[This is part of a series under ‘Discourse’ —- the discussants are Sinaites ‘S6K’ who used to be members of Messianic Judaism, groups that were established in the Asia-Pacific countries by “RW”, their bible ‘Christian’ teacher and leader for almost two decades.  The specific topic is on Temple ‘offerings’ in the TNK which was called ‘sacrifices’ in the Christian Old Testament.—Admin1.]

———————————–

THE Lamb of God  by “RW”

Do you know of any place in the Tanakh where a male lamb is sacrificed as a sin offering? I cannot find any. What I do find consistently is a goat sacrificed as a sin offering, sometimes a bull, and a female lamb or goat for a sin or trespass offering. 

•  “If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally…he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish…(or) if he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish.” Lev 4:27-32 and Lev 5:6.  
• “And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering.”  

Both a bull and two goats are used on Yom Kippur, and at other special times as well, including during the Millennium, or Kingdom Age, as we understand Ezekiel 40 – 48 to be.  

S6K: Hereunder is everything you need to know about the sacrificial system in the Tabernacle/Temple, probably a lot more than you care to know. This is from [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12984-sacrifice].  If any people should have the first and the last word on the Hebrew Scriptures, it should be the People of the Book!  Best to find out from the Jews themselves if the claims of RW are accurate!

The act of offering to a deity for the purpose of doing homage, winning favor, or securing pardon; that which is offered or consecrated. The late generic term for “sacrifice” in Hebrew is , the verb being , used in connection with all kinds of sacrifices.

• Abel and Cain are represented as the first among men to sacrifice; and to them are attributed the two chief classes of oblations: namely, the vegetable or bloodless, and the animal or blood-giving (Gen. iv. 3, 4). 
• After the Flood, Noah offered of “every clean beast, and of every clean fowl” (ib. viii. 20). 
• The building of altars by the Patriarchs is frequently recorded (ib. xii. 7, 8; xiii. 4, 18; xxi. 33; xxvi. 25; xxxiii. 20; xxxv. 7). 
• Abraham offers a sacrifice at which Yhwh makes a covenant with him (ib. xv.). 
• In the history of Jacob a sacrifice is mentioned as a ratification of a treaty (ib. xxxi. 54). These ancient offerings included not only the bloodless kind (ib. iv. 3), but also holocausts (ib. viii. 20, xxii. 13) and animal thank-offerings (ib. xxxi. 54, xlvi. 1).
  • He sacrifices also when he leaves Canaan to settle in Egypt (ib. xlvi. 1). 
  • Abraham had been or believed he had been given the command to sacrifice his son (ib. xxii.). 

Place of Sacrifice.

The primitive altar was made of earth (comp. Ex. xx. 24) or of unhewn stones (ib. xx. 25; Deut. xxvii. 5), and was located probably on an elevation (see Altar; High Place).

• The story in Genesis proceeds on the theory that wherever the opportunity was presented for sacrifice there it was offered (Gen. viii. 20, xxxi. 54; comp. Ex. xxiv. 4). 
• No one fixed place seems to have been selected (Ex. xx. 24, where the Masoretic text,  = “I will have my ‘zeker’ [ = “remembrance”],” and Geiger’s emendation,  = “Thou wilt place my ‘zeker,'” bear out this inference). 
• This freedom to offer sacrifices at any place recurs in the eschatological visions of the Later Prophets (Isa. xix. 19, 21; Zeph. ii. 11; Mal. i. 11; Zech. xiv. 20, 21), thus confirming the thesis of Gunkel (“Schöpfung und Chaos”) that the end is always a reproduction of the beginning.

The Paschal Sacrifice.

Under Moses, according to the Pentateuch, this freedom to offer sacrifices anywhere and without the ministrations of the appointed sacerdotal agents disappears.

• The proper place for the oblations was to be “before the door of the tabernacle,” where the altar of burnt offerings stood (Ex. xl. 6), and whereYhwh met His people (ib. xxix. 42; Lev. i. 3; iv. 4; xii. 6; xv. 14, 29; xvi. 7; xvii. 2-6; xix. 21), or simply “before Yhwh” (Lev. iii. 1, 7, 12; ix. 2, 4, 5), That this law was not observed the historical books disclose, and the Prophets never cease complaining about its many violations (see High Place). The Book of Joshua (xxiv. 14) presumes that while in Egypt the Hebrews had become idolaters. 
  • and later in Jerusalem in the Temple (Deut. xii. 5-7, 11, 12). 

• The Biblical records report very little concerning the religious conditions among those held in Egyptian bondage. The supposition, held for a long time, that while in the land of Goshen the Israelites had become adepts in the Egyptian sacrificial cult, lacks confirmation by the Biblical documents. 
• The purpose of the Exodus as given in Ex. viii. 23 (A. V. 25) is to enable the people to sacrifice to their God. In the account of the Hebrews’ migrations in the desert Jethro offers a sacrifice toYhwh; Moses, Aaron, and the elders participating therein (ib. xviii. 12). Again, at the conclusion of the revelation on Sinai (ib. xxiv. 5), Moses offers up all kinds of sacrifices, sprinkling some of the blood on the altar. 
  • But the only sacrifice commanded in Egypt (ib. xii.) was that of the paschal lamb (see Passover Sacrifice). 

• At the consecration of the Tabernacle the chiefs of the tribes are said to have offered, in addition to vessels of gold and silver, 252 animals (Num. vii. 12-88); and it has been calculated that the public burnt offerings amounted annually to no less than 1,245 victims (Kalish, “Leviticus,” p. 20). 
• No less than 50,000 paschal lambs were killed at the Passover celebration of the second year after the Exodus (Num. ix. 1-14).

Private Sacrifices.

According to the Book of Joshua, after the conquest of Canaan—-

• the Tabernacle was established at Shiloh (Josh. xviii. 1, xix. 51, xxii. 9). 
• During the periods of the Judges and of Samuel it was the central sanctuary (Judges xviii. 31; I Sam. iii. 3, xiv. 3; comp. Jer. vii. 12), where at certain seasons of the year recurring festivals were celebrated and the Hebrews assembled to perform sacrifices and vows (Judges xxi. 12, 19; I Sam. i. 3, 21; ii. 19). 
• But it seems that the people assembled also at Shechem—where was a sanctuary of Yhwh (Josh. xxiv. 1, 26)—as well as at Mizpeh in Gilead (Judges xi. 11), at Mizpeh in Benjamin (ib. xx. 1), at Gilgal (I Sam. xi. 15, xiii. 8, xv. 21), at Hebron (II Sam. v. 3), at Beth-el, and at Beer-sheba (Amos iv. 4, v. 5, viii. 14). They sacrificed at Bochim and Beth-el (Judges iii. 5, xxi. 4). 
• Private sacrifices, also, in the homes of the families, appear to have been in vogue, e.g., in the house of Jesse in Beth-lehem (I Sam. xx. 6), of Ahithophel at Giloh (II Sam. xv. 12), and of Job (Job i. 5, xlii. 8). 
• Assisting Levites are mentioned (Judges xvii. 4-13). Gideon offered at Ophrah (ib. vi. 11-20, 26 et seq.); Manoah, at Zorah (ib. xiii. 16, 19, 20); Samuel, at Mizpeh, Ramah, Gilgal, and Beth-lehem (I Sam. vii. 9, 10, 17; ix. 12, 13; x. 8; xi. 15; xvi. 25); Saul, at Gilgal (ib. xiii. 9 et seq.) and during his pursuit of the Philistines (ib. xiv. 32-35); David, on the thrashing-floor of Araunah (II Sam. vi. 17, xxiv. 25); Absalom, at Hebron (ib. xv. 7-9); Adonijah, near En-rogel (I Kings i. 9); Solomon, “in high places” (ib. iii. 2, 3); and Elijah, in his contest with the prophets of Baal, on Mount Carmel (ib. xviii.). Naaman took Palestinian soil with him because he desired to offer sacrifice to Yhwh in Syria (II Kings v. 17, 19). 
• The Books of Chronicles throw a different light on this period. If their reports are to be accepted, the sacrificial services were conducted throughout in strict conformity with the Mosaic code (I Chron. xv. 26, xxvi. 8-36; II Chron. i. 2-6, ii. 3, xiii. 11). Enormous numbers of sacrifices are reported in them (II Chron. xv. 11; xxix. 32, 33).

In the Solomonic Temple, Solomon himself (though not a priest) offered three times every year burnt offerings and thank-offerings and incense (I Kings ix. 25); he also built high places.

• Down to the destruction of the Temple, kings, priests, and even prophets, besides the people, are among the inveterate disregarders of the sacrificial ritual of the Pentateuch, worshiping idols and sacrificing to them; e.g.,
• Jeroboam with his golden calves at Dan and Beth-el (I Kings xii. 28; comp. II Kings xvii. 16), Ahimelech at Nob (I Sam. xxi. 2-10), and even Aaron (Ex. xxxii. 1-6 comp. Neh. ix. 18). Ba’al was worshiped (Hos. ii. 10, 15; II Kings iii. 2; x. 26, 27; xi. 18; Judges vi. 25; Jer. vii. 9, xi. 13, xxxii. 29), as were Astarte, Baal-berith,Baal-peor, Baal-zebub, Moloch, and other false gods, in the cult of which not only animal and vegetable but even human sacrifices (see Sacrifice, Critical View) were important features.

Attitude of Prophets.

The attitude of the literary prophets toward sacrifice manifests no enthusiasm for sacrificial worship.

• Hosea declares in the name of Yhwh:

“I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Yhwh more than burnt offerings” (Hos. vi. 6; comp. ib. viii. 13; ix. 3, 4; xiv. 3). 

• Amos proclaims:

“I [Yhwh] hate, I despise your feast-days; . . . if you offer me burnt offerings and your bloodless offerings, I will not accept them nor will I regard the thank-offerings of your fat beasts, . . . but let justice flow like water” (Amos v. 21-24, Hebr.; comp. iv. 4, 5). He goes so far as to doubt the existence of sacrificial institutions in the desert (ib. v. 25).

• Isaiah is not less strenuous in rejecting a ritualistic sacrificial cult (Isa. i. 11-17). 
• Jeremiah takes up the burden (Jer. vi. 19, 20; comp. xxxi. 31-33). He, like Amos, in expressing his scorn for the burnt offerings and other slaughtered oblations, takes occasion to deny that the fathers had been commanded concerning these things when they came forth from Egypt (ib. vii. 21 et seq.). 
• Malachi, a century later, complains of the wrong spirit which is manifest at the sacrifices (“Mal. i. 10). 
• Ps. l. emphasizes most beautifully the prophetic conviction that thanksgiving alone is acceptable, as does Ps. lxix. 31, 32. 
• Deutero-Isaiah (xl. 16) suggests the utter inadequacy of sacrifices. “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to Yhwh than sacrifice” is found in I Sam. xv. 22 (Hebr.) as a censure of Saul; and gnomic wisdom is not without similar confession (Prov. xv. 8; xxi. 3, 27; xxviii. 9; Eccl. iv. 17). 
• Some passages assert explicitly that sacrifices are not desired (Ps. xl. 7-9, li. 17-19).
•  Micah’s rejection of sacrificial religion has become the classical definition of ethical monotheism (Mic. vi. 6-8).
• Other Psalms and prophetic utterances, however, deplore the cessation of sacrificial services at the Temple and look forward to their reinstitution (Ps. li. 20, 21; Joel ii. 12, 13; Jer. xxxi. 14; xxxiii. 11, 17, 18). 
• The apocalyptic character of some of these predictions is not disputable, neither is that of Isa. xix. 21, lvi. 7, lx. 7.
• In Ezekiel’s scheme of the restoration, also, the sacrifices receive very generous treatment (Ezek. xl.-xlviii.).

The Mosaic Sacrifices.

The Mosaic sacrificial scheme is for the most part set forth in Leviticus.

The sacrifices ordained may be divided into—

• the bloodless 
• and the blood-giving kinds. 

• the occasion for which the oblation is brought 
• and the sentiments and motives of the offerers. 
• On this basis the sacrifices are divided into: 
  • (1) burnt offerings,
    • As a rule, the burnt, 
    • the expiatory, 
    • and the purificative offerings were animal sacrifices, 
    • but in exceptional cases a cereal sin-offering was accepted or prescribed.
  • (2) thank or praise-offerings,
    • Among the thank-offerings might be included the paschal lamb, 
    • the offering of the first-born,
    • and the First-Fruits;
    •  Thank-offerings might consist either of animal or of vegetable oblations.
  • (3) sin or trespass-offerings, and (4) purificative offerings.
    •  in the category of sin-offerings, the jealousy-offering. 

• Animal sacrifices were generally accompanied by—-
  •  bloodless offerings, 
  • and in many cases by a libation of wine or a drink-offering also. 
  • Bloodless offerings, however, brought alone; for instance, that of the showbread and the frankincense offering on the golden altar.
•  Another classification might be 
  • (1) voluntary or free-will offerings (private holocausts and thank- or vow-offerings) and 
  • (2) compulsory or obligatory offerings (private and public praise-offerings, public holocausts, and others).

The Materials of Sacrifices.

The sacrificial animals were required to be of the clean class (Gen. vii. 23; Lev. xi. 47, xiv. 4, xx. 25; Deut. xiv. 11, 20). Still, not all clean animals occur in the specifications of the offerings, for which were demanded mainly —–

• cattle from the herd or from the flock;
• viz., the bullock and the ox,
•  the cow and the calf;
• the sheep, male or female, and the lamb;
• the goat, male or female, and the kid.
• Of fowls, turtle-doves and pigeons were to be offered, but only in exceptional cases as holocausts and sin-offerings; they were not accepted as thank- or praise-offerings nor as a public sacrifice.
•  Fishes were altogether excluded.

