SACRIFICE lN THE BIBLE

SACRIFICE
IN THE
BIBLE
Editors:
ROGER T. BECKWITH
and
MARTIN ]. SELMAN

____Wipf__á'$toc/e
PUBLISHERS
EungOngon
 Pim publuhed' 1995 )o¡n"lly
m' lhc U.K. by Puemmlcr Pm, P.0. Box 300, Carlblc CA3 OQS
nd h the U.S.^. by Bckcr Book Hmue, Box 6287, Gnnd Rzptdm Ml 49516

mnmoflthdMUdConübumwbcMan
lheEdmdndOonmwaMWorkhvcbmmud
bvdmhxcordmüúzüwnrht'.Dmm'andPuznuAcll98&

vaf and Slock Publndm

199 Wcu Mu Avm. Sullcl
Íwgm, Ongon 97401

Sncnfu m thc lhblc

Mucd by BectwnIL Rngcr T md Sclmnu Mznin Jy
UmynmCIWS Pmmmla Prm
ISHN HVZMJJIJ
Pubhwum dcu NZWZUM
anumuly publlúlell Dyy Hdm lloulz lluum IWS

'Hm ldmlm mmnlul by Wipf aud Qtotk Pubmhcu

by Innnumzm wnh Vutemtnler Pvcu

l'mmatm
9 Hnldum Avenuc
chtchk
Milmn cyu,MKl IQR
M Gthrímin
 In gratcful memory of
John Patnck' Bakcr,
scholar and pastor,
lecrcmry of thc Bibhcal' Theology study group
of the Tyndalc Fcllowahip
from its 1nc'epu'on
untü hk death m' 1988
 Contents

Abbrevta'non:' vm"'

Prefacellnvoductm and Dedxc'anan'

l. The Passover Sacnñ'cc T.D. Alexander

The chitical Sacnñ'cml' System Philip P. ]enson 25

Sacnñ'cc in the Psalms Nigel B.Courrman 41
Sacnñ'ce m' thc Prophets Emest C. Lucas 59
The Thcology of Old Testament Sacnñce
YÊPN

Gordon ]. Wenham 75
Sacnñ°ce m' tbe Ancicm Near East Manín _7. Selman 88
9

Sacnñ'ce m' the World of thc New Tcstament

Rogn T. Beckwúh 105
The Self-Offenn'g and Death ofChrist as a Sacnñce m' the
Gospcls and the Acts of thc Apostles Peter M. Head lll
Thc Dcath of Chn°st as a Sacrmcc m' the Teaching of Paul
and chrcws Roger T. Beckwith 130
10. Sacnñcc and Priesthood mÀ Relation to the Christian Lifc
and Church m' the Ncw Testament Steve Wallon 136
ll. Sacnñce for Chrislians Today Martin ]. Selman 157

Indcxes 170
General Subject 170
Biblical and Other Texts 173
 Abbreviaüons

BIBLICAL BOOKS
W Tesulnelt
Ezr. Ezn
NelL Ndlemü

. Jolí
DeuL Dcummomy Ps. (Pss.) Pslms
Prov. Provu_bs

CanL Song of Solomon Nah. Nahum

(Canudes') .
Isa. lwn
Jcr. Juum .
Lun Lamennubns of Zech. chhnnah'
]crcmnh' .
2 Ononicles Ezdn Ezekjel

Phü. Phüipplm Ju. jlmel

CoL Colonum l PcL l Petcr
l ThHL l Thmdonhns 2 PeL 2 Ptlcf
Jn .' John 2 111ca. 2 Thcsulonilm l ]n. l John
Acls Am nf lhe l Tim l Timmhy 2 Jn. 2 John
Apoullts 2 TinL 2 Timulhy J ]n. 3 Juhn
Rom. Romlns TiL 'l'ilu| Judo
l (,o'r. l Cunnlhilni PhluL Phllcmnn Ilcv. The Rcvrhlion of
2 CoL 1 (.o”u'nlhi¡m ch. lltbmn Juhn (^poulvpu)
UIL Gnhúnm
HpIL lx'plmm'm
Nule: 'l'mml¡lrrnnuu ul llclucw lllll ülvck wurdn únllum lhc nynlcm uml ln |l|c Hhummd lhblc
IMlumw kl rmurrr IVI'. wnm

ANCIHNF SOURCHS

l)(d. thlchc
mu klhryl hio ereiunum lnlcr cnllul (."hw_mulonma
Dlody Slc Diodonn Siculun
h'lh.l.¡n0ch lhhinplc lkmk ul linncln ur l límwh
lilnd Rlb Emcllu Ruhba
Ígmnum Epk lunntimy Lmn m llu Ephmam
Jukphu¡. AnL Junephum Jmmh Amíqmlm
Jmephua. Wnr Ioncphun. Thqumh Wnr
Ju¡u'n. ApoL Junun', Apology
 Abbnvwm

Iustm', Dlal'y Jnsun', W wnü Trypho

Mnt In Mlnyrdnmoflm
Mat Mcklulu
Mndv'.Rab. MIMRBÕM
Pes. Palhm
Phllo', Cangn Phdo',DcCaqva›-ndam"0maa
Phxh', PImL Phno^,DcPlunaw
Phnlo', Ra.va.Hcr. Pbllo',QmRuu-DM'HmSu'
PluloÀ, Som Phúo',DcSmu'
Phúo', Vít.Mos. Phdn',DchMasu
Plunmb
PnSoL PsnlmsofSokxnon
lQpHnb PahmHanmeumanel
xqs SaúW(Rdcofúchly',Ma-dofmmpl'w')
HQMdch Mdchzddmníxuannnnüvell
TheBookafSuach',a-Eodesnsucu"
SLEnodz Slamnc'BookofEnoch,aBonkoflheSmnnfEnoch,a2Faoch
Sukhh
TesL ch. Tesnnznxoíkvi
Tr. l~. Tmoflmh
Tg. Eat TagunafEabJ

REFERENCE WORKS AND JOURNALS

Anchu Bnbk
Afv Antbv fír Onnlfwthng
AHV W. von Soden, Akhdnda HM
AnBib Amhtn Bñahh
ANET J.B. Pritchud (cd.\, Annal Nur Easun TM
ASOR Annta Schd nj Onnnl Rmh
ASORDS Alvnmn Sthnb aIOnaul RML Duuncun th
BAG W. Bnuan W.P.Amdx.mdF.W.Guw1ch". quu Lumn Jún
NT
BBB Bonner Bibüshe chlge
F. Bmwn. S.R. Dñverl md C.:\. Bma'. Hdnw cni Euhil lznun oflhl
OH Tauw
BETL Bnblkxhcu cphcmerüum lheuhmumm kwmkndum
RINn
RYRL Bqunu oj lh hhn vaunà Umumu hôruy danrbwr
lIKA l' Bxhhkhcr Kummcnnu Mnl l"elmmnl
R I'R RINMII rhdngv Rlllm
RI.'.\W llclhene mr ZAW
CAU TN Auvmn meurv of Uu Onaul lnsnnm qf Ih Unmu qftfhmp
Cmi ümhmlnc lhhlr lkmuummv
('.1' ('.mm/um l'nn num IMann TaNon In m anh Mumu
(.'T,1 A IÍcnIIwn ¡'.r1m Ju MMnm ln numñmr dlphhnqm dJuMl .I
Rm Sbunmhl lpm
h'l' Klmlum lumlnlkm
Re Q wahrul vamfv
Rxp rm líxpmmw Tlmn
Fenmhnn
GKC ('umm' Hqàmv Gmmmn e¡I. K Knuunh. |r. A l'\. CoWIey
HNR (:'mcl .Vmu Rnhlc
HSM lllrvml .\e'm(lir Mmmanphn
ÍCC lmermnuml inucal (,'mnmcmlry
lnl lnmrmarm
l'l'C lmenmiunul l'hmlu¡¡knl (',unmwm¡ry
JAOS _7ounul uf lht Ammum ()n(mal Normy
_7muulcm Hlbld
X Sacnfice' m› du Bible

JBL Jmlnal of Bülúnl Lum'm

ycs Jonnal omefm Smdm'
JES Jolnal ofEmtmI Smdm'
JPS Jewuh' Publicanon Sodety
JRAS Jmal oftkc Royal AMM Soany
JSNT Jouulfotlthndy ofduNcw Tmcm
JSNTS Jounnl for thc Smdy of Lhc New Tesument, Supplemem Senes'
JSOT Jomallor üu Smdy ofdu Old Tmamu
JSOTS Joumal íor lhc Study oí Ihe Old Tesumcnt, Supplcmem Sencs'
rrs Jmnal of Thmlogkal Smdm'
KTU M. Dnemch", 0. Lomz, J. Sannnmn', Dú knla'1phabcmc'hcn Tcxu aus Ugarú
MANE Monognphs on the Anciem Nar East
MM ].H. Moullon md G. Mxlh"gan, Tlu Vocabulaty afllu Gmk Ncw Tumau
NCB New Ccnnuy Bülc
NEB New Englük Bibk
NICOT Ncw Intumúonal Commentary on the Old Tesmmem new sen'cs
NIDNTT L. Coenem F. Bayremhu, H. Bietcnhnxd and C. Bmwn (eds.), Ncw
lmtmanoM lenom of Ncw Tesumm Theology
NIV Nnu lnumaumal' Vnmn'
NovT Nwm TBW
NovTSup Novum Tcsumenmm, Supplcmcms
NRSV New Revucd' Smdard Vemon'
ns new scñcs
NTS Nzw Tmaml Studus'
OTL Old Tcslamtm Library
pamllel
Rému Jugrnologu" n fauhlologü ommlc
Rlvuc Biblw
an'd Enluld Bibll
RMM Standard me
Sources from the Ancicm Nw Ealt
Shcmeld Acndemit Pmss
Sockty for Biblical Lilenmm
SBL Dissenntion Series
Sludies in Biblial Theology
Srouuh Jolmuzl a[ Thlolugy
Sludies in Judnium nnd Lale Amiquiry
Society for New Testnrncm Sludies Monognph Series
Studin ncmcaumcnu'c¡, Studju
G. Kinel nnd G. Friedrich (ed|.), Thtoloxícal Diuíonary ol Úu Ntw
Tammenl
H. Boncrwcck nnd IL Rínuren (cdn.), Thwlogu'al Dícrionary uI llu Old
Tmamenl
Tyndale Ncw 'l'e¡lamem (Inmmemnriu
Tyndnlc Old Temmcm (.o'mmcnmrin
Tymlak Bullum
Tlualugúal Sludíu
Ummúrhl szhumml
Vox lfvanxclíru
K\ Alnnd (c¡|.), Volhmyulm Konhordau nm pílrhhthan NMII I"nmnmu
Vmu Tummtnlum
thm 'l'cumnrnlum, Supplrnwnlu
Wnnl lhlvliul (A'›Inmmumy
Wyclillc líxruauul (A'mummurv
Wímnnclnlmchc Mnmmrnphlcn mm Allrn uml Nrmn 'l'cnlumml
Wllunuluhlitlw umcl *íu¡l|un¡cn Ium Ncurn 'l'ulmntn|
Zmulmll Illr ¡lu ullmlummlfuha Wmmuhull
anlIrhnjl du dlulnhm I'ummnu Vumm
 Preface and Dedication

