| |
Back | Book Contents |
Forward
The Temple: Its Ministry and
Services
Alfred Edersheim
Chapter 6
The Burnt-Offering, the Sin- and Trespass-Offering, and the Peace-Offering
'And every priest standeth daily
ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
but this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right
hand of God.'— 10:11, 12
The question whether or not sacrifices were to
cease after the coming of the Messiah is differently answered in the Jewish synagogue,
some arguing that only thank- and peace-offerings would then be brought, while the
majority expect a revival of the regular sacrificial worship. *
*It has been matter of controversy whether or
not, in the first years after the destruction of the Temple, solitary attempts were made
by enthusiasts to offer sacrifices. My own conviction is, that no such instance can be
historically established.
But on one point the authorities of the old
synagogue, previous to their controversy with Christianity, are agreed. As the Old
Testament and Jewish tradition taught that the object of a sacrifice was its substitution
for the offender, so Scripture and the Jewish fathers also teach that the substitute to
whom all these types pointed was none other than the Messiah.
It has been well remarked, that the difficulties
of modern interpreters of the Messianic prophecies arise chiefly from their not perceiving
the unity of the Old Testament in its progressive unfolding of the plan of salvation.
Moses must not be read independently of the Psalms, nor yet the Psalms independently of
the Prophets. Theirs are not so many unconnected writings of different authorship and age,
only held together by the boards of one volume. They form integral parts of one whole, the
object of which is to point to the goal of all revelation in the appearing of the Christ.
Accordingly, we recognize in the prophetic word, not a change nor a difference, but three
well-marked progressive stages, leading up to the sufferings and the glory of Messiah. In
the Proto-Evangel, as Genesis 3:15 has been called, and in what follows it, we have as yet
only the grand general outlines of the figure. Thus we see a Person in the Seed of
the woman; suffering, in the prediction that His heel would be bruised; and victory,
in that He would bruise the serpent's head. These merely general outlines are wonderfully
filled up in the Book of Psalms. The 'Person' is now 'the Son of David'; while alike the
sufferings and the victory are sketched in vivid detail in such Psalms as 22, 35, 49, and
102; or else in Psalms 2, 72, 89, 110, and 118— to speak of other almost innumerable
allusions.
One element only was still wanting— this Son
of David, this Sufferer and Conqueror, should be shown to be our Substitute, to
whom also the sacrificial types had pointed. This is added in the writings of the
prophets, especially in those of Isaiah, culminating, as it were, in Isaiah 53, around
which the details furnished by the other prophets naturally group themselves. The picture
is now completed, and so true to the original that, when compared with the reality in the
Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ, we can have no difficulty in recognising it; and
this not so much from one or other outline in prophecy or type, as from their combination
and progressive development throughout the Scriptures of the Old Testament, considered as
a connected whole.
As already stated, such early works as the Targum
Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum frankly adopt the Messianic interpretation of
these prophecies. The later Rabbis also admit that this had been the common view of the
Jewish fathers; but, on account of 'the sages of the Nazarenes, who apply it to that man
whom they hanged in Jerusalem towards the close of the second Temple, and who, according
to their opinion, was the Son of the Most Blessed, and had taken human nature in the womb
of the Virgin,' they reject that interpretation, and refer the prediction of suffering
either to some individual, or mostly to Israel as a nation. But so difficult is it to
weaken the language in which the Messiah's vicarious sufferings are described— less
than twelve times in Isaiah 52:13 to 53— some of their commentators have been forced
to admit it, sometimes almost unconsciously. The language of Isaiah has even crept into
the following Messianic hymnal prayer for the Passover:
'Haste, my Beloved; come, ere ends
the vision's day;
Make haste, and chase Thyself the shadows all away!
"Despised" is He, but yet "extolled" and "high" shall be;
"Deal prudently," "sprinkle nations," and "judge" shall He.'
Thus, if by the universal consent of all who are
unprejudiced sacrifices point to substitution, substitution in its turn points to the
Person and Work of the Messiah.