BULLOCK —

• The bullock formed the burnt offering of the whole people-—
  •  on New Moon
  • and holy days,
  • and for inadvertent transgressions;
  • of the chiefs at the dedication of the Tabernacle;
  • of the Levites at their initiation;
  • and of private individuals in emergencies.
  • It was the sin-offeringfor—In cases of peculiar joyfulness it was chosen for the thank-offering.
    •  the community
    • or the high priest,
    • for the priests when inducted into office,
    • and for the high priest on the Day of Atonement.

• as a holocaust
• or a thank-offeringIt was the ordinary trespass-offering for violation of property rights.
  • by the people
  • or by their chiefs,
  • the high priest
  • or ordinary priests,
  • and by the Nazarite,
  • never by an individual layman.

• The kid was the special animal for sin-offerings.
  • It was permitted also for private burnt offerings
  • and for thank-offerings;
  • but it was never prescribed for public burnt offerings.
• The lamb was employed—
  •  for the daily public holocausts,
  • and very commonly for all private offerings of whatever character.

• The pigeon and turtle-dove
  • served for burnt offerings
  • and sin-offerings in cases of lustrations.
• They were allowed as private holocausts,
  • and were accepted as sin-offerings from the poorer people
  • and as purification-offerings;
  • but they were excluded as thank-offerings,
  • nor did they form part of the great public or festal sacrifices.

The bloodless oblations—-

• consisted of vegetable products, As accessories, frankincense and salt were required, the latter being added on nearly all occasions. 
  • chief among which were flour
  • (in some cases roasted grains)
  • and wine. Next in importance was oil.

• Leaven and honey were used in a few instances only.

Qualities of Offerings.

Concerning the qualification of the offerings, the Law ordained that the animals—

• be perfect (Deut. xv. 21, xvii. 1; 
• specified more in detail in Lev. xxii. 18-25), the blind, broken, maimed, ulcerous, scurvied, scabbed, bruised, crushed, and castrated being excluded. 
• This injunction was applied explicitly—-To offer a blemished animal was deemed sacrilegious (Deut. xvii. 1; Mal. i. 6, 7, 8, 9, 13). 
  •  to burnt (Lev. i. 3; ix. 2, 3; xxiii. 18), 
  • thank- (ib. iii. 1, 6; xxii. 21), 
  • and expiatory offerings (ib. iv. 3, 23, 28, 32; v. 15, 18, 25; ix. 2, 3; xiv. 10) 
  • and the paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 5). 

• In most cases—In other cases the choice between male and female was left open, e.g., in private thank-offerings and offerings of the firstlings. 
  •  a male animal was required; 
  • but a female victim was prescribed in a few cases, as, for instance, that of the sin-offering of the ordinary Israelite. 

• For pigeons and turtle-doves no particular sex is mentioned.

As to the age of the victims,—-

•  none might be offered prior to the seventh day from birth (Lev. xxii. 27). 
• Mother and young might not be slaughtered on the same day (ib. xxii. 28). 
• The first-born males were to be killed within the first year (Deut. xv. 19 et seq.). 
• Burnt offerings and sin- and thank-offerings were required to be more than one year old, as was the paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 5, xxix. 38; Lev. ix. 3; xii. 6; xiv. 10; xxiii. 12, 19; Num. vi. 12, 14; vii. 17, 23, 29; xv. 27; xxviii. 3, 9, 11, 19, 27). 
• For doves and pigeons no age was set. 
• Sometimes the sacrifice called for an animal that had neither done any work nor borne any yoke, e.g., theRed Heifer (Num. xix. 1-10; Deut. xxi. 3, 4). 
• The animal was required to be the lawful property of the sacrificer (II Sam. xxiv. 24; Deut. xxviii. 19; Ezra vi. 9; vii. 17, 22; I Macc. x. 39; II Macc. iii. 3, ix. 16; Josephus, “Ant.” xii. 3, § 3).

Liquid Sacrifices.

• The ears of corn (Lev. ii. 14) presented as a first-fruits offering were required to be of the earlier and therefore better sort, the grains to be rubbed or beaten out; the flour, as a rule, of the finest quality and from the choicest cereal, wheat. 
• The offering of the wife suspected of adultery was of common barley flour.
•  As to quantity, 
  • at least one-tenth part of an ephah or an omer of flour was used. 
  • It was mixed with water, and in most cases was left unleavened; 
  • it was then made into dough 
  • and baked in loaves or thin cakes. 
• The oil had to be pure white olive-oil from the unripe berries squeezed or beaten in a mortar.
  •  It was usually poured over the offering or mingled therewith, or it was brushed over the thin cakes.
  • Sometimes, however, the offering was soaked in oil. 
• The frankincense was white and pure. Salt was used with both the blood-giving and the bloodless sacrifices (Lev. ii. 13); its use is not further described.
  • The wine is not described or qualified in the Law. “Shekar” is another liquid mentioned as a libation (Num. xxviii. 7); 
  • it must have been an intoxicating fermented liquor, and was prohibited to priests during service and to Nazarites. 

• Leaven and honey were generally excluded, 
  • but the former was permitted for the first new bread offered on Pentecost
  •  and for the bread and cakes at every praise-offering; 
  • the latter, when offered as a first-fruits offering.

Of the necessary preparations—

• the chief was “sanctification” (Joel i. 14; ii. 15, 16; iv. 9; Mic. iii. 5; Neh. iii. 1; Ps. xx.),
  •  consisting in bathing, 
  • washing, 
  • and change of garments, 
  • and in conjugal abstinence (Gen. xxxv. 2-4; Ex. xix. 10, 14, 15; xxxiii. 5, 6; Josh. iii. 5, vii. 13). 
  • These laws were amplified with reference to the officiating Priest (Ex. xxx. 17-21, xl. 30-32).

Times of Sacrifice.

No particular time of the day is specified for sacrifices, except that the daily holocausts—-

• are to be killed”in the morning” 
• and “between the two evenings” (Ex. xvi. 12; xxix. 39, 41; xxx. 8; Num. xxviii. 4). 

• “before Yhwh,” 
• or “to the door of the tent of meeting,” i.e., the court where the altar of burnt offering stood. 
• To offer it elsewhere would have been shedding blood (Lev. xvii. 3-5, 8, 9). 
• The injunction to offer in the proper place is repeated more especially in regard to the individual class of sacrifice (Lev. i. 3; iv. 4, 14; vi. 18; xii. 6; xiii. 2, 8, 12; xv. 29; xix. 21). 
• The victim was killed “on the side of the altar [of holocausts] northward” (Lev. i. 11, iv. 24, vi. 18, vii. 2, xiv. 13).
  • When the offering, if a quadruped, had been brought within the precincts of the sanctuary, and after examination had been found qualified, the offerer laid one hand upon the victim’s head (Lev. i. 4; iii. 2, 8, 13; iv. 5, 15). 
  • On the scape-goat, the high priest laid both of his hands (ib. xvi. 21). The priests invariably killed the doves or pigeons by wringing off their heads (Lev. i. 15, v. 8).
    • This “laying on of hands” (“semikah”) might not be performed by a substitute (Aaron and his sons laid hands on the sin- and burnt offerings killed on their own behalf; see Lev. viii. 14, 18). 
    • After the imposition of his hand, the offerer at once killed the animal.
    •  If presented by the community, the victim was immolated by one of the elders (ib.iv. 15). 
    • Priests might perform this act for the offering Israelites (II Chron. xxx. 15-47; xxxv. 10, 11),
    •  though the priestly function began only with the act of receiving the blood, or, in bloodless offerings, with the taking of a handful to be burned on the altar, while the Israelite himself poured over and mixed the oil. 

The Blood.

The utmost care was taken by the priest to receive the blood;

• it represented the life or soul. 
• None but a circumcised Levite in a proper state of Levitical purity and attired in proper vestments might perform this act;
  •  so, too, the sprinkling of the blood was the exclusive privilege of the “priests, the sons of Aaron” (ib. i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13).
•  Moses sprinkled it when Aaron and his sons were inducted; 
  • but this was exceptional (ib.viii. 15, 19, 23). 
• In holocausts and thank-offerings the blood was sprinkled —-
  • “round about upon the altar” (ib.i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13).
•  In the sin-offering,The same distinction appears in the case of turtle-doves and pigeons: 
  •  the later (ib. vii. 2) practise seems to have been to put some of the blood on the horns of the brazen altar, 
  • or on those of the golden altar when that was used, 
  • or even on parts of the holy edifice (ib. iv. 6, 7, 17, 18, 25, 30, 34). 

• when burnt offerings, The animal was then flayed, the skin falling to the priest (ib. i. 6, vii. 8). 
  • their blood was smeared on the side of the brazen altar (ib. viii. 15; xvi. 18, 19); 
  • when sin-offerings, it was partly sprinkled on the side of the altar and partly smeared on the base. 

• In some Sin-Offerings the skin was burned along with the flesh (ib. iv. 11, 12, 20, 21; comp. ib. iv. 26, 31, 35). 
• If the entire animal was devoted to the flames, the carcass was “cut into pieces” (ib. i. 6, viii. 20). 
• The bowels and legs of the animals used in the burnt offerings were carefully washed (ib. i. 9, viii. 21, ix. 14) before they were placed on the altar. 
• Certain offerings or portions thereof had to pass through the ceremony of waving, a rite which is not further described in the Bible (see Sacrifice, in Rabbinical Literature).

Waving and Heaving.

Another ceremony is mentioned in connection with the waving, viz., the heaving. This ceremony, likewise not further described, was observed with the right shoulder of the thank-offering, after which the part belonged to the priest. The sacrificial rites were completed by the consumption by fire of the sacrifice or those parts destined for God.

Sacrificial meals were ordained in the cases —

• where some portion of the sacrifice was reserved for the priests or for the offering Israelites. 
• The bloodless oblations of the Israelites, being “most holy,” were eaten by the males of the priests alone in the court of the sanctuary (ib. vii. 9, 10), those of the priests being consumed by fire on the altar. 
• In other sacrifices other provisions for these meals were made (ib. vii. 12-14). 
• The repast was a part of the priest’s duties (ib. x. 16-18). 
• Public thank-offerings seem to have been given over entirely to the priests (ib. xxiii. 20), with the exception of the Fat. 
• In private thank-offerings this was burned on the altar (ib. iii. 3-5, 9-11, 14-16; vii. 31), The priests might eat their portions with their families in any “clean” place (ib. x. 14). 
  • the right shoulder was given to the priest (ib. vii. 31-34, x. 14-15), 
  • the breast to the Aaronites (ib. vii. 31-34), 
  • and the remainder was left to the offering Israelite. 

• The offering Israelite in this case had to eat his share within a fixed and limited time (ib. vii. 15-18, xix. 5-8), with his family and such guests as Levites and strangers, and always at the town where the sanctuary was (for penalty and other conditions see ib. vii. 19-21; Deut. xii. 6, 7, 11, 12; I Sam. ix. 12, 13, 19). 
• Participation in the meals of idolatrous sacrifices was a fatal offense (Ex. xxxiv. 14, 15; Num. xxv. 1-3; comp. Ps. cvi. 28, 29).

Compound Sacrifices.

• The vegetable- 
• and drink-offerings 
• accompanied all the usual holocausts and thank-offerings on ordinary days and Sabbaths, and on festivals (Num. xv. 3) of whatever character (Ex. xxix. 40, 41; Lev. vii. 12, 13; xxiii. 13, 18; Num. xv. 3-9, 14-16; xxviii. 9, 20, 21, 28, 29). 
• The kind of cereal oblation offered varied according to the species of the animals sacrificed, and the amount was increased in proportion to the number of the latter (Lev. xiv. 21; Num. xv. 4, 12; xxviii. 5, 9, 12; xxix. 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, 15). 
  • However, a cereal oblation (“minḥah”) might under certain circumstances be offered independently, e.g., the Showbread, the first sheaf of ripe barley on Pesaḥ, the first loaves of leavened bread from new wheat on Pentecost (Lev. xxiii. 16, 17, 20; Num. xxviii. 26), and the sin-offering of the very poor (Lev. v. 11-13). 
  • The minḥah with the burnt offerings and thank-offerings was always fine wheaten flour merely mingled with oil; it is not clear whether this minḥah was burned entirely (ib. xiv. 20; comp. ib. ix. 16, 17). If it was presented alone as a free-will offering or as a votive offering, it might be offered in various forms and with differentceremonies (ib. ii. 2; v. 12; vi. 8; vii. 9, 10; also ii.; vi. 12-16; vii. 12-14; xxvii. 10, 11). 
  • The mode of libation is not described in the Law; but every holocaust or thank-offering was to be accompanied with a libation of wine, the quantity of which was exactly graduated according to the animal, etc. (Num. xv. 3-11). 
  • Water seems to have been used at one time for “pouring out” before Yhwh (I Sam. vii. 6; II Sam. xxiii. 16).
• As to the spices belonging to the sacrifices, four are named in the Torah, 
  • Balsam
  • and Frankincense
  • being the more important (“stacte, and onycha, and galbanum . . . with pure frankincense,” Ex. xxx. 34)

• For the ‘olot, only male cattle or fowls might be offered; for the shelamim, all kinds of cattle.
• The ḥaṭat, too, might consist of fowls, or, in the case of very poor sacrificers, of flour.
• For the trespass-offering, only the lamb (“kebes”) or the ram (“ayil”) might be used.
• Every ‘olah, as well as the votive offerings and the free-will shelamim, required an accessory meal-offering and libation (“nesek”).
• To a todah were added loaves or cakes of baked flour, both leavened and unleavened.

