often been represented. The flesh of an animal piously slaughtered before God, was to be clearly distinguished from ordinary meat; the repast was, therefore, not to be separated from the act of sacrificing by an interval so long as to efface the connection between the one and the other, and what remained beyond the second day was fitly removed by fire, though of course, as it had ceased to bear any relation whatever to the sacrifice or its rites, not by the fire of the altar. The legislator insisted upon this point with almost surprising rigour, "If any of the flesh of the thank-offering be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted; nor shall it be imputed to him that offers it; it shall be an abomination (), and the soul that eats of it shall bear its iniquity"— 10 a rigour prompted by the anxious zeal of maintaining the sacred character of everything appertaining to the sacrifice. 11 These conclusions are confirmed by some other precepts. If the flesh by chance came into contact with any unclean thing, it was to be burnt. Clean persons only were allowed to eat of it; but if any one partook of it who was in a state of impurity, whether this lay in his person or was occasioned by touching impure objects, the Law declared "that person shall be cut off from among his people", 12 because "he has profaned the holiness of the Lord."13 Various are the reasons proposed by others in explanation of the law under discussion. Philo strangely believes that one day was allowed to remind the offerer of the salvation of his soul, and one to remind him of the health of his body, and as no third end was aimed at by sacrifices, they could not be eaten on the third day,14 which fanciful opinion does not even attempt to account for the one day to which the meals of praise-offerings were confined. Again, it has been observed that as he who prays for some future boon generally prolongs his devotion more than he who offers thanks and praises for some past blessing, the flesh of the Dp offered for vow or free-will gift, could be kept for two days, that of the 7 for one day only;" but that distinction is not correct, since the proper or Biblical 15 is not a voluntary but a compulsory sacrifice; besides, the delay in eating the flesh does not mark superior sanctity, but just the reverse. There is some specious plausibility in the view that as in the warm eastern climates the meat begins on the third day to show symptoms 10 Lev. VII. 18. 11 The Egyptian custom of eating the whole pig offered to Bacchus and the moon on the day of the sacrifice, without leaving anything (Herod. II. 47), is no real analogy, since the Egyptians considered the pig utterly unclean, except on the day of the full-moon on 15 So Abarb. Introd. to Lev. c. IV sub fin. 2 of putrefaction which was deemed an abomination in connection with sacrifices, it was not to be eaten beyond that time. But such considerations are foreign to the subject. If the Hebrews knew from experience that the flesh becomes foul after two days, they might be expected to dispose of it before; and if they yet left anything over after that time, they would not have required a vehement and emphatic warning not to eat putrid meat which they might well be supposed to eschew spontaneously. But it is futile to conjecture that the ordinance intended to compel the rich to make the Levites partakers of the feast, 3 or to inspire the Israelites with confidence in God's goodness, and to remove pusillanimous anxiety for their future sustenance, or curious to note to prevent them from drying or preserving the meat, and thus "eating the flesh in a sparing manner, or communicating only a small portion of it to their particular friends."4 3 This is the character of the p as it appears in the laws of the Pentateuch; but in early times they seem to have been offered also when blessings were not thanked but prayed for; and during long periods, they were, besides, employed for the ratification of solemn covenants, treaties, and alliances, for which purpose, according to eastern notions and customs, the common meals which followed rendered them peculiarly appropriate." 1 See pp. 133, 136. 2 So Philo, De Vict. c. 8 (öte ta tys ἱερᾶς τραπέζης πάντα καιρίως δεῖ προςφέρεσθαι, σπουδὴν ποιουμένους ὡς μὴ μεταβάλῃ μήκει χρόνου, κρεῶν δὲ ἑώλων εὔσηπτος ἡ φύσις, καὶ ἂν ἡδύσμασι лаραρτvýй); see Maimon. Mor. Nevoch. III. 46; Bähr, Symb. II. 375; a. o. 3 Theodoret (Quaest. 