SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP
OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT
BY
J. H.
KURTZ,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT
DORPAT.
AUTHOR OF “HISTORY OF
THE OLD COVENANT."
TRANSLATED BY
JAMES MARTIN, B.A.,
T & T.
MDCCCLXIII.
Digitally prepared and posted on the web by
Ted Hildebrandt (2004)
Public Domain.
Please report any errors to:
PREFACE.
TWENTY
years have passed since I was prompted by the appear-
ance
of Bahr's Symbolik to publish my work
on “Das Mosaische
Opfer, Mitau 1842." As this
work was sold off in the course of
a
few years, I cherished the desire and intention of meeting the
questions
that were continually arising, by preparing a new edition,
as
soon as I should have finished another work which I had then
in
hand. But the longer this task was postponed, the greater the
obstacles
to its execution appeared. For year after year writings
upon
this subject were constantly accumulating, which for the most
part
were strongly opposed to the standpoint and results of my
own
work, both in their fundamental view and in their interpretation
of
various details. These writings had also shown me much that
was
weak and unsatisfactory in my own work, particularly in the
elaboration
of the separate parts; though opposition had only con-
vinced
me more and more of the entire correctness of my earlier
opinions,
which were no other than the traditional and orthodox
views.
But this did not render me insensible to the fact, that if
the
work was to be taken up again, it must be in the form of a
thoroughly
new book. On the former occasion I had simply to
overthrow
the views of one single opponent, which were as unscrip-
tural
as they were unorthodox, and to raise by the side a new
edifice
upon the old, firm foundation of the Church. Now, on the
contrary,
not only is there a whole forest of opposing standpoints
and
opinions to be dealt with, that differ quite as much from one
another,
as they do from the view which I have advocated; but
8 PREFACE.
so
many breaches have been made in the edifice erected by me,
that
simply repairing the injured and untenable posts is quite out
of
the question, and it is much better to pull down the old building
altogether
and erect a new one in its place. The foundation,
indeed,
still remains the same, and many of the stones formerly
employed
prove themselves still sound; but even these require
fresh
chiselling, and such as are not usable have to be laid aside
for
new ones.
For so extensive a work, however, I could find
neither time nor
leisure,
especially as my studies lay in other directions, in conse-
quence
of a change that had taken place in the meantime in my
official
post and duties. It was not till a year and a half ago,
when
my academical labours led once more in the direction of Bibli-
cal
Antiquities, that I had to enter ex professo
into the Sacrificial
Worship
of the Old Testament. With this there arose so strong a
desire
to work once more at the subject with a view to publication,
and
thus, so to speak, to wipe off old debts, that I could not refrain
any
longer. Hence the present volume, which has assumed a
totally
different form from the earlier one, and therefore is to be
regarded
as an entirely new and independent work.
Thomasius, when speaking of the
Old Testament Sacrifices in
his
well-known work on Scripture Doctrines (III. 1, p. 39), says:
“It
ought, indeed, to be possible to appeal in this case to the con-
sensus of expositors; but how
widely do the views of modern writers
differ
from one another as to the meaning of this institution!” It
seems
to me, however, that there are but a few prominent points of
Biblical
Theology in which such a demand can possibly be made,
and
in this point perhaps least of all. Yet there is certainly hardly
any
other case, in which the complaints that are made as to the con-
fusion
of contradictory views are so perfectly warranted as they are
here.
How widely, for example, are theologians separated, who
PREFACE. 9
generally
stand closest together when questions relating to the
Church,
the Bible, or Theology are concerned, e.g., Hofmann
and
Baumgarten, Delitzsch and Kliefoth, Oehler and Keil! To what an
extent
doctrinal standpoints, that are in other respects the most op-
posed,
may be associated here, is evident from the fact, that in an-
swering
the most essential and fundamental question of all, viz.,
whether
the slaughtering of the expiatory sacrifice had the signifi-
cation
of a poena vicaria, it is possible
for me to stand by the side,
not
of Hofrnann, Keil, Oehler, and Delitzsch, but of Gesenius, De
Wette,
and Knobel.
In this state of affairs, a monograph upon this
subject would not
be
complete, without examining the theories of opponents, however
great
their confusion may frequently be, as well as building up one's
own.
Even where there is so little agreement, so little common
ground,
and on the other hand, so much opposition in details and
in
general principles, in the foundation as well as in the superstruc-
ture,
it appears to me to be the duty of an author towards his
readers,
not only to tell them his own views and to defend them by
rebutting
unwarrantable and unsuccessful attacks, but to give them
a
full explanation of the opposite views, and his reason for not adopt-
ing
ing them, in order that they may be placed in circumstances to
survey
the whole ground of the questions in dispute, and to form
their
own independent judgment, even though they may be led to
differ
from the views and conclusions of the author himself.
My reason for giving a secondary title to this
book,1 by which
1 The present volume is published in the
original with two separate title-
pages.
One is the title prefixed to this Translation; the other, "History of the
Old
Covenant; Supplement to the second volume: The Giving of the Law; Part
I.
The Law of Worship." As the author expressly states that he has written
this
as
an independent work, there was no necessity to publish the second title-page
in
the English Translation. The reader will be able to assign it to its proper
connection
with the " History of the Old Covenant."--TR.
10 PREFACE.
I
connect it with my “History of the Old Covenant,” is the follow-
ing:--According
to the original plan of that work, the second
volume,
which describes the historical circumstances of the Mosaic
age,
was to be followed by a systematic account of the Mosaic laws.1
But
I had not the time to carry out the present work on so exten-
sive
a scale. Moreover, as I have already stated, it has not arisen
from
the necessity for going on with the work just mentioned (a
necessity
which unquestionably does press most powerfully upon
me),
but from the necessity for returning to a subject upon which
I
had already written twenty years ago, and which had been taken
up
since from so many different points of view, in order that I
might
remove such faults and imperfections in my former work as
I
had been able to discover, and avail myself of new materials for
establishing
and elaborating my views. At the same time, by the
publication
of this volume, the substance of which was to have
formed
an integral part of my larger work, I have precluded the
possibility
of carrying out the latter upon the plan originally pro-
posed.
I have thought it desirable, therefore, that the third volume
of
that work should continue the history itself (as far as the estab-
lishment
of the kingdom); and that the present volume should
appear
as the first part of a supplementary work, embracing the
various
parts of the Mosaic legislation.
1 This plan is referred to at vol. ii. p. 328
of the original, vol. iii. p. 102 of
the
English Translation.--TR.
`
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
BOOK I.
GENERAL
BASIS OF THE SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT.
Page
CHAPTER
I. The Persons Sacrificing, 18
A. § 1-5. The People,
18
B. § 6-9. The Priests, 33
,, II. § 10-16. The Place of Sacrifice, 39
„ III. § 17-25. The Various Kinds of
Sacrifice,
51
BOOK II.
THE BLEEDING SACRIFICE.
PART I.
THE RITUAL OF THE
SACRIFICE.
„ II. § 31-34. The Objects used in
Sacrifice, 75
„ III. § 35-47. The Presentation and
Laying on of Hands, 82
„ IV. § 48-71. Slaughtering, and Sprinkling
of the Blood, 101
„ V. § 72-84. Burning of the Sacrifice,
and the Sacrificial Meal, 150
12 TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
PART II.
VARIETIES OF THE BLEEDING SACRIFICE.
Page
A. § 85-88. The Sin-Offering, Burnt-Offering,
and Peace-
Offering, 174
B. § 89-92. The Common Basis of the Sin-Offering
and
Trespass-Offering, 182
C. § 93-105. The Difference between the
Sin-Offering and
the
Trespass-Offering, 189
„ II. § 106-122. Ritual of the
Sin-Offering and Trespass-Offering, 213
,, III. § 123-139. Ritual of the
Burnt-Offering and Peace-Offer-
ing, 249
BOOK III.
THE BLOODLESS SACRIFICE.
„ II. § 147-157. The Minchah of the
Fore-Court, 296
,, III. §158-161. The Minchah of the
BOOK IV.
MODIFICATION
OF THE SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN CONNECTION
WITH SPECIAL SEASONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
CHAPTER
I. The Consecration of the People, the Priests, and the Levites, 322
A. § 162-164. Covenant Consecration of the
People, 322
B. § 165-172. Consecration of the Priests and
the Sanc-
tuary, 328
C. § 173. Consecration of the Levites, 340
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 13
Page
CHAPTER
II. Adaptation of the Sacrificial Worship to Special Seasons
and Feasts, 341
A. § 174-176. Mosaic Idea of a Feast, 341
B.§ 177-179. Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Service,
348
C. § 180-189. The Feast of Passover, 355
D. § 190-193. The Feast of Pentecost. 376
E. § 194-196. The Feast of Tabernacles, 381
F. § 197-212. The Day of Atonement, 385
,, III. Adaptation of the Sacrificial
Worship to the Levitical and
Priestly Purifications, 415
A. § 213-216. Nature and Idea of Uncleanness in
connec-
tion with Worship, 415
B. § 217-223. Removal of Uncleanness caused by
Touch-
ing a Corpse, 422
C. § 224-228. Cleansing of a Leper when Cured, 432
„ IV. Adaptation of the Sacrificial
Worship to certain Peculiar
Circumstances, 440
A. § 229-230. Presentation of the First-Born of
Cattle, 440
B. § 231-233. The Nazarite's Offering, 443
C. § 234-237. The Jealousy Offering, 447
LIST OF WORKS
MOST FREQUENTLY REFERRED TO.
BAEHR,
K. CHR. W. F., Symbolik des Mosaischen
Cultus. 2 Bde. Heidelb.
1837, 39.
-----
Der salomonische Tempel.
BAUMGARTEN,
M., Theologischer Commentar zum Pentateuch. Zweiter Bd.
BUNSEN,
CHR. C. J., Vollstandiges Bibelwerk. Erster Bd. Leipzig 1858.
DELITZSCH,
FR., Commentar zum Hebraerbrief.
-----
System der biblischen Psychologie.
DIESTEL,
Set-Typhon, Asahel and Satan. In Niedner's Zeitschrift fur histor.
Theologie. 1860. Heft ii.
EBRARD,
J. H. A., Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugthuung. Konigsb.
1857.
EWALD,
H., Die Alterthumer des Volkes
FUERST,
J., Hebraisches and Chaldaisches
Handworterbuch.
GESENIUS,
Thesaurus philol. crit. lingua Hebr. et Chald. Lipsiae 1835 sqq.
HAEVERNICK,
Vorlesungen uber die Theologie des A. T., herausg. von H. A.
Hahn.
HENGSTENBERG,
E. W., Die Opfer der heil. Schrift.
Ein Vortrag.
-----
Das Passa. Evangel. Kirchenzeitung. Jahrg. 1852. No. 16-18.
-----
Das Ceremonialgesetz. In his Beitrage zur Einleit. ins A. Test. Bd. iii.
by Ryland.
-----Die
Bucher Mose's and Aegypten.
of Moses.
HOFMANN,
J. CAR. K. VON, Der Schriftbeweis.
Zweite Halfte, erste Abth. 2
Aufl.
Nordlingen 1859.
-----
Weissagung and Erfullung. Nordlingen 1841.
KAHNIS,
K. F. A., Lutheriscbe Dogmatik. Bd. i.
16 LIST OF WORKS MOST FREQUENTLY REFERRED
TO.
KARCH,
G., Die mosaischen Opfer als vorbildliche Grundlage der Bitten im
Vaterunser. 2 Theile.
KEIL,
K. FR., Handbuch der bibl. Archaologie.
Erste Halfte: Die gottesdienst-
lichen Verhaltnisse der Israeliten.
-----
Die Opfer des A. Bundes nach ihrer symbolischen and typischen Bedeu-
tung. Luth. Zeitscbrift 1856, iv., 1857, i. ii.
iii.
-----
Biblischer Commentar uber die Bucher Mose's. Bd. i. Gen. and Exod.
KLIEFOTH,
TH., Liturgische Abhandlungen. Bd. iv. Auch u.. d. Titel: Die
ursprungl. Gottesdienstordnung u. s. w. Bd. i. 2
Aufl.
1858.
KNOBEL,
A., Die Bucher Exodus and Leviticus
erklart.
-----
Die Bucher Numeri, Deuteron. and Josua erklart.
NEUMANN,
W., Die Opfer des alten Bundes.
Deutsche Zeitschr. fur christl.
Wissenschaft von Schneider. Jahrg. 1852, 1853. r i
-----Sacra
V. T. Salutaria. Lipsae 1854.
OEHLER,
Der Opfercultus des Alten Test. In
Herzog's theolog. Realencyclop.
Bd. x.
-----
Priesterthum im A. Test. Bd: xii.
OUTRAM,
G., De sacrificiis 11. 2. Amstelod. 1678.
RIEHM,
E., Ueber das Schuldopfer. Theol. Studien and Kritiken. 1854.
RINCK,
S. W Ueber das Schuldopfer. Theol. Studien and Kritiken. 1855.
SCHOLL,
G. H. F., Ueber die Opferidee der Alten, insbesondere der Juden. In
the Studien der evangel. Geistlichkeit Wurtembergs.
Bd. iv. Heft
1-3.
SCHULTZ,
FR. W., Das Deuteronomium erklart.
SOMMER,
J. G., Biblische Abhandlungen. Bd. i.
Rein and Unrein nach dem mosaisch. Gesetze S.
183 ff.
STEUDEL,
J. CHR. FR., Vorlesungen uber die Theologie des A. Test. herausg.
von G. Fr. Oehler.
STOECKL,
A., Das Opfer, each seinem Wesen and seiner Geschichte.
1860.
THALHOFER,
V., Die unblutigen Opfer des mosaischen Cultus.
1848.
THOLUCK,
A., Das alte Testament im neuen Testament. 5 Aufl.
THOMASIUS,
G., Christi Person and Werk. Bd. iii.
WELTE,
B., Mosaische Opfer. Kirchenlexicon von Wetzer und Welte. Bd. x.
WINER,
G. B., Biblisches Realworterbuch. 2 Bde.
SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP
OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
BOOK I.
GENERAL
BASIS OF THE SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT.
AS
the subject in hand is the sacrificial worship of the Old
Testament,
that is to say, of the Israelites before Christ,
we
have no need to raise the question: To whom were
the
sacrifices presented? By worship (cultus) we mean
the
worship of GOD; and from the very fact that the sacrifices of
which
we are speaking formed an essential ingredient in the Old
Testament
worship, they also formed a part of that service which
thus
obtained to the further question: By whom were the sacrifices
presented?
At the same time, we must inquire somewhat minutely
into
the peculiar position and organization of the Israelitish nation,
so
far as they affected the worship offered, in order to secure the ne-
cessary
basis for our investigation of the precise nature of the sacri-
ficial
worship of the Old Testament. With this we shall also have
to
connect an inquiry into the nature and importance of the place
in
which the sacrifices were presented, since this affected the sacri-
ficial
worship in various ways. And, lastly, we shall also have to
discuss
the questions: What was sacrifice, and what were the dif-
ferent
modes of sacrificing?--In this introductory part, therefore,
we
shall have to treat: 1. Of the persons
sacrificing; 2. Of the
place
of sacrifice; and 3. Of the different varieties
of sacrifice.
We
shall take them in the order thus given, for the simple reason
18 THE PERSONS SACRIFICING.
that
the arrangement of the place of sacrifice was affected by the
organization
of the persons sacrificing, and the varieties of sacrifice
were
affected by them both.
CHAPTER I.
