin by assert-
ing that "all the world may be brought
1 Tpsik:' S'lt *he rules of e.xegesis are against this i. jesua supposition. Jesus in the context is teachTeacning ing His disciples that sacrificial service is greatness. To illustrate the truth He refers to His own example of coming to "minister, and to give his life a ransom for many," That is, Jesus is enforcing a practical principle and not elaborating a theoretical truth. Moreover, the word "ransom" is used metaphorically, and the laws of exegesis forbid us to press the literal meaning of a figure. The figure suggests captivity in sin and deliverance by payment of a price (the death of Christ). But Jesus does not tell us how His sacrificial death can and does pay the price for man's redemption from sin. The word "ransom" docs give the clue to the development of the vicarious sacrifice elaborated later by Paul. Ritschl (Rechtfertigung und Versohnung. II, 8.5) does not do the word "ransom" justice when he claims. that it merely reproduces the meaning of the Heb 1S3 . kopher, "covering as a pro-
4. The under the judgment of God" (AV Cancellation "guilty before God," Rom 3 19). of Guilt Thayer {Gr-Eng. Lex., in loc.) says this word "guilty" means "owing satisfaction to God" (liable to punishment by God). But in Rom 8 1.3 Paul exclaims, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus .... God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin" (ERVandARVm "as an offering for sin"). The guilt, or exposure of the sinner to God's wrath and so to punishment, is removed by the sin offering which Christ made. This idea is implied by the author of He (2 1.5), but is not expressed in Peter and John, Right standing with God is also implied in the preceding idea. Forgiving sin and canceling guilt are the negative, bringing into right
tection." and that Christ's death, like a covering, delivers us by stimulating us to lead the life of sacrificial service as Christ did. AVendt {Lehre Jesu, II, 237; Teaching of Jesus, II, 226 f) admits the " ransom "-idea in the word, hut says Christ delivers us from bondage to suffering and death, not by His death, but by His teaching which is illustrated by His sacrificial death. Beyschlag {Neutest. Theol.. I, 1.53) thinks Christ's death delivers us from worldly ambitions and such sins by showing us the example of Jesus in sacrifice. Weiss {Bih. Theol. of Ihe NT,
5. Justificastanding with God the positive, aspects tion or of the same transaction. "Him who Right knew no sin he made to be sin [i.e. Standing the sin offering; so Augustine and with God other Fathers, Ewald, Ritschl; see Meyer, Comm., in loc, who denies this meaning] on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor 5 21). In this passage Paul makes justification the Divine purpose of the sacrificial death of Christ. This thought is elaborated by the apostle in Gal and Rom, but is not expressed by Jesus, or in He, in Pet or in Jn.
1, 101-3) thinks Christ's "surrender of His life .... avails as a ransom which He gives instead of the many" who were not able to pay the price themselves. He also adds, "The saying regarding the ransom lays emphasis upon the God-pleasing performance of Jesus which secures the salvation," etc. Nor does Jesus' saying at the Last Supper, "This is my blood of the covenant" (Mk 14 24) give us luimistakable evidence of how His death saves men. It docs teach that sinners on entering the kingdom come into a new covenant relation with God which implies forgiveness of sin and fellowship with God, and that, as the covenant sacrifices at INlt. Sinai (E.x 24 3-8) ratified the legal covenant between God and His people, so the death of Christ as a covenant sacrifice ratifies the covenant of grace between God and lost sinners, by virtue of which covenant God on His part forgives the penitent sinner, and tlie surrendering sinner on his part presents himself to God for the life of sacrifice. But this statement fails to tell us how God can forgive sin on the basis of a covenant thus ratified by Christ's deatli. Does it mean substitution, that as the animal whose blood ratified the covenant was slain instead of the people, so Christ was slain in the place of sinners 'I Or does it suggest the immutability of the covenant on the basis of the animal's (and so Christ's) representing both God and man, and killing signifying loss of life or will to change the covenant (so Westcott, Comm. on. He, 301)? It could scarcely mean that Christ's sacrifice was the offering of a perfect, acceptable life to God (Wendt, op. cit., II, 237), or that Clirist's death is viewed merely as the common meal sacrifice, that God and His peor)le thus enter into a kind of union and communion (so some evolutionists in the study of comparative religion: see INIenzies, Hist of Religion. 416 fl).
Jesus does not connect our cleansing or sanctification with His death, but with His word (.Jn 17 17). The subst. "cleansing" {KaSapia-fiSs, ki-
6. Cleansing tharismds) is not used by Paul, and the or Sanctivb. "to cleanse" ((ca9ap(fu, kntharlzo) fication occurs only twice in his later letters (Eph 5 26; Tit 2 14). He does use the idea of sanctification, and in Rom 6-8 teaches that sanctification is a logical consequence of justification which is secured by Christ's sacrificial death. In Phil 3 10.11, he views Christ's death and resurrection as the dynamic of transformation in the new
life. The author of He (1 3; 9 14.22.23; 10 2), following his OT figures, uses the idea of cleansing for the whole process of putting away sin, from atonement to sanctification (see Westcott, Comm., in loc). He makes Christ's death the procuring cause of the cleansing. John does the same (1 Jn 1 7; Rev 7 14). Divine sonship of the believer is also traced by Paul to the sacrificial death of Christ (Rom 8 17), though this thought is not found in
Ritschl and many modern scholars are disposed to reject all philosophy in religion. They say, "Back to Christ." Paul was only a human
2. Paul's interpreter of Jesus. But he was a Teaching Divinely-guided interpreter, and we need his first-hand interpretations of Jesus. What has he to say as to how Christ's death saves men?