It has already been explained that all sacrifices
were either such as were offered on the ground of communion with God— burnt- and the
peace-offering; or else such as were intended to restore that communion when it had been
dimmed or disturbed— sin- and the trespass-offering. Each of these four kinds of
sacrifices will now have to be separately considered.
I. The burnt-offering—Olah, or
also Chalil (Deut 33:10; in Psalm 51:19 literally rendered 'whole
burnt-offering).— derivation of the term Olah, as wholly 'ascending' unto God,
indicates alike the mode of the sacrifice and its meaning. It symbolised the entire
surrender unto God, whether of the individual or of the congregation, and His acceptance
thereof. Hence, also, it could not be offered 'without shedding of blood.' Where other
sacrifices were brought, it followed the sin- but preceded the peace-offering. In fact, it
meant general acceptance on the ground of previous special acceptance, and it has rightly
been called the sacrificium latreuticum, or sacrifice of devotion and service. *
* In the historical books the term Olah
is, however, used in a more general sense to denote other sacrifices also.
Thus day by day it formed the regular morning and
evening service in the Temple, while on sabbaths, new moons, and festivals additional
burnt-offerings followed the ordinary worship. There the covenant-people brought the
covenant-sacrifice, and the multitude of offerings indicated, as it were, the fulness,
richness, and joyousness of their self-surrender. Accordingly, although we can understand
how this sacrifice might be said to 'make atonement' for an individual in the sense of
assuring him of his acceptance, we cannot agree with the Rabbis that it was intended to
atone for evil thoughts and purposes, and for breaches of positive commands, or of such
negative as involved also a positive command.
The burnt-offering was always to be a male
animal, as the more noble, and as indicating strength and energy. The blood was thrown on
the angles of the altar below the red line that ran round it. Then 'the sinew of the
thigh' (Gen 32:32), * the stomach and the entrails, etc., having been removed (in the case
of birds also the feathers and the wings), and the sacrifice having been duly salted, it
was wholly burned.
* The 'sinew of the thigh' was neither allowed to
be eaten nor to be sacrificed.
The skins belonged to the ministering priests,
who derived a considerable revenue from this source. The burnt-offering was the only
sacrifice which non-Israelites were allowed to bring. *
* If they brought a 'peace-offering,' it was to
be treated as a burnt-offering, and that for the obvious reason that there was no one to
eat the sacrificial meal. Of course, there was no imposition of hands in that case.
The Emperor Augustus had a daily burnt-offering
brought for him of two lambs and a bullock; and ever afterwards this sacrifice was
regarded as indicating that the Jewish nation recognised the Roman emperor as their ruler.
Hence at the commencement of the Jewish war Eleazar carried its rejection, and this
became, as it were, the open mark of the rebellion.
II. The sin-offering.— is the most
important of all sacrifices. It made atonement for the person of the offender,
whereas the trespass-offering only atoned for one special offence. Hence sin-offerings
were brought on festive occasions for the whole people, but never trespass-offerings
(comp. Num 28, 29). In fact, the trespass-offering may be regarded as representing ransom
for a special wrong, while the sin-offering symbolised general redemption. Both sacrifices
applied only to sins 'through ignorance,' in opposition to those done 'presumptuously' (or
'with a high hand'). For the latter the law provided no atonement, but held out 'a certain
fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation.' By sins 'through ignorance,'
however, we are to understand, according to the Rabbis, not only such as were committed
strictly through want of knowledge, but also those which had been unintentional, or
through weakness, or where the offender at the time realised not his guilt. The
fundamental difference between the two sacrifices appears also in this—
sin-offerings, having a retrospective effect on the worshippers, were brought at the
various festivals, and also for purification in such defilements of the body as
symbolically pointed to the sinfulness of our nature (sexual defilement, those connected
with leprosy, and with death). On the other hand, the animal brought for a
trespass-offering was to be always a male (generally a ram, which was never used as a
sin-offering); nor was it lawful, as in the sin-offering, to make substitution of
something else in case of poverty. These two particulars indicate that the
trespass-offering contemplated chiefly a wrong, for which decided satisfaction was to be
made by offering a male animal, and for which a definite, unvarying ransom was to
be given.