THE PERSONS SACRIFICING.
A. THE PEOPLE.
§ 1. When Jehovah had delivered His chosen
people
“first-born,”
Ex. iv. 22) out of the bondage of
them
as on eagles' wings to Sinai--the eternal altar erected for that
purpose
at the creation of the world, where He was about to renew
the
covenant, which He had made with the fathers of this people,
with
their descendants who were now a great nation, and to estab-
lish
them on a firm and immovable foundation by giving them His
law,--He
first directed His servant Moses (Ex. xix. 4-6) to lay be-
fore
the people the preliminaries of that law, in which the future
calling
of
before
all nations, and as such to be a kingdom of priests and a holy
nation.
This expressed, on the negative side, the
selection and separation
of
and
on the positive side, its obligation to belong to Jehovah alone,
to
be holy, because and as He Himself is holy (Lev. xix. 2), and
in
all it did and left undone throughout its entire history, to act in
subservience
to the saving designs of Jehovah, as the only way by
which
it could become the medium of salvation to all nations (Gen.
xii.
3, xxviii. 14).1
In the destination of
priests,”
so that the whole nation was to consist of nothing but
priests,
it was distinctly taught that every Israelite was to bear a
priestly
character, and to possess and exercise the specific privileges
and
duties of the priesthood. But was soon manifest that
as
then constituted, and in the existing stage of the history of sal-
1 For a thorough and careful examination
of the contents of these prelimi-
naries
of the covenant, see History of the Old Covenant, vol. iii. pp. 102 sqq.
(translation).
THE PEOPLE. 19
vation,
was not in a condition to enter at once upon its priestly
vocation,
and fulfil its priestly work of conveying salvation to the
rest
of the nations. For it speedily furnished a practical proof of
its
unfitness even for the first and most essential preliminary to this
vocation,
viz., that it should draw near to Jehovah, and hold per-
sonal
and immediate intercourse with Him (Num. xvi. 5), by turn-
ing
round and hurrying away in terror and alarm when it was led
up
to the sacred mountain, and Jehovah descended amidst thunder
and
lightning, and proclaimed to the assembled congregation out of
the
fire and blackness of the mountain the ten fundamental words
of
the covenant law. On that occasion they
said to Moses (Ex. xx.
19);
“Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak
with
us, lest we die” (cf. Deut. v. 22 sqq.). By these words they
renounced
the great privilege of the priesthood, that of drawing
near
to God, and holding personal and immediate intercourse with
Him.
With their consciousness of unholiness, they felt that they
were
not ripe or qualified for entering upon the fulness of their
priestly
vocation. They felt rather that they needed a mediator
themselves
to carry on their intercourse with God. The designs of
God
Himself with reference to the covenant had from the very
first
contemplated this (Ex. xx. 20); but it was necessary that the
people
themselves should discover and clearly discern, that for the
time
it could not be otherwise. Jehovah therefore expressed His
approval
of the people's words (Dent. v. 28, “They have well said
all
that they have spoken”); and from that time forth Moses was
formally
appointed on both sides as the mediator of the covenant
for
the period of its first establishment and early development in
the
giving of the law, and at a later period the family of his
brother
Aaron was called and set apart by the law itself as a per-
manent
priesthood for the priestly nation.
But even after thus declining the specific work
of the priest-
hood,
to
be like other nations, but holy, as Jehovah is holy. It continued
to
be the possession of Jehovah above all nations; and it still stood
out
as a priest of God, distinct from them in life and conduct, in
the
possession of divine revelation, of divine institutions, and of the
means
of salvation, as well as in the calling to become the vehicle
of
salvation to all mankind. The qualifications for this calling it
first
truly received through the conclusion of the covenant and its
consecration
at Sinai. And even the idea of the universal priest-
hood
of the whole nation, however much ground it had lost by the
20 THE PERSONS
SACRIFICING.
temporary
demands of a separate priesthood, retained enough to
preserve
its hold upon the consciousness of the people, and to point
their
longing hopes to the time of fulfilment, when they should enter
upon
the full (active) possession of all the privileges and blessings
of
the universal priesthood (1 Pet. ii. 5, 9).
§ 2. Birth from Israelitish parents secured to
the new-born
child
a claim to be received into the membership of the covenant
nation,
but did not confer, or even guarantee, membership itself.
On
the contrary, a special act of initiation was necessary, viz., the
rite
of CIRCUMCISION (hlAUm), which was also performed upon every
stranger
who desired to forsake heathenism and to be incorporated
into
the covenant nation (Gen. xvii. 27, xxxiv. 14 sqq. ; Ex. xii. 43,
44).
Circumcision had been instituted as a sign and seal of that
covenant
which God concluded with Abraham (Gen. xvii. 10--14).
But
as the Sinaitic covenant was neither an absolutely new one,
nor
essentially different from the one which God had previously
concluded
with the father of the nation, but was simply the renewal
of
that covenant as the basis of their national existence, the same
covenant
initiation and covenant seal was still retained for every
individual,
as that by which Abraham first entered into the cove-
nant
when he was called “alone” (Isa. li. 2).
As circumcision comes only so far into
consideration in connec-
tion
with the sphere of religious worship, that it attested the fact of
membership
in the covenant nation, and on that account was the
conditio sine qua non of participation in
certain sacrificial acts; an
inquiry
into the origin, essence, and significance of this institution
would
lead us too far away from our present object; and there is
the
less necessity for it here on account of what we have already
written
on the question (Hist. of the Old Covenant, vol. i. pp. 231
sqq.
translation).1
But there were many NON-ISRAELITES (MyriGe) living in the land
of
in
the earliest code of laws (viz., that contained in the middle books
1 Keil's objections to my remarks, in his
Bibl. Archaologie i. 311, do not
really
touch them; and they are the more surprising, since his own explanation
("Its
significance lay in the religious idea, that the corruption of sin brought
into
human nature by the fall was concentrated in the organ of generation,
inasmuch
as it is generally in the sexual life that it comes out most strongly;
and,
therefore, the first thing necessary for the sanctification of life is the
puri-
fication
or sanctification of the organ by which life is propagated") coincides so
exactly
with the first part of the results of my inquiry, that it might be called
a
brief summary of them.
THE PEOPLE. 21
of
the Pentateuch). If they would allow themselves to be formally
and
fully incorporated into the covenant nation by receiving circum-
cision,
a perfect equality with the Israelite by birth was guaranteed
to
them by the law in both religious and political privileges (Ex. xii.
48).
They then ceased to be foreigners. At any rate, there can be
no
doubt that when we read in the Thorah of "the stranger that is
within
thy gates," or "in the midst of thee," etc., we have invariably
to
think of uncircumcised settlers, or foreigners who had not been
naturalized.
The rule with respect to their civil position is laid
down
in the fundamental principle, "One law shall be to him that
is
home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you"
(Ex.
xii. 49, cf. Lev. xxiv. 22 and Num. xv. 15, 16). And since
they
had, as strangers, no relations to fall back upon, they were
gently
commended in Deuteronomy to the especial protection of
the
authorities, in common with widows and orphans; and because
they
had no inheritance in the holy land, and could not even
acquire
landed property, they were to be admitted to the festal and
tithing
meals along with the poor of the nation (Ex. xii. 48; Num.
ix.
14; Deut. xiv. 28, 29, xvi. 10 sqq., xxvi. 11 sqq.), and were to
share
with them in the gleaning of the vintage, the fruit-gathering,
and
the harvest, and in the produce of the sabbatical year (Lev.
xix.
10, xxiii. 22, xxv. 6; Dent. xxiv. 19 sqq.).
In return for these privileges, they were
required, on the other
hand,
to submit to certain restrictions. For example, they were to
abstain
from everything which was an abomination to the Israelites,
and
consequently to renounce all idolatry, the eating of blood, etc.
(Ex.
xii. 19, xx. 10; Lev. xvi. 29, xvii. 8 sqq., xviii. 20, xx. 2,
xxiv.
16 sqq.; Num. xv. 13 sqq.; Dent. v. 14);
they were also to
fast
along with the Israelites on the great day of atonement (Lev.
xvi.
29), and to keep the Sabbath as strictly as they (Ex. xx. 10,
xxiii.
12). Their relation to the sacrificial worship was restricted
to
this, that they were allowed to offer all kinds of sacrifice to
Jehovah
(burnt-offerings, and peace- (or thank-) offerings, according
to
Lev. xvii. 8, xxii. 18, 25; and, according to Num. xv. 29, even
sin-offerings
also, as circumstances required), and to participate in
the
blessings which the sacrifice secured. They could take no part
in
the Passover without previous circumcision (Ex. xii. 48). But
admission
to the ordinary sacrificial worship at the tabernacle, was
a
necessary correlative to the unconditional law against serving and
sacrificing
to their former gods whilst in Jehovah's land.
§ 3. While the Israelite was thus marked and
sealed in his own
22 THE PERSONS
SACRIFICING.
body
as belonging to the covenant nation, the principle of separation
from
heathenism,1 or the duty not to be as the heathen, was also
symbolically
manifested in other departments, chiefly in his daily
food,
but also to some extent in his CLOTHING (Num. xv. 38-40, cf.
Lev.
xix. 19 and Dent. xxii. 11). But as there is not the slightest
connection
between the latter and the sacrificial worship, it would
be
out of place to enter into any closer examination of the laws
relating
to that subject. There is all the more reason, however,
why
we should carefully examine the restrictions placed upon the
Israelites
in relation to their FOOD, inasmuch as they lay, on the
one
hand, at the foundation of the legal enactments with reference
to
the sacrificial worship, and were, on the other hand, the necessary
result
of the fundamental idea of that worship.
The former applies to the division of the animal
kingdom into
CLEAN
and UNCLEAN; the Israelites being allowed to eat of the
clean,
whilst the unclean was prohibited (cf. Lev. xi.; Dent. xiv.).
On
the basis of the old Hebrew division of the animal kingdom into
four
parts, the law selects from the class of land animals, as clean
or
edible, none but those which ruminate and have also cloven
feet,
and pronounces all the rest unclean. The principal animals
selected
as clean are the ox, the sheep, the goat, and the various
species
of stags, and gazelles or antelopes; and as unclean, the
camel,
the hare, the badger, and the swine. Among fishes, the
distinguishing
characteristic of the clean is, that they have fins and
scales;
so that all smooth, eel-like fishes are excluded. In the case
of
the birds, there is no general rule laid down, but the unclean are
mentioned
by name,--nineteen kinds in Leviticus, and twenty-one
(3
X 7) in Deuteronomy. The first heptad embraces the carni-
vorous
and carrion birds,--eagles, vultures, ravens, etc.; the second,
the
ostrich and the different species of owls; the third, nothing but
marsh-birds,
and the bat. Of the fourth class, or the so-called
1 Since circumcision was a sign and
attestation of membership in the cove-
nant
nation, the importance of separation and distinction from heathenism was
eo ipso expressed by it. It is
true, this seems at variance with the fact that,
according
to Herodotus, the Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians also practised
circumcision.
But among these nations circumcision was not a universal or
national
custom; for, according to Origen, it was only the priests in,
who
submitted to it, and, according to Clemens Alex., only the priests and
those
who were initiated into the mysteries. In any case, the distinction be-
tween
circumcised and uncircumcised in the Old Testament is uniformly equi-
valent
to that between Israelites and non-Israelites (see instar omnium, Jer. ix.
25,
26).
THE PEOPLE. 23
swarming
animals (Cr,w,),
four species of locusts are the only excep-
tions
to the universal sentence of uncleanness.
The distinction between clean and unclean
animals, with the
command
to abstain from eating the flesh of the latter, was never
merely
a civil or medical arrangement, based upon sanitary consi-
derations,
in any of the nations in which it prevailed, and least of
all
among the Hebrews. Such measures as these would have been
altogether
foreign to the spirit of ancient legislation. Moreover,
the
obligation to observe them was invariably enforced as a religious
duty,
and never upon civil grounds. But to smuggle in laws of a
purely
material and utilitarian tendency under the hypocritical
name
of religious duties, for the mere purpose of facilitating their
entrance
and securing a more spirited observance, would have
been
a course altogether opposed to the spirit of antiquity, which
was
far too naif, too reckless and unreserved, to do anything of the
kind;--whilst
the opposite course, of upholding religious duties by
political
commands, is met with on every hand.
But the question as to the reason why certain
animals were pro-
nounced
clean, and certain others unclean, is a somewhat different
one.
This may undoubtedly be traceable to sanitary or other similar
considerations,
lying outside the sphere of religion. The actual or
supposed
discovery, that the flesh of certain animals was uneatable
or
prejudicial to health, and a natural repugnance to many animals,
which
sometimes could, and at other times could not, be explained,
may
no doubt have been the original reason for abhorring or refusing
them
as food. And if, either subsequently or at the same time,
some
religious motive led to the establishment of a distinction among
animals
between clean and unclean, i.e., between eatable and not
eatable,
nothing would be more natural than that all those animals,
whose
flesh was avoided for the physical or psychical reasons
assigned,
should be placed in the category of unclean, and that the
eating
of them, which from the one point of view appeared to be
merely
prejudicial to health, or repulsive and disgusting to natural
feelings,
should, from the other point of view, be prohibited as sinful
and
displeasing to God.
In heathenism there were two ways, varying
according to the
different
starting points, by which a distinction of a religious charac-
ter
might have been established in the animal world between clean
and
unclean. Dualism, the characteristic peculiarity of which was
to
trace the origin of one portion of creation to an evil principle,
whether
passing by the name of Ahriman, Typhon, or anything
24 THE PERSONS
SACRIFICING.
else,
necessarily included in this category all noxious animals, and
such
as excited horror or disgust, and prohibited the eating of them
as
bringing the eater into association with the evil principle; and
Pantheism, which regards all life
in nature as the progressive
development
and externalization of the absolute Deity, necessa-
rily
regarded all noxious and repulsive objects in the animal crea-
tion
as a deterioration of the divine life, and avoided them in
consequence.
But both these views are far removed from the
Monotheism of
ciples,
nor a self-development of God assuming shape in noxious or
disgusting
forms of life, but only one holy God, who, by virtue of
His
omnipotence, and in accordance with His wisdom, created the
world,
and all that is therein, both good and holy. Yet even the
Monotheist
could not deny the dualism of good and evil, noxious
and
salutary, repulsive and attractive, ugly and beautiful, which
actually
exists in the world. Moreover, his revelation taught him,
that
degradation and corruption had penetrated, through the curse
of
sin, into the world which God created good and holy (Gen. iii.
17,
v. 29, ix. 5); and he could discern therein, not only the conse-
quence
and the curse, but also the image and reflection, of his own
sinful
condition.
When the Israelites were commanded, by their own
revealed
law,
not to eat of the flesh of certain animals, but to avoid it as
unclean,
the supposition is certainly a very natural one, that the
animals
designated as unclean were those in which the consequences
or
the reflection of human sinfulness and degradation were most
evidently
and sharply defined, and that the command to avoid eat-
ing
their flesh as an unclean and abominable thing, was intended to
remind
and warn them of their own sin, and their own moral and
natural
corruption; so that the real tendency of the laws of food
was
so far a moral and religious one, resting upon a symbolical
foundation.