Acts of Sacrifice.

Every sacrifice required—

• sanctification (“ḥakdashah”), 
• and was to be brought into the court of the sanctuary (“haḳrabah”). 

The haḳṭarah consisted in flaying the carcass and cutting it into pieces, all of which, if it was an ‘olah, were burned on the altar; in the case of other offerings only a few prescribed parts, which were called the “emorim,” were burned. If an ‘olah consisted of a fowl, the acts of offering were as follows:

(1) “meleḳah” = wringing the neck so as to sever both the esophagus and the trachea;

(2) “miẓẓuy” = the pressing out of the blood against the wall;

(3) “haḳṭarah” = burning. When a fowl was sacrificed for a sin-offering the procedure was as follows:

(1) “meleḳah” = wringing the neck, but less completely, only one “siman” being severed;

(2) “hazzayah” = sprinkling the blood; and

(3) the “miẓẓuy.”

Preparation of Minḥah.

In the preparation of the meal-offering some differences were observed.

• Most of such offerings were of the finest wheat flour, the minimum quantity being fixed at an “‘issaron” (= one-tenth ephah). 
• One log of oil and a handful of incense were added to every ‘issaron. 

Haggashah.

“Haggashah,” the carrying to the “ḳeren ma’arbit deromit” (Lev. vi. 7; Hoffmann, l.c. p. 150), the southwest corner of the altar, of the vessel or pan in which the minḥah had been placed, was the first act. The second, in the case of the meal-offering of the priests (“minḥat kohen”), was the burning. In other cases,

(1) the “ḳemiẓah” (taking out a handful) followed upon the haggashah, and then ensued

(2) the putting of this handful into the dish for the service (“netinat ha-ḳomeẓ bi-keli sharet”), and finally

(3) the burning of the ḳomeẓ (“ḥaḳṭarat ḳomeẓ”). At the ‘omer-and the jealousyminḥah (6 and 9 above), “tenufah” (waving) preceded the haggashah.

Burnt offerings, meal-offerings, and peace-oblations might be offered without specific reason as free-will offerings (“nedabot”); not so sin- and trespass-offerings, which could never be nedabot.

A sin-offering might be either “kabua'” (fixed) or a”ḳorban ‘oleh we-yored” (i.e., a sacrifice dependent on the material possessions of the sacrificer; the rich bringing a lamb or a goat; the poor, two doves; and the very poor, one-tenth of an ephah of flour).

This latter ḳorban was required for the following three sins:

(1) “shebu’at ha-‘edut” or “shemi’at ḳol” (Lev. v. 1, in reference to testimony which is not offered);

(2) “ṭum’at miḳdash we-ḳodashim” (unwittingly rendering unclean the sanctuary and its appurtenances; ib. v. 2, 3); and

(3) “biṭṭuy sefatayim” (incautious oath; ib. v. 5 et seq.; Shebu. i. 1, 2). In the last two cases the ḳorban was required only when the transgression was unintentional (“bi-she-gagah”); in the first, also when it was intentional (“be-mezid”). The offering of the leper and that of the woman after childbirth were of this order (“Yad,” Shegagot, x. 1).

This principle obtained with reference to the fixed sin-offerings:

• offenses which when committed intentionally entailed excision required a sin-offering when committed inadvertently, except in the case of Blasphemy and in that of neglect of Circumcision or of the Passover sacrifice. 

The trespass-offerings (“ashamim”) were six in number, and the ram sacrificed for them was required to be worth at least two shekels:

(1) “asham me’ilot” (Lev. v. 14 et seq.);

(2) “asham gezelot” (ib. v. 20 et seq.; in these two, in addition, “ḳeren we-ḥomesh” [= principal plus one-fifth] had to be paid);

(3) “asham taluy,” for “suspended” cases, in which it was doubtful whether a prohibition to which the penalty of excision attached had been inadvertently violated (ib. v. 17 et seq.);

(4) “asham shipḥah ḥarufah” (ib. xix. 20 et seq.);

(5) “asham nazir” (Num. vi. 12), the Nazarite’s offering;

(6) “asham meẓora'” (Lev. xiv. 12), the leper’s offering.

*****In (5) and (6) the sacrifice consisted of lambs.

Vegetable Sacrifices.

In reference to the vegetable or unbloody oblations, it may be noticed that the Talmud mentions certain places where the grapes for sacrificial wine were grown (Men. viii. 6), e.g., Kefar Signah. On the strength of Prov. xxiii. 31 and Ps. lxxv. 9 (A. V. 8) some have contended that only red wine was used (but see Bertinoro on Men. viii. 6).

• Salt was indispensable in all sacrifices, even the wood and the libations being salted before being placed on the altar (Men. 20b, 21b).

While the text of the Pentateuch seems to assume that in the laying on of hands one hand only was employed, rabbinical tradition is to the effect that both were imposed and that with much force (Men. 95a; Ibn Ezra on Lev. v. 4; but Targ. Yer. says the right hand only). This semikah had to be performed personally by the offerer; but in case the latter was an idiot, a minor, deaf, a slave, a woman, blind, or a non-Israelite, the rite was omitted. If two partners owned the animal jointly, they had to impose their hands in succession. Only the Passover sacrifice (“pesaḥ”) and those of the first-born and the tithe were exceptions to the rule that individual sacrifices were to include semikah. Communal offerings, except that mentioned in Lev. iv. 13 et seq., and the scapegoat (Lev. xvi. 21), were exempt. In the case of the former the act was performed by the elders; in that of the latter, by the high priest. R. Simon is given as authority for the statement that in the case of the goat offered as a sacrifice for idolatry (Num. xv. 34) the elders were required to perform the laying on of hands (Men. 92a).

The position assumed by the offerer during this ceremony is described in Tosef., Men. x. 12 (comp. Yoma 36a). The victim stood in the northern part of the court, with its face turned to the west; the offerer, in the west with his face likewise to the west. Maimonides asserts that in the case of the ḳodesh ha-ḳodashim the offerer stood in the east looking westward (“Yad,” Ma’ase ha-Ḳorbanot, iii. 14). The offerer placed his two hands between the animal’s horns and made a confession appropriate to the sacrifice. In the case of a peace-offering, confession would not be appropriate, and in its stead laudatory words were spoken (“Yad,”l.c. iii. 5). The holakah (by this term is denoted the carrying of the pieces of the dismembered victim [Zeb. 14a, 24a; Men. 10a] as well as the carrying of the blood to the altar) is not mentioned in the Bible as one of the successive acts of the sacrifices. However, as the slaughtering might take place at the altar itself, this act was not absolutely required: it was an “‘abodah she-efshar le-baṭṭeah,” a ceremony that might be omitted. The blood was collected by a priest in a holy vessel called the “mizraḳ.” The holakah, it was generally held, might be performed by priests only, though R. Ḥisda (Zeb. 14a) thinks that laymen were permitted to undertake it.

Terumah.

Where terumah or heaving was prescribed, the part subject to this rite was moved perpendicularly down and up, or up and down. In tenufah or waving the motion was horizontal from left to right or vice versa (Men. v. 6; see Rashi on Ex. xxix. 24). The killing might be done by laymen as well as by priests (“Yad,” l.c.v. 1 et seq.); minute directions concerning the place of its performance were observed (“Yad,” l.c.; see Ey-zehu Meḳoman, Zeb. v.). In the Second Temple a red line was marked on the altar five ells from the ground below or above which, as the case required, the blood was sprinkled (Mid. iii. 1). Regulations concerning the localities, three in number, where parts of the victim, or the entire carcass under certain eventualities, had to be burned, were prescribed (Zeb. xii. 5).

Under the name “ḥagigah” were known free-willofferings of the shelamim class presented by individuals, mostly at festivals (Ḥag. i. 2, 5).

The defects which in Talmudic law disqualified the victims were minutely described (see “Yad,” Issure ha-Mizbeaḥ). While in the Bible the incense consisted of four ingredients, the Rabbis add seven others, making the total number eleven (Ker. 6a; Yoma iii. 11; Yer. Yoma 41d; comp. “Yad,” Kele ha-Miḳdash, ii.).

Sacrifice in the Haggadah.

According to the Shammaites, the two lambs of the daily “tamid” (Num. xxviii. 3) indicate by their name that the sacrifices “press down” (), i.e., diminish, the sins of Israel. The Hillelites connect the term with the homonym  (= “to wash”), and contend that sacrifices wash Israel clean from sin (Pes. 61b). Johanan ben Zakkai held that what was wrought for Israel by the sacrifices was accomplished for the non-Israelites by philanthropy (B. B. 10b); and when the Temple was destroyed he consoled his disciple Joshua by insisting that good deeds would take the place of the sin-offerings (Ab. R. N. iv.).

The sacrificial scheme was the target at which gnostics and other skeptics shot their arrows. God, it was argued, manifested Himself in this as a strict accountant and judge, but not as the author of the highest goodness and mercy. In refutation, Ben ‘Azzai calls attention to the fact that in connection with the sacrifices the only name used to designate God is Yhwh, the unique name (“Shem ha-Meyuḥad; Sifra, Wayiḳra, ii. [ed. Weiss, p. 4c], with R. Jose b. Ḥalafta as author; Men. 110a; Sifre, Num. 143). Basing his inference on the phrase “for your pleasure shall ye offer up” (Lev. xxii. 29, Hebr.), Ben ‘Azzai insists also that sacrifices were not planned on the theory that, God’s will having been done by man, man’s will must be done in corresponding measure by God: they were merely expressive of man’s delight; and God did not need them (Ps. l. 12, 13; Sifre, l.c.; Men. 110a).

Speculating on the exceptions which the minḥah of the sinner and that of the jealousy-offering constitute, in so far as neither oil nor incense is added thereto, Simeon ben Yoḥai points out that the absence of these components indicates that the offering of a sinner may not be adorned (Tos. Soṭah i. 10; Men. 6a; Soṭah 15a; Yer. Soṭah 17d). The name of the ‘olah indicates that the sacrifice expiates sinful thoughts (“go up into one’s mind”; comp. Job i. 5; Lev. R. vii.; Tan., Lek Leka, ed. Buber, 13; for other comments of similar purport see Bacher, “Ag. Tan.” ii. 104). The defense of the Law for having forbidden the participation of non-Israelites in the communal sacrifices while it permitted the acceptance of their free-will offerings (Sifra, Emor, vii. [ed. Weiss, p. 98a]), was not a matter of slight difficulty. A very interesting discussion of the point is found in the appendix to Friedmann’s edition of the Pesiḳta Rabbati (p. 192a), in which the non-Jew quotes with very good effect the universalistic verse Mal. i. 11.

Functions of the Several Offerings.

To bring peace to all the world is the purpose not merely of the peace-offerings, but of all sacrifices (Sifra, Wayiḳra, xvi. [ed. Weiss, p. 13a]). It is better to avoid sin than to offer sacrifices; but, if offered, they should be presented in a repentant mood, and not merely, as fools offer them, for the purpose of complying with the Law (Ber. 23a). God asked Abraham to offer up Isaac in order to prove to Satan that, even if Abraham had not presented Him with as much as a dove at the feast when Isaac was weaned, he would not refuse to do God’s bidding (Sanh. 89b). The sacrificial ordinances prove that God is with the persecuted. Cattle are chased by lions; goats, by panthers; sheep, by wolves; hence God commanded, “Not them that persecute, but them that are persecuted, offer ye up to me” (Pesiḳ. de R. Kahana 76b; Lev. R. xxvii.). In the prescription that fowls shall be offered with their feathers is contained the hint that a poor man is not to be despised: his offering is to be placed on the altar in full adornment (Lev. R. iii.). That sacrifices are not meant to appease God, Moses learned from His own lips. Moses had become alarmed when bidden to offer to God (Num. xxviii. 2): all the animals of the world would not suffice for such a purpose (Isa. xl. 10). But God allayed his apprehension by ordaining that only two lambs (the tamid) should be brought to him twice every day (Pes. 20a, 61b). Salt, which is indispensable at sacrifices, is symbolic of the moral effect of suffering, which causes sins to be forgiven and which purifies man (Ber. 5a). God does not eat. Why, then, the sacrifices? They increase the offerer’s merit (Tan., Emor, ed. Buber, p. 20). The strongest man might drink twice or even ten times the quantity of water contained in the hollow of his hand; but all the waters of the earth can not fill the hollow of God’s hand (Isa. xl. 12).

Symbolic Interpretations.

The words in connection with the goat serving for a sin-offering on the New Moon festival “for Yhwh” (Num. xxviii. 15) are explained in grossly anthropomorphic application. The goat is a sin-offering for God’s transgression committed when He decreased the size of the moon (Sheb. 9a; Ḥul. 60b). The offerings of the sons of Noah were burnt offerings (Yer. Meg. 72b; Gen. R. xxii.; Zeb. 116a). The “illegitimate” sacrifices on high places, e.g., those by Elijah (I Kings xviii. 30 et seq.), were exceptions divinely sanctioned (Yer. Ta’an. 65d; Yer. Meg. 72c; Lev. R. xxii.; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xxvii. 5). The seventy bullocks of Sukkot correspond to the seventy nations; the single bullock on the eighth day, to the unique people Israel. God is like that king who, having entertained his guests most lavishly for seven days, commanded his son after their departure to prepare a very plain meal (Suk. 55b; Pes. 143b). Children, when learning the Pentateuch, used to begin with the third book because they that are pure should first occupy themselves with offerings that are likewise pure (Pes. 60b; Lev. R. vii.). God has taken care not to tax Israel too heavily (hence Lev. i. 10, 14; ii. 1; vi. 13). Indeed, one who offers only a very modest meal-offering is accounted as having offered sacrifices from one end of the world to the other (Mal. i. 11; Lev. R. viii.). By their position, coming after the laws prescribed for the other sacrifices, the peaceofferings are shown to be dessert, as it were (Lev.R. ix.). God provides “from His own” the minḥah of the sin-offering (Lev. R. iii.). The use of the word “adam” (“Adam” = “man”), and not “ish,” in Lev. i. 2 leads the offerer to remember that, like Adam, who never robbed or stole, he may offer only what is rightfully his (Lev. R. ii.).