7. Sonship other NT writers.
So, ^\'e sum up, the whole process of salvation, from reconciliation with God to the adoption of the saved sinner into heaven's household,
(1) The ivords expressing the idea of redemption.— See above on the terms of sacrifice. The classical passage containing the idea of redemption is Rom 3 24-26: "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Je.sus." A fair interpretation of this passage gives us the following propositions: (a) The believer obtains right standing with God by means of, through the channel of (see Thayer, Gr-Eng. Lex., Aid, A, III, 2), redemption which is in Christ, (b) This redemption in Christ involves, or is based upon, the Divinely-purposed propitiation which Christ made
is ascribed, to some extent by Jesus, largely by Paul the theologian of the NT, and, in varying degrees, by other NT writers, to the sacrificial death of Christ. Even Holtzmann {A^eulest. Theol, II, 111) admits "It is upon the moment of death that the grounding of salvation is exclu.sively concentrated." V. Mow Christ's Sacrifice Procures Salvation,—
It must be conceded that the NT writers, much less Jesus, did not discu.ss this subject from the i)hilosophical point of view. Jesus never philosophizes except incidentally. Paul, the author of He, and John had a philosophy underlying their theology, the first and second dealing most with the sacrificial work of Christ, the last with His person. But Paul and the author of He did not write their letters to produce a philosophical system explaining how Christ's sacrificial death can and does procure man's salvation.
2655 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sacrifice (NT)
in His death, (c) The design of God in making such a propitiation was the exhibition of His righteousness; i.e., the vindication of that side of His character which demands the punishment of sin, which had not been shown in former generations when Hia forbearance passed over men's sins. See Sanday, Camm. on Rom, in loo. The classical passage containing the other word to redeem {i^ayopd^a, exagordzo) is Gal 3 13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us," etc. Professor E. D. Burton {AJT, October, 1907) thinks: (a) Law here means "law legalistically understood." (h) The "curse" was the verdict of the law of pure legalism, "a disclosure to man of his actual status before God on a basis of merit." (c) The redemption meant is that Christ "brought to an end the ri5gime of law .... rather than deliverance of individuals through release from penalty." He bases this argument largely on the use of vms, hemds, "us," meaning Jews in antithesis with tA edvTi, td ethne, the Gentiles (ver 14). Everett (The Gospel of Paul) thinks that Christ was cursed in that He was "crucified" (the manner not the fact of His death being the curse) ; that is, as Everett sees it, Christ became ceremonially unclean, and so free from the law. So does His follower
3 2.5) does Paul use the word "propitiation." As we saw in (1) above, the redemption in Christ is based upon the propitiation which Christ made in His death. Thayer (Gr-Eng. Lex., in loe.) says the noun signifies "a means of appeasing, expiating, a propitiation, an expiatory sacrifice." He thinks
it has this meaning in Rom 3 25. but refers it to the
"mercy-seat" in He 9 5. Sanday (Comm. on Rom, 88) regards hilasterion as an adj. meaning "propitiatory." De Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Lipsius and many others take it in this sense; Gifford, Vaughan, Liddon, Ritschl think it means "mercy-seat" here as in He. But with either meaning the blood of Christ is viewed as securing the mercy of God. Propitiation of God is made by the blood of Christ, and because of that men have access to the mercy-seat where shines the glory of God in His forgiveness of man's sins. See Romans, Epistle to the, 9, (3).
(4) The prepositions inrip, huper, and ivri, ardi. —Paul never uses are<i ("for," "instead of," "in place of," so Thayer) to express what Christ's sacrifice does for the sinner, but huper ("for one's safety or advantage," primarily, but also "in the place of," "instead of," so Thayer). See Rom 5 8; 8 32; 14 15; 1 Cor 11 24; 2 Cor 5 15; Gal 3 13; Eph 5 2.25; 1 Thess 6 10; 1 Tim 2 6; Tit 2 14. It is to be noted that in 1 Tim 2 6 Paul uses antilutron, "ransom," compounded with the preposition anti, but follows it with huper, which may suggest that huper
_ by being crucified with Christ become ceremonially unclean and so free from the law. The passage seems to give us the following propositions:
(a) Man under law (whether the revealed law of the OT or the moral law) is under a "curse," that
is here used in the sense of anti, "in the place of."
Summing up Paul's teaching as to iiow Christ's sacriflcesaves: (a) The propitiatory sacrifice does not "soften God, or assuage the anger of God" (as Bushnell claims the advocates of the satisfaction theories assert. Vicarious
is, liable to the penalty which the broken law demands. (6) Christ by His death on the cross became a "curse for us." (c) By means of Christ thus becoming a "curse for us" He delivered us, "not the Jews as a nation, but all of us, Jews and Gentiles, who beUeved," from the curse incurred by the breaking of the law. Professor Burton admits that the participle yev6fievos, gendmenos, "becoming," may be a "participle of means" (art. cited above, 643), and so we have "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law hy becoming a curse for us." The passage at least suggests, if it does not declare, that Christ saves us by vicariously enduring the penalty to which we were exposed.
Sacrifice, 486). God is already willing to save men. His love makes the propitiatory sacrifice (Rom 5 8). God's love makes the sacrifice, not the sacrifice His willingness to save. (6) But man by breaking God's law had come under the curse, the penalty of tlie broken law (Gal 3 1-3)
and so was under God's wrath (Rom 1 18), i.e. man's sin exposed him to punishment, while at the same time God's love for the sinner was grieved, (c) Christ by His sacrificial death made it possible for God to show His righteousness and love at the same time; i.e. that He did punish sin, but did love the sinner and wish to save him (Rom 3 25.26; 5 8). (d) Christ, who was sinless, sufTered ?)tcariously for sinful men. His death was not due to His sins but those of men (2 Cor 5 21). (e) His death, followed by His resurrection which marked Him off as the sinless Son of God, and so appointed the Saviour of men (Rom 14), was designed by God to bring men into right relation with God (Rom 3 2%b; 2 Cor 5 2\b). So, wemaysay, Paul explained the relation of Christ's death to the sinner's spiritual life by thinking of a transfer of the sinner's "curse" to Christ, which He bore on the cross, and of God's righteousness through Christ (Phil 3 9) to the sinner by faith in Christ. But we must not press this vicarious idea too far into a system of philosophy of the atonement and claim that the system is the teaching of Paul. The quantitative, commercial idea of transfer is not in Paul's mind. The language of redemption, propitiation, ransom, is largely figurative. We must feel the spiritual truth of a qualitative transfer of sin from man to Christ and of righteousness from Christ to man, and rest the matter there, so far as Paul's teaching goes. Beyond this our conclusions as to substitution as the method of atonement are results of philosophizing on Paul's teaching.