And this is the most generally received opinion in
relation
to the Mosaic laws of food.1
1 The latest writer on Biblical
Antiquities, Dr Keil, has nevertheless con-
founded
the realist with the symbolical points of view. He says (vol. ii. p. 20),
“This
distinction was based upon a certain intuitive feeling, awakened by the
insight
of man into the nature of animals, and their appointment for him, before
that
intuition had been disturbed by unnatural and ungodly culture. For as
the
innate consciousness of God was changed, in consequence of sin, into a voice
of
God in the conscience, warning and convicting him of sin and unrighteous-
ness;
so this voice of God operated in such a way upon his relation to the earthly
THE PEOPLE. 25
But these ideas, which generally and naturally
suggest them-
selves,
are not borne out, either by the specific marks of cleanness
and
uncleanness mentioned in the law, or by the nature and character
of
the animals specially designated as clean or unclean, or, lastly,
by
the explanations of the lawgiver himself. To give only one or
two
examples: Why should so useful, patient, obedient, and endur-
ing
an animal as the camel be better fitted to serve as a symbolical
representation
of human sinfulness than the stubborn ox, or the
lustful,
stinking goat? why the timid hare, more than the timid
antelope?
or why the terribly destructive locusts less than so
many
other kinds of the great mass of insects (Sherez)? And why
should
the want of rumination and of a thoroughly cloven hoof-
the
marks by which the uncleanness of the land animals was to be
recognised--exhibit
so decided a picture of human sin, that every
animal
not possessing these two marks was at once to be pronounced
unclean?
Moreover--and this is the most important
fact--we never find
any
such reason brought forward in one law, nor even remotely
creation,
and especially to the animal creation, that many animals stood before
his
eyes as types of sin and corruption, and filled his mind with repugnance and
disgust.
It was not till after the further degradation and obscuration of his
consciousness
of God that this repugnance became distorted in various ways
among
many tribes, and along with this distortion the ability to select animals
as
food, in a manner befitting the vocation of man, became lost as well. But,
for
the purpose of bringing the human race back to God, the Mosaic law sought
to
sharpen the perception of the nature of sin, and of that disorder which sin
had
introduced into nature universally; and to that end it brought out the dis-
tinction
between clean and unclean animals, partly according to general signs,
and
partly by special enumeration . . . , but without our being able by means
of
our own reflection to discern and point out, in each particular instance,
either
the
reason for the prohibition, or the exact feature in which the ancients dis-
covered
a symbol of sin and abomination."--But to this it may be replied, that
if
it was "the innate consciousness of God," the "voice of
God" within him,
which
first of all filled "the mind of man with repugnance and disgust" at
the
unclean
animals; and if "this repugnance became distorted in various ways
among
many tribes, in consequence of the further degradation and obscuration
of
their consciousness of God;" and if, "through unnatural and ungodly
cul-
ture,"
the "intuition into the nature of animals and their appointment for man
was
disturbed;" or if, on the other hand, the original "selection of the
clean
animals,"
which was restored by the Mosaic law "for the purpose of bringing
the
human race back to God," was actually the "proper" one, in fact
the one
"befitting
man's vocation;" it is difficult to understand how the Apostles could
feel
themselves warranted in entirely abolishing the distinction between clean
and
unclean animals,--not to mention any of the other objections to this mis-
taken
view.
26 THE PERSONS
SACRIFICING.
hinted
at as the determining cause; whilst, on the contrary, a
totally
different reason is given in Lev. xx. 24-26 in clear and un-
mistakeable
words. Thus in ver. 25 we read: "I am Jehovah
your
God, which have separated you from the nations. Ye shall
therefore
distinguish between clean beasts and unclean, and be-
tween
unclean birds and clean; and ye shall not make your souls
abominable
by beast, or by bird, or by any manner of living thing
that
creepeth on the ground, which I have separated for you as
unclean."--The
leading thought in these laws of food, therefore,
was
this: because, and as, Jehovah had separated
nations;
therefore, and so,
from
the unclean.
of
the goodness of God in choosing it from among the nations, of
its
peculiar calling and destination, and of its consequent obligation
not
to be as the heathen were. The choice of clean animals for
the
sustenance of the natural life, was to typify in the sphere of
nature,
what had taken place among men through the selection and
vocation
of
unclean
animals, and
the
Mosaic laws of food, therefore, was not ethical, but historical,
having
regard to the history of salvation.
The strongest confirmation is given to this view
by the vision
which
Peter saw (Acts x. 10 sqq.), and which was intended to set
before
his mind the fact, that in Christianity the difference and
opposition
between heathen and Jews was entirely removed; so
that
the Apostle Paul was able to write to the Colossians (chap.
ii.
16) 17): "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink
which
are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of
Christ."
The circumstance that in the Mosaic law the
vegetable kingdom
is
not divided into clean and unclean, as it is among other nations,
but
the animal kingdom alone, is to be explained on the ground
that
the sphere of animal life is the higher of the two, the one
nearer
to that of humanity, and therefore better adapted to exhibit
relations
and contrasts in the world of men; whereas in heathen-
ism
the distinction rested upon totally different (viz., physico-theo-
logical)
principles, and therefore analogies could be found in the
vegetable
as well as in the animal world.
§ 4. But the discovery of the fundamental idea
upon which the
general
symbolism of this question rests, by no means solves all the
problems
presented by the particular details. The question still
THE PEOPLE. 27
remains
to be answered, in cases where general signs are laid down
as
distinguishing clean from unclean, why the animals in which
such
signs were observed should be selected as clean, and all the
rest
pronounced unclean. W. Schultz, in his Commentary on Deu-
teronomy,
expresses the opinion, that “it is easy to see that these
signs
were not in themselves the decisive marks of clean and unclean,
but
were abstracted after the distinction had been settled on other
grounds;”--in
other words, that in themselves they had no signi-
ficance
whatever. But how it is easy to see this, he has not in-
formed
us. There can be no question, indeed, that when the
Israelitish
lawgiver selected these signs, the custom already existed
of
avoiding the eating of the flesh of certain animals as injurious,
repulsive,
or disgusting; and from this he no doubt abstracted the
common
marks, that were henceforth to be the distinguishing signs
of
clean and unclean. But even then it may be asked, on the one
hand,
why he chose these particular marks as the criterion, rather
than
others which could be detected just as easily, and even pre-
sented
themselves unsought;--why, for example, in the case of
quadrupeds,
he merely fixed upon rumination and cloven feet, and
not
also, or indeed primarily, upon the possession of horns, which
would
be the very first thing to strike the eye. There is the less
reason
for setting aside the omission of this sign as merely accidental
and
unimportant, from the fact, that the ancient Egyptians, among
whom
Moses had grown up and received his education, selected the
want
of horns as the leading sign of uncleanness in the case of
quadrupeds
(Porphyr. de abst. 4, 7). The circumstance, therefore,
that
Moses fixed upon rumination and a thoroughly divided hoof as
the
signs of cleanness, and not the possession of horns, is an evident
proof
that he must have had his own special reasons for doing so;
and,
with the wide-spread predominance of symbolism in all that
concerned
the worship of God, these reasons must be sought for
in
their symbolical significance: consequently, rumination and a
thoroughly
cloven foot must have possessed a symbolical worth
which
horns did not possess, in relation to the fundamental idea of
the
distinction to be made. But, on the other hand, it is quite con-
ceivable,
and even probable, that through the adoption of these
marks
of cleanness, which were taken from the leading representa-
tives
of the different classes of animals ordinarily used for food, cer-
tain
animals may have been excluded, which would not have been
placed
in the category of the unclean, if sanitary, physical, or
psychical
considerations alone had prevailed. Thus, for example,
28 THE PERSONS
SACRIFICING.
pork
and the flesh of the camel were eaten by other Eastern nations
with
great relish, and without the least hesitation.
If we examine the distinctive marks pointed out
by the lawgiver,
we
shall see at once, that they all relate either to the food eaten by the
animals,
or to their mode of locomotion, or to both together. In the
case
of the land animals, as being the most perfect, this is particularly
obvious;
and here the two signs coincide. With the water animals,
the
question of food, which is brought less under the notice of man,
is
passed over, and that of locomotion is the only distinction referred
to.
Even in the case of the other two classes of animals, which are
not
indicated by any general signs, the questions of food and motion
are
evidently taken into consideration. With the birds, the food is
clearly
the decisive point, except that here it was impossible to
point
out any peculiarities in the organs of nutriment, which would
be
at the same time both universally applicable and symbolically
significant.
For similar reasons, the movements of the birds
could
not be adduced as furnishing marks of universal distinction.
In
the case of the fourth class, the infinite variety of species in-
cluded,
made it impossible to discover distinctive marks that should
be
universally applicable. At the same time, the name Cr,w,, i.e.,
swarmers,
leads to the conclusion, that their general movements
were
taken into consideration, as furnishing a common ground of
exclusion.
The selection of food and locomotion as the
leading grounds of
separation
in case of every class, is by no means difficult to ex-
plain.
For it is precisely in these two functions that the stage of
animal
life is most obviously and completely distinguished from
that
of vegetable life, and approaches or is homogeneous with that
of
man.
If, then, as Lev. xx. 24 sqq. unquestionably
shows, the separa-
tion
of the clean animals from the unclean was a type of the selec-
tion
of
animals
represented the chosen, holy nation, and the unclean the
heathen
world, as the figurative language of the prophets so often
implies;
the marks and signs by which the clean and unclean
animals
were to be distinguished, must also be looked at from a
symbolical
point of view;--in other words, the marks which distin-
guished
the clean animals from the unclean, and characterized the
former
as clean, must have been a corporeal type of that by which
spiritually
from the heathen world. The allusion, therefore, was to
THE PEOPLE. 29
the
spiritual food and spiritual walk of
secrated
and sanctified, and separated from all that was displeasing
and
hostile to God in the conduct of the heathen.
What we are to understand by spiritual walk,
needs no demon-
stration:
it is walking before the face of God--a firm, sure step
in
the pilgrim road of life. Spiritual food is just as undoubtedly
the
reception of that which sustains and strengthens the spiritual
life,
i.e., of divine revelation, of which Christ says (John iv. 34),
“My
meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.” The two func-
tions
stand to one another in the relation of receptivity and spon-
taneity.
Let us apply this to the land animals. The first
thing men-
tioned
is their chewing the cud. Now, if this is to be regarded as a
figurative
representation of a spiritual function if, for example, it is
symbolical
of spiritual sustenance through the word of God; the
meaning
cannot be better described than it is . Josh. i. 8: "This
book
of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt
meditate
therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do
according
to all that is written therein."--In the importance attached
to
the cloven hoof, this fact must have been taken into considera-
tion,
that the tread of animals so provided is surer and firmer than
that
of animals with the hoof whole. And no proof need be given of
the
frequency with which reference is made in the Scriptures to the
slipping
of the feet, or to a firm, sure step in a spiritual sense (e.g.,
Ps.
xxxvii. 31; Prov. v. 6 ; Heb. xii. 13, etc.).--For the birds no
general
marks of cleanness or uncleanness are given. But the deter-
mining
point of view is nevertheless perfectly obvious. For example,
all
birds of prey are excluded, and generally all birds that devour
living
animals or carrion, or any other kind of unclean and dis-
gusting
food, as being fit representatives of the heathen world. In
the
case of the animals in the third and fourth classes, the common
point
which is placed in the foreground as distinguishing the un-
clean,
is the singularity--so to speak, the abnormal and unnatural
character--of
their motion: their disagreeable velocity, their terrible
habit
of swarming, etc.
§ 5. The other prohibitions of food contained in
the Mosaic law
are
based upon different principles, and are to be explained on the
ground
that the food forbidden was regarded, either as too holy, or
as
too unholy, to be eaten;--the former on account of its relation to
the
sacrificial worship, the latter on account of its association with
the
defilement of death and corruption. The former alone comes
30 THE PERSONS
SACRIFICING.
under
notice here. To this category belong the blood and the fat
of
animals. But so far as the fat is concerned, it must be remarked
at
the outset, that only the actual lobes or nets of fat, which enve-
lope
the intestines, the kidneys, and the liver (Lev. iii. 3, 4, 9, 10,
14,
15), are intended, not the fat which intersects the flesh; and
also,
that, according to Lev. vii. 23, this prohibition relates exclu-
sively
to the portions of fat alluded to in oxen, sheep, and goats,
not
to that of any other edible animals.
For the prohibition of the EATING OF BLOOD, Lev.
xvii. 10 sqq.
is
the locus classicus. In ver. 11, a
triple reason is assigned for the
prohibition:
(1.) "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood;"
(2.)
"And I have given it upon the altar to make an atonement for
your
souls;" (3.) "For the blood, it maketh atonement by means
of
the soul." According to Delitzsch (Bibl.
Psychol. 196), the pro-
hibition
has a double ground here: "The blood has the soul in it,
and
through the gracious appointment of God it is the means of
atonement
for human souls, by virtue of the soul contained within
it.
One reason lies in the nature of the blood, and the other in the
consecration
of it to a holy purpose, by which, even apart from the
other
ground, it was removed from common use." But Keil opposes
this.
"It is not to the soul of animals as such," he says, "as the
seat
of a principle of animal life, that the prohibition applies, but to
the
soul as the means of atonement set apart by God" (Biblische
Archaologie 1, 23). But if Keil
were correct in saying (p. 24) that
"in
Lev. xvii. 11 the first two clauses do not assign two indepen-
dent
reasons for the prohibition, but merely the two factors of the
foundation
for the third clause, which contains the one sole ground
upon
which the prohibition is based" (which I do not admit, how-
ever);
and if in Gen. ix. 4 ("but flesh in (with) the soul thereof,
the
blood thereof, ye shall not eat") the one sole reason for the
prohibition
were not the fact that the blood itself is animated, but
its
fitness as a means of atonement (which I am still less able to
allow);
even then the correctness of Delitzsch's opinion would be
beyond
all doubt, and that for the very reason which has led Keil
to
oppose it. For example, he adds (p. 23): "This is clearly evi-
dent
from the parallel command in relation to the fat of oxen,
sheep,
and goats, or the cattle of which men offer an offering by
fire
unto the Lord (Lev. vii. 23, 25). This fat was not to be
eaten
any more than the blood, on pain of extermination (Lev. vii.
25,
27, xvii. 10, 13), either by the Israelites or by the strangers
living
with
THE PEOPLE. 31
confidence
if he had placed the relation between these two prohibi-
tions
(the eating of blood and of fat) clearly before his mind.
Even in the law of Leviticus (chap. vii. 23
sqq.) we find a very
significant
distinction between the prohibition of the eating of blood
on
the one hand, and that of fat on the other, which Keil has quite
overlooked.
According to Lev. vii. 23, it is only the fat of oxen,
sheep,
and goats that may not be eaten; the fat of other edible
animals,
therefore, such as stags, antelopes, etc., is not forbidden.
