SACRIFICE
AND
OFFERING
older
custom,
see
Kittel,
Studien
zur
heb.
Archaologie
[1908],
96-108.)
For
the
rest
the
wisest
word
recently
spoken
on
this
subject
is
that
of
the
late
Professor
Stade
{Bibl.
Theol.
d.
AT,
156):
'The
sacrificial
worship
of
ancient
Israel
is
a
very
complicated
phenomenon,
which
has
grown
up
out
of
different
conceptions
and
customs,
and
is
by
no
means
to
be
derived
from
a
single
fundamental
idea
(aus
einem
Grundgedanken).'
Let
us
proceed
to
illustrate
this
word
of
wisdom.
(a)
In
the
whole
period
covered
by
the
OT
literature,
sacrifice,
as
the
terminology
proves
(see
§
1),
was
thought
of
as
a
gift
or
present
to
God.
The
motives
which
prompted
the
gifts
are
nowhere
stated
in
so
many
words,
but
may
be
clearly
inferred.
In
the
earliest
period,
at
least,
the
gifts
are
offered,
now
as
to
an
earthly
ruler
in
token
of
homage,
now
as
an
expression
of
gratitude
for
benefits
received;
again,
particularly
in
the
very
numerous
cases
of
vows,
with
a
view
to
obtain
a
coveted
boon,
for
among
the
Hebrews
as
among
the
Greeks
it
was
believed
that
'gifts
persuade
the
gods,
gifts
the
revered
kings.'
We
are
not
surprised,
therefore,
to
find
in
the
oldest
Hebrew
law-codes
the
command
that
none
shall
appear
before
J"
'empty,'
that
is,
without
a
gift
(Ex
23"
342»).
From
first
to
last,
the
OT
witnesses
to
this
'
conviction
that
the
gift
of
piety
really
produces
a
gratifying,
propitious,
and
in
the
end
conciliatory
effect
on
God'
(Schultz,
'Significance
of
Sacrifice
in
OT,"
AJTh
iv.
284).
The
form
which
these
"gifts
of
piety'
assumed
was
chiefly
that
of
food.
The
Hebrew
offered
to
God
of
the
things
with
which
his
own
table
was
furnished,
and
these
only
of
the
best.
This
naive
conception
of
sacrifice
as
'the
food
(EV
'bread')
of
God'
is
still
found
as
an
interesting
survival
in
the
later
literature
(Ezk
44',
Lv
3"
21«
etc.).
Cf.
'my
food'
(Nu
28^),
'the
table
of
the
Lord'
(Mai
1'-
"),
and
the
institution
of
the
shew-bread.
In
the
historical
period,
as
we
have
seen,
this
food
of
God
was
always
'
etherealized
'
by
being
converted
into
'sweet
smoke'
upon
the
altar;
it
thus
became,
in
the
recurring
phrase,
'a
soothing
odour
(EV
'a
sweet
savour')
unto
the
Lord."
Cf.
1
S
26"
'let
him
accept
(lit.
smell)
an
offering'
(as
a
propitiation).
(&)
But
this
antique
conception
of
sacrifice
as
the
food
of
the
deity
by
no
means
exhausts
its
significance
to
the
Hebrew
mind.
The
typical
sacrifice
in
the
pre-exillc
period
was
the
peace
offering,
of
which
the
char-acteristic
feature
was
the
common
meal
which
followed
the
actual
sacrifice.
The
OT
is
silent
regarding
the
significance
to
the
Hebrew
worshipper
of
this
part
of
the
sacrificial
worship.
Robertson
Smith,
as
every
student
knows,
would
have
us
see
in
this
'act
of
com-munion
in
which
the
god
and
his
worshippers
united
by
partaking
of
the
flesh
and
blood
of
a
sacred
victim
'
(RS'
226
f.,
and
passim),
the
unconscious
survival
of
the
sacramental
eating
of
then-
god
by
the
members
of
the
totem
clan
of
pre-historic
days.
This
is
not
the
place
to
enumerate
the
difficulties
of
this
theory
when
applied
to
Semitic
sacrifice,
the
absence
of
convincing
proof
of
the
existence
of
totemism
in
the
Semitic
field
being
not
the
least
of
these.
It
is
more
natural,
as
suggested
above
(§
4)
,
to
recognize
in
the
Hebrew
sacrificial
feast
a
transference
to
the
sphere
of
religion
of
the
Semitic
idea
of
the
friendship
and
fellowship
which
are
formed
and
cemented
by
partaking
of
a
common
meal.
By
thus
sharing,
as
the
guests
of
God,
the
common
meal
of
which
the
worshipped
and
the
worshippers
partook
within
the
sanctuary,
the
latter
renewed
the
bond
which
united
them
to
their
covenant
God;
they
'ate
and
drank
before
the
Lord'
in
full
assurance
of
the
continuance
of
all
the
blessings
which
the
covenant
relation
implied.
(c)
In
the
later
period
of
Jewish
history,
this
con-ception
of
sacrifice
as
a
table-communion
with
the
deity
receded
in
favour
of
another
to
which
less
prom-inence
was
given
in
the
early
period,
and
in
which,
as
has
been
pointed
out
(§
14),
sacrifice
was
regarded
as
the
SACRIFICE
AND
OFFERING
most
important
of
the
Divinely
appointed
means
by
which
the
ideal
relation
of
a
holy
God
to
a
holy
people
was
to
be
maintained
unimpaired.