(2) The idea of reconciliation.—Paul uses the phrase "wrath of God" (Rom 1 18, etc) to express the attitude of God toward sin, an attitude of displeasure and of grief, of revulsion of holy character which demands the punishment of sin. On the other hand, God loves the sinner; love is the prompting cause of redemption through Christ (Rom 5 8 ; 8 32) . That is, wrath is love grieving and righteousness revolting because of sin, and both phases may act simultaneously (Simon, Redemption of Man, 216, to the contrary). So Paul says, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses" (2 Cor 5 19). Now this word "recon-
cile" (katallassein) means in the active, "to receive
The author of He adds nothing to Paul's teaching respecting the method whereby Christ's sacrifice operates in saving men. His purpose
into favor," in the passive, "to be restored to favor"
(Thayer). See also Reu. and Expos, October, 1909, 600 ff, where Professor Estes shows, from Sophocles, Xenophon, Josephus, LXX and passages in the NT
3. Teachto produce an apology showing forth ing of the superior efficacy of Christ's highHebrews priestly sacrifice over that of the Aaronic priesthood fixes his first thought on the efficacy of the sacrifice rather than on its mode of operation. He does use the words "redemption"
like Mt 5 24, that the word must mean a change
in the attitude of God toward men and not merely a change of men toward God. Practically the same
is taught by Meyer (Comm. on 2 Cor); Lipsius {Handcomm. zum NT); Sanday (Comm. on Rom); Denney (Exeget. Gr Test, on Rom) ; Lietzmann (Handbuchzum NT); Holtzmann (Neutest. TheoL); Weiss
(9 12; cf ver 1.5), "propitiate" (2 17), and empha-
sizes the opening up of the heavenly holy of holies by the high-priestly sacrifice of Christ (the way of access to the very presence of God by Christ's death, 10 19.20), which gives us data for forming a system based on a real propitiation for sin and
(Rel. of the NT); Pfleiderer (Paulinism); Stevens
(Christian Doctrine of Salvation), and in nearly all the great comms. on Rom and 2 Cor, and by all the
writers on NT theology except Beyschlag. See also Reconciliation; Retribution.
reconciliation of God similar to the Pauline teach-
(3) The idea of propitiation.—Only once (Rom
ing formulated above.
Sacrifice (NT) THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2656
objective potentiality, according to Jesus (Lk 24 47, "unto all the nations"); according to Paul (Rom 1 5; 5 18; 11 32; 2 Cor
Peter asserts that Christ suffered vicariously
(1 Pet 2 22-24), who, although He "did no sin," "his own self bare our sins in his body
4. Petrine upon the tree"; who "suffered for and Johansins once, the righteoiis for [hiiper, nine Teachnot anti] the unrighteous" (I Pet ing 3 18). But Peter goes no farther than Paul (perhaps not so far) in elaborating how Jesus' vicarious suffering saves the sinner. The Johannine writings contain the propitiatory idea (1 Jn 2 2; 4 10), although John writes to emphasize the incarnation and not the work of the Incarnate One (Jn 1 1-18; 1 Jn 4 2.3). To sum up the NT teachings on the mode or operation: Jesus asserts His vicarious suffering (Mk 10 45; cf Jn 10 11) and hints at the mode of its operation by using the "ransom" figure. Paul, Peter and John teach that Christ's sacrifice was vicarious, and all but Peter suggest the idea of propitiation as to the mode of its operation. There is no direct discussion of what propitiation means.
1. Universal 5 14.15; Gal 3 14); according to the in Objective author of He (2 9, "taste of death for Potentiality every man"); according to John (1 Jn 2 2, "propitiation .... for the whole world").
But the objective redemption to be efficacious must be subjectively applied. The blood of Christ
is the universally efficacious remedy
2. Efficafor the sin-sick souls of men, but cious When each man must make the subjective Subjectively apphcation. How is the apphcation Applied made? And the threefold answer
is, by repentance, by faith, and by obedience.
(1) By repentance.—The Baptist and Jesus emphasized repentance (change of mind first of all, then change of relation and of life) as the condition of entrance into the kingdom and of enjoyment of the Messianic salvation (Mt 3 2; Mk 1 15). Peter preached repentance at Pentecost and immediately after as a means of obtaining forgiveness (Acts 2 38: 3 19, etc). Paul, although emphasizing faith, also stressed repentance as an element in the human condition of salvation (Acts 20 21; Rom 3 4, etc). John (Rev 2, 3, passim) emphasizes repentance, tfiough not stressing it as a means of receiving the benefits of redemption.
VI. Rationale of the Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice.— Jesus emphasizes His voluntary spirit in making tlie sacri-
fice. "The Son of maa also came .... 1 Tesus'
^"-' Sive his life a ransom." The sacrifice ™ -^ , . was voluntary, not compulsory. God ieacnmg (jj^ not force Him to lay down His life; He chose to do so (cf Jn 10 11). But Jesus gives us no philosophy on this or any other element in His sacrifice as being the ground of its elScacy.
(2) By faith.—Jesus connected faith with repentance (Mk 1 15) as the condition of receiving the Messianic salvation. Paul makes faith the all-inclusive means of applying the work of Christ. The gospel is
' the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom 1 16); "whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith" (3 25); "faith [not works! is reckoned for righteousness" (4 5); "justified by faith" (5 l). In Gal, the letters to the Cor, in the Captivity and the Pastoral Epp. he emphasizes faith as the sole condition of receiving salvation. But what kind of faith is it that appropriates the saving benefit of Christ's death ? Not historical or intellectual but "heart" faith (Rom 10 10). To Paul "heart" meant the seat or essence of the whole personalitj;, and so faith which appMes the redemption in Clirist is the personal commitment of one's self to Christ as Saviour and Lord (2 Cor 5 15). See Thayer, Gr-Eng. Lex., TrttrTeua), pisteud, 1, 6, y, for a particular discussion of the meaning of faith in this sense. The author of He discusses esp. faith as a conquering power, but also implies that it is the condition of entrance upon the life of spiritual rest and fellowship (clas 3 and 4, passim). Peter (1 Pet 1 9) and .John (1 Jn 3 23; 4 16: 5 1.5, etc) also regard faitfi as a means of applying the saving benefits of Christ's death.