But
the prohibition of blood, instead of being restricted to that of
oxen,
sheep, and goats, extends to the blood of all animals without
exception
(ver. 26). Whence this distinction? The answer is to
be
found in ver. 25: the fat of the oxen, sheep, and goats was not
to
be eaten, because it was to be offered as a fire-offering to Jeho-
vah,
i.e., was to be burnt, upon the altar. To understand this, it
must
be borne in mind that, according to the law of Leviticus,
which
was drawn up primarily with regard to the sojourn in the
desert,
the slaughter of every ox, sheep, or goat, even if it were only
slain
for domestic consumption, was to be looked at in the light of
a
peace- (or thank-) offering (Lev. xvii. 3-5): hence every such
slaughter
was to take place at the sanctuary, the blood of the animal
slain
was to be sprinkled upon the altar, and the fat to be burned
there
also. The eating of fat, consequently, was prohibited only
because
and so far as it was to be offered to Jehovah; so that the
fat
of stags, antelopes, etc., might be eaten without hesitation.--It
was
altogether different with the law against eating blood. In this
case
there was no restriction or exception at all: no blood whatever
was
to be eaten, whether the animal from which it flowed were
sacrificed
or not sacrificed, sacrificial or not sacrificial. From this
it
necessarily follows, that the reason for prohibiting blood cannot
have
been the same as that for prohibiting fat. Had the prohibition
of
blood rested merely upon the importance of blood as a means of
atonement;
then, according to the analogy of the prohibition of fat,
the
blood of those animals only should have been forbidden, which
really
were offered as atoning sacrifices. But as it related to the
blood
of all animals, even to those that were neither sacrificed nor
sacrificial,
the principal reason for this prohibition must have been
one
entirely unconnected with the sacrificial worship. What it was,
is
clearly shown in Gen. ix. 4 and Lev. xvii. 11: "For the soul of
the
flesh is in the blood."
That this is the correct view, is also evident
from the parallel
commands
in the second law contained in Deuteronomy (Deut. xii.).
32 THE PERSONS SACRIFICING.
According
to the law of Leviticus, the slaughter of an ox, sheep, or
goat
was to be carried out in every case like a sacrificial slaughter,
and
for that reason the eating of the fat of such animals was
unconditionally
forbidden.1 The law in Deuteronomy, however,
abrogated
this command, as being unsuitable and impracticable in
the
tabernacle,
and allowed them at their pleasure to slay and eat oxen,
sheep,
and goats at their own homes, as well as antelopes or stags
(Deut.
xii. 15, 16, 20-24). But in the case of such private slaugh-
tering,
the blood was not sprinkled on the altar, nor was the fat
burned
upon the altar. As a matter of course, therefore, the com-
mand
not to eat of the fat of the slaughtered animals was abrogated
also;--and
this is indicated with even superfluous emphasis by the
repetition
of the statement, that they might eat them like the hart
and
the roebuck (vers. 15, 22), of which they were never forbidden
to
eat the fat. But the eating of blood, whether the blood of oxen,
sheep,
and goats, or that of the roebuck and stag, remained as un-
conditionally
forbidden as ever. Twice is it emphatically stated
(vers.
16 and 24), that even in private slaughterings the blood was
not
to be eaten, but poured upon the earth like water. What Keil
regards
as the only reason for the prohibition, namely, the appoint-
ment
of the blood as the means of expiation, was as much wanting
here
in the slaughtering of such animals as it had formerly been
in
that of the roebuck and stag. If, then, for all that, the law
against
eating blood still remained in its utmost stringency even in
the
case of private slaughterings, whether the animals in question
1 Keil gives a different explanation (pp.
24, 25). "From the fact," he says,
"that
the general command in Lev. vii. 23, ‘Ye shall eat no manner of fat of
ox,
of sheep, or of goat,’ is more minutely expounded in ver. 25, ‘Whosoever
eateth
the fat of the beast of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the
Lord,’
it seems pretty evidently to follow, that the fat of the ox, sheep, and
goat,
which was burned upon the altar when they were sacrificed, might be
eaten
in those cases in which the animal was merely slaughtered as food." But
Keil
has overlooked what he himself has stated two lines before; namely, that
according
to Lev. xvii. 3 sqq., the slaughter of such animals was to be regarded
in
every case as a sacrificial slaughter, and therefore, that instead of his view
following
"pretty evidently" from Lev. vii. 25, it is perfectly evident that
the
very
opposite follows. So that, when Keil adds, that "in any case the inference
drawn
by Knobel from Lev. vii. 24 is untenable, viz., that in the case of oxen,
sheep,
and goats, slaughtered in the ordinary way, this (the application of the
fat
to ordinary use) was evidently not allowable;" it is obvious that it is
not
Knobel's
inference, but Keil's condemnation of that inference, which is in any
case
untenable.
THE PRIESTS. 33
were
adapted for sacrifice or not, it is evident that any reason for
such
a law, based upon the appointment of blood as a means of
expiation,
can only have been a partial and secondary one. There
must
have been some other reason, and that a primary one, of
universal
applicability; and this is indicated again in the second
giving
of the law, viz., the nature of the blood as the seat of the
soul
(ver. 23): "For the blood, it is the soul; and thou mayest not
eat
the soul with the flesh." There is not the slightest allusion
here,
any more than in Gen. ix. 4, to any connection between the
prohibition
in question and the appointment of the blood as the
means
of expiation, which was applicable only to animals actually
sacrificed,
and to them simply as sacrificed.
We must maintain therefore, in direct opposition
to Keil, that
it
was to the soul of the animals expressly, as the seat or principle
of
animal life, that the prohibition applied as a universal rule. In
the
case of the blood of the sacrifices, it was merely enforced with
greater
stringency, but had still the same reference to the soul as
a
means of expiation sanctified by God. In Lev. xvii. 11, both
reasons
are given; because, as the context shows, it is to the sacri-
ficial
blood that allusion is primarily made. But in what follows,
from
ver. 13 onwards, the prohibition is extended from sacrificial
blood
to blood of every kind, even that of animals that could not be
offered
in sacrifice; and this extension of the prohibition is based
solely
upon the nature of the blood as the seat of the soul (ver. 14),
and
not upon the fact of its having been appointed as the means of
expiation.
B. THE PRIESTS.
§ 6. Previous to the giving of the law, the
priesthood in the
chosen
family, just as in other kindred tribes, was not confined to
particular
individuals; but the head of the family discharged the
priestly
functions connected with the service of God, for himself
and
his family (Gen. viii. 20 sqq.; Job i. 5). For this purpose,
Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob built altars in the different places
where
they sojourned, and chiefly upon those spots in which Jehovah
had
appeared to them; and there they offered sacrifices, and cleansed
and
consecrated their households (Gen. xii. 7, xiii. 18, xxvi. 25,
xxxiii.
20, xxxv. 1, 2). On the institution of the paschal sacrifice
in
tions
connected with that sacrifice (Ex. xii. 7, 22). After the
34 THE PERSONS
SACRIFICING.
exodus
from
culminated
in the person of Moses. The hereditary priesthood of
the
heads of families was not abolished in consequence, any more
than
their princely rank (Ex. xix. 22, 24); but in Moses they
both
culminated in one individual head. It was in consequence of
the
request made by the people themselves to Moses (Ex. xx. 19),
"Speak
thou with us, and we will hear, but let not God speak with
us,
lest we die," and the divine approval of that request, that the
priestly
qualifications and duties were transferred from the people,
and
their representatives the elders, to Moses alone. At the com-
pletion
of the covenant, therefore, we find Moses alone officiating
as
priest (Ex. xxiv. 6, cf. § 162 sqq.). But Moses could not
possibly
discharge all the priestly functions required by the congre-
gation.
On the contrary, his other duties already engrossed his
whole
time and strength; consequently he was allowed to divest
himself
of the priestly office as soon as the covenant was concluded,
and
to transfer it to his brother Aaron, who was then ordained,
along
with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, as an
hereditary
priesthood. After the erection of the tabernacle they
were
duly consecrated and installed (Ex. xxviii. cf. § 165 sqq.).
But when preparation was made for removing from
Sinai, the
necessity
was immediately felt for a considerable increase in the
number
of persons officiating in the worship of God. The taber-
nacle
had to be taken down; all the different parts, as well as the
various
articles of furniture, had to be carried from place to place
at
every fresh encampment it had to be set up again: and for all
this
a very large number of chosen and consecrated hands were
required.
To this service, therefore, all the other members of the
tribe
to which Aaron belonged were set apart, viz., the tribe of Levi,
--comprising
the three families of the Kohathites, the Gershonites,
and
the Merarites. Henceforth, therefore, this tribe was removed
from
its co-ordinate position by the side of the other tribes, and was
appointed
and consecrated to the service of the sanctuary, that is
to
say, to the performance of all such duties connected with the
tabernacle
as were not included in the peculiar province of the
priestly
office, which still continued to be the exclusive prerogative
of
the family of Aaron (Num. i. 49-51, iii. 6-10, viii. 5-22).
After the sparing of the first-born in the night
of the exodus
from
consequently
they ought properly to have been the persons selected
for
life-long service in the sanctuary. But for the purpose of giving
THE PRIESTS. 35
greater
compactness and unity to the personnel employed, the
Levites
and their descendants took their place (Num. iii. 12) 13,
viii.
16-19). It was necessary, however, before this was done, that
all
the first-born should be redeemed by means of certain specially
appointed
sacrifices, and gifts to the tabernacle (cf. § 229).
In this way the persons officially engaged in
the worship were
divided
into three stages. The lowest stage was occupied by such
of
the LEVITES as were not priests, who acted merely as attendants
and
menial servants. On a higher stage stood the Aaronites, as
the
true PRIESTS. And lastly, Aaron himself, and subsequently
the
successive heads of the family (according to the right of primo-
geniture),
represented as HIGH PRIEST, lOdGAha NheKoha, the point of unity
and
the culminating point of all the priestly duties and privileges.
§ 7. What notion the Hebrew formed of the
priesthood, cannot
be
determined with any certainty from the name NheKo, since the
primary
meaning of the root Nhk is doubtful and disputed. On the
other
hand, Moses clearly describes the nature of the priesthood in
Num.
xvi. 5. On the occasion of the rebellion of the Korahites
against
the restriction of the priestly prerogatives to the family of
Aaron,
he announces to them, “To-morrow Jehovah will show
who
is His, and who is holy, that He may suffer him to come near
unto
Him; and whom He shall choose, him will He suffer to come
near
unto Him.” There are four characteristics of the priesthood
indicated
here. The first is election by Jehovah, as distinguished
both
from wilful self-appointment, and also from election by human
authority
of any kind whatever. The second is the result of this
election,
viz., belonging to Jehovah; which means, that the priest, as
such,
with all his life and powers, was not his own, or the world's,
but
had given himself entirely up to the service of Jehovah. The
third
is, that as the property of Jehovah, the priest, like everything
belonging
to Jehovah, was holy. And this involved the qualification
for
the fourth, viz., drawing near to Jehovah, as the true and ex-
elusive
prerogative and duty of the priest.
All that is indicated here as composing the
nature and purpose
of
the Levitical priesthood, has been already mentioned in Ex.
xix.
5, 6, as characterizing the whole covenant nation when regarded
in
the light of its priestly vocation. As a kingdom of priests,
was
Jehovah's possession out of, or before, all nations, and as such,
a
holy nation; whilst the basis of its election is seen in the deliver-
ance
from
near,
in the approach to the holy mountain (ver. 17). From this
36 THE PERSONS
SACRIFICING.
resemblance
it follows, that the priesthood of the Aaronites in
relation
to
heathen.
The Aaronites were the priests of the nation, which had
been
called and appointed to a universal priesthood, but which was
not
yet ripe for such a call, and therefore still stood in need of
priestly
mediation itself.
What we are to understand by coming near to
Jehovah, which
was
the true calling of the Aaronic priesthood, according to Num.
xvi.
5, may easily be gathered from what goes before. The design
and
purpose of this priesthood was mediatorial communion with
God,
mediation between the holy God and His chosen people, which
had
drawn back in the consciousness of its sinfulness from direct
communion
with God (Ex. xx. 19). Like all communion, this
also
was reciprocal. Priestly approach to God involved both
bringing
to God, and bringing back from God. The priests brought
into
the presence of God the sacrifices and gifts of the people, and
brought
from God His gifts for the people, viz., reconciliation and
His
blessing.
§ 8. But from the very nature of such a
mediatorial office, two
things
were essential to its true and perfect performance; and these
the
Aaronic priest no more possessed than any one else in the nation
which
stood in need of mediation.
If it was the consciousness of their own
sinfulness which,
according
to Ex. xx. 19, prevented the people from drawing near to
God,
and holding direct intercourse with Him; the question arises,
how
Aaron and his sons, who belonged to the same nation, and
were
involved in the same sinfulness, could possibly venture to come
into
the presence of Jehovah. The first and immediate demand
for
a perfect priesthood, appointed to mediate between the holy God
and
the sinful nation, would be perfect sinlessness; but how little
did
the family of Aaron, involved as it was in the general sinful-
ness,
answer to this demand
Secondly, and this was no less essential, true
and all-sufficient
mediation
required that the mediator himself should possess a
doublesidedness;
and in this the Aaronic priest was quite as defi-
cient
as in the first thing demanded, namely, perfect sinlessness. To
represent
the people in the presence of Jehovah, and Jehovah in
the
presence of the people, and to be able to set forth in his own
person
the mediation between the two, he ought to stand in essential
union
on the one hand with the people, and on the other with God
and
in order fully to satisfy this demand, he ought to be as much
THE PRIESTS. 37
divine
as human. But the Aaronic priesthood partook of human
nature
only, and not at all of divine.
Both demands were satisfied in an absolutely
perfect way in
that
High Priest alone (Heb. vii. 26, 27), to whose coming and
manifestation
the entire history of salvation pointed, who, uniting
in
His own person both deity and humanity, was sent in the ful-
ness
of time to the chosen people, and through their instrumen-
tality
(Gen. xii. 3, xxviii. 14) to the whole human race, and through
whom,
just as Aaron's sons attained to the priesthood by virtue of
their
lineal descent from Aaron, so, by means of spiritual regenera-
tion
and sonship (1 Pet. ii. 5, 9), the universal spiritual priesthood
and
"kingdom of priests" have been actually realized, the members
of
which are redeemed from sin, and partakers of the divine nature
(2
Pet. i. 4), and of which, according to Ex. xix. 4-6,
called
and appointed to be the first-born possessor (Ex. iv. 22).
But as the manifestation of this priesthood
could not be, and
was
not intended to be, the commencement and starting point, but
only
the goal and fruit, of the whole of the Old Testament history
of
salvation; and yet, in order that this goal might be reached, it
was
indispensably necessary that intercourse with God through the
mediation
of a priest should be secured to the chosen nation of the old
covenant;
the priesthood of that time could only typically prefigure
the
priesthood of the future, and could only possess in a symbolical
and
typical manner the two essential prerequisites, sinlessness and
a
divine nature. The former it acquired through washing and a
sacrificial
atonement, the latter by investiture and anointing on
the
occasion of its institution and consecration (Ex. xxix. cf. § 165
sqq.);
and these were renewed previous to the discharge of every
priestly
function by repeated washings, and by the assumption of
the
official dress, which had already been anointed (Ex. xxix. 21).
The
sacrificial atonement, which was made at the first dedication,
had
to be repeated, not only on every occasion on which a priest
was
conscious of any sin or uncleanness, but also once a year (on
the
great day of atonement, cf. § 199), for the cancelling of all the
sin
and uncleanness of the entire priesthood which might have re-
mained
unnoticed; and this must be effected before any further
priestly
acts could be performed. Moreover, the demand for sin-
lessne.ss
had its fixed symbolical expression in the demand for phy-
sical
perfection, as the indispensable prerequisite to any active
participation
in the service of the priesthood (Lev. xxi. 16-24).
