ISRAELITIC SACRIFICE Sacrifice is an action both universal and central to all religious cults. The importance of sacrifice in the religious life of the ancients cannot be exaggerated. Ritual sacrifice supported and strengthened every important aspect of life. But for a Christian, whose religious roots sink deeply into Judaism, early Israelitic sacrifice excites special interest. Perhaps by probing into the minds of the early Israelites as their priests waved a sheaf of grain before the altar of Yahweh or as they poured out the blood of a lamb upon the stone, the Christian may discover new insights into the meaning of his true and unique Sacrifice. Why did the Israelite, for instance, pour the blood of an animal upon the rock or into the pit before the altar ?2 What was the purpose of offering up the first-fruits of the harvest ?3 In an attempt to answer these questions we will examine a few of the theories proposed by different schools. I. THE WELLHAUSEN SCHOOL The most formidable proponent of Wellhausen's approach to this question in English is W. Robertson Smith. In his book, The Religion of the Semites, Smith makes an exhaustive study of sacrifice. The reason for such a detailed study is his belief that sacrifice is the typical form of all complete acts of worship in primitive religions. The main lines of sacrificial worship were fixed before any part of the Semitic stock settled down to agriculture and used cereal foods as part of its diet.5 The most ancient sacrifice was that of an animal, and properly speaking, only the offering of an animal constituted a real sacrifice. Grain offerings were merely a tribute. The deeper aspects of the problem of the origin and significance of sacrificial worship are found in those sacrifices in which the consecrated gift is wholly made over to the 6 1 W. Schmidt, "Primitive Civilization," European Civilization, edited by Edward Eyre (New York: Oxford Univ. Press), p. 71. 21 Sam. 14:32-35. 3 Ex. 24:3-8. 4 W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites (London: Black, 1894), 214. 5 Op. cit., p. 222. 6 Op. cit., p. 224. god, to be consumed on the altar or otherwise disposed of in his service, and those at which the god and his worshippers partake together of the consecrated object.7 In very early times the atoning function of sacrifice is not confined to a particular class of oblation, but belongs to all sacrifices. The holocaust is not a common form of sacrifice and usually occurs only on great public feasts and in association with the zebhahim, or the sacrifice of an animal accompanied by a meal. It is only farther on in later times, towards the end of Hebrew independence, that holocausts and piacular rites become more common. Before the days of the central high place in Jerusalem, it was the rule that every animal killed for food should be offered at the altar. Every meal at which flesh was served took on the character of a sacrificial feast. But after the centralization of religious worship in Jerusalem, the identity of slaughter and sacrifice was destroyed. Hence Deuteronomy allowed men to slay and eat animals on the condition that they accorded the traditional share to Yahweh-the blood must be poured out upon the ground. In this way, the eating of flesh meat lost much of its sacred character and significance, and the holocaust took on a more purely sacred character than the zebhahim. But in the earliest times the preponderance was all the other way, and the zebhah was not only much more frequent, but much more intimately bound up with the prevailing religious ideas and feelings of the Hebrews.10 This primacy of the zebhah is the cornerstone of Smith's theory of sacrifice; for it is from an analysis of the ceremonies connected with it that he infers the purpose and significance of sacrifice. The animal victim was presented at the altar and dedicated by the imposition of hands. The greater part of the flesh was then returned to the worshippers to be eaten by them according to certain rules. It could be eaten only by persons ceremonially clean. If the food was not consumed within a specified period, the remainder had to be burned.11 Obviously the meat was considered holy, and 7 Op. cit., p. 238. 8 J. Pedersen, Israel (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1959), III, 338. 9 Deut. 12:15-16. 10 Smith, op. cit., p. 239. 11 Lev. 7:15 ff.; 19:6; 22:30. eating it was part of the service.12 Hence, Robertson Smith concludes that the central significance of the rite lies in the act of communion between God and man, when the worshipper is admitted to eat of the same holy flesh of which a part is laid upon the altar.13 In contrast to the zebhah, there is the cereal offering usually called minha. The origin of the cereal offering is evidently the oblation of first-fruits. The first-fruits were a tribute always wholly made over to the deity. If they were not actually burned at the altar, they were assigned to the priests. The first-fruits offering is a private oblation as against the marked social character of the zebhahim. The oblation of first-fruits consecrated only that small portion placed upon the altar. The remainder of the crop now