Paul also emphasizes the voluntary gift of Christ (Gal 2 20), but he urges rather the dignity of Him who
makes the sacrifice as a ground of its effi2 PauPs cacy. It is the sacrifice of God's Son, ™* , . shown to be such in His resurrection (Rom ieacning l 4; 4 256). It was no ordinary man but the sinless Son who gave "himself" (Gal 2 20). It was not merely a dying Christ but the Son who rose again "in power" (Rom \ 4), who secures our "justification" (Rom 4 2.56; 1 Cor 15 3.4.17ft). Paul also emphasizes the sinless life and character of Jesus as a ground of efficacy in Christ's sacrifice, "who knew no sin" in His life experience (2 Cor 5 21a). The author of He, most of all NT writers, elaborates the grounds of efficacy in Christ's sacrifice. (1) It was a personal not an animal sacrifice (9 12-14;
3. The 9 26, "sacrifice of himself"; 10 4). Touz-liJrKr I'n (2) It was the sacrifice of the Son of God ieacnmg m (g g^ (g, it was a royai person who made Hebrews the sacrifice (6 206; 7 l, " after the order of Melchizedek .... king of Salem"). (4) It was a sinless person (7 26.27; 9 14; 10 10.12). Westcott, Comm. on He, 298, well says, "It becomes necessary, therefore, in order to gain a complete view of the Sacrifice of Christ, to combine Avith the crowning act upon the Cross His fulfilment of the will of God from first to last, the Sacrifice of Life with the Sacrifice of Death." (.5) It was an e^er/ia^ person (6 20, "for ever";
(3) By obedience in sacrificial service.—Jesus said, " If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mk 8 34). Here He lays down two elements in the conditions of discipleship, denying one's self and taking up his cross. The former means the renunciation of self as the center of thought, faith, hope and life. The latter means the life of sacrifice. Jesus was stressing this truth when He uttered that incomparable saying, "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his lite a ransom for many" (Mk 10 45 || Mt 20 28). Paul also emphasizes this phase of the human condition of salvation when he shows how sanctiflcation grows spontaneously out of justification (Rom 6 8) and when he says that what "avails" is "faith working through love" (Gal 5 6). The author of He says, "He became unto all them that obey him the author |Gr a'lnos, aitios, "cause"] of eternal salvation " (5 9). Peter and John, the latter esp., emphasize the keeping of His commandments, the life of service, as the means of appropriating to the fullest the saving benefits of Christ's death. The theologians in classrooms and preachers in the pulpits have failed to emphasize this aspect of "saving faith" as did Jesus, Paul, the author of He, and John. In the NT salvation is a process as well as an instantaneous act on the part of God, and the process is carried on by means of obedience, the life of service, which appropriates by faith the dynamic of Christ's sacrifice.
"7 16, "after the power of an endless [m "indissoluble"] life"). The author of He reaches the climax of his argument for the superior efficacy of Christ's sacrifice when he represents Him as entering the holy of holies in the very presence of God to complete the offering for man's sin (8 1.2; 9 11.12.24). Peter and John do not discuss the ground of efficacy, and so add notlilng to our conclusions above. The efficacy of the sacrifice is suggested by describing the glory of the person (1 Pet 1 19; 2 22.23; 1 Jn 1 76; 2 2). To sum up our conclusion as to the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice: Jesus and the leading NT writers intimate that the efficacy of His sacrifice centers in His personahty. Jesus, Peter and John do not discuss the subject directly. Paul, though discussing it more extensively, does not do so fully, but the author of He centers and culminates his argument for the finality of Christianity, in the superior efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, which is grounded in His personality, Divine, royal, sinless, eternal (see M&ggoz, Theol. de I'Ep. mix Hehreux). It is easy to see, from the position taken by the author of He, how Anselm in Cur Deus Homo develo|)ed his theory of satisfaction, according to which the Divinity in Christ gave His atoning sacrifice its priceless worth in God's ej'es.
VIII. The Christian 's Life the Life of Sacrifice. —This discussion of the faith that "obeys" leads to the consideration of that chmactic thought of NT writers, namely, that the Christian's life is sacrificial living based on Christ's sacrifice for him. We note in outline the following:
The Christian's life ot sacrifice is the logical consequence of Christ's sacrificial death. The Christ who sacrificed Himself for the believer is now continuing the sacrifice in the behever's life
VII. The Human Conditions of Application.— The sacrificial death ot Christ is universal in its
2657 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sacrifice (NT)
exercise of all our gifts and graces is viewed by Peter
(Gal 2 20; Phil 1 21). Paul was crucified when Christ was crucified (in a bold mystic figure), and the life of Christ which sacrificed itself
as sacrificial living (1 Pet 2 5): "Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual hou.se, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices," etc. All Christians are priests and daily offer up their burnt offerings acceptable to God, if they 'suffer as Christians' (1 Pet 2 20; 3 18) in tMl exercise of their graces and powers.
1. Conseon the cross and perpetuates itself quence of in resurrection power now operates as a Christ's mighty dynamic for the apostle's moral Sacrifice and spiritual transformation (Phil 3 10.11). It is to be noted, Jesus also emphasized this kind of living, though not so expressly connecting the believer's sacrificial Ufe with His sacrifioial death (see Mk 8 34 f). Christ's sacrificial death becomes the persuasive appeal for the Christian's sacrificial hfe, "Because we thus judge, that one died for all,
But how do these sacrifices of the Christian affect him and God? The NT writers never hint that our
sacrifices propitiate God, or so win His favor that He will or can on account of our sacrifices forgive our sins. They are "well-pleasing" to Him, a "sweet odor"; that is, they win His approval of our lives thus lived according to the standard which Christ gives us. Their influence on us is the increase of our spiritual efficiency and power and finally a greater capacity for enjoying spiritual blessings in heaven (1 Cor 3 14). Some scholars (Roman Catholic, Episcopahan, etc) regard the memorial supper as a kind of sacrifice which the Christian offers in worship.