§ 9. As the Levites and priests were separated
by their voca-
38 THE PERSONS
SACRIFICING.
tion,
and by their appointment to the service of the sanctuary, from
the
rest of the tribes, and did not receive, as the rest had done, a
special
allotment of territory in the
provide
for their own wants by the cultivation of the soil, their
maintenance
had to be provided for in a different way. The tribe
of
Levi was to have no inheritance in the promised land, for, said
Jehovah,
“I am thy part and thine inheritance (Num xviii. 20;
Deut.
x. 9, etc.). At the same time forty-eight cities were assigned
to
them as dwelling-places, distributed among all the tribes (that by
their
knowledge of the law they might be of service to all as teach-
ers,
preceptors, judges, and mediators: cf. Lev. x. 11); and thir-
teen
of these cities were specially designated a cities of the priests"
(Num.
xxxv. 1-8; Josh. xxi.; 1 Chron. vi. 54-66).1 But for their
actual
maintenance they were referred to Jehovah, in whose service
they
were to be entirely employed; so that it was only right that
Jehovah
should provide for their remuneration. This was done,
by
His assigning to them all the revenues and dues which the people
bad
to pay to Him as the Divine King and feudal Lord of all.
These
included the first-fruits and tenths of all the produce of the
1 As the priesthood was limited, after the
death of Aaron's eldest sons,
Nadab
and Abihu, to the families of his other two sons, and therefore cannot
have
embraced more than from ten to twenty persons at the time of the entrance
into
the
of
priests' cities and the actual need,--on the supposition, that is to say, that
these
thirteen cities were intended to be occupied exclusively by priests. But
for
that very reason such a supposition is obviously a mistake. Even the so-
called
priests' cities were undoubtedly, for the most part, inhabited by Levites,
and
only distinguished from the rest of their cities by the fact, that one or more
of
the families of the priests resided there. Just as
king's
city, though it was not inhabited by the court alone, so might these thir-
teen
cities be called priests' cities, even if there were only one priestly family
residing
there. When we consider that the number of priests' cities was not
fixed
by the law, but was determined in Joshua's time (chap. xxi. 4), and that
the
number 13, which admits of no symbolical interpretation whatever, can only
have
been decided upon because of some existing necessity, it is more than proba-
ble
that the number of priests at that time was exactly 13, and that at first there
was
only one priestly family in every priests' city. It is true, that if we deduct
the
home of the high priest, the one head of the entire priesthood, who dwelt,
no
doubt, wherever the tabernacle was, the number 12 remains, answering to the
number
of the tribes, which may be significant as a contingency, but was not
determined
on account of that significance, since the 24 orders of priests, which
were
afterwards appointed, do not appear to have been connected at all with the
number
of the tribes; nor was one priests' city taken from each tribe, but the
selection
was confined to the three tribes nearest to the sanctuary, Judah, Simeon,
and
Benjamin.
THE PLACE OF SACRIFICE. 39
land,
as well as the first-born of men and cattle, which were partly
presented
in kind, and had partly to be redeemed with money. Of
all
the sacrificial animals, too, which the people offered to Jehovah
spontaneously,
and for some reason of their own, certain portions
were
the perquisites of the officiating priest, unless they were
entirely
consumed upon the altar; and this was only the case with
the
so-called burnt-offerings.
All the first-fruits and first-born came
directly to the priests.
In
these the Levies did not participate, because they had them-
selves
been appointed as menial servants to the priests, in the place
of
the first-born who were sanctified in
the
tithes fell to the share of the Levites, who handed a tenth of
them
over to the priests.
CHAPTER II.
THE PLACE OF SACRIFICE.
§ 10. The patriarchs had erected simple altars
for the worship
of
God in every place at which they sojourned (Gen. viii. 20, xii. 7,
xiii.
18, etc.). Even the house of God, which Jacob vowed that
he
would erect at Luz (=
more
than an altar, as the execution of the vow in Gen. xxxv. 1, 7,
clearly
proves. When the unity of the patriarchal family had been
expanded
into a plurality of tribes, houses, and families, and these
again
were formed by the covenant at Sinai into the unity of the
priestly
covenant nation, a corresponding unity in the place of
worship
became also necessary. The idea of the theocracy, accord-
ing
to which the God of Israel was also the King of Israel, and
dwelt
in the midst of
people
to be a “kingdom of priests,” and a “holy nation” (Ex. xix.
6);
the temporary refusal to enter upon the duties of that vocation
(Ex.
xx. 19); the consequent postponement of it till a future time;
and
the transference of it to a special priesthood belonging to the
tribe
of Levi;--all this was to have its symbolical expression in the
new
house of God. At the same time, it was necessary to create a
fitting
substratum for the incomparably richer ceremonial appointed
by
the law.
Moses therefore caused a sanctuary to be
erected, answering to
40 THE PLACE OF
SACRIFICE.
these
wants and demands, according to the pattern which Jehovah
had
shown him on the holy mount (Ex. xxv. 9, 40), and by the
builders
expressly appointed by God, Bezaleel and Aholiab (Ex.
xxxi.
2, xxxvi. 1, 2). To meet the necessities of the journey
through
the desert, it was constructed in the form of a portable
tent,
and consisted of the dwelling (NKAw;miha) and a court
surrounding
it
on every side (rceHAha, Ex. xxv.-xxxi. and xxxv.-xl.).
The DWELLING itself was an oblong of thirty
yards in length,
and
ten yards in breadth and height, built on the southern, northern,
and
western sides of upright planks of acacia-wood overlaid with
gold.
Over the whole there were placed four coverings. The inner
one,
consisting of costly woven materials (byssus woven in different
colours,
with figures of cherubim upon it), was so arranged as to
form
the drapery of the interior of the dwelling, whilst the other
three
were placed outside. In the front of the building, towards the
east,
there were five gilded pillars of acacia-wood; and on these a
curtain
was suspended, which closed the entrance to the dwelling,
and
bore the name of j`sAmA.
The interior of the dwelling was divided into
two parts by a
second
curtain, sustained by four pillars, and made of the same
costly
fabric and texture as the innermost covering. Of these
two
parts the further (or westerly) was called the MOST HOLY,
MywidAQA wd,qo and was a perfect cube
of ten cubits in length, breadth,
and
height; so that the other part, or the HOLY, wd,qo.ha, was of the
same
height and breadth, but twice as long. This inner curtain was
called
tk,roPA.
The COURT was an uncovered space completely
surrounding
the
dwelling, 100 cubits long and 50 cubits broad, bounded by 60
wooden
pillars of 5 cubits in height. The pillars stood 5 cubits
apart,
and the spaces between were closed by drapery of twined
byssus.
In the front, however, i.e., on the eastern side, there was
no
drapery between the five middle pillars, so that an open space
was
left as an entrance of 20 cubits broad; and this was closed by a
curtain
of the same material and texture as the curtain at the door
of
the tabernacle, and, like the latter, was called j`sAmA.
The position of the dwelling within the court is
not mentioned.
It
probably stood, however, so as to meet at the same time the
necessities
of the case and the demands of symmetry, 20 cubits
from
the pillars on the north, south, and west, leaving a space of 50
cubits
square in front of the entrance to the tabernacle.
§ 11. The ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERING, hlAOfhA
HBaz;mi,
stood in the
THE PLACE OF SACRIFICE. 41
COURT.
It was a square case, made of acacia-wood, lined within
and
without with copper, and filled with earth. It was five cubits in
lengthand
breadth, but only three cubits high. At the four corners
there
were four copper horns. About half-way up the chest there ran
a
bank, bKor;Ka, all round the outside, evidently that the officiating
priests
might stand upon it, and so be able to perform their duties at
the
altar with greater convenience. From the outer edge of this bank
a
network of copper sloped off to the ground. The space underneath
this
grating was probably intended to receive the blood which re-
mained
over from the sacrifices.--There was also a LAVER, rOy.Ki
in
the
court, in which the priests washed their hands and feet,--a pro-
cess
that had to be repeated, according to Ex. xxx. 20, 21, every
time
they entered the
In the HOLY PLACE there were three articles of
furniture:--
1.
The ALTAR. tr,Foq; rFaq;mi HBaz;mi or tr,Fo;q
HBaz;mi,
made of
acacia-wood
overlaid with gold. It was one cubit in length, one in
breadth,
and two in height, and stood in the centre, before the entrance
to
the Holy of Holies. The upper surface, which was surrounded
by
a rim, and had gilt horns at the four corners, was called gGA, a
term
suggestive of the flat roofs of oriental houses. The principal
purpose
to which it was applied was that of burning incense ; but
there
were certain sacrificial animals whose blood was sprinkled
upon
the horns.--2. The TABLE OF SHEW-BREAD, NHAl;wu.ha, also con-
structed
of acacia-wood overlaid with gold, a cubit and a half in
height,
two cubits long, and one cubit broad. Upon this was placed
the
so-called shew-bread (§ 1.59), which had to be changed every
week.--3.
The SEVEN-BRANCHED CANDLESTICK, of pure
gold,
and beaten work. From the upright stem there branched out,
at
regular intervals, three arms on each side, which curved upwards
and
reached as high as the top of the central stern. Each of these
was
provided with one oil lamp, so that there were seven lamps in
a
straight line, and probably at equal distances from one another.
The
height of the candelabrum is not given.
In the
ture,
viz., the ARK OF THE COVENANT or the ARK OF TESTIMONY,
tyriB;ha NOrxE, tUdfehA
NOrxE. It
consisted of two parts. The ark itself was a
chest
of acacia-wood, covered within and without with gold plates,
two
cubits and a half long, and one cubit and a half in breadth and
height.
In the ark there was the testimony, tUdfehA; i.e., the two
tables
of stone, which Moses had brought down from the holy mount,
containing
the ten words of the fundamental law, written by the
42 THE PLACE OF
SACRIFICE.
finger
of God. A plate of beaten gold, tr,PoKa, served as the lid of
the
ark;
and at each end of this lid stood a cherub of beaten gold. The
cherubim
stood facing each other, and looking down upon the Cap-
poreth,
which they overshadowed with their outspread wings. With
regard
to the form of these cherubim, the figures of which were
also
worked in the Parocheth, the curtain
before the Most Holy,
and
the inner covering of the tabernacle, all that we can gather
from
the description is, that they were probably of human shape,
and
that they had one face and two wings.
§ 12. On the DESIGN OF THE SANCTUARY,1
the names them-
selves
furnish some information. It was called the TENT OF
MEETING,
dfeOm lh,xo and we may learn from Ex. xxv. 22, xxix.
43,
what that name signifies. Jehovah says, that He will there
meet
with the children of
them
through His glory. It is also called the DWELLING-PLACE,
NKAw;mi, as in Ex. xxv. 8, and xxix. 45, 46,
Jehovah promises that
He
will not merely meet with
dwell
there constantly in the midst of them, and there make Himself
known
to them as their God. Lastly, it is also called the TENT OF
WITNESS,
tUdfehA lh,xo, where Jehovah bears witness through His
covenant
and law that He is what He is, viz., the Holy One of
2),
and who qualifies
(Ex.
xx. 24). In accordance with this design, as soon as it
was
finished, the glory of Jehovah filled the tabernacle (Ex. xl.
34
sqq.).
The tabernacle, then, must represent an
institution, in connection
with
which Jehovah dwelt perpetually in
an
an institution, to establish which He had led them out of
(Ex.
xxix. 46); which was not established, therefore, till after the
Exodus.
This institution as is self-evident could be no other than
the
theocracy founded at Sinai, or the
the
nature and design of which is described in Ex. xix. 4-6.
From this fundamental idea we may easily gather
what was
involved
in the distinction between the court and the tabernacle.
If
the latter was the dwelling-place of Jehovah in the midst of
whose
God was in the midst of it, just as the tabernacle was in the
1 A more elaborate and thorough discussion
of the meaning of
the
tabernacle and its furniture, is to be found in my Beitrage zur Symbolik
des
alttest. Cultus (
THE PLACE OF SACRIFICE. 43
midst
of the court. And the fact that the people were not allowed
to
enter the dwelling of God, but could only approach the door-
permission
to enter being restricted to their consecrated representa-
tives
and mediators, the priests-irresistibly reminds us of Ex. xx.
19,
and shows that the court was the abode of that people, which,
notwithstanding
its priestly calling, was not yet able to come directly
to
God, but still needed specially appointed priestly mediators to
enter
the dwelling-place, to hold communion with God in their
stead,
to offer the gifts of the people, and to bring back the proofs
of
the favour of God.
But the dwelling-place of God was also divided
into two parts
the
ments
in one dwelling. Now, since the relation between the
dwelling-place
and the court presented the same antithesis as that
between
the unpriestly nation and the Aaronic priesthood--and
since
the ordinary priests were only allowed to enter the
whilst
the high priest alone could enter the Most Holy,--it is evident
that
the distinction between the Holy and Most Holy answered
essentially
to that between the ordinary priest and the high priest;
and
therefore, that the abode of God in the Most Holy set forth the
highest
culmination of the abode of God in
very
reason, exhibited in its strongest form the fact that He was
then
unapproachable to
“Holy
of Holies,” and the corresponding "heaven of heavens," in
Deut.
x. 14, 1 Kings viii. 27, also leads to the conclusion, not that
the
Most Holy was a type of heaven in its highest form, but that it
contained
the same emphatic expression of the Jehovistic (saving)
presence
and operations of God in. the kingdom of grace, as the
name
"heaven of heavens" of the Elohistic presence and operations
of
God in the kingdom of nature.
The division of the dwelling-place into Holy and
Most Holy was
an
indication of the fact, therefore, that in the relation in which
the
priests stood to God, and consequently also in that in which the
people
would stand when they were ripe for their priestly vocation,
there
are two different stages of approachability. The constant
seat
and throne of God was the Capporeth, where His glory was
enthroned
between the wings of the cherubim (Num. vii. 89; Ex.
xxv.
22). But as the room in which all this took place was hidden
by
the Parocheth from the sight of those who entered and officiated
in
the
faith
which has not yet attained to the sight of the glory of God,
44 THE PLACE OF
SACRIFICE.
and
the Most Holy the standpoint of the faith which has already
attained
to sight (vide 1 Cor. xiii. 12).
The threefold division of the tabernacle
contained a figurative
and
typical representation of the three progressive stages, by which
the
ultimate
completion. In the COURT there was displayed the existing
stage,
when
in
need of priestly mediators; in the
when
the atonement exhibited in type in the court, would be com-
pleted,
and the people themselves would be able in consequence to
exercise
their priestly calling and draw near to God; in the MOST
HOLY,
the last stage of all, when the people of God will have
attained
to the immediate vision of His glory. This triple stage of
approach
to God, which was set forth simultaneously in space in the
symbolism
of the tabernacle, is realized successively in time through
the
historical development of the
was
the Israelitish theocracy; the second is the Christian Church;
the
third and last will be the heavenly
Each
of the two earlier stages contains potentially within itself all
that
has still to come; but it contains it only as an ideal in faith
and
hope. For the first stage, therefore, it was requisite that
representations
and types of the two succeeding stages should be
visibly
displayed in the place appointed for worship.
§ 13. The principal object in the court, and
that in which its
whole
significance culminated, was the ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERING.
The
first thing which strikes the eye in connection with an altar is,
that
it represents an ascent from the earth towards heaven ( hmABA
=
altare), a lifting of the
earth above its ordinary and natural level.
From
the time that Jehovah ceased to walk with man upon the
earth,
and hold intercourse with him there, as He had done before
the
fall (Gen. iii. 8), and the earth was cursed for man's sin in
consequence
of the fall (Gen. iii. 17), and heaven and earth became
so
separated, the one from the other, that God came down from
heaven
to reveal Himself to man (Gen. xi. 5, xviii. 21), and then
went
up again to heaven (Gen. xvii. 22),--the natural level of the
earth
was no longer adapted to the purpose of such intercourse. It
was
necessary, therefore, to raise the spot where man desired to
hold
communion with God, and present to Him his offerings, into
an
altar rising above the curse. Whilst the name hmABA expressed
what
an altar was, viz., an elevation of the earth, the other and
ordinary
name of the altar indicated the purpose which it served
THE PLACE OF SACRIFICE. 45
it
was a place of sacrifice, on which sinful man presented his slain
offering
for the atonement and sanctification of his soul before God.