6 in Lev.), Cleric., Michael., Rosenm., Scholl, a. o.; see also Philo, 1. c. (ὅτι τὰς θυσίας ἀταμιεύτους εἶναι προςήκει καὶ πᾶσιν εἰς μέσον προκεῖσθαι τοῖς δεομένοις). 4 Harmer, Observ. I. 394, 396; Rosenm. Morgenl. II. 159; comp. Michael. on Lev. VII. 15-18. 5 1 Sam. XIII. 9; 2 Sam. XXIV. 25. 6 Comp. Judg. XX. 26; XXI. 4; see also Exod. XXIV. 5. 7 Comp. pp. 36, 37. It is as idle to deny the occurrence of “supplicationofferings" in Hebrew history as to assert their authorisation in the Levi CXVI. 16-19 certainly does not support this view); Outram, De Sacrif. I. xì. 1, p. 115 (sacrificia salutaria ... semper de rebus prosperis fieri solent, impetratis utique aut impetrandis); Hengstenberg, Authent. des Pentat. II. 86 (Die Schelamim werden entweder als verkörperter Dank für das ertheilte, oder als verkörperte Bitte um das zu ertheilende Heil dargebracht); Kurtz, tical law: the thank-offerings promised Opferc. §§ 127, 130; Öhler, l. c. p. 637; - 2. THE MODE OF SACRIFICING. The first ceremonies the imposition of the hand, the slaughtering, the receiving and sprinkling of the blood were precisely identical with those observed at holocausts of quadrupeds: but then the offerer presented to the officiating priest all the fat and the fat parts namely the fat that is on and round the bowels, the two kidneys with the fat that is upon them by the flanks, together with the great lobe of the liver to be taken off by the kidneys; and if the victim was a sheep of that peculiar species termed "long-tailed"," he added to them its fat tail (N); 10 he was not permitted to send them or to order them to be fetched, but had to take them himself to the altar "with his own hands", 11 that they might visibly appear as his personal and ready freewill gift offered with a grateful heart; he then handed over the breast and the right shoulder to the priest who "waved" the former and "heaved" the latter, 12 after which he burnt all the fat and fat parts as a fire-offering to God on the altar. 13 Now, if the thank-offering were presented in the name of the whole people, the priests received all that remained after the burning of the fat; but if presented by a private individual, they claimed as their portions the right shoulder and the breast, the former to be assigned to the officiating functionary, the latter to be reserved for all Aaronites in common; while the rest was allowed to the offering Israelite to be eaten by him and his guests on the same or the following day. 14 XV. THE SIN-OFFERING AND THE TRESPASS-OFFERING .(אָשָׁם and 15חַטָאת) THE Consciousness of moral frailty, the most unfailing source of truly religious impulses and the surest indication of an ideal yearning Ewald, Alterth. p. 53 (Der Dank geht von selbst in ein Flehen um die Fortsetzung der göttlichen Gnade über); and on the other hand, Bähr, Symb. II.385; Kliefoth, 1. c. p. 79. Both vague and incorrect is the remark, “every repast that was held before God in a solemn manner and with prescribed rituals was called "b" (Saalschütz, Mos. R. I. 313). 8 See p. 240. 9 Ovis laticaudata. 10 Lev. III. 3, 4; comp. IV. 8, 9; see notes on Chapt. III, and Comm. on Exod. p. 555. .ידיו תביאינה ,30 .Lev. VII 11 12 See Sect. X. 11, 12.' 13 Similarly the Phoenicians burnt upon the altar chiefly, if not exclusively, the fat of the victims (comp. the inscription of Marseilles, line 14, abm by bm by; Virg. Aen. IV. 62, Aut ante ora deûm pingues spatiatur ad aras; Movers, 1. c. pp. 107, 108). 14 See Sect. X. 14; comp. in general Lev. III. 1-16; VII. 30-34; and on the which accompanied the praise-offering, Sect. XI. 2. 15 Or tically (Num. XV. 24), and poe(Ps. XL. 7). after moral improvement, strongly pervaded the character of the Hebrews. "There is not a righteous man upon earth that does good and sins not", is a sentiment which recurs in the most varied shades and modifications. A sufferer overwhelmed by anguish, breaks forth in the desponding cry, "O Lord, rebuke me not in Thy wrath, nor chasten me in Thy hot displeasure... There is no rest in my bones on account of my sin; for my iniquities have passed over my head; as a heavy weight they are too burdensome for me."3 One of Job's friends knows no stronger reason for patient endurance under trial and distress than the general truth, "How can man be justified with God, or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold, even the