Substitutes for Sacrifice.

The importance attaching to the sacrificial laws was, as the foregoing anthology of haggadic opinions proves, fully realized by the Rabbis. Unable after the destruction of the Temple to observe these ordinances, they did not hesitate to declare that, in contrast to the sacrificial law which rejected the defective victim, God accepts the broken-hearted (Ps. li. 19; Pes. 158b). With a look to the future restoration, they call attention to the smallness of the desert offerings, while delighting in the glorious prospect of the richer ones to come (Lev. R. vii.). The precept concerning the daily offering is given twice (Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 1-8), from which repetition is deduced the consolation for Israel in exile, that he who studies these verses is regarded as having offered the sacrifices (Pes. 60b; Lev. R. vii. 3). The same thought is based on “the torah of the sin-offering” and “the torah of the trespassoffering” (Lev. vi. 18, vii. 7; Men. 110a, b). Prayer is better than sacrifice (Ber. 32b; Midr. Shemuel i. 7; Bacher, “Ag. Pal. Amor.” ii. 217). Lulab and etrog replace the altar and offering (Suk. 45a, b). Blood lost when one is wounded replaces the blood of the ‘olah (Ḥul. 7b). The reading of the “Shema'” and the “Tefillah” and the wearing of phylacteries (“tefillin”) are equivalent to the building of the altar (Ber. 15a; comp. Ber. 14b; Midr. Teh. to Ps. i. 2). As the altar is called “table” (Ezek. xlii. 22), the table of the home has the altar’s expiatory virtue (Ber. 55a; Men. 97a). This was understood to have reference to “good deeds,” such as hospitality shown to the poor (see Ab. R. N. iv.). The humble are rewarded as though they had presented all the offerings prescribed in the Law (Ps. li. 19; Soṭah 5b; Sanh. 43b; Pesiḳta Ḥadashah, in Jellinek, “B. H.” vi. 52). Prayer in the synagogue is tantamount to offering a pure oblation (Isa. lxvi. 20; Yer. Ber. 8d). The students engaged everywhere in the study of the Torah are as dear to God as were they who burned incense on the altar (Men. 110a). The precentor (“sheliaḥ ẓibbur”) is regarded as officiating at the altar and sacrificing (; see Levy, “Neuhebr. Wörterb.” iv. 386b; Yer. Ber. 8b). In the Messianic time all sacrifices except the thank-offering will cease (Pes. 79a; Lev. R. ix., xxvii.). Whoever observes the provisions made for the poor (Lev. xxiii. 22) is regarded as highly as he would have been if during the existence of the Temple he had been faithful in making his oblations (Sifra, Emor, 101c). To entertain a student in one’s house is an act of piety as notable as the offering of daily sacrifice (II Kings iv. 9; Ber. 10b). To make a present to a learned man (a rabbi) is like offering the first-fruits (Ket. 105b). Filling the rabbi’s cellars with wine is an equivalent to pouring out the libations (Yoma 71a). In their extravagant, apocalyptic fancy, the haggadot even describe a heavenly altar at which the archangel Michael ministers as high priest; but his offerings are the souls of the righteous. In the Messianic time this altar will descend from on high to Jerusalem (Midr. ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot; see Tos. Men. 110; comp. another midrash of the same tenor, Num. R. xii.).

Totemistic Interpretation.—Critical View:Modern scholars, after Robertson Smith (“Rel. of Sem.” 2d ed.) and Wellhausen (“Reste Alt-Arabischen Heidentums”), have abandoned the older views, according to which the sacrificial scheme of the Old Testament was regarded as the outflow of divine wisdom or divine mercy, disciplinary or expiatory in its effects, or as the invention of a man of great genius (Moses), who devised its general and specific provisions as symbols wherewith to teach his people some vital truths. Nor is the sacrificial code the outcome of a spontaneous impulse of the human heart to adore God and placate Him, or to show gratitude to Him. Sacrifices revert to the most primitive forms of religion—ancestral animism and totemism. The sacrifice is a meal offered to the dead member of the family, who meets his own at the feast. As the honored guest, he is entitled to the choicest portions of the meal. From this root-idea, in course of time, all others, easily discovered in the sacrificial rites of various nations, are evolved. The visitor at the feast will reward his own for the hospitality extended. Or it is he that has sent the good things: hence gratitude is his due. Or perhaps he was offended: it is he, therefore, who must be appeased (by expiatory rites). He may do harm: it is well to forestall him (by rites to secure protection or immunity).

Human Sacrifice.

The primitive notion of sacrifice is that it is a gift, which is the meaning of the Hebrew word “minḥah.” During the period of cannibalism the gift naturally takes the form of human victims, human flesh being the choice article of food during the prevalence of anthropophagism. It is also that which by preference or necessity is placed on the table of the deity. Traces of human sacrifices abound in the Biblical records. The command to Abraham (Gen. xxii.) and the subsequent development of the story indicate that the substitution of animal for human victims was traced to patriarchal example. The Ban (“ḥerem”) preserves a certain form of the primitive human sacrifice (Schwally, “Kriegsaltertümer”). The first-born naturally belonged to the deity. Originally he was not ransomed, but immolated; and in the Law the very intensity of the protest against “passing the children through the fire to Moloch” reveals the extent of the practise in Israel. In fact, the sacrifice of a son is specifically recorded in the cases of King Mesha (II Kings iii. 27), of Ahaz (ib. xvi. 3; II Chron. xxviii. 3), and of Manasseh (ib. xxi. 6). Jeremiah laments bitterly this devouring disgrace (iii. 24, 25); and even Ezekiel (xx. 30, 31) speaks of it as of frequent occurrence. Ps. cvi. 37, 38 confesses that sons and daughters were sacrificed to demons; and in Deutero-Isaiah lvii. 5 allusions to this horrid iniquity recur. If such offerings were made to Moloch, some instances are not suppressed where human life was “devoted” to Yhwh. The fate of Jephthah’s daughter presents the clearest instance of such immolations (Judgesxi. 30, 31, 34-40). That of the seven sons of Saul delivered up by David to the men of Gibeon (II Sam. xxi. 1-14) is another, though the phraseology is less explicit. Other indications, however, point in the same direction. Blood belonged to Yhwh; no man might eat it (I Sam. xiv. 32-34; Lev. xvii. 3 et seq.). The blood was the soul. When animals were substituted for human victims, blood still remained the portion of the Deity. No subtle theological construction of a philosophy of expiation is required to explain this prominent trait (see S. I. Curtiss, “Primitive Semitic Religion,” passim). The blood on the lintel (the threshold covenant) at the Passover was proof that that which the Destroyer was seeking—viz., life—had not been withheld. The rite of Circumcision (Ex. iii. 24) appears to have been originally instituted for the same purpose.

As at every meal the Deity was supposed to be present and to claim His own, every meal became a sacrifice, and the killing of the animal a sacrificial act (see I Sam. xiv.); and so strong did this feeling remain, even after the lapse of centuries, that when the Second Temple was destroyed, the rigorists abstained from eating meat on the plea that as the sacrifices had been discontinued, all meat was rendered unfit for food (Tos. Soṭah, end; B. B. 60b).

The donative character of the Hebrew sacrifices appears also from the material used, which is always something to eat or drink, the common dietary articles of the Israelites. The phrase “food of God” (Lev. xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21; xxii. 25; Ezek. xliv. 7) proves the use for which such offerings were intended; and Ps. l. 13 also reveals this intention.

Early Stages.

Primitive Yhwh-religion seems at the very outset not to have favored an elaborate sacrificial ritual. In the desert but little grows. The first of the flock, the spring lamb (see Passover), in all probability, constituted the gift prepared, as was that described in Ex. xii., for the God residing on Sinai in unapproachable (i.e., holy) aloofness. The Canaanites, with whom later the Hebrews came in contact, had, as agricultural peoples, a more elaborate and lascivious sacrificial form of worship. From them the Hebrews adopted most of the features of their own priestly scheme, which, even as exhibited in the latest strata of the code, presents some remarkable elements disclosing a non-Hebrew origin (e.g., Azazel, the scapegoat, the red heifer).

This process of adaptation did not proceed without arousing the opposition of the Prophets. They were outspoken in their disapproval of sacrificial religion; and some of them made no concealment of their opinion that the sacrificial rites had no original connection with the worship of Yhwh. At all events, the sacrificial ordinances of the Book of the Covenant are simple, as, indeed, the historical glosses of the feasts at Shiloh would lead one to suppose (see Sacrifice, Biblical Data). Even Deuteronomy can not be said to have proceeded very far toward a detailed system. The one step taken therein was the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem, with the final official suppression of the High Places, and the assignment of rank to the Levitical priests. The freedom to sacrifice thus received a severe check.

In P the system is developed in detail; and comparison with the Holiness Code (H) and with Ezekiel gives some notion of the manner of development. In Deuteronomy the prescribed offerings (firstlings, tithes, etc.) are “ḳodashim” (sacred), in distinction from votive and free-will offerings and from animals slaughtered for food (Deut. xii. 26); victims are taken from the flock and herd (“baḳar”); human sacrifices are inhibited (ib.xii. 31); victims must be without blemish (ib. xvii. 1); the ritual is given of holocausts and other sacrifices (ib.xii. 27), burning of fat, libations (ib. xxxii. 38), offerings at feasts (ib. xvi. 1 et seq., xxvi.), tithes, priestly dues (ib. xii. 17, xiv. 23, xviii.), and firstlings (ib. xv. 19 et seq.).

H is cognizant of ‘olah (Lev. xxii. 18), ‘olah and zebaḥ (ib. xvii. 8), zibḥe shelamim (ib. xvii. 5, xix. 5), todah (ib. xxii. 29), neder and nedabah (ib. xxii. 18, 21); sacrifices are ḳodashim (ib. xxii. 2-15) and are the “food of God” (see above). In addition to the animals in Deuteronomy, “kebes” and “‘ez” are enumerated; strict regulations for free-will offerings are elaborated (ib. xxii. 23); they must be brought to the holy place (ib.xvii. 3, and elsewhere); blood is prohibited as food (ib. xvii. 10); the flesh of shelamim must be eaten on the day of the sacrifice or on the following day (ib. xix. 5 et seq.); that of the todah on the day itself (ib. xxii. 29).

Sacrifice According to Ezekiel.

Ezekiel deals almost exclusively with public sacrifices. He names two new species of offerings: ḥaṭṭat and asham. Minḥah is an offering of flour and oil (Ezek. xlvi. 5, 7, 11); a libation is also named (nesek; ib. xlv. 17). Birds are not mentioned. The terumah is a tax from which the sacrifices are provided by the prince (ib.xlv. 13-17). The morning tamid consists of one lamb, the Sabbath burnt offering, of six lambs and a ram with their appurtenances (ib. xlvi. 4 et seq.); at the great festivals the prince provides shelamim also. The Levites appear as distinct from the priests (ib. xliv. 11; comp. ib. xlvi. 2); the flesh is boiled in kitchens in the four corners of the outer court by Temple servants (ib. xlvi. 21-24); and so forth (see Ezekiel).

P and Ezekiel do not harmonize as regards every provision. The former reflects conditions actually in force after the Exile. But it is a mistake to suppose that P is entirely new legislation, a copy of Babylonian institutions. The similarity of the sacrificial rites of Israel and Babylonia does not extend beyond some technical terms—which (see Zimmern in Schrader, “K. A. T.” 3d ed.), moreover, often had different bearings in the two cults—and such other analogies as may be detected in all sacrificial systems. Prepresents many old priest-rituals (“torot”), probably in force for centuries at some older shrine or High Place.

Deep θεολσγούμενα do not underlie the system; problems of salvation from original sin, restitution, and justification did not enter into the minds of the priests that ministered at the altar in Jerusalem.

Ancient Sacrifice.

—Samaritan:

The Samaritans, claiming to be the true Israelites whose ancestors were brought by Joshua into the land of Canaan, declare that every one of the sacrifices prescribed in the Pentateuch was punctiliously observed by their forefatherson Mount Gerizim, the blessed mountain. The latter was the only mountain on which an altar to Yhwh could be built and sacrifices brought, as it was claimed to be the place chosen by God for sacrifices according to Deut. xii. 13-14, 18. The Samaritans consequently deny the fact, related in Ezra iv. 1-3, that their ancestors applied to Zerubbabel for permission to help build the Temple of Jerusalem in order that they might bring their sacrifices there. The Samaritan Book of Joshua, while describing the prosperous state of the Israelites during the 260 years of “satisfaction,” that is to say, from the reign of Joshua till the death of Samson, gives a few particulars of the sacrifices of the Samaritans of that time. It is stated (ch. xxxviii.) that the Levites assisted the priests in the sacrificial ceremonies. The former were divided into sections. Some had charge of the daily burnt offerings and of the meal-offerings; others examined the animals to see if they had any blemish; others again served as slaughterers and sprinkled the blood of the victims on the altar; while still others were employed in waving the parts prescribed for the wave-offering. The morning burnt offering was brought before sunrise; the evening one, after sunset (comp. Pes. v. 1). During the time the sacrifice was being offered on the altar, the priest standing on the top of Mount Gerizim blew the trumpet; and the other priests, when they heard the sound, also blew trumpets in their respective places (comp. Tamid iii. 8). Later, the sacrifices fell into disuse, prayers being substituted, a practise apparently borrowed from the Jews.