However, in reference both to sin- and to
trespass-offerings, the Rabbinical principle must be kept in view— they only atoned
in case of real repentance. Indeed, their first effect would be 'a remembrance of sins'
before God (Heb 10:3). All sin-offerings were either public or private
(congregational or individual). The former were always males; the latter always females,
except the bullock for the high-priest's sin of ignorance (Lev 4:3), and the kid for the
same offence of a 'ruler' (Lev 4:22). They were further divided into fixed, which
were the same in the case of rich and poor, and varying, which 'ascended and
descended' according to the circumstances of the offerer. 'Fixed' sacrifices were all
those for sins 'through ignorance' against any of the prohibitory commands (of which the
Rabbis enumerate 365); * for sins of deed, not of word; or else for such which, if they
had been high-handed, would have carried the Divine punishment of being 'cut off' (of
which the Rabbis enumerate 36).
* They also mention 248 affirmative precepts, or
in all 613, according to the supposed number of members in the human body.
The 'varying' sacrifices were those for lepers
(Lev 14:21); for women after childbirth (of which concession to poverty Mary, the mother
of Jesus, availed herself) (Luke 2:24; Lev 12:8); for having concealed a 'thing known'
(Lev 5:1); for having unwittingly sworn falsely; and for having either unwittingly eaten
of what had been consecrated, or gone into the Temple in a state of defilement. Lastly,
there were 'outer' and 'inner' sin-offerings, according as the blood was applied to the
altar of burnt-offering or brought into the inner sanctuary. In the former case the flesh
was to be eaten only by the officiating priest and within the sanctuary; the latter were
to be wholly burnt without the camp or city. *
* According to the Talmud, if doves were brought
as a sin-offering, the carcases were not burned, but went to the priests.
In both cases, however, the 'inwards,' as
enumerated in Leviticus 4:8, were always first burned on the altar of burnt-offering.
Neither oil nor frankincense were to be brought with a sin-offering. There was nothing
joyous about it. It represented a terrible necessity, for which God, in His wondrous
grace, had made provision.
It only remains to explain in detail two
peculiarities connected with the sin-offering. First, it differed according to the
theocratic position of him who brought the sacrifice. For the high-priest on the Day of
Atonement (Lev 16:3), or when he had sinned, 'to the rendering guilty of the people' (Lev
4:3), that is, in his official capacity as representing the people; or if the whole
congregation had sinned through ignorance (Lev 4:13); and at the consecration of the
priests and Levites a bullock was to be brought. This was the highest kind of
sin-offering. Next in order was that of the 'kid of the goats,' offered for the people on
the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5), and on the other festivals and New Moons (Num 28:15,
etc.; 29:5, etc.); also for the ruler who had sinned through ignorance (Lev 4:23); for the
congregation if aught had been committted by any individual 'without the knowledge of the
congregation' (Num 15:24); and, lastly, at the consecration of the Tabernacle (Lev
9:3,15). The third kind of sin-offering consisted of a female kid of the goats * for
individual Israelites (Lev 4:28, etc.; 5:6), and of a ewe lamb for a Nazarite (Num 6:14)
and a leper (Lev 14:10).
* It is not very easy to understand why goats
should have been chosen in preference for sin-offerings, unless it were that their flesh
was the most unpalatable of meat.
The lowest grade of sin-offering was that of
turtle-doves or young pigeons offered at certain purifications (Lev 12:6; 15:14,29; Num
6:10); or else as a substitute for other sacrifices in case of poverty— extreme cases
something resembling to, or 'as a meat-offering' being even allowed (Lev 5:11-13).
Secondly, the blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled,
not thrown. In the case of a private Israelite, it was sprinkled, that is, either jerked
or dropped successively on each of the four horns * of the altar of
burnt-offering— at the south-east, thence going to the north-east, then the
north-west, and finishing at the south-west, where the rest of the blood was poured at the
bottom of the altar through two funnels that conducted into the Kedron. Secondly, the blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled,
not thrown. In the case of a private Israelite, it was sprinkled, that is, either jerked
or dropped successively on each of the four horns * of the altar of
burnt-offering— at the south-east, thence going to the north-east, then the
north-west, and finishing at the south-west, where the rest of the blood was poured at the
bottom of the altar through two funnels that conducted into the Kedron.
