| |
Back | Book
Contents | Forward
The Temple: Its Ministry and
Services
Alfred Edersheim
Chapter 5
Sacrifices: Their Order and Their Meaning
'There are priests that offer gifts
according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.'—
8:4, 5
It is a curious fact, but sadly significant, that
modern Judaism should declare neither sacrifices nor a Levitical priesthood to belong to
the essence of the Old Testament; that, in fact, they had been foreign elements imported
into it—, indeed, by Moses, but against which the prophets earnestly protested
and incessantly laboured. The only arguments by which this strange statement is supported
are, that the Book of Deuteronomy contains merely a brief summary, not a detailed
repetition, of sacrificial ordinances, and that such passages as Isaiah 1:11, etc., Micah
6:6, etc., inveigh against sacrifices offered without real repentance or change of mind.
Yet this anti-sacrificial, or, as we may call it, anti-spiritual, tendency is really of
much earlier date. For the sacrifices of the Old Testament were not merely outward
observances— sort of work-righteousness which justified the offerer by the mere fact of
his obedience— 'it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take
away sins' (Heb 10:4).
The sacrifices of the Old Testament were
symbolical and typical. An outward observance without any real inward meaning is only a
ceremony. But a rite which has a present spiritual meaning is a symbol; and if, besides,
it also points to a future reality, conveying at the same time, by anticipation, the
blessing that is yet to appear, it is a type. Thus the Old Testament sacrifices were not
only symbols, nor yet merely predictions by fact (as prophecy is a prediction by word),
but they already conveyed to the believing Israelite the blessing that was to flow from
the future reality to which they pointed. Hence the service of the letter and the
work-righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ran directly contrary to this hope of
faith and spiritual view of sacrifices, which placed all on the level of sinners to be
saved by the substitution of another, to whom they pointed. Afterwards, when the
destruction of the Temple rendered its services impossible, another and most cogent reason
was added for trying to substitute other things, such as prayers, fasts, etc., in room of
the sacrifices. Therefore, although none of the older Rabbis has ventured on such an
assertion as that of modern Judaism, the tendency must have been increasingly in that
direction. In fact, it had become a necessity— to declare sacrifices of the essence
of Judaism would have been to pronounce modern Judaism an impossibility. But thereby also
the synagogue has given sentence against itself, and by disowning sacrifices has placed
itself outside the pale of the Old Testament.
Every unprejudiced reader of the Bible must feel
that sacrifices constitute the centre of the Old Testament. Indeed, were this the place,
we might argue from their universality that, along with the acknowledgment of a Divine
power, the dim remembrance of a happy past, and the hope of a happier future, sacrifices
belonged to the primeval traditions which mankind inherited from Paradise. To sacrifice
seems as 'natural' to man as to pray; the one indicates what he feels about himself, the
other what he feels about God. The one means a felt need of propitiation; the other a felt
sense of dependence.
The fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old
Testament is that of substitution, which again seems to imply everything else—
and redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness. The firstfruits go for the whole
products; the firstlings for the flock; the redemption-money for that which cannot be
offered; and the life of the sacrifice, which is in its blood (Lev 17:11), for the life of
the sacrificer. Hence also the strict prohibition to partake of blood. Even in the
'Korban,' gift (Mark 7:11) or free-will offering, it is still the gift for the giver. This
idea of substitution, as introduced, adopted, and sanctioned by God Himself, is expressed
by the sacrificial term rendered in our version 'atonement,' but which really means
covering, the substitute in the acceptance of God taking the place of, and so covering, as
it were, the person of the offerer. Hence the Scriptural experience: 'Blessed is he whose
transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered...unto whom the Lord imputeth not
iniquity' (Psa 32:1,2); and perhaps also the Scriptural prayer: 'Behold, O God, our
shield, and look upon the face of Thine Anointed' (Psa 84:9). Such sacrifices, however,
necessarily pointed to a mediatorial priesthood, through whom alike they and the purified
worshippers should be brought near to God, and kept in fellowship with Him. Yet these
priests themselves continually changed; their own persons and services needed
purification, and their sacrifices required constant renewal, since, in the nature of it,
such substitution could not be perfect. In short, all this was symbolical (of man's need,
God's mercy, and His covenant), and typical, till He should come to whom it all pointed,
and who had all along given reality to it; He whose Priesthood was perfect, and who on a
perfect altar brought a perfect sacrifice, once for all— perfect Substitute, and a
perfect Mediator (Heb 10:1-24).