Cessation of Sacrifice.

As to the epoch in which the sacrifices ceased with the Samaritans, nothing can be established with certainty. The Samaritans themselves either are ignorant on the subject or do not care to disclose information concerning this historical event. In 1808 Corancez, consul-general of France at Aleppo, wrote to the high priest Salamah inquiring about the sacrifices and other observances of the Samaritans. Salamah’s answer of July, 1808 (Corancez, in “Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits,” xii. 72), reads as follows: “The sacrifices are among the chief commandments of the Torah, and were observed on the mountain of Gerizim and not on Ebal during the time of ‘satisfaction.’ But after the epoch of grace and the Tabernacle had vanished, the priests substituted prayers for all the sacrifices, except the Passover lamb, which we still offer on the fourteenth of Nisan.” Salamah’s answer is somewhat vague: it is not likely that he wished to imply that the sacrifices ceased entirely at the end of the days of “satisfaction”; and the Samaritan historians themselves record that sacrifices were offered in their temple on Mount Gerizim in the time of Alexander the Great and that of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and even later (comp. Abu al-Fatḥ, “Kitab al-Ta’rikh,” ed. Vilmar, pp. 96-97 et passim, Gotha, 1865).

In the Twelfth Century.

That the Samaritans offered sacrifices in the twelfth century is attested by Benjamin of Tudela and by the Karaite Judah Hadassi. The former, who visited the Samaritans of Nablus or Shechem, says (“Itinerary,” ed. Asher, i. 33): “They offer sacrifices and burnt offerings in their synagogue on Mount Gerizim according to the prescription of the Law. They bring burnt offerings on the Passover feast and other holy days to the altar which they built on Mount Gerizim.” Similarly Hadassi says (“Eshkol ha-Kofer,” alphabet 96, end): “They still offer sacrifices to this day, according to the law of Moses, though they have no temple, and it is the priest who performs the ceremonies.” It would seem from Joseph Bagi’s “Ḳiryah Ne’emanah” (quoted by Wolf in “Bibl. Hebr.” iv. 1090) that the Samaritans had offered sacrifices up to his time, that is to say, the beginning of the sixteenth century, unless Bagi simply repeated the words of Hadassi. On the other hand, Mas’udi, the author of “Muruj al-Dhahab” (quoted by Sylvestre de Sacy in “Chrestomathie Arabe,” i. 343), who lived in the tenth century, records that the Samaritans of his time had silver trumpets which they blew at the time of prayer; but he makes no mention of sacrifices. Neither do the Samaritan chroniclers speak of any sacrifices offered during the Middle Ages; they refer only to the trumpets and to the fact that under the incumbency of Aaron b. Amram (about the end of the eleventh century) the water of separation was prepared (Adler and Seligsohn, “Une Nouvelle Chronique Samaritaine,” p. 97, Paris, 1903).

Modern Sacrifice.

It should be noted that Salamah’s report is not strictly reliable even for the nineteenth century; for Corancez was informed by the Jews of Aleppo that, besides the Passover lamb, the Samaritans offered a special lamb in the course of the second day on Mount Ebal, and not on Gerizim (Corancez, l.c. xii. 48). Moreover, the report is contradicted also by a statement of the Samaritan high priest of 1838 to Loewe, who visited Nablus in that year. In the course of conversation the high priest said: “We alone possess Mount Gerizim, and we alone offer sacrifices there” (“Allg. Zeit. des Jud.” 1839, No. 46). On another occasion the high priest said: “We complete the reading of the Pentateuch every year; and we celebrate the day on which the reading is terminated [“Simḥat Torah”] with burnt offerings on Mount Gerizim” (ib. No. 56). Salamah, in his letter of 1808 says that, according to the Law, the Passover lamb must be slaughtered on Mount Gerizim, but that for the past twenty years, access to the mountain having been refused them, the Samaritans have had to content themselves with slaughtering the animal in the interior of the town, turning their faces toward the sacred mountain. It seems, however, from Loewe’s above-mentioned interview with the high priest, that the Samaritans regained admission to the mountain.

The Passover sacrifice, as celebrated at the present day, is described by Nutt (“A Sketch of Samaritan History,” pp. 72, 73) as follows: “The lambs must be born in the month of Tishri [October] preceding and be without any blemish. On the previous day the Samaritans pitch their tents on the lower plateau of Mount Gerizim. At sunset of the following day [the fourteenth of Nisan] or in the afternoon, if that day falls on Friday, the lambs are slain, prayers being recited meanwhile, then stripped of their wool, cleaned, and sprinkled with salt, after which theyare well roasted in hermetically covered trenches. In either case the lambs are eaten hastily after sunset with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, all the participants having staves in their hands [comp. Ex. xii. 9-11]. The men and the boys eat first, and afterward the women and girls; the remainder is consumed with fire.”

The really remarkable feature of the Samaritan Passover sacrifice is that the people dip their hands into the blood of the slaughtered lamb and besmear therewith the foreheads and the arms of their children—a survival of the ancient rite prescribed in Ex. xiii. 9, 16, and no longer understood by the Jews, for whom the tefillin took the place of this talismanic rite (see Stanley, “Lectures on the Jewish Church,” i. 561; comp. S. I. Curtiss, “Ursemitische Religion im Volksleben des Heutigen Orients,” 1903, index, s.v. “Blutbestreichung”).

• Besides the sources before mentioned in this article, Kirchheim, Karme Shomeron, pp. 19-20;
• Sylvestre de Sacy, in Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits, xii. 21-23.

Judging from the various sentences referring to sacrifice scattered through the Talmud, sacrifice in itself has a positive and independent value. The institution is as old as the human race, for Adam offered a sacrifice (‘Ab. Zarah 8a), and the Israelites offered sacrifices even before the Tabernacle was set up in the wilderness (Zeb. 116a). An altar has even been erected in heaven on which the angel Michael sacrifices (Men. 110a; Ḥag. 12b). There is a difference between thank- and food-offerings on the one hand and sin-offerings on the other, in that a person should take care not to commit any act obliging him to bring such offerings (Ḥag. 7a); one who does so must bring the offering in the proper frame of mind, showing sorrow and repentance, and confessing his sin; for if he does not fulfil these conditions his sacrifice is in vain (Ber. 23a). The sacrifice cleanses only through the blood that is sprinkled, the blood symbolizing the life of the one sacrificing, which, but for the substitution of the victim, would have to be surrendered in expiation of the sin (Zeb. 6a). The meal-offering, the sacrifice of the poor, has the same significance. Although this does not contain any blood, the poor person who sets it aside from his own food is regarded as if he had sacrificed himself (Men. 104b).

Prayer and Study Replace Sacrifice.

The view that the sacrifice is such a substitute is clearly expressed in the prayer which R. Sheshet was wont to recite on the evening after a fast-day: “Lord of the World, when the Temple was standing one who sinned offered a sacrifice, of which only the fat and the blood were taken, and thereby his sins were forgiven. I have fasted to-day, and through this fasting my blood and my fat have been decreased. Deign to look upon the part of my blood and my fat which I have lost through my fasting as if I had offered it to Thee, and forgive my sins in return” (Ber. 17a). The study of the laws of sacrifice was regarded as a sacrifice in itself (Men. 110), and thereby one obtained forgiveness after the destruction of the Temple had rendered the offering of sacrifices impossible (Ta’an. 27b).

The thank- and food-offerings are more sacred than the sin-offerings. They are offered because it is not fitting that the table of man should be filled while the table of the Lord, the altar, is empty (Ḥag. 7a). There are, however, various sentences in the Talmud which show the different views as to the value of these sacrifices. According to one view they have an absolute value in themselves, and the sacrifices which a person brings are a meritorious work for which he will be rewarded by God. Thus King Balak of Moab was rewarded for his sacrifices to God by being permitted to become the ancestor of Ruth (Nazir 23b). Similarly the sacrifices which Israel offered to God are meritorious works by which it was distinguished from the other peoples (Meg. 12b), and God can not forget the sacrifices which Israel offered to Him in the wilderness (Ber. 32b). A sacrifice is meritorious in proportion to its value (Sanh. 43b). But the view is expressed also that the value of a sacrifice depends upon the spirit in which it is brought; it matters not whether a person offers much or little, so long as he offers it in a spirit pleasing to God (Men. 110a).

Subordination of Sacrifice.

A person must not imagine that his sacrifices are meat and drink for God nor that he has therewith fulfilled a wish of God and that therefore He will fulfil his wishes (ib.; this passage must be explained according to Maimonides, “Moreh,” iii. 46, contrary to Rashi). The study of the Law is regarded as more valuable than sacrifices (Meg. 3b). Similarly, philanthropy is worth more than all sacrifices (Suk. 49b), and a modest and humble disposition is equivalent to all kinds of sacrifices (Sanh. 43b). One who intends to give wine for the altar should give it to those who devote themselves to the study of the Law (Yoma 71a); and if one shows hospitality to a student of the Law, it is the same as if he had offered the daily burnt offerings (Ber. 10b). Prayer is regarded as a substitute for sacrifice (Ber. 6b; Suk. 45a); indeed, it is even more than sacrifice (Ber. 15a, b; 32b).

Expiatory Function of Sacrifice.

—In Theology:

The critical school contends, and on good grounds (Nowack, “Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Archäologic,” ii. 223), that sin-offerings in the technical sense of the word were not recognized before Ezekiel. However, the distinction between “ḳodesh” and “ṭame” is drawn by the Prophets anterior to the Exile; and even in Samuel (I Sam. iii. 14, xxvi. 19; II Sam. xxiv. 25) the notion is expressed that by sacrifice sin may be atoned for (“yitkapper”), though the sacrifices named are meal-, meat-, and burnt offerings. In the question put by Micah’s interlocutor, also, the thought is dominant that offerings, even of human life, may protect against the consequences of sin and transgression (Mic. xvi. 6 et seq.). That sacrifice had some bearing on sin was not, then, an unknown idea, even if there was no technical term therefor. In the progressive systematization of the sacrificial practises, with a view to placing them more and more under the exclusive control of the priesthood of the central sanctuary, specialization in the nomenclature and assignment of the offerings could not but ensue.Yet, in what sense the specific sin-offerings were credited with atoning power can not be understood without an antecedent knowledge of what constituted sin in the conception of those that first observed the sacrificial cult. “Clean” or “holy” and “unclean” are the two poles; and “holy” implies “set aside for the Deity”; e.g., an object which only the Deity’s own may touch, or a precinct into which only the Deity’s own may enter. Sin is an act that violates the taboo. As originally the sacrifice was a meal offered to the Deity at which He was to meet His own family (see Sacrifice, Critical View), only such as were in the proper state of holiness might take part in this “communion service” (see Passover). On the other hand, the Deity Himself would not accept the gift if the taboo was not respected. Contact with persons or things in an “unclean” state violated the taboo. Sin originally connoted a condition which rendered approach to the Deity impossible, and conversely made it impossible for the Deity to approach, to attend the family communion meal. To correct this the sacrifice was offered, i.e., brought near to (“ḳorban,” “hiḳrib”) the Deity, more especially the blood, which preeminently belonged to God, and that by the priest only. In this connection it must be remembered that slaughtering was primitively a sacrificial rite. Meat was not to be eaten unless the Deity had received His share, viz., the blood. This insistence is the motive of the otherwise strange prohibition to slaughter anywhere save at the door of the tent of meeting (Lev. xvii. 3). The presumption was that all belonged to the Deity. Later literature expresses this idea as a spiritual verity (Ps. 1. 10-12; I Chron. xxix. 14).

Connection with Taboo.

The idea itself is very old. It is dominant in the sacrificial scheme. All animals, as belonging to God, are taboo. Hence at first man is a vegetarian (Gen. ix.). The right to partake of animal food is conditioned on the observance of the blood taboo; by killing an animal one taboo is violated; but if an equivalent one (the blood taboo) is kept inviolate, the sin is condoned. The blood is the animal’s life; hence the equation “blood” = “animal.” The Deity loses nothing by permitting the slaughtering if the blood is reserved for the altar or covered up (Lev. xvii. 13). This throws light on the primitive implications of the root (“kafar,” “kipper”), which has furnished the technical terminology for the Levitical and also for the spiritual doctrine of Atonement.

Later, as in Assyrian, a signification synonymous with “maḥah” (to wipe off) and a meaning similar to “kisseh” (to cover up), its earlier connotation, were carried by the noun “kofer” (= “ransom”), in the sense of “one for another” (“nefesh taḥat nefesh” = “one life for another life”). The blood (= life), the kofer given to God, was for the life(= animal) taken from God. With this as the starting-point, it is not difficult to understand how, when other taboos had been violated, the sacrifice and the blood came to be looked upon as a “kapparah.” The refined sense of the soul’s separation from God which is to be offset by another soul (blood) is certainly not inherent in the primitive conception. Moreover, the sin-offering is never presented for grave moral offenses (see above); only such sins as refusal to give testimony, contact with unclean objects, and hasty swearing are enumerated (Lev. v. 1 et seq.). That the three sins here specified are of the nature of violated taboos is recognizable. Trial and testimony are ordeals. “Ṭame” is synonymous with broken taboo. “Biṭṭe bi-sefatayim” in all probability refers to “taking the name in vain.” Enunciating the “name” was violating the taboo.