To write a book on Samjíc'e m' lhe Bible is to recogmzc' the central placc of
the idca and practicc of sacnñ'cc m° biblical rcligion. What bcgan in Lhc
Old Testamcnt as thc ccremomal' way of worship and atonemcm becamc,
later m' thc Old Testamem and cspccially m' thc Ncw, thc pattcrn for thc
way of human lifc and also for the way of divm'c salvau'on, through thc
work of thc divm'c-human Saviour Jcsus Chn'st. How far thesc dcvclopcd
ideas wcrc ¡m'plicít m' the ceremonial practice from which they amsc m' one
of thc qucstions which has to be discussed m' such a book.
Bcginnmg from thc cercmomàl pracu'cc, especially as excmpliñcd in
thc Passover sacnñ'cc and the sacriñcial regulations of l.cviu'cus, Lhe book
passcs on to thc intcrpretation of sacr1ñ'cc m' the Psalms and the Prophcta,
beforc summing up lhc Old Tesxament matcríal in a chaptcr on the
thcology of sacnñ'cc and a chaplcr on sacr1f1'ce among Lhc nalions who
were IsmePs ne1'ghbours. Thc New Tcstamcm scction bcgins with n
chapter on Lhe chish and Gentjlc backgrounds, and lhcn survcys lhe
main bodics of Ncw Tcstamcnt teachíng in Iwo chaptcrs, bcforc con~
cluding with anothcr theologica| chapler and a Chaptcr which ultcmpls to
draw out lhc relcvancc for mday of lhe wholc book.
Sacnfcc in rhc Bíblc originuch in n confcrcncc of lhc Biblicul 'l'he(›logy
study group of lhe Tyndulc Fcl|uwahip fnr Biblicnl nnd 'I'hculogical
Rcscurch. which wan heltl m Tyndnlc Hmmc, (Iamhn'dgc, in July l987.
Thc mnfcrcncc had hccn nrnunizcd, nnd lhc npcukers invilmL hy thc Rcv
John P Bukcr, rccwr of Ncwick. Susucx. whu had hccn thc ublc und
cnthuniumic uccrclurv nl 2hc group fnr muny vcurm ll wnu Ihc lum nÍ thcnc
coníbrcnccn lhul hc wux ublc m nucnd, un hc wun alrcndy uulfcrinu Írmn
lcukucnn'n, which wnn lhc culmc nÍ hin prcmumrc dculh IIIc Íhllnwinn ycnn
Frmn lhc nulurl il hud lwvn hnpcd lhut lhc pupm rrml ul Ihc Lnnlbrcmsc
might fnrm Ihr hnuin ufn huok un lhc nmnc Ihnnc. nnd now lhul lhc bcmk
iu ul lmu nppcul'i|lu. |hr. cdilmn wuuld likc ln dcdiLMc i|. wnh rcupccl und
maumdn Io Julm llukn"u mcumry.
Mlcr Juhn Hukcr'u dculh. lwn nl Ilm npeukcru m Ihc mnlcrcncc undcn
Nmk mcdh Ihc |›upcu, wilh hclp in thc miliul ulnucn lmm l)uvid I)cbny¡,
lhcn libruríun ul 'l'yml›|lc Hmuc. 'l'hc ucncrul diviniuu nl rcuwlmhílhy
xü saaWc m' du Biblc
Mamn_
to edit the Ncw Testament matenal' and
was for Roger Beckwith though ovcrall responsibmty for me
shape f
Old Tcstamcnt, the lme o
thc
greater part ofthe lnbour has becn bome by r.
the book and the
RTB
MJs
 1
The Passover Sacnâ'ce

T.D. ALEXANDER

I. CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO THE PASSOVER

The Passovcr is undoubtcdly thc bcst known of all thc Jewish fcstivals.
This is due m' pan to its prommcncc m' the remarkablc evems sur-
rounding the Israclítc exodus from Egypt, and m° part to thc assocza'tion of
the death of Jesus Chríst wíth thc killmg of the Passover sacnfi'ce, as
reñccted in the famous words of Paul, 'For Christ, our Passover, has been
sacnñ'ced' (l Cor. S:7). Yet behind this casuai familiarity there is much
unccrtainty about the Passovcr m' the Old Tcstamcnt pcn'od.
While wc are pnma'r11'y m'tcrested m' thc sacr1ñ'c1'al element of the
Passover, we must takc as our stamn'g pom't current theories regarding
the on'gm' and devclopment of the Passover as a whole. This is necessary
because scholarly rcsearch over thc past cemury has lcd to a radically new
understanding of the Passover's early history, challenging the authcmi-
city of two ccmral components of the biblical Iraditíon. F1r'stly, it is now
widely accepted that Lhc Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, in
spite of their close association ín Exodus 12 and elsewhere, wcrc originally
unrelated religious feasxs Secondly, it is often suggested that thc real
orígm' of Ihe Passovcr is an ancíem nomadic practicc conccrnmg Ihe well-
being of the ñocks, and not Ihe Israelite cxodus from Egypt. The prcscnt
biblical ponrayal of thc Passovcr arosc out of a concem to providc later
religious ritcs with an hístorical etiology. This reappraisal of Ihe
Passover's history, not surprisingly, has seríous 1m°plications for our
understandm'g of its sacnñ'cial nature.
The modern reiection of the biblical Passover traditíon is rooted m° the
theory lhat almost all of the Pentateuch comes from four sourccs,
dcsignatcd Yahwistic (J), Elohistic (E), Dcutcronomistic (D) and Priestly
(P), and dated respecúvely to the tenth/mn'th, nm'th/eighth, seventh and
sxx'th/ñfth centuries BC. Thís theory of four sources, known as Lhc
Documentary Hypothesis, received its most mñ'uenu'al formulation over a
century ago m' the writmgs of Julius Wcllhausen.l Sígmñ'canlly, to
2 Sacnfíc'z m' Ihe Bible

support his datm'g of thc Pentateuchal sourccs, Wcllhauscn posíted, m'

part, a totally ncw picture of the on'gm' and developmcnt of the Passover.
By compann'g Ex. 23:15-16 and Ex. 34:l&-22 (both ]) With Dt. 16:l-l7
(D) he concluded that m' ancienl Israel lhcrc wcre thrce mam' feastsz
Unleavencd Brcad, Weeks and TabemacleslBoothS. On thc basís of thcu'
earliest títlcs (Unlcavcncd Brcad, Harvcst and Ingathenn'g, as rcñccted m'
Ex. 23 and 34) thcy wcrc clcarly agrícultural m' on'g1n', ptobably taken
over by the Israclilcs from thc Canaanites. Funhennorc, because thc
J sccúons of the Pematcuch never mention it, thc Passovcr could not havc
exísted when J was composed.2 Wellhausen then suggested, on the basxs'
of Dt. 16:l-8 (D), that the Passover and the Fcast of Unleavened Brcad
were amalgamated about the um'e of Josmh"s reforms m° 621 Bc.3 Prior Io
dús they wcrc totally unconncctcd. Subsequcnt dcvelopmcnts, as
revealed m' the Pricstly Wn'ter's ponrayal of thc Passover (as found m' Ex.
12:l-20, 28, 43-49; 13:1-2; Lv. 23:S-8; Nu. 9:l-14; Nu. 28.'16-25),
conñnned this maior m'novatíon.4 By concludmg that thc Passover and
the Fcast of Unlcavened Bread were unrelated prior to about 620 BC,
Wcllhausen ovcrtumed the longstandmg tradjtion, híghlightcd espechlly
m' Exodus 12~13, that both origma'tcd as commemorations of the Israclite
exodus from Egpr So cogent were hís arguments for thc orig1n'al
m'dependence of the Passover and Unleavened Bread that Wcllhauscn's
work heraldcd a new era in the study of the early history of thcse sacrcd
feasts.
If the Passover was unconnected to the Feast of Unlcavened Bread
prior to thc tnn°c of Jos1ah', how did it origmate and what form did it take?
For hís part, Wellhausen suggested that the Passover developed m' a
pastoral, rather than an agricultural semn'g, as the offenn'g of the
ñrstfruits of shcep and cattle.5 Expressm'g gratitude to God for fruitful
ñocks and hcrds, it was the oldcst of the feasts and was not tied to any
particular um'e m' the ycan Although the offcring of ñrstfruits origm°ated
m' IsraePs nomadic past, it was only rarely observcd dunn°g the early
monarchyg hence it is not mentíoncd 1n' thc Book of the Covcnant (Ex.
22:29-30). It was rcvived m' Judah aftcr thc fall of the northern km'gdom
m' 721 BC, to be amalgamatcd almost a ccntury later with thc Feast of
Unlcavened Brcad. Only at tlus' stage was the name pesab °Passovcr'
introduced.
Whilc acceptmg the validity of Wellhausen”s general approach, other
writers substant1a'lly rcv1sc'd his picture of the Passovcr's on'gm'. G.B.
Gray sought to ísolatc various ancicnt fcatures of the Passover by focusmg
on íls later customs.6 He concluded that the Passover was orígmally
obscrved by nomadic Israelites on the m°ght of the fulJ moon nearest the
Sprm'g cqum'ox. In its carlicst form it consistcd of a sacr1ñ'cial mcal in
which the cntüe vicum' was catcn raw, with the blood still in it.7 This
custom was later mod1ñ'ed; the vicum' was now cookcd and íts blood
smeared on thc door posts. Thc blood ritual had an apotropaic purposc; it
was intendcd lo protcct those within from some powcr outside by
 The Pamver Sacnjice' 3

providmg a 're-mf'0rced closed door'. Wxth thc ccntrahza'uo'n ofsacnñcul"

worship m' Jerusalcm m' 621 BC, thc practioe of smeanhg thc blood on thc
door was abandoned; thc sacnñ'cml' meal alonc connn'ucd to bc obscrvecL
Accordmg to R. dc Vaux, thc Passover bcgan as the spnn'g-umc'
sacnñ'ce of a young ammal', not nccessarüy Lhe ñrstbom, by nomadk or
semí-nomadic shcphcrds m' ordcr to guarantec thc prosperity of Lhe
ñock.' It occurred prior to the tribal migrau'on, and requu'ed neither a
priest nor an altan An ¡m'pommt feature of the fcast, which took place at
the full moon, was thc smearíng of blood on thc tent-poles In' ordcr to
drivc away evü powers. Various fcaturcs of the latcr Passover cclebration
rcñcct its nomadic on'g¡n':

Thc vicum' was roasted over a ñre wíthoul any kitchcn utcnsús'; it was catcn
with unlcavcned brcad (wh1c'h is stm thc nomul bread of Bedoum' to-day). and
with bitter herbs (which does not mean vegetnblcs grown m' Lhe garden, but
the desert plants which Bedoum° pick to scason thcir food). The rítunl
prcscribcd that thosc caun'g it should have theu' belts alrcady fastened, sandals
on their feet (as 1f' they wete 9gomg to make a long joumey on foot), and a
shephcrd's súck m' onc hand.