* The 'horns' symbolized, as it were, the
outstanding height and strength of the altar.
On the other hand, when offering bullocks and
goats, whose carcases were to be burned without the camp, the officiating priest stood in
the Holy Place, between the golden altar and the candlestick, and sprinkled of the blood
seven times * towards the Most Holy Place, to indicate that the covenant-relationship
itself had been endangered and was to be re-established, and afterwards touched with it
the horns of the altar of incense.
* Seven was the symbolical number of the
covenant.
The most solemn of all sacrifices were those of
the Day of Atonement, when the high-priest, arrayed in his linen garments, stood before
the Lord Himself within the Most Holy Place to make an atonement. Every spot of blood from
a sin-offering on a garment conveyed defilement, as being loaded with sin, and all vessels
used for such sacrifices had either to be broken or scoured.
Quite another phase of symbolic meaning was
intended to be conveyed by the sacrificial meal which the priests were to make of the
flesh of such sin-offerings as were not wholly burnt without the camp. Unquestionably
Philo was right in suggesting, that one of the main objects of this meal was to carry to
the offerer assurance of his acceptance, 'since God would never have allowed His servants
to partake of it, had there not been a complete removal and forgetting of the sin' atoned
for. This view entirely accords with the statement in Leviticus 10:17, where the purpose
of this meal by the priests is said to be 'to bear the iniquity of the congregation.'
Hence, also, the flesh of all sacrifices, either for the high-priest, as representing the
priesthood, or for the whole people, had to be burnt; because those who, as God's
representatives, were alone allowed to eat the sacrificial meal were themselves among the
offerers of the sacrifice.
III. The trespass-offering was provided
for certain transgressions committed through ignorance, or else, according to Jewish
tradition, where a man afterwards voluntarily confessed himself guilty. The Rabbis arrange
this class into those for a doubtful and for a certain trespass. The former
were offered by the more scrupulous, when, uncertain whether they might not have committed
an offence which, if done high-handed, would have implied being 'cut off,' or, if in
ignorance, necessitated a sin-offering. Accordingly, the extreme party, or Chassidim, were
wont to bring such a sacrifice every day! On the other hand, the offering for certain
trespasses covered five distinct cases, * which had all this in common, that they
represented a wrong for which a special ransom was to be given.
* Leviticus 5:15; 6:2; 19:20 (in these three
cases the offering was a ram); and Leviticus 14:12 and Numbers 6:12 (where the offering
was a he-lamb). The Word of God considers every wrong done to another, as also a wrong
done against the Lord (Psa 51:4), and hence, as needing a trespass-offering.
It forms no exception to this principle, that a
trespass-offering was also prescribed in the case of a healed leper (Lev 14:12), and in
that of a Nazarite, whose vow had been interrupted by sudden defilement with the dead (Num
6:10-12), since leprosy was also symbolically regarded as a wrong to the congregation as a
whole, * while the interruption of the vow was a kind of wrong directly towards the Lord.
* Hence the leper was banished from the
congregation.
But that this last was, at the same time,
considered the lightest kind of trespass appears even from this—, while ordinarily
the flesh of the trespass-offering, after burning the inwards on the altar of (Lev 7:3),
was only to be eaten by the officiating priests within the Holy Place, the lamb offered
for such a Nazarite might be eaten by others also, and anywhere within Jerusalem. The
blood of the trespass-offering (like that of the burnt-offering) was thrown on the corners
of the altar below the red line.
IV. The most joyous of all sacrifices was the peace-offering,
or, as from its derivation it might also be rendered, the offering of completion. *
* It always followed all the other sacrifices.
This was, indeed, a season of happy fellowship
with the Covenant God, in which He condescended to become Israel's Guest at the
sacrificial meal, even as He was always their Host. Thus it symbolised the spiritual truth
expressed in Revelation 3:20, 'Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My
voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.'