In this connection the ceremony of laying on of hands is discovered to be only one of the many symbolic rites, abundant in primitive jurisprudence, whereby acquisition or abandonment of property is expressed. In the case of the sacrifices it implies absolute relinquishment (“manumissio”). The animal reverts thereby to its original owner—God.

This excursus into primitive folk-lore suggests at once the untenable character of the various theological interpretations given to the sacrificial institutions of the Bible. It will not be necessary to explain at length that the expiation of guilt—in any other sense than that given above, though perhaps with a more spiritual scope—is not the leading purpose of the Levitical sacrifices. Purification from physical uncleanness is an important function of sacrifices, but only because “unclean” has a very definite religious meaning (in connection with child-birth or with contact with a dead body, etc.). The consecration of persons and things to holy uses through the sacrifices is not due to some mysterious sacramental element in them; but the profane is changed into holy by coming in contact with what is under all circumstances holy, viz., the blood.

Symbolical Interpretation.

Christian theologians maintain that sacrificial worship was ordained as a twofold means of grace: (1) By permitting penal substitution. The sinner, having forfeited his life, was by a gracious provision permitted to substitute an immaculate victim, whose vicarious death was accepted by God; and this typified another vicarious sacrifice. (2) By recalling to man certain vital truths. This second theory is that of the symbolists, the classical exponent of which in modern times has been Bähr (“Symbolik des Mosaischen Kultus”: “the soul placing itself at the disposal of God in order to receive the gift of the true life in sanctification”). The unblemished victim symbolizes the excellence and purity to which the offerer aspires. Other expositions of this kind are found in Oehler (“Theologic des Alten Testament”), Maurice (“The Doctrine of Sacrifice,” London, 1879), and Schultz (“American Journal of Theology,” 1900). This theology rests on the assumption that God is the direct author of the scheme, and that such analogies as are presented by the sacrificial rites of other nations are either copies of the Jewish rites or dim, imperfect foreshadowings of and gropings after the fuller light; or that Moses with supernatural wisdom devised the scheme to teach the ideas underlying his own laws in contradistinction to the similar legislations of other races.

That the Prophets had risen to a sublime conception of religion must be granted; but this does not necessitate the inference that the primitive basicideas of sacrifices (a gift to God as one of the clan at the communion meal, taboo, etc.) are not to be detected in the legislation and never were contained therein. The Prophets showed no enthusiasm for the system. Ritual religion always preserves older forms than spiritual religion would or could evolve.

The New Testament doctrine of sacrifice has clearly influenced this theological valuation of the Old Testament laws. The death of Jesus was held to be a sacrifice (Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 14). Saving efficacy is imputed to the blood or the cross of Christ (Rom. iii. 25, v. 9; I Cor. x. 16; Rev. i. 5). Jesus is the sin-offering (Rom. viii. 3; Heb. xiii. 11; I Peter iii. 18), the covenant sacrifice (Heb. ii. 17, ix. 12 et seq.), the Passover (I Cor. v. 7). In the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 28) Jesus is the sin-bearer, the agency of sanctification (ib. x. 10); he is also the obedient servant (ib. x. 8, 9) and the high priest (ib. ix. 11 et seq., 23). Here the precedent is given of treating the Hebrew sacrifices typologically, i.e., as predictive, “expressing a need which they could not satisfy, but which Christ does, and embodying a faith which Christ justifies” (W. P. Paterson, in Hastings, “Dict. Bible,” iv. 348b).

Philo’s Symbolism.

Of symbolism many indications are found in the homiletic haggadah (see above): the Tabernacle symbolizes Creation; the ten rods, heaven and earth, etc. (Yalḳ., Ex. 490). Its chief exponent in Jewish literature is Philo, who in his exposition of the sacrifices differs from the Halakah in some details. He ignores the rabbinical prescription of thirty days as the victim’s minimum age (Parah i. 4), and he claims that pregnant animals might not be used for the sacrifice, extending thus to all victims a provision mentioned for the Red Heifer (Parah ii. 1). According to him, none but priests were permitted to slaughter the victim (Philo, ib. ii. 241). He names only three classes of sacrifices: (1) holocaust (= “‘olah”); (2) σωτήριον (= “shelamim”), like the Septuagint; and (3) περὶ ἁμαρτίας (= “haṭṭat”). The “todah” (ἡλεγομὲνη τῆς αἰνήσεως)he regards as a subdivision of the ‘olah, while the “asham” he ranks with the ḥaṭṭat (ib. ii. 246).

Philo devotes a treatise to the victims, the “animals that are fit for sacrifice.” God selected the most gentle birds and animals. The perfection of the victims indicates that the offerers should be irreproachable; that the Jews should never bring with them to the altar any weakness or evil passion in the soul, but should endeavor to make it wholly pure and clean; so that God may not turn away with aversion from the sight of it (“De Victimis,” § 2). In this way Philo construes every detail of the sacrificial ritual. Withal, he remarks that the “tribunal of God is inaccessible to bribes: it rejects the guilty though they offer daily 100 oxen, and receives the guiltless though they offer no sacrifices at all. God delights in fireless altars round which virtues form the choral dance” (“De Plantatione Noe,” § 25 [ed. Mangey, i. 345]). To the eucharist (i.e., thanks-giving) he attaches special importance. This, however, consists not in offerings and sacrifices, but in praises and hymns which the pure and inward mind will chant to inward music (ib. § 30 [ed. Mangey, i. 348]). Josephus mentions only two classes of sacrifices: (1) holocaust and (2) χαριστέριον = “eucharistic” = “shelamim” (“Ant.” iii. 9, § 1).

Views of Maimonides and Naḥmanides.

The opinion of Maimonides appears to anticipate the views advanced by the most modern investigators. He in the first place refuses to follow the symbolists in finding reason for the details of the various sacrifices. Why a lamb and not a ram was chosen is, he says, an idle inquiry befitting fools, but not the serious-minded (“Moreh,” iii., xxxvi.). “Each commandment has necessarily a reason as far as its general character is concerned; but as regards its details it has no ulterior object.” These details are devised to be tests of man’s obedience. The sacrifices more especially are really not of Jewish origin. As during Moses’ time it was the general custom among all men to worship by means of sacrifices and as the Israelites had been brought up in this general mode of religion, God, in order that they might not go from one extreme to the other (from ritualism to a pure religion of righteousness), tolerated the continuance of the sacrifices. As in Maimonides’ days prayer, fasting, and the like were serviceable, whereas a prophet preaching the service of God in thought alone, and not in ceremony, would find no hearing, so in the days of Moses the sacrifices were permitted by God in order to blot out the traces of idolatry and to establish the great principle of Judaism—the unity and being of God—without confusing the minds of the people by abolishing what they had been accustomed to (ib. iii., xxxii.). The experience of Israel, led not by the shorter way, but by the circuitous route through the land of the Philistines (Ex. xiii. 17), he quotes as typical of the method apparent in the legislation concerning offerings. The sacrificial service is not the primary object of the Law; but supplications, prayers, and the like are. Hence the restriction of the sacrifices to one locality, by which means God kept this particular kind of service within bounds.

Naḥmanides (see his commentary on Lev. i. 9) rejects this view in unsparing words, appealing to the Biblical examples of Abel and Noah, in whose days Egyptian and Chaldean idolatry was unknown, and who were monotheists and not idolaters, but whose offerings furnished a sweet savor for Yhwh. If sacrifices must have a meaning, he prefers to see in them a moral symbolism founded on the psychology of conduct. Every act is composed of thought, speech, and execution. So in the sacrifice the offerer must do and speak, while the burning of the kidneys, the seat of thought, refers to the intention.

Abravanel resumes Maimonides’ argument and refutes those advanced by Naḥmanides (preface to his commentary on Leviticus). He cites a midrash (Wayiḳra Rabbah xxii. 5; see also Bacher, “Ag. Pal. Amor.” ii. 316) to the effect that as the Hebrews had become accustomed to sacrifices (idols) while in Egypt, God, to wean them from idolatry, commanded, while tolerating the sacrifices, that they should be brought to one central sanctuary. This is illustrated by a parable. A king noticed that his son loved to eat forbidden food, as carrion and animals torn to pieces. In order to retain him at his table,he directed that these things should be set before the son at home every day. This induced the prince to forego his evil habits. Hoffmann (“Leviticus,” p. 88), speaking of Abravanel, charges him with having altered the text of the midrash, from which, as quoted in the commentary’s preface, it would appear that sacrifices are placed in one category with ṭerefah and nebelah. Hoffmann cites another version of the fable, to the effect that on the king’s table no forbidden food was found, and that this led to the prince’s conversion. But Bacher (l.c.) gives Abravanel’s version. Rabbi Levi, who is the author of the haggadah, may thus be said to have shared Maimonides’ and Abravanel’s views. The “Sefer ha-Ḥinnuk” (section “Terumah”), by Aaron ha-Levi of Barcelona, discusses the purpose of the sacrifices. The troubles connected with their proper preparation and with bringing them to the Temple, etc., were planned to arouse the sinner to a sense of his shame. He repeats also the psychological symbolism explained by Naḥmanides (“Sefer ha-Ḥinnuk,” ed. Warsaw, pp. 23 et seq.).

David Ḳimḥi suggests (see his commentary on Jer. vii. 23) that the sacrifices were never mandatory, but voluntary (“God did not command that they shall offer up [“yaḳribu”], but merely gave contingent orders, ‘if a man should offer up’ [“adam ki yaḳrib”]”).

Judah ha-Levi believes without equivocation in the divine wisdom and origin of the sacrifices. As Israel is the “chosen people” in the midst of whom alone prophets have arisen, as Palestine is the chosen land, and as both Israel and the land therefore are in closest affinity with God, so is Israel on this soil commanded to observe His law, central to which is the sacrificial cult. He spiritualizes the anthropomorphic expressions, contending nevertheless that the sacrifices revealed whether in Israel all was as it should be and all the component members had become united into a well-functioning organism. This was divulged by the divine fire that descended on the offerings (“My fires” = “created by My word” [“ishshai”]; “Cuzari,” ii. 26-28).

Views of Hoffmann.

According to Hoffmann (l.c. pp. 88 et seq.), the sacrifices are symbols of: (1) man’s gratitude to God (illustrated in Abel’s minḥah); (2) man’s dependence on Him (Noah’s offering; blood = life saved); (3) man’s absolute obedience (Abraham’s ‘olah); and (4) man’s confidence in God (Jacob’s shelamim). They symbolize Israel’s election to be, as it were, the camp within which God dwells. This is the only reward for Israel’s fidelity: “Ye shall be My people and I will be your God” (see Ha-Levi, “Cuzari,” i. 109). As the host of God, Israel must remain pure; and every Israelite must keep himself so as not to be cut off (“nikrat”) from his people. Still, sins committed inadvertently are pardonable if man approaches God repentantly. That is the purpose of the sin-offerings. But there is no mortal who sinneth not; hence the Day of Atonement for Israel and all. Sacrifice is called “‘abodah” = “service.” It is “‘abodah sheba-ma’aseh”= “ceremonial service,” symbolizing the “‘abodah sheba-leb” = “service in the heart,” the tefillah prayer.

Hoffmann believes in the ultimate reestablishment of the sacrificial cult. The old synagogal prayer-books recognized the sacrificial service as essential; but as it was impossible to bring the offerings prescribed, they were remembered in prayer (Musaf); for their study was as meritorious as their practise (see above). The prayer for the reestablishment of the altar, in which is included the petition “We-Hasheb Et ha-‘Abodah”—the “Reẓeh” of the “Shemoneh ‘Esreh”—is called the “‘Abodah” (Ber. 29b; Shab. 24a; R. H. 12a; Meg. 18a; Soṭah 38b); for the body of the benediction was recited by the priests at the tamidim (Tamid v. 1; Ber. 11b) and by the high priest on the Day of Atonement after reading the Torah (Yoma 68b). Similar petitions for the reestablishment of the “‘Abodah” are found in Lev. R. vii., Ex. R. xxxi., and Midr. Teh. to Ps. xvii. Three times every day this or a similar prayer was to be recited. The enforced suspension of the real “‘Abodah” was regarded as a punishment for Israel’s sins (see the prayer “Mi-Pene Ḥaṭa’enu” in the Musaf for Rosh ha-Shanah).

Attitude of Rabbinical Judaism.

But the real attitude of rabbinical Judaism on the sacrifices is exhibited in Num. R. xix. A pagan having inquired concerning the Red Heifer, an explanation was tendered by Johanan b. Zakkai, who referred to the analogous treatment of one possessed of an evil spirit. The pupils of the rabbi demurred to that explanation, saying: “Him thou hast driven off with a reed. What answer wilt thou give us?” “By your lives,” exclaimed the teacher, “dead bodies do not render unclean, nor does water make clean; but God has decreed ‘a statute I have ordained and an institution I have established’; and it is not permitted to transgress the Law.” Rabbinical Judaism accepted the law of sacrifices without presuming to understand it. Reform Judaism omits from the prayer-book reference to the sacrifices, sanguinary ceremonies being repugnant to its religious consciousness; it holds that the Jewish doctrine of sin and atonement is not grounded on the sacrificial scheme.