Bcfore thc Israelite scttlemcnt of Canaan, thc Passover was a common

feast cclcbratcd at thc cemral sanctuary of thc tribal fedcrau'on. With the
dccenuahza'u'0n of cultic worship, after IsraePs occupation of Canaan, it
bccame a famüy fcast. Much later, as a result of Josíah's decision to havc
all cultic worship centrahz'ed m' Jerusalem, ít rcvcrtcd to a common fcasL
Reccntly, the spcculatívc naturc of such historics has becn lug'hhgh'tcd
by J. Van Sctcrs. On methodological grounds he reiects these tradítio-
historical attcmpts to reconstruct the Passovcr's on'gin through either thc
backward proiection of later features or the use of comparative customs.

For all its m'gem'ous reconstructíons Lhe dlsa'dvantages of the tradiu'o-histon'cal

method arc consíderable. Sm'cc ít spcculates about thc shape of Lhe pre-líteme
tradiúon íts thcorics cannot bc falsmcd by an appeal to the prcsem tcxts. Thcrc
is also no way lo mkc any iudgment betwccn radically d1f'fcrem proposals and
thus theories about thc cult have greatly prohf'cratcd. Funhermorc, thosc who
follow this method havc never demonstratcd by comparativc litcmture thnt
tradju'onl-°hislory is anythmg but a completely amñ'c1nl' construction of biblical
scholars.

Becausc they cannot be substanua'tcd, traditimhíslorical thcories about

Ihc Passovcfs orig1n' must bc trcated with thc utmost cauu'on. They
clcarly do not provide a vcry secure foundation upon which to basc our
m'vcstigation of Lhe sacnñ°cial nature of the Passover.
Although Van Seters afñrms emphatically the príority of source
analysís for uncovenhg Lhe truc history of the Passovcr, hc reiects
Wcllhausen's approach on a number of spec1ñ'c pom'ts. Fus'tly, hc is
convm'ccd that the J matcnal' should bc dated to the pcriod of the ex11'c,
 4 Sacnjic': m' lhc Bible

maluhg D the earlicst source, with I com1n'g midway betwecn D and P.

Secondly, whcreas Wellhausen mamtamed that thc Passovcr and thc
Fcast of Unleavencd Bread wcre ñrst amalgamatcd m' Deutcronomy 16,
Van Setcrs views all thc rcfcrcnces to Unleavcncd Brcad m' Dcuteronomy
16 as latcr additíons. Th1r'dly, hc supports thc víew of ]. Halbe that the
Feast of Unlcavened Bread did not on'gm'ate as an anciem Canaaníte
agñcultural fesu'val." Rather he datcs it to the ex111"c períod when the
eaun'g of the Passovcr sacr1ñ'cc could no longer bc observcd due to the
destruction of thc tcmple; the caun'g of unleavcned brcad became lhe
basns' of a substítutc fcstivaL Fourthly, hc rcassigns some of thc matcml'
m' Exodus 12-13 to d1ff'crcnt sourccs from thosc proposed by Wcllhauscnz
12.'29-39 and 13:3-16 comc from J; the remam'm'g verscs (12:l-28 and
13z l-2) are Lhc product of P.12
In the hgh°t of Lhesc considerations, Van Seters proposes the followmg
rcconstruction of Lhc Passovefs h1$'tory. Thc Passovcr, as rcflectcd m' thc
earlicst source D, was a one day festival m' the spnn'g at a local sanctuary.
Aftcr thc slaughter of an ammnl' from thc ñock or hcrd, thcrc was a mcal,
catcn at mgh't wíthout unlcavened bread. D rcstricted the celebratjon of
the festival to a ccnml sanctuary, and m'troduccd thc idea that it was a
commcmoration of the cxodus. About a century and a half latcr, wíth the
dcstruction of the tcmple, it was no longer possiblc to cclcbratc thc
Passover. As a result thc Fcast of Unleavened Bread was m'stituted by J as
a substitute. This ncw fcast, howcvcr, lastcd for a weck, and promm'cnce
was givcn to thc eann'g of unleavened brcad, the onc s1'gn1ñ'cant clcmcm
retnmcd from thc Passover celebratíom Wíth the restoration of the temple
aftcr the exüe further modmcatíons occurred, as wímcsscd m' P. Thc
rcvived Passover cclebration was combm°cd with the Feast of Unleavened
Brcad. Thís, however, prcscnted a problem for chs livmg m° thc
Dms'pora. How could they, far rcmovcd from Ihc sanctuary, particípate m'
Lhe ncw combm'cd feastP To resolvc thc problem each household was
sancnñ°cd by means of a blood ríte: 'A small amm'al could be slaughtcrcd
as a sacnñ°cc, its blood used to punfy' the housc, and the ammal' cookcd m'
such a way as to rcsemblc an offcrmg by fire.'13 To leginnuze" this activity
the Plrícstly Writer crcatcd the etiology of thc blood ritc of thc cxodus
story.
The proposals of Wcllhausen and Van Scters highlight the varícty of
reconstructions which are possible for the history of Lhe Passovcr. The1r'
d1ff'erm'g conclusíons depend heavüy upon the source analysis of the
rclevant Pcmatcuchal passages and theü daun'g m' telation to one anothen
Sm'ce it Ls' not possíble m' this present study to explore ín detaü thc vast
and complcx issuc of Pcntateuchal cn'tic1s'm, sevcral observations must
sufñce.
F1I'stly, at the prcsent um'e the whole question of Lhe source analysís of
the Pentateuch ís 1n' a state of ñux. The once assured results of thc
Documcmary Hypothcsis no longcr enjoy widespread acceptance. Rcccnt
srudíes havc challenged both thc valídíty of thc crítcria uscd to distmguish
 The Pasxowr Samfíc'e 5

sourcesls and thc order m' which they should be datcd.'° In thc hgh't of
thesc developmems, cautíon should bc cxcrcised about zny anempt w
rcconstruct thc h¡s'tory of thc Passover on Lhc bam' of onc panículat
thcory of sourcc amly31s'.
Secondly, 1n' the pasl it has gcncnlly bccn assumed Lhal ¡f' a
Pematcuchal sourcc shows no knowlcdge of a pamcu'lar custom or
practice, that fcaturc d1d' not exist whcn thc source wn composcd. th
conclusions drawn from the süence of thc tcxt may provc unwamnwd.
Two factors make thk hk'cly. On Lhe one hand, somc passages about the
Passovcr are cxccpüonally bn'ef (c.g. Ex. 34:25; Lv. 23:5; Nu. 28:16).
The abscncc of partimlar dctaxls' may be duc cnurc'ly to thc succch
naturc of thc matcnal'. On the other hand, 1f' two sources havc becn
combm'ed, spcañc' dcmh m' one source may bc omitted for ediloml'
reasons.” This 1s' espedally relevant rcgardmg the namtive ín Exodus
12-l3, which 13' gencrally understood to bc compnsc'd of two, 1f' not morc,
sources. Little allowance 1s' madc for thc fact Lhat Lhc editor(s) who
combmed' thesc sourccs may havc dclibcntcly omittcd dcmlz' already
prcscnt m' onc sourcc m' favour of parallcl dcmls' found m' anothcr of the
sources. For cxample, whüe J alone memions the use of a buin for
catchm'g the blood and of hyssop for smcarmg it on Lhc door-posts (Ex.
12.'21-27), wc should not supposc Lhat P's süence about theac mancn
mcans Lhat he had no knowlcdge of thcm. Wc must allow for thc
possibmty that somc matcnal' became redundant when thc sourccs wcre
combm'cd. "' Unfonunatcly, wc have no way of knowmg how lirde or how
much matcnal' has bccn lost m' thc editonal' prooess.
In thc hgh't of thcsc observaúons ít ls' apparcnt that Lhe task of
rcconstructmg lhe hislory of thc Passovcr w¡ll' conun'uc to prcscnt a maior
challenge, cvcn 1f' scholam am'vc at a ncw conscnsus rcgardmg thc sourcc
analysís of thc Pentatcuch. Two factors, howcver, suggcst that greater
authcnticity should bc attributed to thc biblical account of the Passovcr's
caxly h1s'tory.
Fus't, almost every passage which refers lo the Passovcr assochtcs it
with cither thc Feast of Unleavcncd Brcacl or with the eaun'g of
unlcavcncd brcad. '9 Although Wcllhauscn and Van Setcrs mamlam that
thc two feasts wcrc ongmall"y unconnected m' J and D rcspccu'vcly, theü
arguments are not convm'cm'g. M. Haran has dcmonstrated, conlra
Wellhausen, that J knew of both feasts,' thcrc is no reason to dcletc Lhe
tcrm pesab Passover m' Ex. 34:25 .2° Nor is it necessary to rcmovc, as Van
Scters suggcsts, all refercnces to Unleavencd Bread m' Dcutcronomy 16.1l
Gíven the unanmu"ry of thc biblícal tradition, thcrc are surcly good
grounds for bclicving that both feasts were unitcd from theu' m'ccption.
The evidencc IO the contrary is not compclhn'g.
Second, all the Pentateuchal sources lm'k the Passover with thc Israclitc
exodus.22 The assumption that later writers created an historical cüology
is not supported by thc ev1'dencc. No altemative cxplanaüon for
Lhc designation pexab *Passover' has gamed widesprcad support, and
 6 Sacnñcc' m' tlu Büle

athough scholam havc cxprcssed reservations conccmmg with the

explanatíon givcn 1n' Exodus 12-l3, it is by far the most suitablc.23
For these rcasons we shall trcat scríously the biblical tradition which
hnk's the ongm" of both thc Passovcr and thc Fcast of Unleavencd Bmd
with thc Israelitc exodus from Egpr Evcn 1f' thc rcha'b1h"ty of thls'
tradition is rcicctcd, ít sull' merits dctaüed consíderation as ít stands, ¡f'
only becausc later gcncrations unreservcdly acceptcd it as trustworthy.
To apprccn'te how thc Passover was perceívcd m' thc post-biblícal períod
and bcyond, we must begm' with the bíblícal tradition as we now have it.

II. ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL PASSAGES

Wc shall consíder nu"tially thc account of Lhc vcry ñrst Passovcr m' Exodus
12-13. Thc uniqucncss of this occasion scts it apart from all othcrs.
Unfortunatcly, modcm hístorical reconstructions tend to blur thls'
disnn'ction. Aftcr consídenn'g this passage we shall survey thc rcmamm"g
tcxts. Throughout we shall gíve special consideration to the sacnñ'c1al'
naturc of the Passovcr.