At the very threshold of the Mosaic dispensation
stands the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb connected with the redemption of Israel, and
which in many respects must be regarded as typical, or rather anticipatory, of all the
others. But there was one sacrifice which, even under the Old Testament, required no
renewal. It was when God had entered into covenant relationship with Israel, and Israel
became the 'people of God.' Then Moses sprinkled 'the blood of the covenant' on the altar
and on the people (Exo 24). On the ground of this covenant-sacrifice all others rested
(Psa 50:5). These were, then, either sacrifices of communion with God, or else intended to
restore that communion when it had been disturbed or dimmed through sin and trespass:
sacrifices in communion, or for communion with God. To the former class
belong the burnt- and the peace-offerings; to the latter, the sin- and the
trespass-offerings. But, as without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin,
every service and every worshipper had, so to speak, to be purified by blood, and the
mediatorial agency of the priesthood called in to bring near unto God, and to convey the
assurance of acceptance.
The readiest, but perhaps the most superficial,
arrangement of sacrifices is into bloody and unbloody. The latter, or 'Minchah,' included,
besides the meat- and drink-offering, the first sheaf at the Passover, the two loaves at
Pentecost, and the shewbread. The meat-offering was only brought alone in two
instance— priest's offering (Lev 7:12) and that of jealousy (Num 5:15), to which
Jewish tradition adds the meat-offerings mentioned in Leviticus 2. If in Leviticus 5:11 a
meat-offering is allowed in cases of extreme poverty as a substitute for a sin-offering,
this only further proves the substitutionary character of sacrifices. From all this it
will be evident that, as a general rule, the meat-offering cannot be regarded as separate
from the other or bloody sacrifices. In proof of this, it always varied in quantity,
according to the kind of sacrifice which it accompanied (Num 15:1-12; 28:1-12; 39:1,
etc.).
The general requisites of all sacrifices
were— they should be brought of such things, in such place and manner, and through
such mediatorial agency, as God had appointed. Thus the choice and the appointment of the
mode of approaching Him, were to be all of God. Then it was a first principle that every
sacrifice must be of such things as had belonged to the offerer. None other could
represent him or take his place before God. Hence the Pharisees were right when, in
opposition to the Sadducees, they carried it that all public sacrifices (which were
offered for the nation as a whole) should be purchased, not from voluntary contributions,
but from the regular Temple revenues. Next, all animal sacrifices were to be free of
blemishes (of which the Rabbis enumerate seventy-three), and all unbloody offerings to be
without admixture of leaven or of honey; the latter probably because, from its tendency to
fermentation or corruption, it resembled leaven. For a similar reason salt, as the symbol
of incorruption, was to be added to all sacrifices. *
* The Rabbis speak of the so-called 'salt of
Sodom,' probably rock salt from the southern end of the Dead Sea, as used in the
sacrifices.
Hence we read in Mark 9:49—'For every one shall
be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt'; that is, as the salt
is added to the sacrifice symbolically to point to its incorruption, so the reality and
permanence of our Christian lives will be brought out by the fire of the great day, when
what is wood, hay, and stubble shall be consumed; while that which is real shall prove
itself incorruptible, having had the fire applied to it.
In Scripture three kinds of four-footed
beasts—, sheep, and goats; and two of birds—-doves and young pigeons—
appointed for sacrifices. *
* 'The birds' used at the purification of the
leper (Lev 14:4) cannot be regarded as sacrifices.
The latter, except in certain purifications, are
only allowed as substitutes for other sacrifices in case of poverty. Hence also no
direction is given either as to their age or sex, though the Rabbis hold that the
turtle-doves (which were the common birds of passage) should be fully grown, and the
domestic pigeons young birds. But, as in the various sacrifices of oxen, sheep, and goats
there were differences of age and sex, the Jews enumerate twelve sacrifices, to which as
many terms in Scripture correspond. The Paschal lamb and that for the trespass-offerings
required to be males, as well as all burnt- and all public sacrifices. The latter 'made
void the Sabbath and defilement,' i.e. they superseded the law of Sabbath rest (Matt
12:5), and might be continued, notwithstanding one kind of Levitical defilement— by
death.