Image from Abandon Image

[This is not the last of the series; it’s just how far DVE aka Admin2 got when she started posting her findings on mistranslated verses in the Christian OT. Please check out the related articles:

• Lost in Translation 2
• Lost in Translation 3
• Lost in Translation 4]

——————————

A TEXT OUT OF CONTEXT… IS JUST A PRETEXT

Why Jews Cannot Accept the New Testament

 By Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz

For centuries, Christians have used yet another shocking contradiction. They claim that the Jews are blind to a proper understanding of their own scriptures, especially those that point to Jesus.

The New Testament book of Corinthians states that the Jews have a veil over their hearts that blocks their ability to read and understand the teachings of Moses. The Christian argument continues to assert that when the Jews turn to Jesus, their veil will be removed and they will be able to see the truth. This assertion is mind-boggling!

“But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart.  But whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” [2 Corinthians 3:12‑16]

As absurd as this Christian argument may be, it becomes even more outrageous by the intentional mistranslation of a passage from Exodus. In Chapter 34, we are told that when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, his face was beaming with rays of light.[10] This light was so intense that the Jews could not look at him.

Therefore, when Moses stopped speaking to the Jews and finished teaching them the Torah, he would cover his face with a veil.

“When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.” [Exodus 34:34]

The Hebrew word for “had finished” is the same as the word used in Genesis 2:1 where we are told that God had finished (vayechulu – וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ) the creation . For centuries, traditional Jews have understood and recited this word every Friday night when they sanctified the Sabbath with wine.

The authors of these Christian translations, including the King James Bible, have contradicted the original Hebrew and intentionally mistranslated the verse in Exodus to make it consistent with the verse in Corinthians.

“And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.” [Christian translation]

Their incorrect version deliberately implies that until Moses was finished speaking to the Jews, he had a veil over his face. Therefore, he transmitted only a veiled understanding of the meaning of his words!

Furthermore, there are other major contradictions and inconsistencies within the New Testament itself! I present just two of many.

In the first example, the Synoptic Gospels state that the Last Supper was on Passover (Matthew 26:1-19, Mark 14:12-23 and Luke 22:7-20). However, the disciple John claims that Jesus was crucified before Passover started.

“Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover… and they crucified him.” [John 19:14-18]

In the second example, disciples Matthew and Luke present genealogical records to demonstrate that Jesus is a direct descendant of King David and therefore, a rightful heir to the Messianic throne.

Jewish Scriptures emphatically state that the messiah must meet several specific criteria and genealogy is definitely one of them. The messiah must be:

1.       A Male, Son-After-Son, Descendant from the Biblical Tribe of Judah:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh (Messiah) comes.” [Genesis 49:10]  

Tribal affiliation is patrilineal, transmitted only from father to son. 

“Then they registered their ancestry in their families by their fathers’ household.” [Numbers 1:18]

2.       A Descendant of King David:

“I shall raise up for David a righteous branch and he will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land.” [Jeremiah 23:5] 

“David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel. [Jeremiah 33:17] 

“I will raise up your descendant after you (David), who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me.”

[2 Samuel 7:12‑16].

3.       A Descendant of King Solomon:

“His name shall be Solomon… he shall build a house for My name and I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.” [1 Chronicles 22:9‑10]

However, a careful examination of the two New Testament genealogies presents serious problems. The first concerns the birth of Jesus.

By claiming that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, he would obviously not have a physical father and would be disqualified immediately as a member of the tribe of Judah or David.

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.”  [Matthew 1:18]

Furthermore, the disciple Paul claims that Jesus is the messiah based on his physical genealogy.

“Concerning his Son, who was born a descendant of David according to the flesh.” [Romans 1:3]  

“For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah.” [Hebrews 7:14]

By stating that Jesus was the physical descendant of Judah and David, Paul validates the biblical criteria of biological ancestry and at the same time, contradicts the mistaken genealogical claims found in the Gospels.

Additionally, the genealogy of Matthew is inconsistent with Luke’s! Matthew lists Joseph’s father as Jacob, and Luke lists Joseph’s father as Eli.

“And to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus.” [Matthew 1:16]  

“Jesus was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” [Luke 3:23]

Matthew also lists Jesus as being a descendant of King Jeconiah whose descendants were disqualified from ever being Kings of Israel.[11]

“To Josiah were born Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.”  [Matthew 1:11] 

This is problematic because it also says,

“Write this man (Jeconiah) down childless… for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah.” [Jeremiah 22:24]

Furthermore, Luke’s genealogy record lists 14 more generations than Matthew’s, and he lists Jesus as being a descendant of King David through his son Nathan and not his son Solomon, as required by biblical mandate. 

“… the son of Nathan the son of David.” [Luke 3:31]

Some Christians try to resolve this discrepancy by claiming that Luke is actually listing Mary’s genealogy. This far-fetched and desperate theory is highly problematic for several reasons.

1.       The Greek text does not substantiate this argument.

2.       Mary’s affiliation to the tribe of Judah would not be transmitted to her children because tribal affiliation is patrilineal.

3.       This genealogy does not include Solomon.

Possibly, these obvious contradictions compelled the disciple Paul to write the following dramatic statement to his disciple Timothy.

“… nor pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than further the administration of God which is by faith.”  [1Timothy 1:4]

For those who seek to discover the truth, it is evident that all of these countless attempts by Christians to prove that Jesus is a divine Messiah are based on inaccurate quotes and distortions of the original Hebrew Bible.

To conclude, the examples that I have presented here represent only a fraction of the contradictions and inconsistencies we encounter whenever we make a careful examination of the New versus the Old Testament.

This article is written out of deep love for God and respect for the authority of the Jewish Scriptures.  I hope you appreciate that this is why Jews can never accept Jesus as the Messiah, and why Jews must reject claims that the New Testament is infallible and divinely inspired.

Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz is the founder, Jews for Judaism, International.

© 2012 Jews for Judaism International.

[10] Michelangelo was most probably influenced by another mistranslation of this verse (horns of flesh rather than rays of light) to craft his famous statue of Moses (c. 1513–1515) with actual horns coming out of his head.

[11] Some Christian missionaries respond that the curse was removed and the kingship returned to Jeconiah’s son Zerubavel.  Zerubavel’s name means “child of Babylon” and indicates his birth took place while Jeconiah was imprisoned there. Sometimes missionaries quote a rabbinic teaching that Jeconiah repented in the Babylonian prison and was rewarded by having the curse removed. However, this poses another problem for them because it demonstrates that a person is able to repent of a sin without the need to offer a blood sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple.

DVE@S6K

Admin2

Image from Abandon Image

[This is part of an ongoing series titled “Lost in Translation”; in 2012 when this first was posted, Sinaite DVE/Admin2 had four articles lined up, please check:

• Lost in Translation 2
• Lost in Translation 3
• Lost in Translation 5]

———————–

A TEXT OUT OF CONTEXT… IS JUST A PRETEXT

Why Jews Cannot Accept the New Testament

 By Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz

Classic Christian belief claims that only by believing in the messiah, can people be totally forgiven for their sins. Romans states that—

 “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” [Romans 11:26]

However, the original verse from Jewish scriptures states that the redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn away (repent) from sin. These two diametrically opposed statements represent a critical theological difference between Judaism and Christianity. As Isaiah states,

“A redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression.” [Isaiah 59:20]

To continue this discussion about atonement of sin, the New Testament incorrectly quotes Psalms to make it appear that the body of the messiah (offered on the cross) is more desired than sacrifices.

“Sacrifices and offering thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me.” [Hebrews 10:5] 

In truth, the correct translation of this passage is, 

“Sacrifices and meal offerings Thou hast not desired; My ears Thou hast opened.” [Psalms 40:6]

Another verse from the Jewish bible confirms the Jewish understanding of Psalm 40:6 by stating that God wants obedience more than sacrifices.

“…Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice…”

[1 Samuel 15:22]

Additionally, sin offerings were meant for unintentional sins only (see Leviticus 4) and served to motivate repentance. In the Jewish bible, the animal blood sacrifice[8] was not the main ingredient in removing sin. Even a perfect sacrifice not accompanied with sincere repentance could never achieve atonement for the individual.

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is His delight.”  [Proverbs 15:8]

How do we attain atonement for sins, today, when we no longer offer sacrifices in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem? The Jewish prophet Hosea (Chapter 14) taught us that when there is no Temple, our prayers replace sacrifices as the act to arouse our authentic feelings of remorse and repentance.

“Offer your lips (of prayer) in place of the bulls (of sacrifices).” [Hosea 14:2]

Although the context substantiates the correct understanding, Christian translations avoid the association of sacrifices and prayers. Instead, they often delete the reference to the sacrificial bulls by mistranslating the verse as “Offer the fruit of our lips”, as found in the Christian King James Bible and New American Standard editions.

Another passage that clearly instructs the Jews to replace sacrifices with prayer is found in the Old Testament, book of Kings, chapter 8.

“When Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to the Lord toward the city which You have chosen and the house which I have built for Your name, then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.” [1 Kings 8:44-45]

Some Christians attempt to validate their claim for the essential need of blood sacrifices by claiming that the Old Testament, Leviticus 17:11 states,

“There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.”

But this statement does not appear anywhere in Jewish Scriptures! (Emphasis ours) In fact, Leviticus 17:11 reads, 

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.”

Although this verse states that blood serves as a tool to attain atonement for sin, it does not say that blood is only way to achieve this. In truth, the Jewish bible contains several examples of achieving atonement through various means without blood, such as—

“Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them.” [Numbers 16:47]

The closest reference to Christianity’s fabricated version of the Leviticus 17:11 passage concerning blood and atonement actually appears in the New Testament. Amazingly, this passage actually substantiates the Jewish understanding and significantly contradicts the Christian argument. How so? Because it states that a person can almost claim that blood makes atonement.

“And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness…” [Hebrews 9:22]

One of the most shocking contradictions in the New Testament appears in Hebrews where the Jewish prophet Jeremiah is deliberately misquoted. Why did this happen? Christians want to give the impression that God has rejected or no longer cares for the Jewish people.

“For they did not continue in My covenant and I did not care [9] for them…” [Hebrews 8:9]

But Jeremiah’s words were totally different! He taught that although the Jewish people may have behaved like an unfaithful wife, God remains a faithful husband and will not break His covenant with them. The verse actually states, 

“My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them…” [Jeremiah 31:32]

God also stated that He would never break His covenant with the Jewish people.

“I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them…” [Leviticus 26:44]

Throughout the New Testament, there are countless more contradictions and inconsistencies rooted in blatant mistranslations.

To prove the virgin birth, Matthew incorrectly quotes the prophet Isaiah and states,

“Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son and they shall call His name Immanuel.” [Matthew 1:23]

But Isaiah actually wrote,

“Behold the young woman is with a child and shall bear a son and she will call His name Immanuel.” [Isaiah 7:14]

The Old Testament original is in the present tense (is with child) and speaks about a specific (the) “young woman” (not “a virgin”) who is pregnant during his lifetime. Furthermore, chapter 8 of Isaiah clearly identifies the woman as Isaiah’s own wife and the child as their own! For those who want to explore this passage in greater depth, I have written an extensive explanation that is available upon request.

Yet another contradiction appears in the New Testament when Matthew tries to prove that an Old Testament prophesy was fulfilled when the infant Jesus returned from Egypt.

Matthew incorrectly quotes Hosea as saying,

“…out of Egypt did I call my Son.” [Matthew 2:15] 

The verse in Jewish scriptures actually says,

“When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” [Hosea 11:1]

In addition, in the Old Testament, the people of Israel are referred to in the singular as being God’s son.

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn.’” [Exodus 4:22] 

This verse also highlights the Christian misinterpretation of the identity of the suffering Servant of God described in Isaiah 53. Christians claim the suffering Servant refers to Jesus, but it actually refers to the people Jewish as a single group suffering because of the nations of the world.

[8] Leviticus chapter 5 gives examples of non-blood sacrifices offered by individuals who could not afford an animal.

[9] Most Christian translations say, “disregarded them”, whereas others incorrectly say, “rejected.”

DVE@S6K

Admin2

Image from Abandon Image

[This belongs to the series LOST IN TRANSLATION, started in 2012 but did not get farther than the 5th installment.  We are leaving it open for Sinaite DVE to pick up where she left off, for there are many more mistranslated verses in the Christian Old Testament.  Related posts:

• Lost in Translation 2
• Lost in Translation 4
• Lost in Translation 5

————————-

A TEXT OUT OF CONTEXT… IS JUST A PRETEXT

Why Jews Cannot Accept the New Testament

 By Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz

While we are discussing the importance of reading passages correctly, I present another glaring example of a passage that is regularly mistranslated and read out of context.

Many Christians like to quote the following verse from the book of Psalms to claim a prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

“For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me; they pierced my hands and feet.” [Psalms 22:16]

Although this passage appears this way in almost every Christian translation[4] of the book of Psalms, nevertheless we have a blatant case of mistranslation and lack of context designed to create an inaccurate impression.

The first mistake is the translation of the original Hebrew word (k’ari – כארי) as “pierced.” The word actually means “like a lion” and the verse should read, “…they encompassed my hands and feet like a lion.”

This original Hebrew translation is totally consistent with many other verses, such as Isaiah 38:13 which states, “I wait for morning; like a lion (כארי), even so he breaks all my bones…”

In context, King David, author of Psalms, is referring to the fear he experiences when pursued by his enemies, the army of King Saul. Earlier in Psalms, David uses terminology that unmistakably parallels Psalm 22.

“Hide me under the shadow of thy wings, from the wicked that oppress me, from my deadly enemies, who compass me about… They dog our footsteps; they encompass us: they set their eyes to tread us down to the earth; he is like a lion greedy for its prey.” [Psalms 17:8‑12]

In Psalms 22 and 17, David compares his enemies to dogs and lions that surround and encompass him. The Hebrew word for “like a lion” appears in both of them.