But the altar which JEHOVAH caused to be built,
was not merely
the
raising of the earth towards the heaven where God had dwelt
since
sin drove Him from the earth, but also the place where heaven
itself,
or rather He who fills heaven with His glory, came down to
meet
the rising earth;--not only the spot where man offered his gifts
to
Jehovah, but also the spot where God came to meet the gifts of
man
and gave His blessing in return. For Jehovah promised this
in
Ex. xx. 24: "In all places where I record My name, I will
come
unto thee and bless thee." But an altar, however high it may
be
built, does not reach to the heaven where God dwells. In itself,
therefore,
it merely expresses the upward desires of man. And
these
desires are not realized and satisfied, till God Himself comes
down
from heaven upon the altar.
According to Ex. xx. 24, 25, it was a general
rule for an altar
to
be built of earth or unhewn stones, as still retaining their
original
form and component elements. It is true that this very
composition
of earth and stone represented the curse, which adhered
to
them in their existing natural condition. But man, with all his
art
and diligence, is unable to remove this curse. Consequently, no
tooling
or chiselling of his was to be allowed at all. Whatever he
might
do, he could not sanctify the altar which was formed from
the
earth that had been cursed. That could be done by none but
God,
who had promised "to record His name there" (Ex. xx.
24),--"to
give the atoning blood upon the altar, to make an atone-
ment
for their souls" (Lev. xvii. 11). Jehovah appointed and
consecrated
the place where the altar was to be built; He gave to
the
blood of the sacrifice, that was sprinkled upon it, the atoning
worth
which it possessed; and He caused the smoke of the sacrifice
which
was consumed upon the altar to become a sweet smelling
savour,
as representing the self-surrender of man (Gen. viii. 21).
The elevated earth, which formed the altar in
the court, was
surrounded
by a wooden chest covered with copper, to give it a
firm
cohesion and fixed form. By the square shape of the surround-
ing
walls the seal of the
The
altar, therefore, was the evident representative of the Old
Testament
institution of atonement and sanctification, by which
the
expiation of sinful man and the sanctifying self-surrender of
the
expiated sinner were effected before God. This being its mean-
ing,
it could only stand in the court, the abode of the sinful, though
46 THE PLACE OF
SACRIFICE.
reconcilable
nation, which could not yet draw near directly to
Jehovah,
but still needed the mediation of the Levitical priesthood
for
the presentation of its sacrifices and gifts.
In our interpretation of the HORNS, which rose
from the altar at
its
four corners, we need not refer, as Bahr
(Symbolik 1, 472) and
Keil
(Arch. 1, 104) do, to passages in which the horn of the ani-
mal
is mentioned as indicative of strength, or as its glory and orna-
ment;
nor to those in which the horn is used as the symbol of the
fulness
and superabundance of blessing and salvation; but, as
Hofmann
and Kliefoth have done, to such passages as Isa. v. 1,
where
the term horn is applied to an eminence running up to a point.
For
the idea of height is the predominant one in connection with
the
altar; and the only thing, therefore, that comes into considera-
tion
is, what the horn is in relation to the height of the animal,
viz.,
its loftiest point,--and not what it is as an ornament or
weapon.
Still farther from the mark, however, is the allusion to
the
horn as a symbol of fulness; for the horn acquires this signifi-
cance
merely as something separated from the animal, or as a vessel
shaped
like a horn that has been taken of. The horns on the altar
increased
its height. Consequently, the blood sprinkled on the
horns
of the altar was brought nearer to God, than that which was
merely
sprinkled on the sides.
§ 14. Since the
of
God which the priests alone could enter, as the mediators of a
nation
which, notwithstanding its priestly calling, was still unpriestly,
the
three articles of furniture in the
offerings
connected with them, foreshadowed typically what the
nation,
regarded as a priestly nation, was to offer to its God in
gifts
and sacrifices, and what qualities and powers it was to unfold
before
Him. And as the way to the
through
the court, where atonement was made for the sinful
nation,
and where it dedicated and consecrated itself afresh to its
God,
and entered anew into fellowship with Him; the offerings in
the
vices,
as none but a nation reconciled, sanctified, and in fellowship
with
God, could possibly present.
Of the three articles of furniture in the
OF
INCENSE was unquestionably the most significant and important.
This
is indicated not only by its position between the other two,
and
immediately in front of the entrance to the Most Holy, but
also
by its appointment and designation as an altar, on the horns of
THE PLACE OF SACRIFICE. 47
which
the blood of atonement, that was brought into the Holy
Place
(§ 107), was sprinkled; inasmuch as this established an
essential
and necessary relation between it and the altar of the
court
on the one hand, and the Capporeth of the Most Holy on the
other.
It is true, the sacrifices which were offered upon this altar,
and
ascended to God in fire, were not the bleeding sacrifices of
atonement,
but the bloodless sacrifices of incense, which, as our
subsequent
investigation will show (§ 146), represented the prayers
of
the congregation, that had just before been, reconciled, sanctified,
and
restored to fellowship with God, by the bleeding sacrifice of
the
court. The altar of incense stood in the same relation to the
altar
of burnt-offering, as the
priestly
nation to the unpriestly, as the prayer of thanksgiving and
praise
from those already reconciled and sanctified to the desire and
craving
for reconciliation and sanctification, and as the splendour
of
the gold seven times purified, in which it was enclosed, to the
dull,
dead colour of the copper which surrounded the altar in the
court.
It was a repetition of the altar that stood in the court, but
a
repetition in a higher form.
The two other articles of furniture, the TABLE
OF SREW-BREAD
and
the CANDLESTICK, were offshoots, as it were, of the altar of
incense,
as their position on either side indicates; and the peculiar
form
of each was determined by the offerings which it held; for
the
bread required a table, and the lights a candelabrum. What
was
combined together in one article of furniture in the altar of
burnt-offering
in the court, was here resolved into three, which
served
to set forth the ideas in question in a much more complete
and
many-sided manner (cf. § 158 sqq.).
§ 15. In the MOST HOLY, as the abode of God in
the fullest
sense
of the word, and in the most thorough unapproachableness,
there
was but one article of furniture, though one consisting of
is
several parts, viz., the ARK OF THE COVENANT, with the CAPPORETH.
Hengstenberg's view, expressed in his
Dissertations on the Penta-
teuch
(vol. ii. 525, translation), which may perhaps look plausible at
first
sight,--viz., that the covering of the ark, or of the law contained
in
it, by the Capporeth, was intended to express the idea, that the
grace
of God had covered or silenced the accusing and condemning
voice
of the law,--will be found, on closer and more careful investiga-
tion,
to be defective and inadmissible on every account (see my Bei-
trage zur Symbolik der
Alttest. Cultus-statte, pp. 28 sqq.). I have
the
greater reason for still regarding the course of argument adopted
48 THE PLACE OF
SACRIFICE.
as
satisfactory, because Keil has been induced by it to give up
Hengstenberg's
view, and in all essential points to adopt my own. I
will
repeat the leading points of my argument here.
First of all, it must be borne in mind, that the
ark of the cove-
nant
answered a double purpose: (1) to preserve the tables of the
law,
and (2) to serve as a support and basis to the Capporeth. Let
us
commence with the former. As the receptacle for the two tables
of
the law, it was called the "ark of the testimony," or "ark of
the
covenant."
The tables of the law were named the testimony, tUdfehA,
because
in them God furnished the people with a testimony to His
own
nature and will. This attestation was the preliminary, the
foundation
and the soul of the covenant which He concluded with
His
people. Hence the ark of the testimony was also called the
"ark
of the covenant," tyriB;ha NOrxE. In like manner, the tables of the
law
are also called "the tables of, the covenant" (Dent. ix. 9, 11,
15),
and the words engraved upon them “the words of the cove-
nant"
(Ex. xxxiv. 28). And, in certain cases, the former are de-
signated
in simple terms as "the covenant" (tyriB;ha, equivalent to
the
record of the covenant: 1 Kings viii. 21; 2 Chron. vi. 11).
There
can be no doubt, therefore, that the tables of the law lying in
the
ark were looked upon as an attestation of the covenant con-
cluded
with
nant
did not lie naked and open; on the contrary, it was enclosed
in
an ark or chest,--the place of the lid being taken by the Cap-
poreth.
This showed that it was not only a treasure, but the most
costly
jewel, the dearest possession of
such
estimation; for, having been written by the finger of God, it
was
a divine testimony, a pledge of the continuance and perpetuity
of
the covenant made with God, and a guarantee of the eventual
fulfilment
of all the promises attached to this covenant, and of all
the
purposes of salvation which it was designed to subserve.
The ark, with the testimony within it, was also
a support to the
Capporeth.
For the Capporeth was not merely intended as a lid
for
the ark, but had an independent purpose of its own. This is
evident
from the name itself, which is derived from the Piel rPeKi
and
is to be rendered, not “covering,” but "seat of atonement," ;
i[lasth<rion, propitiatorum
("mercy-seat," Luther, etc.). rPeKi denotes
not
a local material covering, but a spiritual one; and the object of
this
covering is always and everywhere the sin of man. For this
reason,
the name Capporeth cannot possibly be understood as de-
noting
the fact that it covered the tables of the law. For the object
THE PLACE OF SACRIFICE. 49
to
be covered by the Capporeth, i.e., to be atoned for, could not be
anything
that came from God, and least of all God's holy law.
Moreover,
the law of God was to be anything but covered up, that
is
to say, covered up in any sense that would represent its voice as
silenced.
The Capporeth, therefore, apart from the fact
that it closed up
the
ark, must have been something in itself, must have had its own
significance
and purpose within itself. And though it did un-
doubtedly
form a material, local covering to the ark, this can only
have
been of subordinate, collateral, and secondary importance.
§ 16. But what was this real, independent,
primary, and princi-
pal
significance of the Capporeth? Keil's interpretation (Archao-
logie i. 114) falls back into
Bahr's error, of confounding the king-
dom
of nature with that of grace, or natural revelation with the
revelation
of salvation, and is altogether beside the mark. Accord-
ing
to his view, "the Capporeth resembled the firmament, and bore
the
name Capporeth or mercy-seat, because the highest and most
perfect
act of atonement in the Old Testament economy was per-
fected
upon it, and God, who betrothed Himself to His people in
grace
and mercy by an everlasting covenant, sate enthroned there-
on."
The latter part,--namely, that the Capporeth was the highest
medium
of atonement in the old covenant, and at the same time
was
the throne of Jehovah, which, though for the time unapproach-
able
by the people, was nevertheless erected upon earth and in the
midst
of
very
reason the Capporeth could not possibly represent the firma-
ment.
Or are we to suppose, that the highest and most perfect act
of
atonement in the old covenant ought properly to have been per-
formed
upon the firmament of heaven, but that, as this could not
well
be accomplished, a representation of it was placed as its sub-
stitute
in the Holy of Holies? And was the true
act of expiation
in
the fulness of time, of which this was only a shadow and type
(§
56), really performed above the firmament, i.e., in heaven?
Was
it not rather accomplished on earth, in the
No
doubt "that God, who betrothed Himself to His people in grace
and
mercy by an everlasting covenant," was enthroned upon the
Capporeth.
But this betrothal took place, not above the firma-
ment,
i.e., in heaven, but on the earth, at Sinai. Jehovah came
down
for the purpose (Ex. xix. 20); and the glory of Jehovah
entered
the sanctuary, and took up its permanent place upon the
Capporeth
(Ex. xl. 34 sqq. ; Num. vii. 89; Ex. xxv. 22). Un-
50 THE PLACE OF
SACRIFICE.
questionably
there is also a throne of God in the heaven of heavens,
which
stands upon the firmament; but the throne of God in the
Most
sentative
of that heavenly throne, that it rather presented a contrast,
and
one as sharp as that between heaven and earth, nature and
grace,
Elohim and Jehovah.
This confusion of ideas, which Keil himself has
generally kept
distinct
enough elsewhere (Arch. i. 94 sqq.), has evidently arisen
from
his being misled by the connection between the Capporeth
and
the figures of the two cherubim and the fact that the latter
are
often represented as surrounding the throne of God in heaven.
But
if Jehovah, in addition to the throne in heaven, established one
also
for Himself upon earth, could He not surround the latter with
cherubim
also? Moreover, Keil has involved himself, without per-
ceiving
it, in the most striking self-contradictions. Figures of
cherubim,
precisely similar to those which stood upon the Cappo-
reth,
were also woven into the inner covering of the tabernacle, and
into
the curtain which separated the
Holy.
Now if the Capporeth must represent the firmament of
heaven
because of the cherubim standing upon it, simple consis-
tency
requires that the entire space of the Holy and Most Holy
should
be regarded as a figurative representation of heaven. And
this
Bahr actually maintains, though Keil rejects such a view as
thoroughly
unscriptural, and decides correctly that the tabernacle
was
a figure of the
What the Capporeth was really intended to
represent, is evident
from
its name, and practically exhibited in the fact that the
highest
and most perfect expiation was effected upon it. It was
called,
and was primarily, a means of atonement (i[lasth<rion, propi-
tiatorium). By the circumstance
that on the great day of atone-
ment
(Lev. xvi.) the blood of the holiest sin-offering was sprinkled
upon
it, just as the blood of the ordinary sacrifices on ordinary days
was
sprinkled upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering in
the
court, or upon the altar of incense in the
shown
to be an altar,--but an altar that was as much higher and
holier
than the other two altars, as the Most Holy Place was higher
and
holier than the
But there were two other peculiarities connected
with this altar.
As
the Capporeth acquired the form of an altar simply from its
connection
with the ark, inasmuch as without this support it
would
have been merely an altar-plate, and the essential charac-
THE VARIOUS KINDS OF SACRIFICE. 51
teristic,
viz., that of elevation, would have been wanting; so this
altar
acquired its higher sanctity and worth, in part at least, from
the
fact that it contained within it the "testimony," the covenant,
--that
is to say, the record of the covenant, the costliest treasure in
the
possession of
parable
sanctity grow out of the fact, that the glory of Jehovah
rested
between the wings of the cherubim that overshadowed it,
whereby
the altar became the throne of God--the throne of grace.
Now,
since the support of the throne, together with the Capporeth
as
an altar-plate, enclosed the record of the covenant, or the cove-
nant
testimony and covenant pledge; the idea expressed was this,
that
Jehovah's being enthroned in this place was based upon, and
rendered
possible by, the covenant which God had concluded
with
(Lev.
xvii. 11). With reference to the altar of burnt-offering, the
promise
had also been given (Ex. xx. 24), that Jehovah would
come
down to
them
by His blessing. But there He came invisibly, in a manner
that
could only be grasped by faith, not by sight; whereas upon
the
throne-altar in the Most Holy Place He descended, or rather
was
enthroned, in a visible (symbolical) form, viz., in the cloud,
which
represented the glory of Jehovah, and was visible to the eyes
of
those who were permitted to pass within the veil (Lev. xvi. 2,
cf.
§ 199).
CHAPTER III.
THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE.