2. Christ's therefore all diedj and he died for all. Death the that they that live should no longer Appeal for hve unto themselves, but unto him Christian's who for their sakes died and rose again" Sacrifice (2 Cor 5 14.15). Because He died for us we should live for Him. But what is the appeal which Christ's sacrificial death makes to the saved sinner? "The love of Christ constraineth us" (2 Cor 5 14). Christ's death on the cross exhibits His love, unspeakable, unthinkable love, for it was love for His "enemies" (Rom 5 10), and that matchless love kindles love in the forgiven sinner's heart. He is willing to do anything, even to die, for his Saviour who died for him
5. The Neither Jesus, Paul, the author of He, Supper as a Peter, or John, ever hints that in Sacrifice eating the bread and drinking the wine the Christian offers a sacrifice to God in Christ. Paul teaches that in partaking of the Supper we "proclaim the Lord's death till he come"
(1 Cor 11 26). That is, instead of offering a
(Acts 21 13; Phil 1 29.30). It is a greater privilege for the saved sinner to suffer for Christ than
sacrifice ourselves to God, in partaking of the Supper we proclaim the offering of Christ's sacrifice for us. Milligan argues that as Christ in heaven perpetually offers Himself for us, so we on earth, in the Supper, offer ourselves to Him (Heavenly Priesthood, 266). Even Cave {Spiritual Doctrine of Sacrifice, 439) maintains, "In a certain loose sense the Lord's Supper may be called a sacrifice." See the above books for the argument supporting this position.
it is to believe on Him. Peter (1 Pet 3 17.18), the author of He (12 ; 13 13) and John (1 Jn 3 16; 4 16-19) emphasize this truth. The Christian's sacrifice is necessary to fill out Christ's sacrifice. "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part
3. Necesthat which is lacking of the afflictions sary to Fill of Christ in my flesh for his body's Out Christ's sake, which is the church" (Col 1 24). Sacrifice Roman Catholic exegetes have made the apostle teach that the sufferings
To sum up our conclusions on sacrifice in the NT:
(1) Jesus and NT writers regard the OT sacrificial system as from God, but imperfect, the various
sacrifices serving only as types of the one great sacrifice which Christ made.
of the saints, along with Christ's sufferings, have atoning efficacy. But Paul nowhere intimates that
his sufferings avail for putting away sins. We may hold with Weiss (Comm. on the NT) that Paul longed
(2) All the writers, except James and Jude, with Jesus, emphasize the sacrificial idea, Jesus less, giving only two hints of His sacrificial death (in the Synoptic Gospels), the author of He putting the climactic emphasis on Christ's sacrifice as the sac-
to experience in his life the perfect sacrificial spirit
as Christ did ; or with Alford (in loc.) that he wished
to suffer his part of Christ's sufferings to be endured by him through His church; or, as it seems to us, he longed to make effective by his ministry of sac-
rifice of atonement.
(3) As to the relation of Christ's sacrifice to man's salvation, the latter is the achievement of the former, so expressed only twice by Jesus, but emphatically so declared by Paul, the author of He, Peter, and John (Paul and He laying most emphasis on this point).
rificial service to as many others as possible the
sacrificial death of Christ. Christ's sacrifice avails
in saving men only when Christians sacrifice their
fives in making known this sacrifice of Christ.
(1) The Christian is to present his personality (Rom 15 16). Paul commends the Macedonians
(4) As to how Christ's sacrifice saves men, Jesus, the author of He, Peter and John suggest the idea of propitiation, while Paul emphatically teaches that man is under a curse, exposed to the displeasure of God, and that Christ's sacrifice secured the recon-
for "first" giving "their own selves
4. Content to the Lord" (2 Cor 8 5). (2) Chris-
of the tians must present their "bodies a
Christian's living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to
ciliation of God by vindicating His righteousness in punishing sin and His love in saving sinners. Jesus and the leading NT writers agree that Christ saves men through His vicarious suffering.
Sacrifice God" (Rom 12 1). In the old system
of sacrifices the animals were offered
as dead; Christians are to offer their bodies, all their members with their powers, to God a "livmg sacri-
(5) As to the rational basis of efficacy in Christ's
fice," i.e. a sacrifice which operates in lives of
sacrifice, there is no direct discussion in the NT except by the author of He who grounds its final, eternal
holiness and service (see also Rom 6 13.19). (3)
Christians must offer their money or earthly posses-
efficacy in Christ's personality. Divine, royal, sin-
sions to God. Paul speaks of the gift from the church
less and eternal.
at Philippi as "a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God" (Phil 4 18). This gift was to the apostle a
(6) As to the conditions of applying Christ's sacri-
fice, repentance and faith, which lives and fruits in obedience and sacrificial living, are recognized by Jesus and all the leading NT writers as the naeans of appropriating the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.
beautiful expression of the sacrificial spirit imparted
to them because they had the "mind" of Christ who
"emptied himself, .... becoming obedient even
unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (2 5-8). The author of He (13 16) exhorts his readers, "But
(7) By Jesus, Paul, the author of He, Peter and John t'he Christian life is viewed as the life of sacri-
to do good and to communicate forget not: for with
fice. Christ's death is at once the cause, motive,
such sacrifices God is well pleased." (4) Thegeneral
Sacrifice, Human Sadducees THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2658
of sons and daughters was one of the causes of the captivity of the ten tribes. Jeremiah charges the people of the Southern Kingdom with doing the same thing (Jer 7 31; 19 5; 32 35); with these general statements agree Isa 57 5; Ezk 16 2 f; 20 31; 23 37; Ps 106 37 f. A study of these passages makes it certain that in the period immediately before the captivity of Judah, human
measure, and the dynamic of the Christian's sacrificial
Literature.—In addition to tiie great comms. ICC, Allen on "Mt," Gould on "Mk," Sanday-Headlam on "Rom": Westcott on the Gospel and Epp. of Jolm, and on the Hchrews: Davidson. Dehtzsch and Meyer on
life.