In peace-offerings the sacrificial meal was the point of main importance. Hence the name
'Sevach,' by which it is designated in the Pentateuch, and which means 'slaying,' in
reference to a meal. It is this sacrifice which is so frequently referred to in the Book
of Psalms as the grateful homage of a soul justified and accepted before God (Psa 51:17;
54:6; 56:12; 116:17,18). If, on the one hand, then, the 'offering of completion' indicated
that there was complete peace with God, on the other, it was also literally the offering
of completeness. The peace-offerings were either public or private. The two
lambs offered every year at Pentecost (Lev 23:19) were a public peace-offering, and the
only one which was regarded as 'most holy.' As such they were sacrificed at the north side
of the altar, and their flesh eaten only by the officiating priests, and within the Holy
Place. The other public peace-offerings were slain at the south side, and their 'inwards'
burnt on the altar (Lev 3:4,5). Then, after the priests had received their due, the rest
was to be eaten by the offerers themselves, either within the courts of the Temple or in
Jerusalem (Deut 27:7). On one occasion (1 Kings 8:63) no less than 22,000 oxen and 120,000
sheep were so offered. Private peace-offerings were of a threefold kind (Lev 7:11):
'sacrifices of thanksgiving' (Lev 7:12), 'vows,' and strictly 'voluntary offerings' (Lev
7:16). The first were in general acknowledgment of mercies received; the last, the free
gift of loving hearts, as even the use of the same term in Exodus 25:2, 35:29 implies.
Exceptionally in this last case, an animal that had anything either 'defective' or
'superfluous' might be offered (Lev 22:23).
Peace-offerings were brought either of male or of
female animals (chiefly of the former), but not of pigeons, the sacrifice being, of
course, always accompanied by a meat- and a drink offering (Lev 7:11, etc.). As every
other sacrifice, they needed imposition of hands, confession, and sprinkling of blood, the
latter being done as in the burnt-offering. Then the 'inwards' were taken out and 'waved'
before the Lord, along with 'the breast' and the 'right shoulder' (or, perhaps more
correctly, the right leg). In reference to these two wave-offerings we remark, that the
breast properly belonged to the Lord, and that He gave it to His priests (Lev 7:30), while
Israel gave the 'right shoulder' directly to the priests (Lev 7:32). The ritual of waving
has already been described, * the meaning of the movement being to present the sacrifice,
as it were, to the Lord, and then to receive it back from Him.
* The pieces were laid on the hands as follows:
the feet, and then the breast, the right shoulder, the kidneys, the caul of the liver,
and, in the case of a thank-offering, the bread upon it all.
The Rabbinical suggestion, that there was a
distinct rite of 'heaving' besides that of 'waving,' seems only to rest on a
misunderstanding of such passages as Leviticus 2:2, 9; 7:32; 10:15, etc. *
* The 'heave' is, in reality, only the technical
term for the priest's 'taking' his portion.
The following were to be 'waved' before the Lord:
the breast of the peace-offering (Lev 7:30); the parts mentioned at the consecration of
the priests (Lev 8:25-29); the first omer at the Passover (Lev 23:11); the
jealousy-offering (Num 5:25); the offering at the close of a Nazarite's vow (Num 6:20);
the offering of a cleansed leper (Lev 14:12); and 'the two lambs' presented 'with the
bread of the firstfruits,' at the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:20). The two last-mentioned
offerings were 'waved' before being sacrificed. After the 'waving,' the 'inwards' (Lev
3:3-5, etc.) were burnt on the altar of burnt-offering, and the rest eaten either by
priests or worshippers, the longest term allowed in any case for the purpose being two
days and a night from the time of sacrifice. Of course, the guests, among whom were to be
the Levites and the poor, must all be in a state of Levitical purity, symbolical of 'the
wedding garment' needful at the better gospel-feast.
We close with a few particulars about meat-offerings.