The Rabbis, who are very fond of subtle
distinctions, also speak of public sacrifices that resembled the private, and of private
sacrifices that resembled the public, in that they also 'made void the Sabbath and
defilement.' Altogether they enumerate eleven public sacrifices, viz. the daily
sacrifices; the additional for the Sabbath; for the New Moon; the Passover sacrifices; the
lamb when the sheaf was waved; the Pentecostal sacrifices; those brought with the two
first loaves; New Year's; Atonement Day sacrifices; those on the first day of, and those
on the octave of 'Tabernacles.' Private sacrifices they classify as those on
account of sins by word or deed; those on account of what concerned the body (such as
various defilements); those on account of property (firstlings, tithes); those on account
of festive seasons; and those on account of vows or promises. Yet another division of
sacrifices was into those due, or prescribed, and those voluntary. For the
latter nothing could be used that had previously been vowed, since it would already belong
unto God.
But of far greater importance is the arrangement
of sacrifices into the most holy and the less holy, which is founded on Scripture (Lev
6:17; 7:1; 14:13). Certain meat-offerings (Lev 2:3,10; 6:17; 10:12), and all burnt-, sin-,
and trespass-sacrifices, as well as all public peace-offerings, were most holy. Such were
to be offered or sacrificed in one of the more holy places; they were slain at the north
side of the altar * (the less holy at the east or south side); and they were either not
partaken of at all, or else only by the officiating priests, and within the court of the
Temple.
* The reason of this is obscure. Was it that the
north was regarded as the symbolical region of cold and darkness? Or was it because during
the wilderness-journey the Most Holy Place probably faced north— Palestine?
The skins of the most holy sacrifices, except
such as were wholly burnt, belonged to the priests; those of the less holy to the
offerers. In the latter case they also partook of their flesh, the only exception being
the firstlings, which were eaten by the priests alone. The Rabbis attach ten comparative
degrees of sanctity to sacrifices; and it is interesting to mark that of these the first
belonged to the blood of the sin-offering; the second to the burnt-offering; the third to
the sin-offering itself; and the fourth to the trespass-offering. Lastly, all sacrifices
had to be brought before actual sunset, although the unconsumed flesh might smoulder on
the altar till next dawn.
The Rabbis mention the following five acts as
belonging to the offerer of a sacrifice: the laying on of hands, slaying, skinning,
cutting up, and washing the inwards. These other five were strictly priestly functions:
catching up the blood, sprinkling it, lighting the altar fire, laying on the wood,
bringing up the pieces, and all else done at the altar itself.
The whole service must have been exceedingly
solemn. Having first been duly purified, a man brought his sacrifice himself 'before the
Lord'—, to 'the door of the Tabernacle' (Lev 1:3; 4:4), where the altar of
burnt-offering was (Exo 40:6), and in the Temple into the Great Court. If the sacrifice
was most holy, he entered by the northern; if less holy, by the southern gate. Next he
placed it so as to face the west, or the Most Holy Place, in order thus literally to bring
it before the Lord. To this the apostle refers when, in Romans 12:1, he beseecheth us to
present our 'bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God.'
But this was only the commencement of the
service. Women might bring their sacrifices into the Great Court; but they might not
perform the second rite— of laying on of hands. This meant transmission and
delegation, and implied representation; so that it really pointed to the substitution of
the sacrifice for the sacrificer. Hence it was always accompanied by confession of sin and
prayer. It was thus done. The sacrifice was so turned that the person confessing looked
towards the west, while he laid his hands between the horns of the sacrifice, * and if the
sacrifice was brought by more than one, each had to lay on his hands.
* If the offerer stood outside the Court of the
Priests, on the topmost of the fifteen Levitical steps, or within the gate of Nicanor, his
hands at least must be within the Great Court, or the rite was not valid.
It is not quite a settled point whether one or
both hands were laid on; but all are agreed that it was to be done 'with one's whole
force'— it were, to lay one's whole weight upon the substitute. *
* Children, the blind, the deaf, those out of
their minds, and non-Israelites, were not allowed to 'lay on hands.'