Therefore, we can conclude that this Christian mistranslation was a disingenuous attempt to paint the crucifixion into the Old Testament.

Although some Christians admit that the original Hebrew does state “like a lion”, nevertheless others attempt to discredit this translation by fabricating the claim that the Hebrew text contains a scribal error. Furthermore, they claim that the ancient Greek Septuagint supports their “pierced” translation. Both of their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny, especially the Septuagint claim. [5]

Let us examine even more contradictions and inconsistencies.

In the New Testament, we are told that Jesus performed miracles, such as healing the sick. When the rabbis question his holiness and his claims that he is from God, they are asked how is it possible for someone to perform miracles if they are not from God. The New Testament account ends with the rabbis offering no response. 

“But others were saying, ‘How can a man who is sinner perform such miracles?’ And there was a division among them.” [John 9:16]

Even for people with just a basic familiarity with the Jewish bible, this story is unbelievable and instantly raises a red flag. Any child, no less the rabbis of that time period, knows that an answer to this question appears in Deuteronomy 13.

The Jewish bible clearly teaches that a false prophet may perform miracles – not as an act of holiness but rather, as a demonstration that serves to test our loyalty to God.

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying ‘Let us go after other gods whom you have not known and let us serve them’, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul… But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.” [Deut. 13:1‑5]

The rabbis could have responded with yet another Old Testament example of unholy people performing miracles.

 “…the magicians of Egypt did (miracles) in a like manner with their secret arts.” [Exodus 7:11]

There are also numerous contradictions in the New Testament book of Acts. In chapter 7:51, we are told that the disciple Stephen is “full of the Holy Spirit.” [6]  However, when recounting basic Jewish history, this spirit is non-existent because he contradicts well-known, undisputed facts clearly stated in the Old Testament.

Every child who reads a Passover Haggadah knows that the Jews went down to Egypt as a group comprised of 70 people and subsequently became a great nation. This statement appears in the Old Testament in three places.

“Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons in all.” [Deuteronomy 10:22, Exodus 1:5, Genesis 46:27]

It is inconceivable that Stephen, a person described as “full of the Holy Spirit”, would mistakenly state,

“…and Joseph sent word and invited Jacob his father and all his relatives to come to him, seventy‑five persons in all.” [Acts 7:14]

Moreover, Stephen continues to recount incorrect biblical facts when he states that —

“Jacob went down to Egypt and there he and our fathers died. From there they were removed to Shechem and laid in the tomb which Abraham had purchased for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.” [Acts 7:16]

Jacob was not buried in Shechem in a cave purchased by Abraham from Hamor. In truth, Jacob was buried in Hebron in a cave bought by Abraham from Ephron.

“For his sons carried him (Jacob) into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, [7] the field that Abraham bought as a burial plot from Ephron…” [Genesis 50:13]

Once again, we see that Stephen was obviously not filled with divine inspiration when he got his basic facts confused. In fact, it was Joseph who was buried in Shechem [Joshua 24:32] in a field purchased by Jacob from Emmor.  [Genesis 33:19]

We find another contradiction in the book of Matthew 2:23 where we are told that —

“Jesus came and resided in a city called Nazareth that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

This statement does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament. In fact, at the time of the writing of the Old Testament, the city of Nazareth did not even exist!

In addition, many Christian bibles incorrectly attribute this quote of the disciple Matthew to the Old Testament book of Judges 16:17, a passage that refers to Samson who was Nazarite. A Nazarite is someone who takes an oath to abstain from wine and hair cutting. A Nazarene, on the other hand, is a person from the city Nazareth. These words may sound alike but in Hebrew, they are spelled differently and are totally dissimilar – one contains the Hebrew letter zayen (נזר), while the other has the Hebrew letter tzadik (נצר).

[5] Both the Jewish and Greek traditions (see Babylonian Talmud Megila 9a and Aristeas’ letter to King Ptolemy) state that the Septuagint translation, attributed to 70 inspired Rabbis, was exclusively the Five Books of Moses and did not include the Prophets and the Holy writings. Later Greek translations of the entire Jewish Scriptures were most probably the work of Hellenized assimilated Jews.

[6] In Luke 12:11-12 the disciples are promised that when they are questioned by the Synagogue authorities (as Stephen is here), the Holy Spirit will tell them what to say. Acts 6 also repeats numerous times that Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit.

DVE@S6K

[This article is part of a doctoral dissertation entitled,  Dramatic Ironies and Illusions in the Book of Exodus: A Profile of a Nation’s Identity, Responsibility, and Destiny,  written by Sinaite ELZ@SK6.]

———————-

Moral and ethical imperatives are the mandatory rules of life based on what is right and wrong and treated with reference to a divine source.  Morality is a standard of choice, referring to that which is within oneself as dictated by one’s conscience.  It involves the will to contribute to the welfare of society and ethics involves human behavior that is acceptable to society.  The moral and ethical requirements are set byIsrael’s God as a covenant with the nation that belonged to him.

The Purpose of the Law

The design of the Law of Moses was twofold.  In the first place, it is to preserve the Israelites as a thoroughly peculiar people, distinct from other nations, in their laws, customs, religion, and government; and, in the second place, it is to supply additional light as to the way of salvation. The system of Moses had elements of sound natural truth that are in Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilization, but most of its important features do not resemble that of Egypt, instead it was a contrast to it, and many matters of detail were prescribed apparently with the design of removing as far as possible every trace of Egyptian or other idolatry.

The standard of goodness is personal.  In order to discover the nature of goodness, the text directs individuals to the person of God himself.  Out of the Sinai desert, Yahweh promised Moses, “I will make all my goodness pass before you” (Exodus 33:19) and the promise was honored with the revelation of God’s character (Exodus 34:6).  Unlike any other moral teacher, God is utterly consistent— what he wills, he is. The purpose of God in giving the Law to Israel was that they might be priestly-mediators to all mankind.  It was not God’s plan that the nation should become narrowand selfishly exclusive in her religion.  The threefold use of the Mosaic Law is to reveal sin, to establish decency in society, and to provide a rule of life for those who fear God.

The Divine Requirements of the Law

The moral and ethical imperatives in Exodus condition public behavior.  The Law can form habits which are acts over a period of time that eventually become values or virtues.  Legislation and enforcement promote a better society that befits God’s election.

The Ten Commandments which Moses received at Mount Sinai became the foundation of all law on the Western world, and Jesus himself recognized it in the New Testament. The divine requirements were written on the consciences of man which are necessary for self-examination. The moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law constitute the restrictions of the young nation of Israel to aid the people, who were released from centuries of bondage, in handling the privileges and responsibilities of freedom. God who had chosen them was holy and Israel was to be a holy nation.

The Decalogue is the revelation of God’s will.  The declaration of the character of God and what he has done serves as an introduction to prepare the souls of the people for obedience.  The commands are put in negative form (thou shalt not) implying that transgression, not obedience is natural to man.  In its presentation to the people, they underwent certain purification rituals that are symbolical of inward cleansing, they were not allowed to touch the mountain, and they were placed at the part of the mount that burned with fire.  Amidst all these, God indicated that he was great and terrible in his holiness and a jealous God.  Thus, a holy nation is required to obey his commandments and establish a form of worship that is pleasing to him.

ELZ@S6K

In Memoriam

• Remember us for life . . .
• God is near, do not fear . . . Friend, Sinaite, goodnight.

[This article is part of a doctoral dissertation entitled,  Dramatic Ironies and Illusions in the Book of Exodus: A Profile of a Nation’s Identity, Responsibility, and Destiny,  written by Sinaite ELZ@SK6.]

Spiritual values are those that pertain to the soul, having holy, divine, sacred, and immaterial worth.  They are of priceless importance that transcends the test of time.  The promises of God to Israel’s ancestors forged the nation’s faith that leaned toward ceremonial or liturgical expression.  Moses lived to see the provisional fulfillment of the two out of three promises. The spiritual values in the book of Exodus constitute the promises of God to Israel through Abraham and Moses and their commitment to the God who delivered them from bondage.

Promises of the Ancestral God of Israel.

God promised to bless Abram and his descendants as well as all those who blessed them, to curse any who cursed them and to make Abram’s people a channel of blessing to all mankind.  God changed his ame to Abraham, meaning “father of a multitude” because his seed shall be as numerous as the stars and shall be nations and kings.  The promise was expanded by stating that the seed would be afflicted fonr 400 years and afterwards shall possess Canaan, the Promised Land.  Circumcision was a symbol of God’s everlasting covenant with the Hebrews as a people.  God’s promises to Abraham were passed on to Moses and the Hebrews in Egyptas Abraham’s descendants.  In Exodus, God promised to be with Moses in Egypt for him to accomplish his mission as deliverer: “And he said, Certainly, I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain”(Exodus 3:12).

He had promised to be with the Israelites in the wilderness to train them as his own, separate from all the people on earth: “And he said, my presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest” (Exodus 33:14)

In the faith of ancientIsrael, the guidance out ofEgyptwas inseparably connected with the guidance into the Promised Land.  When Abraham went toCanaan, God appeared to him and said: “Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him” (Genesis 12:7).

This promise was reaffirmed to Isaac and Jacob, and was renewed in the time of Moses.  Hence,Canaanis known as the Promised Land.  The Hebrew religion found expression in faith in God who makes promises and guides into the future.  This “nomadic faith” that Buber (1991) describes as having a different accent from that of the religions of sedentary peoples of the Fertile Crescent, in which the cult was bound to sacred places, worships “the God of the fathers,” who guides the ancestors into new places as wanderers and adventurers.  They ventured in faith, as did Abraham who migrated from Mesopotamia, and they trusted their mobile God to lead them into the future, toward the realization of the divine promises.  The people’s historical pilgrimage provided the background of Exodus.  God in heaven saw the trouble of Israel when they were in Egypt so He delivered them.  When the Israelites committed idolatry, God threatened to destroy them and make a great nation out of the children of Moses.  God had promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that he would make of their children a great nation.  This promise could have been fulfilled through Moses, who was a son of Jacob.  But God had also promised that their King would come through the tribe of Judah, and Moses was of the tribe of Levi.  If God destroyed the rest of the people of Israel, His promise to Judah could not be fulfilled.  Hence, his words were to test Moses and he was pleased to see Moses’ faith.

A Mother’s Faith.

Jochebed, the mother of Moses, was given the task by the Egyptian princess to nurse and train Moses.  This is an amazing choice because she was a willing mother, contrary to those who look upon the responsibilities of motherhood  as a burden.  She looked upon her duty as her highest privilege.  No gladder time ever came in her life history than this time when she realized that to her was given the matchless privilege of mothering and training her own child.  She entered upon her task with an eagerness born out of a motherly love, and with the faith so strong to see it work through.  By faith, Moses was hidden, by faith, Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.  So she was rewarded by the raising up of a great life that fathered a nation and one of the supreme makers of history.

The Commitment of Moses.

For 40 years, Moses’ life demanded a remarkable exercise of patience and contentment with his humble office.  When God commissioned him to deliver his people from the Pharaoh’s hand, although he was at first reluctant, he at length accepted the appointment, and returned to Egypt to undertake the mission.  Having full knowledge of the desert, he knows that it contains no sufficient provision for such a great host, yet he trusted and obeyed his God.

Self-denial and the patriotism of Moses shone remarkably when God threatened to destroy the nation and to raise up a better people from the seed of Moses.  God’s proposal was not taken advantage of by Moses, even if it would have brought much distinction to his family.  Instead he interceded for the people until their ancient position and promises were restored (Exodus 32).  It is evident that Moses knows fully well how he and the Hebrews stand before God based on their election as God’s chosen people.  This strengthened his resolve to bring back the glory of the status and promises made by God to their ancestors. God’s word “put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for “The place whereon thou standest is holy ground” implies a call for Moses to come barefoot in the presence of God as an honest declaration of his utter dependence upon him.  In his nomadic world, Moses would have fashioned his own sandals – self-made or more broadly, man-made.  Standing in the realm of his own creation limited his capabilities.  To step out of his sandals, the ones that he produced enabled Moses to experience the full majesty and might of God’s creative possibilities.  Moses modeled man’s inadequacy in facing life’s impossibilities 40 years long and a wilderness wide: an unyielding king, an army in hot pursuit, an ocean as an obstacle to escape, a long desert journey with a million to feed.  He had come to terms with a God whose capability is infinitely larger than man at his best.  His commitment to the will of God made him give up human arrogance in exchange for rich possibilities and provisions.

Moses is being called to “step” into a new realm of possibility-into a quality of life he cannot produce his own.  He is directed to take a step of faith into “holy ground” – the turf that has come under the touch of the divine, and cannot be produced by human actions.  So God was inviting Moses to commit to the fundamental fact of every human life: in order to stand up with God, one must come to him on the terms of his holiness, not one’s own.

The Commitment of the Levites. 

As Moses came down from the mountain after being with the Lord for 40 days and 40 nights, he saw the Israelites worshipping the gold bull. He felt the same way as God did about the sin of idolatry.  He crushed the idol into powder, threw the gold dust on water and made Israel drink it as if they were drinking their own sin.  He broke the tables of stone bearing the Decalogue, for the people had already broken the covenant.  Furthermore, he acted on God’s command to kill those who had rejected the word of God.  The men of Levi obeyed the command and slew three thousand of the guilty on that day.  Moses and the Levites’ commitment to their sacred covenant with God prepared them for their great work of caring for the tabernacle.