These were either brought in conjunction with burnt- and peace-offerings (but never with
sin- or with trespass-offerings) or else by themselves. The latter were either public
or private meat-offerings. The three public meat-offerings were: the twelve loaves
of shewbread, renewed every Sabbath, and afterwards eaten by the priests; the omer, or
sheaf of the harvest, on the second day of the Passover; and the two wave-loaves at
Pentecost. Four of the private meat-offerings were enjoined by the law, viz: (1) the daily
meat-offering of the high-priest, according to the Jewish interpretation of Leviticus
6:20; (2) that at the consecration of priests (Lev 6:20); (3) that in substitution for a
sin-offering, in case of poverty (Lev 5:11,12); and that of jealousy (Num 5:15). The
following five were purely voluntary, viz. that of fine flour with oil, unbaken (Lev 2:1);
that 'baken in a pan'; 'in a frying-pan'; 'in the oven'; and the 'wafers' (Lev 2:4-7). All
these offerings were to consist of at least one omer of corn (which was the tenth part of
an ephah) (Exo 16:36). But any larger number under 61 omers might be offered, the reason
of the limitation being, that as the public meat- offerings enjoined on the feast of
Tabernacles amounted to 61, * all private offerings must be less than that number.
* See Relandus, p. 353. This, however, only when
the feast fell on a Sabbath.
In all baken meat-offerings, an 'omer' was always
made into ten cakes— symbolical number of completeness— in that of the
high-priest's daily meat-offering, of which twelve cakes were baken, as representative of
Israel. Finally, as the Rabbis express it, every meat-offering prepared in a vessel had
'three pourings of oil'— into the vessel, then to mingle with the flour, and lastly,
after it was ready— frankincense being then put upon it. The 'wafers' were 'anointed'
with oil, after the form of the Hebrew letter caph, or the Greek letter kappa, as they
explain, 'to run down in two parts.' *
*The subjoined Rabbinical table may be of use:
Meat-Offerings—
Requiring the addition of oil and frankincense: Of fine flour unbaken; baken in a
pan; baken in a frying-pan; baken in the oven; the 'wafers'; the high-priest's daily and
the priest's consecration offering; the flour from the 'sheaf' offered on the second day
of the Passover. Requiring oil without frankincense: all meat-offerings,
accompanying a burnt- or a peace-offering. Requiring frankincense without oil: The
shew bread. Requiring neither oil nor frankincense: The two loaves at Pentecost;
the jealousy-offering; and that in substitution for a sin-offering.
When presenting a meat-offering, the priest first
brought it in the golden or silver dish in which it had been prepared, and then
transferred it to a holy vessel, putting oil and frankincense upon it. Taking his stand at
the south-eastern corner of the altar, he next took the 'handful' that was actually to be
burnt, put it in another vessel, laid some of the frankincense on it, carried it to the
top of the altar, salted it, and then placed it on the fire. The rest of the meat-offering
belonged to the priests. * Every meat-offering was accompanied by a drink-offering of
wine, which was poured at the base of the altar.
* Except in the meat-offering of the high-priest,
and of priests at their consecration; the exception in both cases for the obvious reason
already referred to in explaining sacrificial meals. Similarly, the meat-offerings
connected with burnt-sacrifices were wholly consumed on the altar.
So complicated a service, and one which enjoined
such frequent sacrifices, must always have kept a large number of priests busy in the
courts of the Temple. This was especially the case on the great festivals; and if the
magnificent Temple could hold its 210,000 worshippers— the liturgy, music, and ritual
were equally gorgeous— cannot wonder that it required, multitudes of white-robed
priests properly to discharge its ministry. Tradition has it, that on the Day of Atonement
no less than five hundred priests were wont to assist in the services. On other feast-days
even more must have been engaged, as it was a Rabbinical principle, 'that a man should
bring all his offerings, that were either due from him or voluntarily dedicated, at the
solemn festival that cometh next.' In other words, if a man incurred a sacrifice, or
voluntarily promised one, he was to bring it when next he came to Jerusalem. But even this
provision showed 'the weakness and unprofitableness thereof,' since in all ordinary cases
a long time must have elapsed before the stain of guilt could be consciously removed by an
atoning sacrifice, or a vow performed. Blessed be God, the reality in Christ Jesus in
this, as in all other things, far out-distances the type! For we have always 'liberty to
enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus'; and 'if the blood of bulls and of goats,
and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the
flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered
Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living
God!'
Back | Book Contents |
Forward
|