If a person under vow had died, his heir-at-law
took his place. The only public sacrifices in which hands were laid on were those for sins
of public ignorance (Lev 4:15; 16:21), when the 'elders' acted as representing the
people— which some Rabbinical authorities add public sin-offerings in general (on the
ground of 2 Chron 29:23)— the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, on which the
high-priest laid his hands. In all private sacrifices, except firstlings, tithes, and the
Paschal lamb, hands were laid on, and, while doing so, the following prayer was repeated:
'I entreat, O Jehovah: I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have rebelled, I have
committed (naming the sin, trespass, or, in case of a burnt-offering, the breach of
positive or negative command); but I return in repentance, and let this be for my
atonement (covering).' According to Maimonides, in peace-offerings a record of God's
praise, rather than a confession of sins, was spoken. But, as the principle prevailed that
frequent confession even without sacrifice was meritorious, another formula is also
recorded, in which the allusion to sacrifices is omitted.
Closely connected with this was 'the lifting and
waving' of certain sacrifices. The priest put his hands under those of the offerer, and
moved the sacrifice upwards and downwards, right and left; according to Abarbanel also
'forwards and backwards.' The lamb of the leper's trespass-offering was waved before it
was slain (Lev 14:24); private peace-offerings, only after they had been slain; while in
public peace-offerings, the practice varied.
Under ordinary circumstances all public
sacrifices, and also always that of the leper, were slain by the priests. *
* The Hebrew term used for sacrificial slaying is
never applied to the ordinary killing of animals.
The Talmud declares the offering of birds, so as
to secure the blood, * to have been the most difficult part of a priest's work.
* In the case of birds there was no laying on of
hands.
For the death of the sacrifice was only a means
towards an end, that end being the shedding and sprinkling of the blood, by which the
atonement was really made. The Rabbis mention a variety of rules observed by the priest
who caught up the blood— designed to make the best provision for its proper
sprinkling. *
* The Rabbis mention five mistakes which might
render a sacrifice invalid, none of them the least interesting, except, perhaps, that the
gullet might never be wholly severed.
Thus the priest was to catch up the blood in a
silver vessel pointed at the bottom, so that it could not be put down, and to keep it
constantly stirred, to preserve the fluidity of the blood. In the sacrifice of the red
heifer, however, the priest caught the blood directly in his left hand, and sprinkled it
with his right towards the Holy Place: while in that of the leper one of the two priests
received the blood in the vessel; the other in his hand, from which he anointed the
purified leper (Lev 4:25).
According to the difference of sacrifices, the
blood was differently applied, and in different places. In all burnt-, trespass-, and
peace-offerings the blood was thrown directly out of the vessel or vessels in which it had
been caught, the priest going first to one corner of the altar and then to the other, and
throwing it in the form of the Greek Letter gamma, so that each time two sides of the
altar were covered. Any blood left after these two 'gifts,' as they were called (which
stood for four), was poured out at the base of the altar, whence it flowed into the
Kedron. In all sin-offerings the blood was not thrown, but sprinkled, the priest dipping
the forefinger of his right hand into the blood, and then sprinkling it from his finger by
a motion of the thumb. According to the importance of the sin-offering, the blood was so
applied either to the four horns of the altar of burnt-offering, or else it was brought
into the Holy Place itself, and sprinkled first seven times towards the veil of the Most
Holy Place (Lev 4:6,17), and then on the four horns of the golden altar of incense,
beginning at the north-east. Finally, on the Day of Atonement the blood was sprinkled
within the Most Holy Place itself. From all sin-offerings the blood of which was sprinkled
on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering certain portions were to be eaten, while those
whose blood was brought into the Holy Place itself were wholly burnt. But in the
sacrifices of firstlings, of tithes of animals, and of the Paschal lamb, the blood was
neither thrown nor sprinkled, and only poured out at the base of the altar.