Exodus 12.'l-l3:16
By far thc most demücd dcscriptíon of thc Passover comes m' Ex. 122 1-
l3: 16. Sct m' thc context of IsracPs delíverance from Egypt we have here a
description of the ñrst Passover, together with m'structíons for future
annual commemorau'ons.
As it stands, the text of Exodus 12-13 draws an 1m'portant dístm'ction
bctween this Passover and latcr commcmorations. Comments rcgardmg
the ñrst Passover focus pnm'arüy on the activities associated with thc
sacnñ'ce made on the fourtecnth day of the ñrst month (Ex. 12:2-13, 21-
23). This Passover is so sígnmcant that the Israelites are 1n'structed to
commemorate it for an enur'e week annually.24 However, the1r' immm'ent
departure from Egypt prohibíts any prolonged celebration at that um'e.
Only m' subsequent years wm this bc possible. Thesc futurc commcmor-
ations will ccntrc on a sevcn day festival markcd by the catm'g of
unleavened brcad (Ex. 12:l4-20,' 13:3-10). Whüe the Feast of Unleav-
ened Bread w111' form the basis of future celebrations, the Passover níght
itself wm also be remembered. It Wül be commemorated on the evemn'g of
the fourtecnth of Abib, wíth the Feast of Unleavened Bread begm'mn'g on
the ñfteenth day of the momh and lastmg untü the evcnm'g of the twenty-
ñrst day of the momh.zs
At thc hcart of thc ñrst Passover ritual ís the slaym°g of a lamb or kíd,
thc smcarmg ofíts blood on thc door posts, and the eating ofíts meaL The
detailed m'structíons for this ritual parallel closely those relaun'g to
sacnñ'ccs. Thus, thc spccnñcations conceming thc vict1m's are similar to
those given elscwhcre rcgardmg sacnñ'cial amm'als:26 thcy arc to be 'ycar-
 Thc Passovcr Samjíc'e 7

old malcs wíthout dcfcct' taken from °the shccp or thc goats'.27 Thc shecp
or goats arc sclectcd four days prior to the1r' slaughtcr, pcrhaps to cnsurc
that thcy are rítually pure. The sacr1fi'c1al' status of the amma'ls 1s' also
reñectcd m' the way thcy are trcatcd aftcr theu' slaughtcr. Spccml'
d1r'ectíons arc givcn rcgardmg the handlmg of thc blood, ficsh and bonesz
thc blood must bc put on thc sídcs and tops of the door-fmmes of the
houscs (Ex. 12:7, 22),' thc mcat 13' to be roastcd ovcr thc fixc and thcn catcn
(Ex. 12:8-10); the vicum"s bones must not bc brokcn (Ex. 12:46).Zl
Taken togcthtr, all of these factors suggcst Lhat Lhc Passovcr ritual should
be understood as a sacnñ'ce. Thís is conñrmcd by thc brief comment m'
12:27, 'It is thc Passover sacnñ'ce to the LORD.'
Although clcmcnts of thc Passover ccremony tcscmblc other sacnñ'ccs,
in its cnm'cty it is um'quc. Since sacrmccs in ancicnt Ismcl took d1ff'crcnt
forms and fulñllcd various functions, ít is not unexpccted that the
Passovcr should exhibit special charactcn'sn'cs. Moreover, the um'quencss
of the occasion rccorded m' Exodus 12-13 accounts for somc of the
dls'un'ct¡ve elcmems of thc first Passover. Bccausc this Passovcr occurred
príor to the cstablishmcm of the Aaromc pn'csthood (Lv. 8:l-9:24),
Moscs commands 'all thc cldcrs of Isracl' to slaughtcr thc Passover
v1'ct1ms' (Ex. 12:21). Furthcrmore, no portion of the sacnñce ls' sct aside
for pricstly consumptíon as was customary after thc cxodmg29 the enur'c
amm°al is consumed by all those withm the house. Sum'“larly, the narrativc
makes no rcfcrence to thc central sanctuary or altar whích were ñrst
m'su'tutcd after the exodus at Smm" (Ex. 20.'24-26; 25:8-27:l9). Thc
ammal°s werc probably sacnñ'ced either m' or close to thc homes where
thc pcoplc gathcrcd. The hjstorical context may also cxplam why the
Passovcr sacnñ'ce took placc at 'tw1h"ght'3° whercas other sacnñ'ces were
normally offered up dunn'g daylíghL On account of the1r' exploitation by
the Egyptians, thc Israelítes probably had no opportunity to offer
sacnñ'ccs durm'g Lhc day. Fm'ally, Ihe nmm"g oí thc Passover on thc
fourteemh day of thc month com'cides with the full moon, which would
surely have been thc most suitable night for undenakm'g the activities
associatcd wíth the Israelitcs' dcparture from Egpr
From the detaüed description of me prcparations associated with Ihe
k111m"g of thc Passover vicnm', there can bc litdc doubt, as noted abovc,
that this constituted a sacnñ“ce. This is underlmcd by thc spccial usc to
whích the amm'al's blood is put,' it ís smcared on Lhe sides and tops of the
door-frame of the housc (Ex. 12:7, 22). To explam ths' aspect of the
Passover ritual some writers emphasize its apotropaic purpose; it was
m'tended to protect those within from hostile powers without. Thís
explanatíon is clearly supported by Ex. 12:13, 23 whích dcscribcs how thc
dcstroyer is not pernútted to emcr those houscs marked with blood on the
door-frames; thc blood apparcntly protects thc Israelitcs from the plague
which kms the Egyptian ñrstbom. Other scholars suggcst that the blood
was used to punf'y thc Israelite houses.31 Apart from other instances
of blood being employed in this way, the use of hyssop (Ex. 12:22),
8 Samfíde in lhe Bible

associatcd clscwhcre with ritual punñ'cation, supports this suggesstiozn32

Howcver, sm'ce thc text does not make explicit the exact purpose of the
blood n'te, we cannot be completely certain as to its precise funcu'on.
Aside from the killm'g of the lamb or kid and the accompanym'g blood
n'te, Lhe eaun'g ofthe amm'al was an equally 1m'portant part of the Passover
rituaL This is highlíghtcd by a numbcr of factors. The wholc Israelitc
communíty was to participate (Ex. 12:47). For each amm'al slaughtered
therc had to be an adequatc number of people to eat all of its meat; where
nccessary smaller households iom'ed togcther (Ex. 12:4). Only those who
were c1r'cumciscd could participatc m' the meal (Ex. 12:43-45, 48-49).
Specml' m'strucu'ons were gíven concerruhg the cooking of the meat; the
enure' amm'al was roasted over a ñre, not boüed in watcr (Ex. 12:9). The
mcat must bc eatcn m'dooxs (Ex. 12'.46), and it was forbiddcn to brcak thc
boncs (Ex. 12:46). Any meat which remam'ed untü the moming was bumt
(Ex. 12.'10). The meticulous nature of these details suggests that the meal
had a special sígnxñ'ca.nce.
Interesnn'gly, Lhe descn'pu'on of the Passover meal is closely paralleled
by the accoum of the consecration of the Aaronic pricsts m° Exodus 29 and
Levilicus 8. Moses was to slaughter a ram and sprmkl'e somc of its blood
on Aaron and hís sons to consccrate them (Ex. 29.'20-21; Lv. 8:23-24,
30). Aaron and his sons were then to cook the ram and eat its meat, along
with unleavened bread (cf. Ex. 29:23), at thc entrance to the Tent of
Meeun'g (Ex. 29:32,' Lv. 8:31). Because the meat was sacred, no-one else
was permitted to eat ít, and any meat left tül the mornmg was to be bumt
up (Ex. 29:33-34; Lv. 8:32). Clearly the slaughter of the ram, togethcr
with the sprm'klm'g of its blood and the cating of its meat form the mam'
elements of a consecratíon rítual.33
Allhough some of the detaüs d1f'fer, these same elements underlic thc
Passover rítuaL This suggests that it may havc performcd a símilar
function. By participatlhg in the Passover ritual, the Israclítes sct
themselves apart as holy. This conclusion would support the view that the
slaughter of the ammal' atoned for the sm' of the people and that Lhe blood
smeared on the door-posts pur1ñ'ed those withm' the house. By
pam'cipann'g in thc Passover the Israelítes took an un'portant step towards
beconúng a holy natíon (cf. Ex. 19:6).34

Exodus 34:25

The next cxpücit rcference to the Passover comes m' Ex.34:25 , where ít ís
mentíoned brietly m' conjunctíon wíth thc feasts of Unleavcned Bread,
Harvest and IngaLhermg (Ex. 34:18-26). This passage comes in the
context of the rcnewal of thc divm°e covcnant with thc Israelites followíng
1th rcbellious actívíty m'volvm'g the Goldcn Calf (Ex. 34: l-28; cf. Ex.
32:l-35). Ex. 34:10-26 ís probably an abrídged vcrsion of a covenant
document which Moses recorded on this occasion. It resemblcs closcly an
earlier covcnant document, called 'the Book of the Covenant' (Ex. 24:7),
 Tlu Passover SaaWe 9

prescrvcd 1n' Ex. 21:1-23:33.35 Of partículax m'tcrcst is thc fact that both
tcxts províde sxmxlat" m'strucu'ons rcgardmg thc thrce maior pxlgr'1mag'c
feasts of Unleavened Bread, Harvest, and Ingathen'ng.36 Although thc
Passover ls' not named explicítly m' Ex. 23:l4-l9, v. 18 pamllcls closely
34225:

Exodus 23:18 Exodus 34:25

Do not offcr the blood of a
sacnfi'cc to me along wíth
anythmg conwnm"g yeast.
The fat of my festival offcrm'gs
must not be kcpt unul' mormn'g.
Do not offer thc blood of a sacnñce
to me along with anythmg
contmnm"g yeast, and do not let any
of Lhc sacrmcc from thc Passovcr
Fcast rcmam umü mormng'.37