§ 17. The term offering,1 when used
in a general sense in
connection
with divine worship, usually denotes, according to its
derivation
from of erre, the dedication of any suitable possession
to
God, or to divine purposes. So far as etymology and the usage
of
the language are concerned, this idea is distinctly expressed in
the
Hebrew term NbAr;qA, Corban, i.e., presentation (equivalent to
tOnT;ma
wd,qo, "holy gifts," in Ex. xxviii.
38; vid. Mark vii. 11, "Corban,
that
is to say, a gift"). Such presents, which had all to be brought
1 The German Opfer corresponds rather to our word sacrifice; but it was
necessary
to substitute the word offering here.--TR.
52 THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE
to
the dwelling-place of God and delivered up in the court, inas-
much
as they were gifts for God, might either be offered to God
and
to His sanctuary for a permanent possession or use--as was the
case,
for example, and chiefly, with all the offerings devoted to the
erection,
furnishing, and maintenance of the sanctuary (cf. Num.
vii.
3, 11, 12, 13, 77, xxxi. 50), as well as with such objects of
vows
as became Corban in consequence of the vow (Mark vii. 11)
--or
the thing presented might be appropriated to and consumed
in
the service of God, or for His glory. The offerings of the latter
kind
were divided again into two classes, which differed essentially,
according
as they were laid upon the altar and offered directly to
God,
either in whole or in part, by being consumed in the fire or
else
applied at once and entirely to the remuneration and mainten-
ance
of the priests and Levites as the servants of Jehovah (§ 69),
The
latter were regarded as the taxes, which the people had to pay
to
the God-King Jehovah, the true Owner of the land. They in-
cluded
the first fruits and tithes of all the produce of the land, as
well
as the male first-born of man and beast. But the first-born of
men
and of the unclean animals--i.e., of such as were not edible,
and
therefore not fit for sacrifice--had to be redeemed, whilst the
first-born
of clean animals, or those fit for sacrifice, were partly
consumed
upon the altar; so that, to a certain extent, they belonged
to
both classes (Num. xviii. 17, 18, cf. § 229). Thus, we find, there
were
three classes of offerings: (1) Corbanim for the sanctuary of.
Jehovah,
or DEDICATION GIFTS; (2) Corbanim for the maintenance
of
the servants of Jehovah, or FEUDAL TAXES (first-fruits, tithes,
and
first-born); and (3) Corbanim for Jehovah Himself, or ALTAR-
SACRIFICES.
Of the last, some were called most holy (MywidAqA wd,qo),
viz.,
such as were either consumed entirely upon the altar, or, so far
as
they were not consumed, were eaten by the priests, and by
them
alone. Cf. Knobel on Lev. xxi. 22.
In the present work we have to do with the gifts
of the third
class
alone, i e., with the Corbanim which were placed either in
whole
or in part upon the altar. Even in the Thorah the name
Corban
is applied pre-eminently to these.
§ 18. Hengstenberg (Opfer, p. 4) very properly
blames Bahr,
and
others who have followed him, for commencing their attempt to
determine
the nature and meaning of sacrifice, in the stricter sense
of
the term, with Lev. xvii. 11, where, as we have already seen
(§
11), the prohibition to eat blood is based upon the fact, that
the
soul of the flesh is in the blood, and Jehovah gave the blood
THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE. 53
to
His people upon the altar, to make atonement therewith for their
souls.
In this passage they imagined that they had found "the
key
to the whole of the Mosaic theory of sacrifice." It is perfectly
obvious,
however, that Lev. xvii. 11 merely furnishes the key to
the
sprinkling of the blood in the case of the sacrifice of animals.
But
the question, whether, as has been maintained on that side, an
explanation
of the sprinkling of the blood prepares the way for
understanding
the other functions connected with the sacrifice of
animals,
or whether the animal sacrifices alone could lay claim to the
character
of independent offerings, whilst the bloodless (vegetable)
gifts
were merely to be regarded as accompaniments to the bleeding
(animal)
sacrifices, must be determined, even if it could be proved
at
all, from the special inquiry which follows afterwards, and there-
fore,
even if correct, ought not to be laid down as an a priori axiom.
But what both Hengstenberg and Keil have adopted
as the basis
and
key to the altar-sacrifices, both bleeding and bloodless, is cer-
tainly
quite as inadmissible as that laid down by Bahr. The true
basis
is said to be found in Ex. xxiii. 15, "My face shall not be
seen
empty," or as it reads in Deut. xvi. 16, "Appear not empty
before
the face of Jehovah;" to which is added by way of expla-
nation
in ver. 17, "Every one according to the gift of his hand,
according
to the blessing which Jehovah thy God has given." It is
really
incomprehensible how these two theologians could fall into
the
mistake of regarding the passages quoted as the basis of the
whole
sacrificial worship; for, according to both the context and the
true
meaning of the words, they have nothing to do with it, or
rather,
are directly at variance with its provisions. The amount of
the
sacrifices to be offered upon the altar (whether bleeding or
bloodless)
was not determined, in the majority of cases, as it is in
Deut.
xvi. 17, by the possessions or income of the person sacrificing.
The
command of the law of sacrifice was not "according to the
gift
of his hand, according to the blessing which Jehovah thy God
hath
given thee." The exact amount was prescribed in every case
by
the law; and the difference in the worth of the offerings was
regulated,
not by the wealth and income of the sacrificer, but partly
by
his position in the theocracy (i.e., by the question, whether he
was
priest, prince, or private individual), and partly by differences
in
the occasion for the sacrifice.1
But apart from this, how can our
1 It is to be hoped that no one will be
sufficiently wanting in perspicacity
to
bring forward as an objection to my statement the fact, that a poor man, who
was
not in a condition to bring the sheep which was normally required, was
54 THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE.
opponents
have overlooked the fact, that these passages do not refer
to
the altar-sacrifices in particular, which they ought to do to war-
rant
such an application, and not even to the Corbanim in general,
or
as a whole. They apply exclusively and expressly to the first-
fruits
and tenths to be offered on the three harvest festivals; and
they
could not refer to anything else, even if no such statement
had
been made. How complete a mistake this quid
pro quo is, is
also
evident from the fact, that if, instead of restricting the demand
there
expressed to the harvest festivals and the harvest gifts, we
extend
it, as Hengstenberg and Keil have done, to the sacrificial
worship
generally; then to enter the Holy Place, where the name
of
Jehovah dwelt, without offering sacrifice,--say even for the pur-
pose
of praying, or of beholding the beautiful service of the Lord
(Ps.
xxvii. 4, ciii. 4, and lxxxiv.; Luke ii. 27, 37, etc.),--would
necessarily
have been regarded as an act of wickedness and pre-
sumption.
§ 19. Since, therefore, neither the passages
adduced by Bahr,
nor
those which Hengstenberg cites as containing the key to the
nature
and meaning of sacrifice, are available for the purpose, and
since
no others offer themselves, the only course left open is to
take
as our starting point the connection between the sacrifices in
the
more restricted sense of the word and all the rest of the offer-
ings.
We have to examine, therefore, (1) what they had in cour-
mon
with the other Corbanim, and O 2 in what they differed from
them.
The three classes of Corbanim (§ 17) were all
holy gifts. They
were
called holy, because they were all related to Jehovah, whether
they
were offered and appropriated to Him directly and personally,
or
whether they fell to the portion of His servants the Levites and
priests,
or to His dwelling-place the sanctuary. In the case of all
of
them, those prescribed by the law (gifts of duty), as well as
free-will
offerings presented without constraint or necessity (spon-
taneous
gifts), the real foundation of the offering was the conscious-
ness
of entire dependence upon God and entire obligation towards
Him--a
consciousness which is always attended by the desire to
embody
itself in such gifts as these. The main point was never the
material,
pecuniary worth of the gifts themselves, either in connec-
tion
with their presentation on the part of man, or their acceptance
on
the part of God. The God whom the Israelite had recognised
allowed
to offer a pigeon instead, and if this were impossible, to offer the tenth
part
of an ephah of wheaten flour. Lev. v. 11.
THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE. 55
as
the Creator of heaven and earth, could not possibly desire the
offering
of earthly blessings for their own sake; He could not care
about
the gift, but only about the giver, that is to say, about the
feelings,
of which the gift was the expression and embodiment.
Hence
the possession, which the worshipper gave up, was the repre-
sentative
of his person, his heart, his emotions. In these gifts,
which
were his justly acquired property, gained by the sweat of his
face
and the exercise of his earthly calling, he offered, in a certain
sense,
an objective portion of himself, since the sweat of his own
labour
adhered to it, and he had expended his own vital energy
upon
it, and thereby, as it were, really given it life. In this way
he
gave expression to his consciousness of the absolute dependence
of
his whole life and activity upon the grace and blessing of God,
and
to his obligation to devote it entirely to God and to divine pur-
poses
in praise, thanksgiving, and prayer. He gave partially back
to
God, what he had received entirely from God, and had wrought
out
and acquired through the blessing of God. And in the part, he
sanctified
and consecrated the whole, or all that he retained and
applied
to the maintenance of his own life and strength, and with
this
his own life also, to the maintenance of which he had devoted
it.
"It is true (says Oehler, Reallex. x. 614), the impulse from
within,
which urges a man to the utterance of praise, thanksgiving,
and
prayer to God, finds its expression in the words of devotion;
but
it is fully satisfied only when those words are embodied, when
they
acquire, as it were, an objective existence in some appropriate
act,
in which the man incurs some expense by self-denial and self-
renunciation,
and thus gives a practical proof of the earnestness of
his
self-dedication to God."
§ 20. If we proceed now to examine what it was,
that constituted
the
essential difference between the Corbanim of the third class and
those
of the other two, we shall find it in the peculiar relation in
which
the former stood to the altar. For this reason we have de-
signated
the offerings of the third class altar-offerings. In material
substance,
it is true, they were essentially the same as those of the
second
class (the feudal payments). The objects presented were in
both
instances the produce of agriculture and grazing; in both
there
were animal and vegetable, bleeding and bloodless, offerings;
and
they were both alike the fruit and produce of the life and work
connected
with the ordinary occupation, or the means by which life
was
invigorated and sustained. But the difference was this: some
went
directly to the priests and Levites, whilst the others were given
56 THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE.
directly
and personally to Jehovah, through the relation in which
they
were placed to the altar. For the altar was the spot upon
which
men presented their gifts to Jehovah who dwelt on high, and
to
which Jehovah came down to receive the gifts and bless the
giver
(Ex. xx. 24). All the Corbanim of the third class, whether
animal
or vegetable, were burned upon the altar in whole or part,
and
on that account are designated in the Thorah either hw,xi (firing,
from
wxe
fire), or hOAhy; ywe.xi (Jehovah's firing). What the purpose of
this
burning upon the altar was, is evident from the almost universal
formula:
hOAhyl; hw,.xi HaOHyni Hayrel; (i.e., firing to the savour of peace, of
satisfaction,
of good pleasure for Jehovah), Ex. xxix. 41; Lev. viii. 21,
etc.
(see also Gen. viii. 21). Jehovah smelt
the vapour as it ascended
from
the burning,--i.e., the essence of the sacrificial gift purified by
a
fire from the merely earthly elements,--and found peace, satisfaction,
good
pleasure therein. The gift was intended for Him personally,
and
He accepted it personally, and that with good-will; and, ac-
cording
to Ex. xx. 24, He blessed the giver in consequence. But if,
as
we have seen, it was not the gift as such that Jehovah desired,
but
the gift as the vehicle of the feelings of the giver, as the repre-
sentative
sentative of his self-surrender, the cordial acceptance of the gift on
the
part of God, expressed in the words HaOHyni Hayre, applies not to the
gift
in itself, but to the gift as the representative of the person pre-
senting
the sacrifice. The distinguishing feature which belonged
exclusively
and universally to the Corbanim of the third class, viz.,
that
of burning upon the altar, was an expression therefore of the
self-surrender
of the worshipper, which was well-pleasing to God
and
accepted by Him, and which He repaid by His blessing.
But the Corbanim of the third class were placed
in another re-
lation
to the altar so far as their nature permitted, and one that
was
equally essential (in the case, that is, of the animal sacrifices),
viz.,
by the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar before the sacri-
fice
was consumed. The design of this we may
settle now, without
forestalling
any subsequent inquiry, from the passage which has
already
been referred to in. various ways, viz., Lev. xvii. 11; though
how
that design was, or could be, accomplished by such means, we
must
leave for a future section. This design is expressed in Lev.
xvii.
11, in the words Mk,ytewop;na-lfa rPekal; i. e. "to expiate
(= to cover
the
sins of) your souls." The blood was the means of expiation, the
sprinkling
of the blood the act of expiation ; and Jehovah Himself,
who
appointed this as the mode of expiation for
have
given it you"), acknowledged thereby its validity and force.
THE VARIOUS KINDS OF SACRIFICE. 57
It is very apparent that the two acts--the
sprinkling of the blood
upon
the altar, and the burning of the sacrifice upon the altar were
essentially
and necessarily connected. The sprinkling of the blood,
or
expiation, was the means; the burning, or dedication to Jehovah,
the
end. In order that the second should be a “savour of satisfac-
tion
to the Lord," it was necessary that the first should precede it;
the
first, therefore, was the basis or prerequisite of the second.
It was entirely different with the Corbanim of
the second class.
It
is true, they were also presented as feudal payments due to
Jehovah;
but instead of being retained, or personally appropriated
by
Him, they were handed over at once and without reserve to the
priests
or Levites. Even in their case the primary consideration
was
subjectively (so far as the act of offering was concerned), not
the
material gift in itself, but the consciousness of dependence upon
God,
and the sense of obligation towards Him, of which the gift
was
an expression; but objectively (so far as their application to
the
payment and maintenance of the priests and Levites was con-
cerned)
the material aspect once more presents itself. This dis-
tinction
(viz., that they were not intended for Jehovah personally)
then
reacted upon the mode of presentation, so that there was no
apparent
necessity for either the burning as a symbol of direct per-
sonal
appropriation on the part of Jehovah, or the sprinkling of
blood
as a symbol of the covering of sin preparatory to such appro-
priation.
But with the altar-sacrifices, at least so far as they were
personally
appropriated by Jehovah, the loftier, ideal aspect of self-
surrender
was firmly retained to the end. For that reason they
were
holier than the others, requiring as a basis the sprinkling of
blood,
and as a consummation the burning upon the altar. They
possessed
and retained, from every point of view, a purely personal
character:
on the objective side, because they were to be set apart
for
Jehovah personally, and also because Jehovah desired a per-
sonal
surrender, and not the mere material gift; on the subjective
side,
because in them the worshipper presented himself before
Jehovah,
with all his life and deeds, his hopes and longings, his
thanksgiving
and praise, his prayers and supplications.
Through this exclusively spiritual character the
altar-sacrifices,
as
may easily be conceived, stand in a much closer relation to the
equally
spiritual character of prayer. They were indispensable to
one
another. For, on the one hand a sacrifice offered without
prayer,
at least without the spirit of prayer, was a body without
soul,
an empty, lifeless, powerless opus
operaturm; and, on the other
58 THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE.
hand,
prayer could not dispense with the accompaniment of sacri-
fice.