On the shedding of blood, which was of the
greatest importance—, according to the Talmud, 'whenever the blood touches the altar
the offerer is atoned for'— the 'flaying' of the sacrifice and the 'cutting up
into his pieces.' All this had to be done in an orderly manner, and according to certain
rules, the apostle adopting the sacrificial term when he speaks of 'rightly dividing the
word of truth' (2 Tim 2:15). The 'inwards' and 'legs' having been washed (Lev 1:9), and
dried with sponges, the separate pieces of the sacrifice were brought up by various
priests: the calculation of the Rabbis being, that in the case of a sheep or a she-goat
six priests carried the sacrifice, one more the meat-, and another the drink-offering (in
all eight); while in that of a ram twelve, and in that of a bullock four-and-twenty
priests were needed for the service. Next, the sacrificial salt was applied, and then the
pieces were first confusedly thrown and then arranged upon the fire. * This latter part of
the service requires explanation.
* Whatever was laid upon the altar was regarded
as 'sanctified' by it, and could not be again removed, even though it should have become
defiled. This explains the words of Christ in Matthew 23:19.
The common idea that the burning either of part
or the whole of the sacrifice pointed to its destruction, and symbolised the wrath of God
and the punishment due to sin, does not seem to accord with the statements of Scripture.
The term used is not that commonly employed for burning, but means 'causing to smoke,' and
the rite symbolises partly the entire surrender of the sacrifice, but chiefly its
acceptance on the part of God. Thus the sacrifice consumed by a fire which had originally
come down from God Himself— by strange fire— ascend 'for a sweet savour unto the
Lord' (Lev 1:9; 4:31). Even the circumstance that the fire for the altar of incense was
always taken from that on the altar of burnt-offering, shows that, while that fire might
symbolise the presence of a holy Jehovah in His house, it could not refer to the fire of
wrath or of punishment. *
* Compare the article in Herzog's Encyc.
vol. x. p. 633. Some of the sacrifices were burned on the altar of burnt-offering, and
some outside the gate; while in certain less holy sacrifices it was allowed to burn what
was left anywhere within the city.
As already stated, those parts of the sin-,
trespass-, * and public peace-offerings, which were allowed to be eaten, could only be
partaken of by the priests (not their families) during their actual ministry, and within
the Temple walls.
* Except those for the whole people and for the
high-priest, which had to be burned outside the gate.
The flesh of these offerings had also to be eaten
on the day of the sacrifice, or in the night following; while in other offerings the
permission extended to a second day. The Rabbis, however, restrict the eating of the
Paschal lamb to midnight. Whatever was left beyond the lawful time had to be burned.
It is deeply interesting to know that the New
Testament view of sacrifices is entirely in accordance with that of the ancient Synagogue.
At the threshold we here meet the principle: 'There is no atonement except by blood.' In
accordance with this we quote the following from Jewish interpreters. Rashi says (on Lev
17:11): 'The soul of every creature is gave it to atone for the soul of man— one soul
should come and atone for the other.' Similarly Aben Ezra writes: 'One soul is a
substitute for the other.' And Moses ben Nachmann: 'I gave the soul for you on the altar,
that the soul of the animal should be an atonement for the soul of the man.' These
quotations might be almost indefinitely multiplied. Another phase of Scriptural truth
appears in such Rabbinical statements as that by the imposition of hands: 'The offerer, as
it were, puts away his sins from himself, and transfers them upon the living animal'; and
that, 'as often as any one sins with his soul, whether from hate or malice, he puts away
his sin from himself, and places it upon the head of his sacrifice, and it is an atonement
for him.' Hence, also, the principal laid down by Abarbanel, that, 'after the prayer of
confession (connected with the imposition of hands) the sins of the children of Israel lay
on the sacrifice (of the Day of Atonement).' This, according to Maimonides, explains why
every one who had anything to do with the sacrifice of the red heifer or the goat on the
Day of Atonement, or similar offerings, was rendered unclean; since these animals were
regarded as actually sin-bearing. In fact, according to Rabbinical expression, the
sin-bearing animal is on that ground expressly designated as something to be rejected and
abominable. The Christian reader will here be reminded of the Scriptural statement: 'For
He has made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness
of God in Him.'