became lawful food, but not holy food-quite different from the effect of animal sacrifice in which the whole flesh became holy, and only the ritually clean could partake of it. The fundamental difference, therefore, between cereal offerings and animal sacrifice is that the dominant idea of cereal oblation is that of paying tribute to the gods, whereas animal sacrifice is essentially an act of communion between the god and his worshippers.14 Robertson Smith wishes to push back to a more primitive meaning of animal sacrifice. And he does this by an analysis of the social significance of the meal.15 The act of eating and drinking with a man was a symbol and a confirmation of fellowship and mutual social obligations. The ethical force of the common meal can most adequately be illustrated from Arabian usage, and even the Old Testament records many cases where a convenant was sealed by the two parties eating and drinking together. 10 Smith now seeks to discover the ultimate nature of the fellowship which is declared when men eat and drink together.17 Meals are a ceremony to establish an engagement absolute and inviolable, to impose a duty of perfect obligation. Such engagement and duty can only be 12 Hag. 2:12 and 1 Sam. 9, 23-24. 13 W. R. Smith, op. cit., p. 240. 14 Op. cit., pp. 269 ff. 15 Op. cit., pp. 242-243. 16 Cf. Gen. 31:43-55; Ex. 24:11. 17 Op. cit., pp. 271 ff. god, to be consumed on the alta This p of sacri เ with it The a impos.. turne rule focd. hac ng the Semites is a group together that they can be a single animated mass of part can be touched without ural, therefore, that kinsmen rengthen their fellowship from er to nourish their common life e sacrifice, but in such a way that ct words. Feasts were of the nature of sacra ce rather than of direct evidence, but certain. For the Semites form an excep..the circle of religion and kinship were ything, therefore, for which additional sacrificial ritual of the Semites already of society. That this was so is morally , for an institution like the sacrificial meal, e general features all over the world and mitive peoples, must, in the nature of things, ages of social organization. And the general the fact that after the several clans had begun od, the worshipers still grouped themselves for the principle of kinship.18 at the crucial point in Smith's theory he must ace and moral certitude. Smith now goes on to e early Semites, no slaughter of animals was for reason of sacrifice, and, furthermore, that was originally the act of the community. But how is scruple against animal slaughter by an individpes that there are no binding precepts of conduct at rest on the principle of kinship. No life and no sacred unless it was brought within the charmed Kindred blood. 19 cach a cardinal principle of sacrifice according to the ol: 276. tween the gods and their worshipers, on the one hand, ween the gods and certain types of animals, on the -seated principles of Semitic religion, we must necessarily . kinship between families and men of animal kinds was an y deep-seated, and we shall expect to find that sacred wherever they occur, will be treated with the regard which y to their kinsfolk. ced in a religion based on kinship, where the god and his worers are of one stock, the principle of sanctity and that of kinship e identical. The sanctity of a kinsman's life and that of a godhead are not two things, but one; for ultimately the only thing that is sacred is the common tribal life, or the common blood which is identified with the life. Whatever being partakes in this life is holy, and its holiness may be described indifferently as participation in the divine life and nature, or as participation in the kindred blood.20 Thus the animal of the sacrifice is holy and the meat of the meal is holy, not because it has been offered to the god. On the contrary, it was offered precisely because it was already sacred and holy by reason of its membership in the clan. The essential elements of the sacrifice, therefore, seem to slide almost imperceptibly from the offering and immolation of the animal to the eating of the flesh and the disposal of the animal's blood. By means of eating the flesh and sprinkling the blood, the early Semites hoped constantly to strengthen and reaffirm their mystic union with one another and with their god. The cement which holds the participants of the sacrifice together and binds them to their god is nothing less than the actual life of the animal, which is conceived as residing in its flesh, but more particularly in its blood. This idea finds its most notable application in the rite of blood brotherhood or cov enants. It should be noted that covenants made by sacrifice are generally, if not always, compacts between whole kins or clans; and so sacrifice was here most appropriate. The animal's blood was quite acceptable as a bond of brotherhood, since the animal was itself a member of the sacred circle of the kin, whose life was to be communicated to the new-comers. Although such sacrifices were used to inaugurate or strengthen a covenant, the origin of sacrifice is not to be found here. But the Hebrews thought of their national 20 Op. cit., |