Prayer in itself is merely an ideal expression of the need and
longing
for expiation and fellowship with God, and does not really
set
these forth; but in the sacrificial worship there is an embodi-
ment,
a visible and palpable expression, not merely of the subjective
desire
of the worshipper, but also of the objective satisfaction of
that
desire. I cannot help regarding it as a mistaken and mislead-
ing
statement of Hengstenberg's, therefore, that sacrifice "was in the
main
an embodiment of prayer (Hos. xiv. 2 ; Heb. xiii. 15)." On
the
contrary, sacrifice was something different from and something
more
than prayer. It did not correspond to prayer, as the symbol
to
the idea; but it ran parallel to it, and required it as an accom-
paniment
throughout its entire course. Moreover, "the main point
in
the sacrifice" was not, what prayer could have exhibited equally
well,
a subjective longing for the blessings of salvation but an ob-
jective
assurance of them. Keil's explanation, in which Hengsten-
berg's
idea is adopted, but without the essential, though still not
sufficient
limitation, “in the main,” is still more inadmissible.
“Sacrifice,”
he says, "is the visible utterance of prayer as the most
direct
self-dedication of a man to God."1 (Arch. i. 192.) But if
sacrifice
itself was in the main an embodiment of prayer, what ne-
cessity
could there be for a special symbol of prayer to be associated
with
most of the sacrifices? For both
Hengstenberg and Keil have
thus
correctly interpreted the incense which had to be added to every
meat-offering,
and thereby to every burnt-offering and peace-offer-
ing
also, but which was not allowed to be added to the sin-offering.
§ 21. If we turn now to what was actually
offered, to the mate-
rial
substance of the Corbanim, it is self-evident that the first and
most
important consideration was this, that the offering to be pre-
sented
should be the property of the person presenting it, and should
be
properly acquired or earned.2 How essential this demand was
with
reference to all the Corbanim, is evident from the nature of
the
case, and requires no proof. For instance, whereas in the first
class
the notion of property was without restriction, and embraced
valuables
of every kind (gold, silver, furniture, houses, fields, vine-
1 Vid. Delitzsch on the
Epistle to the Hebrews (p. 739): "The sacrifice,
when
offered in a right state of mind, had the self-dedication of the worship-
per
as its background, and his prayer as its accompaniment (Job xiii. 8 ; 1 Sam.
vii.
9; 1 Chron. xxi. 26; 2 Chron. xxix. 26-30); but it was not the symbol of
either
self-dedication or prayer."
2 Thus, for example, the
gains of prostitution and the merces
scorti virilis
are
forbidden to be offered (Dent. xxiii. 18).
THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE. 59
yards,
etc.), in the second it was restricted to the produce of agri-
culture
and grazing, and in the third class was limited still further,
--all
garden produce, all fruits except wine and oil and all unclean
animals
being excluded, so that the only things left for this class of
offerings
were oxen, sheep, goats, and pigeons, as well as wine, oil,
and
corn (either in natura, or in the
form of flour, dough, bread,
cakes,
etc.).
The fact that the Corbanim of the second class
were limited to
the
produce of agriculture and grazing, but embraced all such pro-
duce,
may be explained from their character as feudal payments.
Agriculture
and grazing were to be the peculiar and sole occupation
of
the Israelites in the land which their God had given them in fief
hence
their feudal payments were to be restricted to the produce of
these.
But, in the case of strict altar-sacrifices, two
other limitations
were
introduced. All kinds of property which could not serve the
Israelite
as food (e.g., houses, clothes, furniture, etc.) were to be ex-
cluded,
as well as every kind which ought not to be so used (viz., all
unclean
animals--the ass, the camel, etc.). In addition to these,
every
kind of property was to be excluded which had not been ac-
quired
by the worshipper himself in the sweat of his face, i.e., by his
own
diligence and toil, and in the exercise of his own proper calling:
for
example, all edible game, such as stags, gazelles, and antelopes,
and
fruit which had grown ready to his hand, and could be eaten
without
the bestowal of any special labour or care (such as almonds,
dates,
pomegranates, etc.). Oil and wine were not included in them,
because
in their case it was not the grape and olive that were offered,
but
juice which had been procured in the sweat of the face.1
From what has been already said, it follows that
both Bahr
(Symb.
ii. 316-17) and Neumann are in error, when the former
1 It is true this last point could not be
carried out in all its stringency and
literality;
for a man who bad no field or flock of his own (a labouring man, for
example)
could not offer bread that he had reaped, or cattle that he had reared.
It
was necessary, therefore, that he should be allowed to offer a sacrifice that
he
had
bought (the purchase, at any rate, was made in such a case with money
acquired
by the sweat of his own face); and in the Holy Land this exception
afterwards
grew to be the rule whenever the person lived at such a distance
from
the sanctuary as rendered it difficult to bring the sacrifice with him.
This
exception was a compromise of a similar kind to that which allowed the
poor
man, who could not procure an expensive animal, to offer as a substitute
an
incomparably cheaper pigeon, or if that were impossible, the tenth part of
an ephah of flour.
60 THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE.
looks
at the material of the altar-sacrifices exclusively in the light
of
a collection of the principal productions of the country, and a
representation
of the whole of the national property, whilst the
latter
merely regards it in the light of food. It is a sufficient reply
to
Bahr, that very many of the productions that were characteristic
of
the country, and much that represented the national wealth,
could
not be offered at all (e.g., the ass, the grape, the fig, the
pomegranate,
milk and honey, etc.: Num. xiii. 23; Deut. viii. 7-9,
xi.
7-9). And Neumann's assertion is no less inconsiderate; for
if
that had been the only regulating principle, stags, gazelles, and
antelopes,
as well as the numerous kinds of clean birds, together
with
vegetables, figs, dates, pomegranates, honey, etc., ought to have
been
offered as well.
To obtain a correct view of the material
selected for the sacri-
fices,
we ought to do as Oehler has done viz, to combine the three
aspects
referred to, and to regard this as the principle of selection,
that
nothing was suitable to the purpose but personal property
justly
acquired, which was, on the one hand, the fruit of
proper
avocation (agriculture and the rearing of cattle), and on the
other
hand, the natural and legal means of sustenance, that is to
say,
of maintaining that avocation.
§ 22. From the rule thus laid down for the
choice of the materials
for
the altar-sacrifices, it is perfectly obvious that in these offerings
it
was not the gift itself, but the giver, that was the primary object
of
consideration; in other words, that they represented a personal
self-surrender
to the person of Jehovah Himself. If this self-sur-
render
to God was to be expressed, not merely ideally in thought,
or
verbally in prayer, but in a visible and tangible act; and if,
moreover,
as had been unalterably established since the occurrence
related
in Gen. xxii, this act was not to assume the form of a real
human
sacrifice; nothing remained but to select as a symbolical re-
presentation
or substitute some other thing, which was evidently
suitable
for the purpose on account of the close and essential con-
nection
existing between it and the worshipper. But for this pur-
pose
it was not sufficient that the sacrifice should be merely the
property
of the person offering it; on the contrary, it was requisite
that
it should stand in a close, inward, essential relation, a psychical
rapport,
to the person of the worshipper. This was the case, on
the
one hand, whenever the material of the sacrifice was the result
and
fruit of his life-work, his true avocation, and thus in a certain
sense
was inoculated and impregnated with his own vis
vitalis; and,
THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE. 61
on
the other hand, whenever it was appointed as the means of main-
taining
and strengthening his vital energy, that is to say, when it
impregnated
him with its own vis vitalis. But, as
the rule laid
down
above evidently shows, both points of view were combined in
the
material selected for the Mosaic sacrifices. To the cattle which
the
Israelite had reared, to the corn which he had reaped, to the
wine
and oil which he had pressed, there still adhered the sweat of
his
toil. The acquisition and maturing of them had been dependent
upon
his own unwearied care, his toil and exertion; and thus, in a
certain
sense, one element of his own life had been transferred to
them,
and penetrated into them. He had devoted a portion of his
life
to the task of acquiring them; and they were consequently, as
it
were, an objective portion of his own life. To recognise the full
importance
of this connection, it must again be borne in mind, that
according
to the law itself the whole of the earthly life-work and
vocation
of the Israelite was restricted to agriculture and the rear-
ing
of cattle, and consequently that he devoted himself to it with
his
whole heart, with undivided interest.
But wine, oil, corn, and cattle were not merely
the result of
his
toil and care, they were also and chiefly the fruit of the blessing
of
GOD, a gift of God; and by virtue of what God had done, they
were
appointed and suited to nourish and preserve his bodily life,
and
to enable him to carry out his true vocation.
Keil disputes the correctness of this view of a
biotic rapport be-
tween
the sacrificer and his sacrifice; Oehler, on the contrary, admits
its
truth. But when Keil argues, (1) that in that case the ass could
not
have been excluded, and (2) that this principle is perfectly inap-
plicable
to the vegetable portion of the materials of sacrifice,--it is a
sufficient
reply to the former, that the ass was an unclean animal,
and
therefore could not be used as food by the Israelites; and we
have
already shown that there is no force whatever in the latter.
Neumann (p. 332), on the other hand, will not
admit that the
question
of property had anything to do with the choice of materials
for
the altar-sacrifices; (1) “because dogs, asses, camels, houses,
and
even wives, formed part of the property of an Israelite, and yet
were
not offered in sacrifice;" (2) because “the ram, which Abra-
ham
sacrificed instead of his son, was hardly his own property;" and
(3)
because “in the later period of the Jewish history the instances
were
numerous enough, in which the people offered to their God
what
had been contributed by foreign kings" (Ezra vi. 9; 1 Macc. x.
39;
2 Mace. iii. 3, ix. 16). Keil, who agrees with Neumann in his
62 THE VARIOUS KINDS OF SACRIFICE.
rejection
of our view, lays stress upon the last point only. The
first
needs no refutation on our part. To the second we reply, that
this
was before the standpoint of the sacrificial worship of the law
had
been reached; and the case in itself was so singular and extra-
ordinary,
that it cannot be regarded as supplying the rule for the
rest.
And to the third Oehler (p. 625) has already replied, that
“in
Ezra's time this was the necessary consequence of the poverty
of
the people (Ezra vii. 17, 22); but Nehemiah's directions (Neh.
x.
33, 34) show how strong was the feeling even then, that it was
the
duty of the people themselves to provide for the expenses of
their
own worship." With regard to the later times of the Syrians
and
Romans, the custom at that time proves nothing; for many
things
were practised then, which were totally at variance with the
spirit
of the Mosaic legislation.
§ 23. The altar-sacrifices were presented under
the aspect of
food,
not only subjectively, but objectively also; that is to say, they
not
only consisted of the materials which constituted the food of
latter
would follow from the former as a matter of course, even if it
had
not been expressly stated. But it is expressly indicated, inas-
much
as these sacrifices are spoken of as a whole, as the bread, the
food,
of Jehovah (Lev. iii. 11, 16, xxi. 6, 8, 17, xxii. 25; Num.
xxviii.
2). Not, of course, that flesh, bread, and wine, as such,
could
be offered to the God of Israel for food (Ps. 1. 12 sqq.).
They
were not to pass for what they were, but for what they sig-
nified;
and only in that light were they food for Jehovah. That
which
served as the daily food of
of
those spiritual gifts, which were offered to Jehovah as food.
We
have no hesitation whatever in understanding the expression
bread
of Jehovah" in the strict sense of the words; but we must
keep
well in mind, that in the case of the God of Israel the allusion
could
only have been to spiritual, and not at all to material food.
Jehovah, who, as the God of salvation, had
entered into the
history
of the world, and moved forward in it and with it, stood in
need
of food in that capacity, but of spiritual food, the complete
failure
of which would be followed by His also ceasing to be Je-
hovah.
That food
surrender;
and the symbol of that self-surrender was to be seen in
the
sacrifices consumed upon the altar, and ascending as a "savour
of
satisfaction to Jehovah." If
nant
obliation of self-surrender to Jehovah, it would have broken
THE VARIOUS KINDS OF
SACRIFICE. 63
away
from the covenant, and the covenant itself would have ceased;
and
had the covenant been once abolished, God would also have
ceased
to be the covenant-God, i.e., to be Jehovah.1
§ 24. Our remarks, thus far, apply equally to
all the materials
of
sacrifice, whether animal or vegetable.
But there is one import-
ant
point of view, from which there was an essential distinction
between
them, and which is adapted to throw light upon the ques-
tion,
why they stood side by side in the sacrificial worship; that is
to
say, why bloodless as well as bleeding sacrifices were required.
Animals
of the higher class, more especially domestic animals and
cattle,
stand incomparably nearer to man than plants do: their life
rests
upon the same psychico-corporeal basis, they are subject to
the
same conditions of life, they have the same bodily organs and
functions,
and need the same corporeal food as man. All this is
wanting
in the case of the plant; or rather, everything in it is
precisely
the opposite. An animal, therefore, is far better adapted
to
represent the person of, a man, his vital organs, powers, and
actions,
than plants can ever be. On the other hand, the cultiva-
tion
of plants, more especially the growing of corn, requires far
more
of the preparatory, continuous, and subsequent labour of man,
and
is more dependent upon him than the rearing of cattle. It was
not
upon the latter, but upon the former, that the curse was really
pronounced
in Gen. iii. 17-19 (cf. v. 29). The material acquired
by
agriculture, therefore, was far more suitable than the flocks to
represent
the fruit, or result of the life-work of man. And this
distinction,
as we shall afterwards show, was undoubtedly the prin-
ciple
by which the addition of the vegetable to the animal materials
of
sacrifice was regulated.
§ 25. The altar-sacrifices are thus divisible
into bleeding (animal)
and
bloodless (vegetable) sacrifices.2
The former may be grouped
1 Compare with this what
Hengstenberg says with reference to the shew-
bread:
"This was really the food which
King
was a spiritual heavenly one; and therefore the food offered to Him under
a
material form must be spiritual also . . .
The prayer to God, 'Give us this
day
our daily bread,' is accompanied by the demand on the part of God, ‘Give
Me
to-day My daily bread;' and this demand is satisfied by the Church, when
it
offers diligently to God in good works that for which God has endowed it
with
strength, benediction, and prosperity." (Diss. on the Pentateuch, vol. ii.
pp.
531, 532, translation.)
2 This distinction, however, is by no
means coincident, as Kliefoth
supposes,
with that between the expiatory sacrifices ("by which forgiveness of sins
and
the favour and fellowship of God were secured ") and eucharistic offerings
("in
which, after reconciliation has taken place, God and man hold intercourse with
64 THE VARIOUS
KINDS OF SACRIFICE.
again
in three classes : (1) SIN-OFFERINGS (txFA.Ha) and TRESPASS-
OFFERINGS
(MwAxA),
the latter of which was merely one peculiar de-
scription
of the former; (2) BURNT-OFFERINGS ( hlAfo ) and (3)
PEACE-OFFERINGS
(MymilAw;; Luther, "thank-offerings "). In the
first,
the sprinkling of the blood appears to have been the principal
thing;
in the second, the burning upon the altar; and in the last a
new
feature is introduced, which is wanting in both the others,
namely,
the sacrificial meal. In the different kinds of bloodless
offerings
we have to include, not only those which were burned
upon
the altar in the court, but those which were offered upon the
altar,
table, and candlestick of the
designated
as meat-offerings and drink-offerings (j`s,n,vA hHAn;mi) and
consisted
of corn (meal, bread, cake, etc.) and wine, with the addi-
tion
of oil, incense, and salt. We find the same essential elements
in
the
of
furniture--the incense upon the altar, bread and wine (meat-
and
drink-offerings) upon the table of shew-bread, and oil (light-
offering)
upon the candlestick.
Thus the whole of the Mosaic Corbanim may be classified as
follows:-
OFFERINGS.
II. FEUDAL P