moon shines not and the stars are not pure in His eyes: how much less man, the worm, and the son of man, the maggot."4 The humble feeling of sinfulness cannot be felt more deeply, nor expressed more earnestly. It traces spontaneously suffering to trespass. "Innumerable evils", exclaims the Psalmist, "encompass me; my iniquities take hold of me, and I cannot survey them; they are more abundant than the hairs of my head, and my heart fails me."5 It longs after deliverance from its own oppressive torments, "Have mercy upon me, o God", prays an unhappy sinner, "according to Thy loving kindness; according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions; wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin." It is irresistibly prompted to frank and lowly confession, "I acknowledge my sin to Thee, and I hide not my iniquity; I say, I will confess my transgression to the Lord." It finds the most soothing relief, the sole rescue from moral despair, the only safeguard against hardened recklessness, in the hope of Divine pardon and atonement, which are accorded as the result or reward of internal regeneration: "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered, and blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.” 8 And it finally recognises as the most acceptable offering which God never rejects, "a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart."9 Simultaneously with these noble notions, the Hebrews developed the conception of the merciful attributes of God, who, though unable to 1 Eccl. VII. 20. 2 Comp. 1 Ki. VIII. 46; 2 Chr. VI. 36 Philo De ;(כי אין אדם אשר לא יחטא) Vict. c. 14 (καὶ ἂν γὰρ ὁ τέλειος ᾖ γεννητός, οὐκ ἐκφεύγει τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν). 3 Ps. XXXVIII. 1, 3, 4. Job XXV. 4-6; comp. IV. 17-19; 11 efface the evil deed, can "pass over" it, 10 remember it no more, and blot it out, or annul its direful effects upon the mind and the fate of the offender; and who is slow to wrath and willing to pardon, "The Eternal is merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth; keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin." 12 They commonly accepted the doctrine, "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He pardons abundantly": 13 in harmony with which view a later Jewish writer justly observed, "The most precious benefit attending the expiatory offerings is this that the sinner becomes aware and is sure in his mind, that his transgressions have been remitted; for if he were not persuaded of God's readiness to pardon him, he would despair of mercy, and add iniquity to transgression." 14 But long periods of religious education are required to arrive at similar ideas and convictions. 15 The sense of awe, of dependence, and of gratitude in relation to an all-powerful, all-wise, and all-loving Ruler of the World, precedes by long epochs the dawning notion that purity of the heart is, in a great measure, the source of our happiness, that it is certainly the end of all religious life, and the indispensable condition of peace and serenity and every true blessing. At first, no doubt, the belief prevailed that sin demanded the death of the sinner. "David said to Nathan, I have sinned to the Lord: and Nathan said to David, Indeed the Lord has passed over thy sin, thou shalt not die." 16 "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? says the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways and live?" 17 Next the notion was entertained that the sinner's life might be saved if another life was surrendered in its stead, whether that of a human being 18 or of an animal. 19 Thus the doctrine of substitution or vicarious suffering gained .Sam. XII 2) עון or העביר חטאת 10 13; XXIV. 10); YW by ay (Mic. VII. 18); comp. Ps. LI. 11 ( 11707 .(מחטא 11 Jer. XVIII. 23; XXXI. 34; Isai. XLIII. 25; XLIV. 22; Ezek. XVIII. 22; XXXIII. 16; comp. Isai. XXXVIII. 17; Jer. L. 20; Mic. VII. 19; Ps. LXXXV. 3. 12 Exod. XXXIV. 6,7; comp. XXXIII. 19; Num. XIV. 18-20; Deut. XXX. 1-3; 1 Sam. XII. 19; Isai. LVII. 15, 16; Joel II. 13; Jonah IV. 2; Ps. LXXXVI. 15, 16; CIII.8; CXI. 4; CXLV. 8; 2 Chr. XXX. 9; Neh. IX. 17, 31. 13 bobna, Isai. LV. 7; comp. Mic. VII. 19; 2 Chr. XXX. 8. On the 16 2 Sam. XII. 13; comp. 1 Sam. XII. 19. 17 Ezek. XVIII. 23; comp. 30, 31; XXXIII. 10 sqq. 18 Mic. VI. 7; 2 Sam. XII. 14; comp. XXI. 9. 19 Gen. XXII. 12, 13; see, in general, Sect. XVIII. |