Unfortunatcly, the concisc naturc of thesc rcgulations has causcd

commcntators to adopt very d1ff'enn'g m'terpretatíons. Scholarly opm1"on
is divided as to whethex or not thesc vcrscs refer to the Passovcr.”
Howevcr, Lhere arc good rcasons for treaung' both passagcs as refcmng' to
the Passovex. Sm'cc the word ordcr hjghhgh'ts thc |m'pomncc of
unlcavencd brcad, a maior clemcnt m' thc Passover (cf. Ex. 12:8, lS, l7-
20) but a m1n'or aspcct of other sacnñ°ccs, Haran rciects the opm1"on that
23218a and 34z25a refer to all sacr1ñ'ces. Funhermore, Lhe rcqmr'emcnt
that nothmg' of thc sacnfi'ce should be kept or remam untü mormn'g did
not apply to most sacr1ñ'ccs,' it is, however, vcry remnu"sccm of the
Passover (Exodus 12210).39
As obscrvcd abovc, the ñxst Passovcr wns to bc commemoratcd
pnn°cipally through Lbe week long fcstíval of Unleavcncd Bread which
was preccded by a special commemoration of the Passover níghL Whüe
the matetial m' Ex. 23114~l9 and 34:18-26 focuses pnm'anl'y on the three
mam pxlgnma"ge fcasts, it is hardly surprismg' that the Passover should bc
mcmioned m' view of its close assochtion with thc Fcast of Unleavened
Bread. Unfortunatcly, thc brevity of these rcgulations makes ít
1m'possiblc to reconstruct a detaücd pictutc of the PassoveL Nevertheless,
they arc m' keepmg with how we mjght havc expccted later celcbrau'ons of
the Passover to bc observcd on the basis of Exodus 12-13.

chiticus 23:5

The Passover is listed among “the appomted feasts of the LORD' m' Lv.
23:l-44, wherc it is mentíoncd brieñy (v. 5) by way of m'troducing the
Feast of Unleavened Bread (vv. 6-8). Thc chapter as a whole highlights
those occasions on which sacred assemblies were held (23:2, 4). Apart
from every Sabbath, sacrcd assemblics wcrc hcld on thc ñrst and scvcmh
days of Unlcavcncd Brcad, once durmg the Feast of chks,4° on thc
Fcast of Trumpels, on the Day of Atonemem, and on the flrst and cighth
days ofTabernacles. Sigmñ'cantly, the Passover is not designatcd a sacrcd
assembly; it ís merely stated that it begm's at twmght on the fourteenLh
 IO .S'am/u"'¡ in Ihc Ribh

duy of Ihc Iiral momh. l"urlhcrm0rc. nllhoulgh dclails nrc giv_c¡1 rcgardêng
somc of thc uncriñcca anaocimcd with lhc nppomlcd fcasls. no mformnhon
ía providcd nhout thc Passovcr sncr¡ñ'cc.

Numbem 9:|-l4
Thc ñm uccount of Ihc Passovcr bcing commcmoratcd aftcr thc cxodus
from Egypl comcs in Nu. 9: l-l4. This passagc is notcworthy becauac il
addmsca Ihc pmblcm of lhosc who arc unablc to cclcbratc Ihc Paasovcr
on thc fourtccnth day of Ihc fím monlh of Ihc ycar becausc thcy arc
ccrcmoninlly unclcan. That such a problcm should nrisc indicatcs lhnt
lhosc who obscrvcd Ihc Passovcr wcre cxpcclcd to bc ritually pure. This
was necessary bccnum of Ihc szcrcdncss of Ihc cvcn(. To rcsolve this
difñculty Ihc l.0RD inslructs Moscs lhnl Lhosc who nrc unablc lo participatc
nt Ihc usual timc may cclcbratc it on thc fourlccnth day uf thc second
momh (v. H). Apnrt from Ihc changc in datc, all othcr aspccts of thc
commcmomtion rcmain thc samc. It wns to bc cclcbmed at twílight (9: 3).
Thc pcoplc wcrc lo cal a lamb or kid togcther with unleavcncd brcad and
biucr hcrbs (Nu. 9:ll,' cf. Ex. 12:8). Nothing must bc lcft tíll thc
morning and Ihc viclim's boncs must not bc bmkcn (Nu. 9212; cf. Ex.
12:10, 46).
Thc Pussovcr sacríñcc is dcscribcd twicc ns 'thc LORD's offcring' (Nu.
9:7,13). Thc chrcw tcrm uscd hcrc for 'offcring', qorbãn, rcfcrs to that
which is brought ncar. It is frcquemly uscd ín Leviticus and Numbers of
cithcr sacriñccs or ohjccts lo bc uscd in Ihc snnctuary (cf. Nu. 7: l?›ff.).“l
This indicmcs thl Ihc Puxsovcr sacríñcc was lo bc offcred ín lhc
suncluary, nnd nol at homc, as happcncd on lhc vcry ñrst Passovcn In this
rcgard suhucqucm Passovcr commcmormions díffcr markcdly fmm Ihc
originnl cvan
lntcrcsxingly, Ihc Fcasl of Unleavcncd Brcnd is not mcntioned in this
pu.~¡.-mgc. Thia suggcxts Ihat n dístinctíon was drawn bctwccn kccping thc
Pmmnvcr zmd lhe Feusl nf Unlcavencd Brcad." Whilc it was possiblc to
cclcbrmc Ihc Pnssovcr a momh lntcr, it wns cvidcmly nm always practical
lo acl asidc in thc sccond monlh unothcr cntirc wcck lo cclcbrme Ihc Fcast
of Unlcuvcncd Brcud. Thís is supporlcd by Ihc obscrvatíon lhm thc
lsraclilcs bcgin u lhrce duy journcy on Ihc lwcnticth day of the sccond
momh (Nu, lO: l l, 33), whcrcus Ihc Fcnul uf Unlcavcncd Brcad normnlly
cndcd nn Ihc lwcnly-Íir.~u duy uf Ihc month wilh a sacrcd asscmbly, duríng
which Íl was forbiddcn lo work.

Numbcrs 28116

Nu. 28: l-29:40. which pnrullcls cloxcly Lv. 23: l-44, lism Ihc fmd fur Ihc
Il()kn's oílkrings mudc by Íirc ul Ihc uppointcd limcs (Nu. 28:2)."
S.'ignl'h'cunlly, ull lhc xncriticcx dcscríbcd in Numbcrs 28~29 urc hurnt
otlbringm lhm ís, Ihc cnlirc nffcring ís conuumcd hy tire. Thc hurning of
lhc viclim prmiuccn an ummu plcusing lo God (cf. Nu. 28:2). As in
 Thl Pauowr Sacnllc”¡

chiticun 23, Pnsnover íu mcntioncd brícñy (Nu. 28:16) prior to u fullcr

diacussion of thc Fcant of Unlcavcncd Brcad (Nu. 28:l7~25). Allhough
Ihc texl focuucs Un thc npcchl dníly uffcring uwm'alnl wilh Unlrnvcncd
Brcad, nmhing iu stnled cxplicilly about Ihc nnturc of lhc Paswvcr
sacn'ñcc. me thc ailcncc of thc rcxt, wc may dcducc thm thc Panwvcr
sacriñcc did nol Íhll imo lhc cutcgory ot offcrinss mndc by ñm bccauu ils
mcat ia culcn by thc worshippen., it ía not clnssiñcd as n burm offcrm'g.

Numben 33z3

ln noting thc datc of lhc lsrach'tcs' dcpmurc from Egypt, Nu. 33z3
alludcs only bricfly to lhc Pnssovcr nnd providcs no nddílionnl
informmion regarding thc sacriñcc.

Dcuteronomy 16:l-3
Thc last rcfcrcncc m 1hc Paswvcr in thc Pcnmcuch comcs in DL 16: l-
l7. Thia passagc, likc F.x. 231l4~l9 nnd Ex. 34:18-26, givcs dcuila aboul
lhc thrcc mam' pilgñmlgc fcaals, Unlcavcncd Brcad, chkx nnd
Tabcmaclcs. Oncc ngam thc Passover ís mcntíoncd in conjunclíon wilh
the Fcaat of Unlcavcncd Bread (16:l-8).“ Howcvcr, whcrcns thc
passagcs Mrcady considcrcd xcnd to prcscnt Lhc Passovcr nnd Unlcnvcncd
Brcnd aa dialinctivc occasí(›ns, thcy arc Ircalcd hcrc morc as a uníty. Thu'
docs nol mcan. as many scbolara havc aasumcd, lhnl Dcutcronomy brings
togcthcr for thc ñm tímc rwo origmnlly unconncctcd fcasls. Thc apparcm
scpamlíon of thc Passovcr and Unlcavencd Brcad in carlicr comcxts ariscs
out of thc spccm'l intercsls of thosc passagcs.“ Bccause lhc aulhor of
Deutcrunomy is primarily inlcrcslcd in lhcm us u singlc occasium hc
tcnds to blur thc distínclions bclwccn thc two, cspccíally in vv.l-4n. A
carcful rcnding of lhc tcxt rCVcals, howcvcr. that in spilc of lhis thc
Pnsaovcr and lhc Fcast of Unlcavcncd Bread rctuin thcir dislinclívc
fcnturcs.“'
Anothcr fcaturc of lhc prescnt passagc is thc cmphasis givcn w thc
loculion ul which lhc Pnssuvcr and Unlcuvcncd Brcml will hc cclchralcd.
Thrtc Iimcs it is madc clcar that lhc Pnssovcr musl hc .~¡ucriticcd and catcn
°ut lhc placclhc1.0|u) will choosc as u dwclling lbr his Nnmc' (v.2; cl'. vv.6.
7). Siucc thc book uf 1)cutcrunomy is scl aguinsl lhc buckgmund of lhc
lsrnclilcs' immincm cntry into und sculcmcm of lhc promiscd lund. il is
not .s'urpris¡ng thal wmclhing should hc said nbout lhc vcnuc of lhc
pilgrimugc Fcusl of Unlcuvcncd Bm|d.'” me lhis limc unwanls lhc
pcuplc will no longcr livc in closc pmximily Io lhc snncumry.
By lrcnling Pnswvcr nnd Unlcuvcncd lircald us u sinxlc cvcm lhc uulhur
of Dcutcronomy crcmex u numbcr of uppurcnl di.~:crcmnc1c.~4 htlwccn his
dcscriplion of lhcsc lbusts und lhusc rccurdui clscwhcrc in lhc
PcnlmcuclL Unfonunmcly. murc hus bccn mudc of lhcsc diífcrcnccs lhun
ís ncccssury To u lurxc cxlcnt lhcy occur hcunlsc lhc dculcwlmmic
legíslmiou is prcscnlcd in u non-tcchnicu| nr gcncrnl wuy.'ul
12 Sacnfíc'e ín Ilu Biblc