He: ]Muyer on ^ Cor: Lightfoot and Abbott on Col: and the standard authors of the Bib. Theol. of the NT, Weiss. Beyschlag. Bovon, Stevens, Sheldon—see tho following special works: Cave, Scriptural Doctrine of
sacrifice was by no means confined to the royal family, but was rather common among the people. Daughters as well as sons weie sacrificed. It is mentioned only once in connection with the Northern Kingdom, and then only in the summary of the causes of their captivity (2 K 17 17), but the Southern Kingdom in its later years was evidently deeply affected. There were various places where the bloody rite was celebrated (Jer 19 5), but the special high place, apparently built for the purpose, was in the Valley of Tophet or Hinnom (ge-hinnoin, Gehenna) near Jerus (2 Ch 28 3; 33 6). This great high place, built for the special purpose of human sacrifice (Jer 7 31; 32 3.5), was defiled by the good king Josiah in the hope of eradicating the cruel practice (2 K 23 10). The Bib. writers without exception look upon the practice with horror as the supreme point of national and religious apostasy, and a chief cause of national disaster. They usually term the rite "passing through fire," probably being unwilling to use the sacred term "sacrifice" in reference to such a revolting custom. There is no evidence of a continuance of the practice in captivity nor after the return. It is said, however, that the heathen Sepharvites, settled by the Assyr kings in the depopulated territory of the Northern Kingdom, "burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim" (2 K 17 31). The practice is not heard of again, and probably rapidly died out. The restored Israelites were not affected by it. Cf Sacrifice (OT), VI, 10. William Joseph McGlothlin SACRILEGE, sak'ri-lej: For "commit sacrilege"
Sacrifice, Edinl^urgh, 1S90: Simon, Redemption of Man, 1886: G. IMilligan, The Theology of the Ep. to the He, Edinburgh, 1899: Milhgan. The Ascensionand lleacenhj Priesthood of Our Lord. London, 1908: AV. P. Du Bose. High-Priesthood and Sacrifice; Everett. The Gospel of Paul, Boston, 1893: Burton, Smith, and Smith, Bib. Ideas of Atonement, Chicago, 1909: Denncy, The Death of Christ:
Its Place and Interpretation in the NT. London, 1902: Denney, The Atonement and the Modern Mind, London. 1903" Ritschl. Reehtfertigung und Versohnung (Justification and Reconciliation). Bonn, 1895-1902. ET, 1900: Menegoz, Thiol, del' Ep. aux Hcbreux: art. "Blood," ERE. by H. Wheeler Robinson; art. "Communion with Deity."
ib, by Nathan Soderblom: art. "Communion with Deity" (Christian), ib.bvDarwell Stone and D. C. Simpson: art. "Expiation and Atonement." ib. by W. A. Brown (Christian viewpoint). S. R. Driver (Heb). H. Loewe (Jewish): art "Redemption from the Curse of the Law," in AJT, October, 1907, by Professor E. D. Burton: art. "Some Thoughts as to the Effects of the Death of Christ," in Rev. and Expos, October, 1909.
C. B. Williams SACRIFICE, HUMAN, ha'man: As an expression
of rehgious devotion, human sacrifice has been wide-
spread at certain stages of the race's development. The tribes of Western Asia were deeply affected by the practice, probably prior to the settlement of
the Hebrews in Pal, and it continued at least down
to the 5th cent. BC. At times of great calamity,
anxiety and danger, parents sacrificed their children
as the greatest anil most costly offering which they
could make to propitiate the anger of the gods and thus secure their favor and help. There is no intimation in the Bible that enemies or captives were
sacrificed; only the offering of children by their parents is mentioned. The belief that this offering possessed supreme value is seen in IMic 6 6 f
where the sacrifice of the firstborn is the climax of
a series of offerings which, in a rising scale of values,
in Rom 2 22 (AV and ERVm), RV has "rob temples," which more exactly expresses the meaning
are suggested as a means of propitiating the angry
Jeh. A striking example of the rite as actually
practised is seen in 2 K 3 27, where iMesha the king of Moab (made famous by the Moabite Stone), under the stress of a terrible siege, offered his eldest
of the vb. {hierosuleo; cf Acts 19 37, "robbers of temples" [q.v.]). The noun occurs in 2 Mace 4 39 (AVand RV) for the corresponding form hierosulema.
SADAMIAS, sad-a-ml'as: AV = RV Salemas
son, the heir-apparent to the throne, as a burnt
offering upon the wall of Kir-hareseth. As a mat-
(q.v.).
ter of fact this horrid act seems to have had the
SADAS, sa'das: AV = RV Astad (q.v.).
effect of driving oft the allies.
Human sacrifice was ordinarily resorted to, no doubt, only in times of great distress, but it seems
SADDEUS, sa-de'us: AV = RV Loddeus (q.v.).
to have been practised among the old Canaanitish
tribes with some frequency (Dt 12 31). The Israel-
SADDLE, sad" 1: As noun (33"|^ , merkabh, "a, riding seat") the word occurs in Lev 15 9 (m "car-
ites are said to have borrowed it from their Can. neighbors (2 K 16 3; 2 Ch 28 3), and as a matter
riage"); ordinarily it is used as a vb. (IBSH , habhash,
of fact human sacrifices were never offered to Jeh, but only to various gods of the land. The god who was most frequently worshipped in this way was Moloch or Molech, the god of the Ammonites (2 K 23 10; Lev 18 2f; 20 2), but from Jeremiah we learn that the Phoen god Baal was, at least in the later period of the history, also associated with Molech in receiving this worsliip (Jer 19 5; 32 35). As in the case of the Canaaniles, the only specific
lit. to "bind up" or "gird about"), to saddle an ass
(Gen 22 3; Nu 22 21; Jgs 19 10, etc).
SADDUCEES, sad'il-sez (D^pll?