For
inadvertent
omissions
and
transgressions,
and
for
all
cases
of
serious
ceremonial
defilements,
which
interrupted
this
ideal
relation,
sacrifice
in
all
its
forms
—
not
the
special
pro-pitiatory
offerings
merely
—
is
said
to
'make
atonement."
.The
Heb.
is
kmper,
of
which
the
original
signification
is
still
uncertam.
But
whether
this
be
'to
cover
'
or
'to
wipe
off
,
'
It
gives
Uttle
help
in
deciding
the
special
meaning
of
the
word
in
the
terminology
of
sacrifice.
'There
it
is
used
in
neither
of
the
senses
given
above,
but
always
in
close
connexion
with
the
verbs
signifying
'
to
purify
'
itihar)
and
to
'
unsin
'
(chilU
)-;-term3
Belonging
specially
to
the
terminology
of
purification
(see
5
14)
.
Appfied
to
material
objects,
such
as
the
altar,
ftiyper
is
Uttle
more
than
a
synonym
of
tihar
and
chitte';
applied
to
persons,
it
is
the
summary
expression
of
the
rites
by
which
the
offender
against
the
honness
of
God
is
made
fit
to
receive
the
Divine
forgiveness
and
to
be
re-admitted
to
the
fellowship
and
worship
of
the
theocratic
community.
The
agent
is
the
priest,
who
performs
the
propitiatory
rites
on
behalf
of
the
offender.
The
words
in
itabcs,
clumsy
though
they
are,
fairly
express
the
meaning
rf
this
much
discussed
term
of
the
Heb.
ntual
(see,
further.
Driver's
exhaustive
study
under
'
Propitiation'
in
Hastings'
DB
iv.
esp.
p.
131,
on
the
difficulty
of
finding
a
satisfactory
English
rendering).
See,
further,
the
small
print
in
5
14.
Now,
although
it
is
true,
as
G.
F.
Moore
reminds
us
(.BBi
iv.
4220),
that
'the
whole
public
cultus
is
a
means
of
propitiating
God
and
obtaining
remission
for
sin
and
uncleanness'
(Ezk
45"-
"),
it
is
equally
true
that
the
propitiatory
efhcacy
of
sacrifice
is
represented
by
the
Priestly
writers
as
especially
bound
up
with
the
blood
of
the
sacrificial
victim.
When
we
ask
the
question.
In
virtue
of
what
property
does
the
blood
make
atone-ment?,
we
find
the
answer
incidentally
in
the
oft-quoted
passage
Lv
17".
We
say
incidentally,
because
v."
really
contains
the
answer
to
an
entirely
different
ques-tion
—
Why
is
blood
taboo
as
an
article
of
food?
Now
the
verse
runs
in
RV:
'
For
the
life
of
the
flesh
is
in
the
blood:
and
I
have
given
it
to
you
upon
the
altar
to
make
atonement
for
your
souls:
for
it
is
the
blood
that
maketh
atonement
by
reason
of
the
life'
(that
is
in
it).
Strictly
speaking,
therefore,
it
is
not
the
blood
but
the
life
that
is
in
it
that
is
the
medium
of
propitiation.
Beyond
this
we
cannot
go
in
our
search
for
the
explanation
of
the
'how'
of
atonement
on
OT
ground.
Along
other
and
extra-Biblical
lines
students
have
diligently
sought
for
the
ultimate
basis
of
this
efficacy
of
blood.
It
is
doubtless
to
be
connected
with
'the
almost
universal
belief
that
blood
is
a
fluid
in
which
inheres
a
mysterious
potency,
no
less
dangerous
when
misused
than
efficacious
when
properly
employed'
(G.
F.
Moore,
EBi
iv.
4218;
cf.
Trumbull,
The
Blood
Covenant,
passim;
and
Farnell,
The
Evolution
of
Re-ligion,
94
f.).
Just
because
of
its
'
mysterious
potency,"
and
its
association
with
'the
great
primeval
mysteries
of
life
and
death'
(Farnell),
blood
was
felt
to
be
too
sacred,
and
indeed
too
dangerous
(see
1
S
14'"),
to
be
used
otherwise
than
as
the
proper
due
of
the
Author
of
all
life.
It
was
at
once
the
most
persuasive
of
gifts
at
His
altar,
and
the
most
potent
cathartic
by
which
the
sinner
was
purged
of
uncleanness
and
sin.
The
traditional
view
that
the
blood
of
the
sacrifice
atoned
for
the
sins
of
the
offerer,
because
the
victim
suffered
the
death
which
the
sinner
had
incurred,
is
now
rarely
maintained.
This
theory
of
a
pmna
vicaria
is
untenable
for
these
among
other
reasons:
(1)
The
sins
for
which
the
OT
sacrifices
made
atonement
were
not
such
as
involved
the
penalty
of
death
(§
14).
(2)
Had
'
the
guilt
of
the
offerer
been
transferred
to
the
victim
by
'the
laying
on
of
hands'
—
for
the
meaning
of
this
rite,
see
§
9
—
the
flesh
of
the
sacrifice
would
have
been
in
the
highest
degree
unclean,
and
could
not
have
been
eaten
by
either
priests
or
people.
(3)
The
idea
that
the
Divine
forgiveness
was
procured
by
the
blood
of
the
victim
as
its
owner's
substitute
is
excluded
by
the
admission,
for
the
propitiatory
sacrifice
par
excellence.