It 1s' obscrvcd that Dt. 16:2 apparemly spcciñcs lhc usc of animals from
Khe ñock or hcrd (so"n ub_'ãqãr) for thc Passovcr sacnñ'cc, whcrcas
clscwherc this is hml°'ted to thc ñock (;o"n) alone (Ex. 12:S). Various
solutíons have been suggestcd to accoum for thc deuteronomic legis-
latíonf° The inclusion of cattle, however, probably relalcs IO sacrxñ'ccs
which accompany eíthcr Ihe Passovcr or, perhaps more likcly, the Feast
of Unleavencd Bread; only sheep and goats are uscd for thc Passovcr
sacnñ'ce itself.5° cheral factors support thís m'tcrpretati0n. Fxrs'tly, in 2
Ch. 35:7-9 cattle arc closcly linkcd with thc provision of sheep and goats
for thc Passover. Yet, Lhe chrew text of 2 Ch. 35'.7 makcs it clear that
only the sheep and goats constitute the Passover sacnñ°ce; the cattle are
slaughtered, but not as Passover offerm'gs. Secondly, thc cxprcssíon pesab
lthh, Tassover to (of) Yahweh', probably designates hcre the combm'cd
festival of Passovcr and Unleavened Brcad. Vcrsc 2 thus refcrs to all thc
sacnñ'ces madc dunn'g Lhc seven day festivaL This view ís supported by
the unique combmation of words m' thc opemn'g phrasc of v.2: weza'_balpã
pesah_ lthh, 'sacnñ'ce Passover to the LORD (Yahweh)'. On the one hand,
this is the only example of the expression pesab ylhwh bem'g used with a
verb other than 'ãs'â 'to do, perform',5' and on the other hand, the vcrbs
'a'_kal 'to eat', ba§'al 'to cook', §ãlyu “to slaughter' and za'_bab “to sacnfi'cc'
elsewhere always take the obiect happesab, a clear refcrence to Lhe
Passovcr vicnm'.52 Had the author wished to specnfy' only the Passover
vícnm' m' v. 2 he would surely have used happesab, as m' vv.5 and 6, rather
than pesab lthh. Thirdly, J.B. Segal notes that Lhis is the only occasíon
m' Deuteronomy where the word order 'ñock and herd' is adopted.” If
v.2 rcfers to the combíned festival of Passover and Unleavencd Bread, this
ordcr reñects accurately the sequence m' which the sacnñ'ces werc offcred.
Another d1f'ñculty is noted in verse 3 rcgardmg the length of the
Passover. The text apparently smtes that the eatmg of the Passover amm'al
accompamed thc consumption of unleavened bread for seven days. Thc
m'terpretatjon of the verse híngcs on the two occurrcnca of thc chrcw
word 'ãlayw' gthc prcposition 'al wíth the pronominal suñix endm'g for
'h1m" or 4it'). 4 *al has a widc range of mcamn'gs,55 of which two sccm
particularly appropriatc m' the presem conlext. Fírst, it could mean 'in
addítíon to ít', with the antccedem of 'it' being the sacn'ñc1a'l amm'als.
Thís has been taken by some scholars Io ímply that the Passover must
have lastcd for Ihe emirc period durln'g which unleavcncd bread was
eatcn. Howevcr, as wc have suggestcd abovc, thc cxpressíon pesab ylhwh
ís probably used in w. l-2 as a titlc for thc combincd fcasts of Passovcr
and Unleavened Bread. If this is so, v.3 necd not imply that the actual
Passover sacr1ñ'ce was eaten for Ihe emire week.56 Second, 'a'lãyw might
possibly mean *in front of h1m", referring Io the LORD (Yahweh)."57 This
proposal rcmoves completely any difñcuhy over thc lcngrh of thc
Passovcr. With either of these readmgs of 'a'Ia'yw Lhcrc is no reason to
suppose that the deuteronomic legislation contrudicts previous Passover
mstrucuons.
 Tlu Paxsowr Samht l3

In vcrsc 6 thc um'c of thc sacnñ'cc is given as 'in thc cvcmn'g (bã'dn[_¡1)b,
whcn thc sun gocs down'. Elsewherc thc cxprcssion 'bcrwccn c
cvcnm'gs' (bm~ ha"arbayím) is used (Ex. 12:6; Lv. 23:S; Nu. 28:4,8). No
esscntial diffcrcncc is un'plíed by Dcuteronomy's adoption of a variam
cxprcssion for Ihc um'ing of lhc sacnñca Thc aulhor of Deuteronomy
adopts, as ¡s' hxs' cuslom, a less tcchnical cquivalcm ín placc of thc morc
spccialwed' cxprcssion 'bctween the cvcmn'gs'.
Accordmg ro some scholars, v.7 contradicts what is statcd m' Ex. 12:9
regardmg the cooking of lhc Pnssover vicum'. threas Ex. l2z9 clearly
prohibits Lhe meat fmm bem'g boüed, the deulcronomic legxs'lation
apparcndy requues' it, Lhc same vcrb ba§'al bem'g uscd on bolh occasions.
Howcvcr, baw by itsclf mcans 'to cook', not “Io boíl,,' to spccify boilm°g in
Ex. 1229 it is quahñ'ed by thc exprcssion 'm' water'.” Thcrc ¡s', xhcrcforc,
no reason to suppose that Dt. 16:7 rcquu'cd the Passovcr amm'al to be
boüed rather than roastcd. The author of Deutcmnomy may havc felt íl
unneccssary to give exact spec¡ñ'cau'ons regardmg the cookmg of Ihe
vicum', becausc Lhcy wcrc alncady commonly known and pracu'scd.
Thc meamm of the commcm ín v.7, “m' thc momm'g rctum to your
xems', has also prompted somc discussion. Varíous writcrs havc takcn thc
tenn *tents' to mean 'houses', and conscquemly havc m'tcrprcted ths'
m'eructíon as a requue'ment that the pcoplc rctum to thck own homes,
wherever thcsc arc m' IsraeL after celebraun'g lhc Passover m'ght. BuI how
does one mconcüc dus° with the fact that the male Israelites were expeclcd
to be prescnt at Lhc sanctunry durmg thc Fcast of Unleavcncd Brcad?
Mayes Is' pmbably corrcct when hc commcnts that *it should be taken
literally as a rcfercnce to the tem cncnmpmems of the pügnms to Lhc
central sanctuary for the celebmtjon of the sevcn~day fesu'val'.5° The
deutcmnonúc lcgislation was probably dcsigncd to cncouragc thc pcoplc
to rclum to Lhcu' tcnts for rest before mcongregating to cclebralc
togcthcr thc ñrst day of Unlcavcned Brcad as a holy assembly (cf. Ex.
12:16; Lv. 23:7,' Nu. 28:25).
A further problem is raised by the rcfcrencc to sm' days m' v.8. Many
scholars see a direct contradiction belween Lhis and the mention of sevcn
days m' v.3. Howevcr, thxs' díñiculty is casüy resolved when we note that
v.8 cchocs the sabbatical scclion of Ihe dcutemnomic dcwogumw lhe
fcstive wcck is divided m'to six days, followed by a scvcmh in which no
work is to be undenakcn. Thc vcrsc is structured m' thís way to hxg'hlight
the special nature of Khe closm'g 'asscmbl_v' (“¡z.$ere9.°l It is only by
accidcnt that il appears to contradict the sratemem m' v. 3 that unleavcncd
bread should bc caten for scven days.
Ahhough many scholam have argued Ihal thc deuleronomic record of
thc Passovcr díffcrs s¡'gnlñ'cantly from dcscriptions found clscwhcm in thc
Penlnteuch. this is nol the case.M As wc hnvc obscrved, a varicly of
fnctors account for thc upparent discrepancies observed in lhe lexL Whilc
Dcmcronomy 16 cmphalically conñrms our cnrlicr obscrvalion lhal every
commemoration of thc Passovcr sacriñce look placc al the ccmral
14 Samjíc'e m° du Biblc
sanctuary and not m' the homcs of the pcoplc, it shcds no new üght on thc
sacnñ'c1'al nature of thc Passovcr.

Joshua 5:10-ll
Outsíde the Pemateuch referenccs to the Passovcr arc few. There is a
short notíce in Jos. S:10-l l about the vcry ñrst celebration of the Passover
m' the land of Canaan. After crossmg the Jordan on the tcnth day of the
ñrst month (4:19), Joshua proceeds to commemoratc the Passover on the
fourteemh day of the same month. Although the account is bríef, several
pom'ts should be no¡cd. Fxrs'tly, prior to thc celebration of the Passovcr
Joshua cu'cumc15e's those Israelites bom m' thc dcsert dunn°g the ioumey
from Egypt (S:4-7). This is m' keepmg with the m'strucu'on that only those
who were c1r'cumcised should participate in the Passover (Ex. 12:44, 48).
Secondly, m' spite of suggcstíons to the contrary, the commcnt about
eatmg' unleavened bread on Lhe day after the Passover (v. ll) strongly
¡m'plies that the Fcast of Unleavened Bread was observcd on this
occasion.°3 No dctaüs are given of thc weck long fcstival becausc the
narrator is chieñy m'terested m' noun'g that the manna, which formed the
basxs' of Ihe Israelites” diet m' the desert, ceased to be divm'ely provided,-
now that they arc m' the promised land, the Israelites can enioy its
bounuf'ul provisions (v.12).

2 Chronicles 30:l-27
Remarkably, the ncxt record of thc Passovcr bem'g celebratcd comcs
considerably latcr m 716/5 Bc m' the ñrst ycar of the re1gn' of Hezeluah',
kmg' of Judah (2 Ch. 30:1-27). On thls' occasion the Passover 1s'
commemorated m' the second month, which is due to several factors.
Fus't, Lhe temple had to be rc-consecrated. Although this Was completed
on thc s1x'tecnth day of Lhe ñrst momh (2 Ch. 29:17), the tcmple service
was only re-establishcd Lhe ncxt day through thc offering of specíal
sacnñces (29:20-36). It Was therefore not possible to commemorate the
Passover on the fourteenth day of the ñrst month. Second, 2 Ch. 3023
statcs that the Passover could not be kept at Lhe regular Um'e because (a)
thene was an ma°dequate number of consecrated priests and (b)
m'sufñcient pcople had gathered m' Jerusalcm. Consequently, Hezckmh'
m'vites to Jerusalem all the mh'abitants of Isracl and Judah, from
Bcersheba to Dan, to cclebrate Lhe Passover m' the sccond month (30:5).
Such Was the joy of the occasion that the Feast of Unleavened Bread was
cclcbrated for an extra week (30:23). Sm'ce the t1m'e of Solomon there had
becn nolhmg hk'e it m' Jerusalem (2 Ch. 30226).“
A number of pom'ts are worth obscrving m° thís passage. Flrs'tly, the
celebmtion of the fcast 1n' Lhc sccond month is rcmuuHSCCnt of the
m'strucu'on given m° Nu. 9:9-14 that those who arc eithcr cercmomall'y
unclean or unablc to attcnd the sanctuary may observe Lhe Passover on the
founeenth day of the second month. Secondly, the blood of the Passover
 meooaSaazjícc' 15

vicums' is not smcared on thc door posts of Lhc houscs, as m' Egypt, but ls'
spnnkl'ed on or agamst thc altar (2 Ch. 302 16).65 Morcovcr, thns' 13' donc by
the pn'ests and not the hcads of households (cf Ex. 12:21-22). Thn'dly,
the holmcss of thc evcnt is stressch Although tbis was a um'c of great )o'y
(2 Ch. 30:21, 23, 25, 26), it was also a vcry sacred occasion; Lhosc who
participated were cxpected to bc ccremonially clcan (2 Ch. 30:15, l7,' cf.
Nu. 9:10). For this reason thc chitcs kül thc Passovcr vicums' on behalf
of thosc who arc ritually unclcan (2 Ch. 30:l7). Snm¡"larly, chckxah'
m'terccdes for those who eat the Passovcr without havm'g punñe'd
themselvcs (2 Ch. 30:18-20). This emphasis upon Lhc holm'css of the
occasion ls' remnu"scent of the ñrst Passovcr,' ít was m'tended to crcate a
holy nau'on.