, ^adduklm; EaSSovKaioi, Saddoukaioi)
1. Introductory
1. N'aine: Rival Etymologies. Probably from Zadok the High Priest 2. Autliorities; NT, Josephus, Talmud (primary). Church Fathers (secondary) II. Origin and History
cases of human sacrifice mentioned among the
Israelites are those of the royal princes, sons of Ahaz and Manasseh, the two kings of Judah who were most deeply affected by the surrounding heathen
1. Early Notices in Josephus; Alleged Relation to Ditterences between Propliets and Priests 2. Tendencies of Sadducees toward Hellenism as Causing Rise of hdsidhlm 3. Favored by Alex. "Jannaous; Put in the Background by Alexandra Salome 4. From a Political. Become Also a Religious Party
practices and who, at the same time, fell into great national distress (2 K 16 3; 2 Ch 28 3; 2 K 21
5. NT Time—Dread of Roman Interference if iVtessianic Claim Recognized 0. Sadducees Antagonistic to the Apostles; Pharisees More Favorable 7. Pall of Sadducean Party at Outbreak of Jewish War
6; 2 Ch 33 6). But it is clear from many general statements that the custom was widespread among the masses of the people as well. It is forbidden
in the Mosaic legislation (Lev 18 21; 20 2-5; Dt 18 10) ; it is said in 2 K 17 17 that the sacrifice
Sacrifice, Human Sadducees
2659 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA
III. Doctrines of the Sadducees 1. Laid Stress on Ceremonial Exactness 2. Disbelief in the Spiritual World, in a Resurrection, and in Providence: Their Materialism 3. Sadducees and the Pentateuch 4. Relation to Epicureans IV. Character of Sadducees 1. Josephus Describes Them as Boorish 2. Tahuudic Account of the Sadducees 3. Relation to Temple and Worship a Heathenish One 4. Works of Sadducees V. Relation of Sadducees to Jesus 1. Reasons for His Denouncing the Sadducees Less Frequently Than the Pharisees 2. Attitude of Sadducees to Jesus
theNorthernKingdom, it could have had no influence on opinion in Judaea and Gahlee in the time of Our Lord. By others the rivalry is supposed to be inherited from that between the scribes and the
priests, but Ezra, the earliest scribe, in the later sense of the term, was a priest with strong sacerdotal sympathies.
Probably the priestly party only gradually crys-
tallized into the sect of the Sadducees. After the return from the exile, the high priest
2. Tendendrew to himself all powers, civil and cies toward rehgious. To the Pers authorities he Hellenism was as the king of the Jews. The high priest and those about him were the persons who had to do with the heathen supreme government and the heathen nationalities around; this association would tend to lessen their religious fervor, and, by reaction, this roused the zeal of a section of the people for the law. With the Gr domination the power of the high priests at home was increased, but they became still more subservient to their heathen masters, and were the leaders in the Hellenizing movement. They took no part in the Maccabean struggle, which was mainly supported by their opponents the hdfldhlm, as they were called (the Hasidaeans of 1 Mace 2 42, etc). When the h&sidhlm, having lost sympathy with the Maccabeans, sought to reconcile themselves to the priestly party, Alcimus, the legitimate high priest, by his treachery and cruelty soon renewed the breach. The Hasmoneans then were confirmed in the high-priesthood, but were only lukewarmly supported by the hasidhim.
This prominent Jewish sect, though not so numerous as their opponents, the Pharisees, by their wealth and the priestly descent of many of them had an influence which fuUy balanced that of their more popular rivals. They were a political party, of priestly and aristocratic tendency, as against the more religious and democratic Pharisees.
/. Introductory,—The Talm form suggests derivation from the name of their founder, but the form
in NT and Jos would imply connection
1. Name: with the vb. "to be righteous." The Rival Etyprobability is, that the name is derived mologies from some person named "Zadok." The most prominent Zadok in history was_ the Davidio high priest (2 S 8 17; 15 24; 1 K 1 35), from whom all succeeding high priests claimed to descend. It is in harmony with this, that in the NT the Sadducees are the party to whom the high priests belonged. On the authority of 'Abhoth d'-Rabbi Nathan (c 1000 AD) another Zadok is asserted to be he from whom the Sadducees received their name. He was a disciple of Antigonus of Socho (c 2.50 BC) who taught that love to God should be absolutely disinterested {Pirke 'Abhoth,
The division between the Hasmoneans and the hd^tdhlm, or, as they were now called, Pharisees, culminated in the insult offered by
3. Favored Eleazar to John Hyrcanus, the Hasby Janmonean high priest (Jos, Ant, XIII, naeus; Put x, 5). Alexander Jannaeus, the son of in BackHyrcanus, became a violent partisan ground by of the Sadducees, and crucified large Alexandra numbers of the Pharisees. Toward Salome the end of his life he fell out of sympathy with the Sadducees, and on his deathbed recommended his wife Alexandra Salome, who as guardian to his sons succeeded him, to favor the Pharisees, which she did. In the conflict between her two sons, John Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, the Sadducees took the side of Aristobulus, the younger and abler brother. So long as the con-
i.3). 'Abhoth d'-Rabbl Nathan's account of the derivation of the Sadduceanism from this teaching
is purely an imaginary deduction (Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers'^, 112). The majority
of authoritative writers prefer to derive the name from Zadok, the colleague of Abiathar, the contemporary of David.
Our main authorities for the teaching of the Sadducees are the NT and Jos. According to the former, the Sadducees denied the
2. Authorresurrection of the body, and did not
ities believe in angels or spirits (Mt 22 23; Acts 23 8). More can be learned from Jos, but his evidence is to be received with
test was between Jews, theSadducean candidate prevailed. When the Romans were called in, they gave the advantage to Hyrcanus.
caution, as he was a Pharisee and, moreover, had the idea that the Sadducees were to be paralleled with the Epicureans. The Talm is late. Before even the Mishna was committed to writing (c 200 AD) the Sadducees had ceased to exist; before the Gemara was completed (c 700 AD) every vahd
Thrown into the background by the overthrow of their candidate for the high-priesthood, they soon
regained their influence. They allied
4. Become themselves with the Herodians who a Religious had supported Hyrcanus, but were Party subservient to Rome. Though they were not theological at first, they became so, to defend their policy against the attacks of the Pharisees. A historic parallel may be found
tradition of their opinions must have vanished.