There is yet one other phase on which the
Synagogue lays stress. It is best expressed in the following quotation, to which many
similar might be added: 'Properly speaking, the blood of the sinner should have been shed,
and his body burned, as those of the sacrifices. But the Holy One— be
He!— our sacrifice from us as redemption and atonement. Behold the full grace
which Jehovah— be He!— shown to man! In His compassion and in the fulness of
His grace He accepted the soul of the animal instead of his soul, that through it there
might be an atonement.' Hence also the principle, so important as an answer to the
question, Whether the Israelites of old had understood the meaning of sacrifices? 'He that
brought a sacrifice required to come to the knowledge that that sacrifice was his
redemption.'
In view of all this, the deep-felt want so often
expressed by the Synagogue is most touching. In the liturgy for the Day of Atonement we
read: 'While the altar and the sanctuary were still in their places, we were atoned for by
the goats, designated by lot. But now for our guilt, if Jehovah be pleased to destroy us,
He takes from our hand neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice.' We add only one more out of
many similar passages in the Jewish prayer-book: 'We have spoken violence and rebellion;
we have walked in a way that is not right...Behold, our transgressions have increased upon
us; they press upon us like a burden; they have gone over our heads; we have forsaken Thy
commandments, which are excellent. And wherewith shall we appear before Thee, the mighty
God, to atone for our transgressions, and to put away our trespasses, and to remove sin,
and to magnify Thy grace? Sacrifices and offerings are no more; sin- and
trespass-offerings have ceased; the blood of sacrifices is no longer sprinkled; destroyed
is Thy holy house, and fallen the gates of Thy sanctuary; Thy holy city lies desolate;
Thou hast slain, sent from Thy presence; they have gone, driven forth from before Thy
face, the priests who brought Thy sacrifices!' Accordingly, also, the petition frequently
recurs: 'Raise up for us a right Intercessor (that it may be true), I have found a ransom
(an atonement, or covering).' And on the Day of Atonement, as in substance frequently on
other occasions, they pray: 'Bring us back in jubilee to Zion, Thy city, and in joy as of
old to Jerusalem, the house of Thy holiness! Then shall we bring before Thy face the
sacrifices that are due.'
Who shall make answer to this deep lament of
exiled Judah? Where shall a ransom be found to take the place of their sacrifices? In
their despair some appeal to the merits of the fathers or of the pious; others to their
own or to Israel's sufferings, or to death, which is regarded as the last expiation. But
the most melancholy exhibition, perhaps, is that of an attempted sacrifice by each pious
Israelite on the eve of the Day of Atonement. Taking for males a white cock, * and for
females a hen, the head of the house prays: 'The children of men who dwell in darkness and
in the shadow of death, bound in misery and iron— will He bring forth from darkness
and the shadow of death, and break their bonds asunder. Fools, because of their
transgressions and because of their iniquities, are afflicted; their soul abhorreth all
manner of meat, and they draw near unto the gates of death. Then they cry unto the Lord in
their trouble, that He save them out of their distresses. He sends His word and heals
them, and delivers them from their destruction. Then they praise the Lord for His
goodness, and for His marvellous works to the children of men. If there be an angel with
Him, an intercessor, one among a thousand, to show unto men his righteousness, then He is
gracious unto him, and saith, Let him go, that he may not go down into the pit; I have
found an atonement (a covering).'
* Because the Hebrew word for 'man' (Gever) is
used in the Talmud for 'a cock,' and 'white,' with reference to Isaiah 1:18.
Next, the head of the house swings the sacrifice
round his head, saying, 'This is my substitute; this is in exchange for me; this is my
atonement. This cock goes into death, but may I enter into a long and happy life, and into
peace!' Then he repeats this prayer three times, and lays his hands on the sacrifice,
which is now slain.
This offering up of an animal not sanctioned by
the law, in a place, in a manner, and by hands not authorised by God, is it not a terrible
phantom of Israel's dark and dreary night? and does it not seem strangely to remind us of
that other terrible night, when the threefold crowing of a cock awakened Peter to the fact
of his denial of 'the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world'?
And still the cry of the Synagogue comes to us
through these many centuries of past unbelief and ignorance: 'Let one innocent come and
make atonement for the guilty!' To which no other response can ever be made than that of
the apostle: 'Such an High-Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate
from sinners, and made higher than the heavens'! (Heb 7:26)
Back | Book
Contents | Forward
|