2 K1n'gs 23:21-23 and 2 Chroniclcs 35:l-l9

There are two accoums of the Passover be1n'g commemoratcd m' thc
cighteenth ycar of km'g Josxah',' a briefdescription m' 2 Ki. 23.'21-23, and a
much fuller one m' 2 Ch. 3S:l-19. Both passages rccord thc Passovcr
celebtations held follow1n'g the dlsc“overy m' the tcmple of the Book of thc
Law or Covenant (2 Ki. 22:8, 11; 23:2, 21): 'Not sm'ce the days of thc
iudges who led Isracl, nor throughout the days of the km'gs of Isracl and
thc k1n'gs of Judah, had any such Passovcr becn obscrved' (2 K.i. 23.'22).°'6
As was customary, thc Feast of Unleavened Brcad was obscrved for the
scven days after Lhc Passover (2 Ch. 35:l7).
As m' 2 Chronicles 30, the role of thc priests and m' particulat Lhc
Levites is highlighted m' 2 Chroniclcs 35. Although no-one is described as
ceremomall'y unclean, verses 6 and 11 1m°ply that the Levites küled all of
thc Passover vicnm's. Thís rcpresents an ínnovation rcgardmg thc
slaughtcr of Lhe Passover amm'als; apart from the cxccptional m'stancc m' 2
Ch. 30:l7, thc shccp or goats had previously bccn slaughtercd by thc
heads of the households. By requmn"g the Levites to k111' thc ammal's,
Josiah was concemed to ensure the dtual purity of those m'volved m'
offenhg the Passover sacnñ'ces.
As m' Dt. 16: l-4a, Lbe presem passage someum'es blurs thc dns'un'cu'on
betwccn thc Passover and thc Fcast of Unleavened Brcad. Thjs is so as
regards the mention of cattle m' vv.7-9, 12. Thcsc did not constitute the
Passover sacnñ'ce itsclf, but most hk'ely rclate to the *holy offcnng's'
(q0_da5m') mentioned m' v. l3. Whereas Lhc Passovcr amm'als were
roasted,67 thc 'holy ofíenn'gs' were cooked m' pots, cauldrons and pans,
pmbably durmg the Feast of Unleavened Brcad.“

Ezekiel 45:21-24
Thc Passovcr and the Feast of Unlcavened Bread are mentíoned brícfiy
(4S:21-24) in EzckiePs vision of the restoration of temple worship m' thc
New Israel (Ezk. 40: l-48:3S). They arc introduced m° the context of thc
offerm'gs which the 'prm'ce' w111' make at the fesu'vals, the New Moons and
16 Sacnjíce' m' the Bible

the Sabbaths to atone for Lhe house of Israel (45:13-46:15; see especíally
45: l7). Little is said about the Passover itself, wíth most of 4S:21-24
centring on Ihe Fcast of Unlcavencd Brcad.69 Much of this passage
resemblcs Nu. 28: l7-22 and deals with Lhe bumt offcnn'gs and
punñcations offermgs made duríng the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Verse
22, however, relates to thc Passover m'ght, and describes the offermg of a
bull as a punñ'cation offenn'g for Lhe pnn'ce and all the people of thc land;
thís 1s' clearly ín addition to thc usual Passover sacnñ'ces. Sincc this section
of EzckiePs v1$'ion concentrates on the spccial offcnn'gs prcsentcd by thc
'pnn'cc' it offcrs no further mf'ormation regardmg the actual Passovcr
sacnñ'ce itself.

Ezra 6:19-22

The ñnal reference to the Passover comes m' EZL 6: l9-22, which records
the Passover bem'g celcbratcd by thc Jewish exücs followm'g the
compleúon and dedication of the templc m' Jerusalem 1n' 515 BC. Aftcr
observmg the Passovcr, the people ioyfully celebratcd the Feast of
Unleavened Bread for seven days (v.22). Once agam' various features of
the text stress the sacredness of the Passover. The rirual purity of the
priests and Levites is noted. As m' 2 Chronicles 35, thc Levites sacnñ'ce
the Passover amm'als on behalf of all thc pcoplc, m'cludm'g Lhe pricsts
(Ezr. 6:20). Fm'ally, apan from the retumed ex11'cs, only thosc who
scparated themsclves from the unclcan practices of thc1r' Gcntüe
nexgh°bours may participate m' the Passover commemoration.

III. THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PASSOVER

The exodus from Egypt is clearly presemed wíthm the Old Testament as
onc of Ihe most1m'portam evcnts m' the history of God's relatíonship with
IsraeL Although many modern scholars tcnd to dismiss its historical
reality, it is clcar that this tradítion was decply ingraincd ín Israclítc
thoughL We ñnd, for example, that the expression “out of Egypt' is uscd
wíth reference Io lhe exodus approxun'ately 135 nm'es throughout the Old
Testament. Sm'ce the Passover lies at thc very heart of the exodus story, it
is hardly surprising that it is associated with several 1m'portant theological
ídeas.
Flr'st, the dclivcrance of the Israclites from slavcry in Egypt is
prescmed as an act ofGod's fa"thfulness. Through it he fulñllcd his carlier
promise to Abraham that, although his descendants would be “enslaved
and 11'l-treated four hundred years,' God would aftcrwards bríng them out
wíth great possessions (Gn. 15:l3-14; cf. Ex. 2:24; 3.'7-10, l7,' 6:5-8;
13:3-S, ll).
Second, the Exodus narrative emphasúes that the initiative in rescumg
the Israelites from Egypt rested wíth the LORD. Although there are brief
 The Panover Samjíc'e 17

refcrcnccs to thc Israclitcs crym'g out for hclp and God heann'g (c.g. 2:23-
24; 3:7), the narrative consistently 1m'plícs Lhat Lhe LORD was not coerced
ínto helpm'g by Lhe people's acu'ons, but actcd frcely, motivated m' pan at
Ieast by a feelmg of compassion for them and a desu"e for justicc (3:7;
4:3l). Nowhere does the text suggest that the people pcrsuaded God to act
on their behalf by the offcnn'g of sacnñ'ces or thc pcrformance of
mcn'torious dccds; Lheir deüverance from Egypt is portraycd as an act of
sovereign grace.
Thu'd, throughout the Exodus account special attemion is focused on
the power of God to deliver the Ismeütes from Egypt. This ídca Ls'
encapsulated m° the references to God's “rnighry hand' (l3:3,9,14,16; cf.
3:l9; 6:l; 32:11) or loutstrctched arm' (6:6). Thc powcr of thc LORD ls'
comrasted favourably with that of the Egyptian Pharaoh.
Fourth, the conccpt of atonement, whüe not memioned speañcally,
underlies the offermg of the Passover sacnñ'ce. thrcas on previous
occasions the LORD had disun'guished between the Israelites and thc
Egypuan's wíthout requmn"g any special ritual, on thc occasion of thc
Passover the Israelitcs had of nccessíty to mark thck houscs wíth
sacnñ'c1al' blood. Obvíously the blood of the sacr1ñ'cc played a signmcam
part m' preventing the death of the male ñrstborn. Implicit in this is Lhe
idea that the Israelites wcre mh'erem.ly no dxff'erem from the malc
ñrstborn of the Egypuan's. Wíthout the atonmg blood of the sacnñ'ce they
too would bave been struck dead by the 'destroycr'.
Fifth, redemption is another 1m'porlam theological idea associated wiLh
thc Passover. It is memioned ñrst m' Ex. 626 wherc ít is used m' Lhe comext
of the release of slaves (cf. 21.'8). Thc concept reappears m' 13:l4-16
where it is lmk'ed to the future redempúon of the male ñrslborn in
commemoration of the Passover. In this comcxt two aspccts arc
pronúncmz (a) as a conscqucncc of the Passovcr all Lhe ñrstbom of the
Israelítes, both human and animal, owc their lives to the LORD,' they belong
uniquely to hím and this has to be acknowledgcd m' a specíal way; (b)
sm'ce all the male ñrstborn belonged to the LORD, Ihis requked that each
hf'e be offered up to the LORD m' sacnñ'ce. However, m' thc case of human
bemgs and non-sacnñ'cial animals ít was possiblc to offer a substitute.
This is apparem from the brief remark about the rcdemption of evcry
ñrstbom donkcy m' 13:13: if thc donkey is rcdeemed it líves,' otherwise it
must bc put to death. Here redempúon involves thc offerm'g of a
substitute sacr1f1'ce.
Sxx'th, a further dimension ro Lhe Passover account is the sancuñ'cau'on
of the people. Not only does the blood of thc Passover sacrmce protect the
male ñrstbom from death, but rhc eaúng of thc sacnñ'cial meat sancnfi'es
all who consumc it. The Passover marks the scttmg apart of the Israelites
as a 'holy nation'.
In the light of these observaúons, the presem biblical accoum ís clearly
much richcr m' theologícal ideas than the altcmaúve reconstructíons
proposcd by recenl writers (e.g. to express graútude for fruitful fiocks and
18 Sacnñc'e m' thc Bible
hcrds; to guarantec thc prosperity of livestock,' to protect those within
from hostüe powcrs without). In spite of the m'genuity underlym'g them,
modcm hypotheses concemmg the origm and developmem of the
Passover fail to account for the m'clusion of all the theological ideas which
are now an m'tegral part of the biblical tradition. Furthermore, it 1s'
difñcult to cxplam' how, and also why, relatively sun'ple theologícal
concepts derivcd from the domcsúc conccms of nomads evolved m'to
much more sophisticated ideas associated with a national feast of a
sedentary population. If the Passover tradítion, as we now know it, does
not dcrive from an actual exodus of slaves from Egypt, we sul'l lack a
satisfactory explanation for the origin and developmem of the dífferem
theologícal ideas associated with it.

IV. CONCLUSION

Allhough the OT does not provide a complete and detaüed accountof the
Passover's orígm', devclopment and history for the ent1r'e biblical period
of over one thousand years, iI does reveal a consístent pícture, with only
mm'or mod1ñ'cations bem'g m'troduced through um'c. We observed,
howcver, that the oríginal Passover had certam unique features not found
in later commemorations, and that although m'stituted in Egypt the Feast
of Unleavened Brmd was inaugurated only on the ñrst anniversary of the
Israelites” departure from Egypt. On the basis of the biblical evídence we
see no reason IO follow the modem view that the Passover and the Feast of
Unleavened Brcad had separatc origins completely unassociated with the
Israelite exodus from Egpr
On accoum of sum"larities with the ritual for the consecration of the
Aaronic priests m' Exodus 29, therc is good reason to believe that a maior
purpose of the original Passover was the consecration of the Israelites as a
holy nation (cf. Ex. 19:6). By offering the Passover sacnñ'cc, smcanhg its
blood on theu-' doors, and eaun'g its meat the Israelites set themselves
apan as holy; they become the people of God.70 Consequently, they are
delivered from the destructíve power of the Destroyer who slew the
ñrstborn of the Egypu'ans. The un'ponance of this origmal consecration is
highlighted m' later commemorations by the requiremem that all the
participams in thc Passover bc ceremomally clean.