Further, the Talm is Pharisaic. The Fathers,
Origen, Hippolytus, Epiphanius and Jerome, have
derived their information from late Pharisaic
sources.
//. Origin and History.—Jos describes the Sad-
in the Cavaliers of the reign of Charles I, as over against the Puritans.
ducees along with the contemporary sects, the Pharisees and the Essenes (Jos, Ant,
The Sadducees at first regarded the struggle between Our Lord and the Pharisees as a matter
1. Early XIII, v, 9; X,vi,2; XVIII, i, 4, .5; BJ,
with which they had no concern. It
Notices in II, viii, 14). His earhest notice of Josephus them is after his account of the treaties
5. Fear was not until Our Lord claimed to be Roman Inthe Messiah, and the excitement of the terference people consequent on this proved likely
of Jonathan with the Romans and the Lacedemonians. He indicates his belief that the
if Jesus' to draw the attention of the Rom auMessianic thorities, that they intervened. Should Claims Are Tiberius learn that there was wideRecognized spread among the Jews the belief in the coming of a Jewish king who was
parties were ancient; but if so, they must have
formerly had other names. It has been suggested
that the earlier form of the conflict between the Sad-
ducees and Pharisees was opposition between the
priests and the prophets. This, however, is not
to rule the world, and that one had appeared who claimed to be this Messiah, very soon would the
tenable; in the Southern Kingdom there was rio such opposition; whatever the state of matters in
Sadducees Saints THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2660
follows from the little value they put upon the Prophets that they had no sympathy with the Mes-
quasi-independence enjoyed by the Jews be taken from them, and with this the influence of the Sadducees would depart. An ohgarchy is proverbially sensitive to anything that threatens its stability ; a priesthood is unmeasured in its vindictiveness; and the Sadducees were a priestly oligarchy. Hence it
sianic hopes of the Pharisees.
It need hardly be said that there was no real connection between Sadduceanism and the doctrines
of Epicurus. There was a super-
4. Relation ficial resemblance which was purely
is not wonderful that only the death of Jesus would satisfy them.
to Epicuaccidental. Their favor for Helleiireanism ism would give a color to this identi-
After the resurrection, the Pharisees became
less hostile to the followers of Christ; but the Sadducees maintained their attitude
fication. IV. Character of the Sadducees.—Jos says that while the Pharisees have amiable manners and cul-
6. Continue of suspicion and hatred (Acts 4 1). Antagonistic Although a Pharisee, it was as agent to Apostles of the Sadducean high priest that Paul after persecuted the behevers. The SadChrist's ducees gained complete ascendency Departure in the Sanhedrin, and later, under the leadership of Annas, or as he is sometimes called by Jos, Ananus, the high priest, they put James the brother of Our Lord to death (Jos, Ant, XX, ix, 1) with many others, presumably Christians. The Pharisees were against these proceedings; and even sent messengers to meet Albinus who was coming to succeed Festus as governor to entreat him to remove Annas from the highpriesthood.
tivate concord among all, the Saddu-
1. Charaecees are "very boorish" (BJ, II, viii, terized as 14). This want of manners is not a Rough and characteristic usually associated with Boorish an aristocracy, or with supple diplomats, yet it suits what we find in the NT. The cruel horseplay indulged in when Our Lord was tried before the irregular meeting of the Sanhedrin (Mt 26 67.68), the shout of Ananias at the trial of Paul before the same tribunal to "smite him on the mouth," show them to be rough and overbearing. What Jos relates of the conduct of Annas (or Ananus) in regard to James, above referred to, agrees with this. Jos, however, does not always speak in such condemnatory terms of Ananus—in BJ (IV, V, 2) he calls him "a man venerable and most just." Only the violence which, as Jos relates in the chapter immediately preceding that from which we have quoted, Ananus resorted to against the Zealots better suits the earlier verdict of Jos than the later. As to their general character Jos mentions that when the Sadducees became magistrates they conformed their judgments to Pharisaic opinion, otherwise they would not have been tolerated (Ant, XVIII, i, 4). As noted above, the Talm account is untrustworthy, late and Pharisaic. The Gemara from wlilch most of the references are talcen was not committed 2 Talmudic ^^ "writing till 7 centuries after Christ ,' when the traditions concerning the SadACCOUntS ducees, such as had survived, had filtered through 20 generations of Pharisaism. Despite this lengthened time and suspicious medium, there may be some truth in the representations of the Talmudic rabbin. In Pesdhlm 57a it is said, "Woe's me on account of the house of ISeothus, woe's me on account of their spears; woe's me on accotmt of the house of Hanun [Annas], woe's me on account of their serpent brood; woe's me on account of the house of Kathros, woe's me on account of their pen; woe's me on account of the house of Ishmael ben Phabi; woe's me on account of their fists. They are high priests and their sons are treasurers of the temple, and their sonsin-law, assistant treasurers; and their servants beat the people with sticks." As these are Sadducean names, this passage exhibits Pharisaic tradition as to the habits of the Sadducees.
With the outbreak of the Jewish war, the Sadducees with their aUies the Herodians were driven
into the background by the Zealots,
7. Fall of John of Gischala and Simon ben Gioras. Sadducean Annas and Joshua, also called high Party priest by Jos, were both put to death by the Zealots and their Idumaean
allies (Jos, BJ, IV, v, 2). With the destruction of the temple and the fall of the Jewish state the Sadducean party disappeared.
///. Doctrines of the Sadducees.—As the sacerdotal party, the Sadducees laid great stress on the
ceremonial of sacrifice, and rejected
1. Cerethe changes introduced by their oppomonial nents unless these found support in Exactness the words of the Law.
The most prominent doctrine of the Sadducees was the denial of the immortahty of the soul and of the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees beHeved that Moses had de-
2. Disbelief hvered these doctrines to the elders,
in Spiritual and that they had in turn handed them World and on to their successors. The Sadducees Resurrecrejected aU these traditions. From tion Acts (23 8) we learn that they believed in neither "angel or spirit." As appearances of angels are mentioned in the Law,