NOTES

1. Prolegomena to thc Hmory oflsrael (Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1885.)

2. Wellhzuscn, op. ciL 85, n.l, emcnds zhc expression bãg happásah 'feasl of lhc
passover' in Ex. 34:25, lO baggí 'my feast' on the basis of Ex. 23218.
3. For a bricf criúquc of Ihe view that Ihe book of Dcutcronomy was composcd in Ihe
umc'ol' Josnah', see G.J. Wenham, 'Thc date of Dcuteronomyz linch-pin of Old Tcstamcnl
 The Passover Sacnij 19

cn'ua"sm', Mdbs 10 (l985) lS-20,' ll (l98$) 15-18; cf. J.G. McConville, Graa ul' llu
End: a Smdy ofDeuumvmü leology (Carhs'le: Plternostcr, l993).
4. E.g. lhe precxsc' daun°g of Lhc Passovcr; more enct spociñcaubns mgnrdmg thc
offennss'.
5. The uud'equacy of dus' rcconstmcubn ís hlgh'lighted by M. Hmn, *Thc Pnssover
Sacnñ'cc', Smdws' m' tht Rcllglon" ofAnam Israel (VTSup 22) (Le1d'cn: Brül, l972) 94-9S;
cf. Rz. de Vaux, Anaenl' Isde m' life and (London: Danon, Longmnn & Todd,
1965 ) 439.
6. Saaifite m' tIu Old Teszanum: us' theory and pracnc'e (Oxford: Clarcndom l925) 337-
382.
7. Gray, op. cit. 368, obscrves lhat m' Ex. 1229 and12:46it ¡s' forbiddcn to eal Ihc vicum'
raw, or to break any of its boncs. Hc concludcs, 'A legal pmhibiúon ís commonly duec'ted
agnmst what ls', or has been, actual pracu'oc. It hns thcreforc been m'fcrred Lhnt at one ume'
thc Pnschal vicum' was eaten mw, and that thc boncs, hzvm'g been brokcn and poundcd for
the purpose, were eaten as well as Lhe ñesh.'
8. dc Vaux, Ancxm Imul, 484-493. Hc appcars to follow L. Rost's comparativc study
of the cusloms of nomadíc Anbs, 'Weídewcchscl und alúsraelitíschcr Festkalcnder',
ZDPV 66 (I943) 205-216; reprmted ln' L. Rost, Das klew Credo wld andcrz Studm zum
AT(Heidelberg: Quclle & Mcycr, l965) lOl-112. The rtlcvance of Rost's study has bccn
qucried by B.N. Wambacq, 'Les origme's dc la Pcsah israditd Bib 57 (1976) 206-224. In
particular hc notcs that lhe blood rítc among nomndm' Arabs conccms their arrival and
settlemem m' a ncw localion, whereas xhc Pasover n'lual in Ex. 12 focuscs on the Israelitcs'
depanure from Egpr
9. R. dc Vaux, op. cít. 489; cf. N.M. Sarna, Exploring Exodu:: tlu Henta'ge ofBíblical
lsmel (Ncw York: Schocken, l986) 88. The suggcsdon that van'ous fcaturcs of thc
Pnssovcr m'dicate that it was on'gmall'y a nomadic fesúval is rejcctcd by I. EngnelL Crmc"al
Exsays on lhe Old Tmanmu (London: SPCK, l970) 190. He wn'tcs: 'Thc command to put
the blood on the door~posts and lm'tel does not ñl a nomadic situation, bccausc ir assumcs a
scttlcd communiry with more permanem types of houses . . . The fact lhat Lhe Passover
was 0n'gm'ally a lunar fcsúval provcs nolhingz lunar calcndars warc uscd Ln' th civilizcd
coumry of Canazn, nnd thcy were used m' Babylon from um'e 1mm'emorial. The fact that a
lamb or a kid was uscd in úus' fcsúval is no prooí Lhat il has to be nomadiC. Thcsc sncred
victims or sacnñcial anun'a|s played a promincm rôle in Qmanm as well as m' Ras Shamra
and Babylon.'
lO. J. Van Sclcrs, 'Thc Place of thc Yahwns'( m' the History of Passovct and Massot'
ZAW 95 (1933) 169-70.
ll. )'. Halbe, 'Erwãgungcn zu Ursprung und Wescn des Massotfestcs' ZAW 87 (l975)
325-334. Among lhc rcasons lislcd by Halbe, Ihe íollowm'g are lhc most convincing: (a)
lhc momh of Abib (March-Apn'l) ís too early for a harvcst fesu'val; (b) it is slrangc thal a
harvest cclebmtion should bc marked by thc cating of unleavcncd bread; (c) a seven-day
fcsúval ís hardly hk'ely to have occurrcd at lhe bcginning of the harvcs¡; (d) a spec1al'
reason, thc cxodus fmm Egypt, has lo be providcd for celebratíng thc Feast of Unleavcned
Brcad; thís Ls' not so for thc lrue harvesl fcasts of Harvest (Weeks) and Ingathcnhg
(Tabemacles/Boolhs).
12. S.R. Driver, lmroducrm to rhe Lileranm ofthe Old Tesmmem (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 19139) 28, assigns 12:l-20, 28, 37a, 40-Sl; 13:l-2 to P; 12:29-30 Io J; 12131-36,
37b-39, 42310 E; and 12.'21-27; l3c 3-16 to ]E.
I3. J. Van Scters, op. cíL 180-181.
l4. This proposal míses a number of pmblcms. Thc smeanhg of blood on thc door
posls is mentioned only in connecüon wilh lhc uríginal Passover nighl m' Egpr There is
no hím lhal the blood was used in lhis way during subsequcm commemoralions of the
Passovcr. In view of lhe uniqucncss of the origm'al occasíon, Lhc Exodus narrativc hardly
provídcs a suílablc eticlogy for iustifyíng Lhe adoplion of this practicc on futurc occasions.
Furthcrmore, would thc Príeslly Wriler havc supponed a prnclice which involvcd the
offcring of sacññccs by non~pricsls? Finally, Van Seters offcrs no evidcncc of it having
20 Sacnñc'e in zhe Bible

bcen pmctm in Lhe cnh"c or post-ex¡11"c pen'od, and no explanation as to why it ceascd,
prcsumably soon afterwards, to be observed.
IS. E.g. ]. Van Seters, Abraham in Hbtmy and Traditm (New Havem Yalc Univcnity
Press, l974); Y.T. Raddai and H. Shore, Gm:u': an Auxhorxhíp Smdy in Compuur
Amkud Swmnc"al Liugmknks (AnBib 103) (Romc: Biblical lnsdtutc Prcss, l985),' R.N.
Whybray, The Making of the Penumudu A Muhodologkal Smdy GSOTS 53) (Shefñcld:
SAP, l987).
16. E.g. R. Rendtorff, Thc Problem of the procm of mmsmum mÀ Ihc Pnuauuch
(JSOTS 89) (Shcfñcld, SAP, l990), ET of Das ubn"lu'femngxgeschlc'hlllc'he Problem da
Pmuueuch (BZAW l47) (Berlin: dc Gruyter, l976); A. Hurvilz, A Lingmknt Smdy of 1he
Relanons'¡n'p belwccn lhe Pn'cstly Soum and thc Book oszeklc'l.' A New Approach lo ml Old
Prablm (PanÀs: Gabalda, l982). Rendtorff (169) commemsz 'We posscss hardly any
reliable critcna' for lhe daun'g of pcmatcuchal litcrature. Evcry datmg of the pemnteuchal
“sources" rcsts on purely hypolhetical assumpu'ons, which ulu'male|y only havc any
stnndmg Ihrough thc consensus of scholars.'
l7. Thc sourcc analysis of lhe ñood narrative illustmcs lhis possibnh"ty. Although thc
Yahwmjc materw contams no refercnce to lhc building of the ark, it clcarly prcsupposes
that one was constructcd. lf thc presem account is the product ofJ and P matexial havmg
bccn combm'cd, lhe edítor has adoptcd the P vemo°n of thc ark's construction m'
prcference to lhat of J.
l8. As Haran, 'The Passover Sacnñ'cc', 88, obscrves, "I'hc J passage (Exod. xü 2¡-27)
m' no wny commdicts the dcscription given m' P . . . Bolh rcfcr to thc samc happcnm'g,
only neithcr of them embraces all lhe deml's, which means Lhat they actually complement
cach othcr.' Such Ls' the unity of lhe prcscnt narratívc that Van Seters assigns all of Ex.
12:1-28 lo P.
l9. Only two passagcs mention thc Passover without making any reference to
unkavencd brcad: Num. 33:3, a bricf chronological rcmark, and 2 Ki. 23.'21-23, a shon
descripúon of lhe Passovcr celebmed by Josmh'. Passover and Ihe Fcasl of Unlenvened
Bread arc linked in Ex. 12:1-13:16,' 23:15-18; 34'.18-25,' Lv. 23:5-6,' DL 16:l-16; 2 Ch.
302 I-21; 35:l-l9; Ezr. 6:l9-22. Passover and thc eaun'g of unleavened brcad are
associatedin Ex.12:l-13:16;23218;34:25;Nu. 9.'2-l4; 28:16-l7; DL 16:l-8; Jos. 5:10-
ll; Ezk. 4S:21.
20. 'The Passover Sacnñ'cc', 96-101.
21. CÍ. J.G. McConville, Law and Theology ín Dcuteronomy GSOTS 33) (Shefñeld:
ISOT Press, l984) 99-123. See below our díscussion of DL 16:l-8.
22. Among all thc mfcrenccs ro thc Passovcr in thc Penmeuch, only m' Lv. 23:5-6 is
lhcre no memjon of lhc cxodus. Apan from Ex. 12:l-13216, thc two cvems are Iinked
logcthcr m' Ex. 23:15,' 34:18; Nu. 9:l; 33:3,' Dt. 16:l, 3, 6.
23. H.-J. Kraus. Wmship ín lmuk A Cultíc Híswry of Ihz Old Tmamem (Oxford:
thkwelL l966) 45-46; cf. J.B. Segal, The threw Passowrfrom Ihc carlüst tims lo AD 70
(London Oricmal Scrics 12) (London: Oxford Univcrsity Prcss, l963) 9S-101.
24. Apm from lhe weck sez aside for the Feaxt of Unleavened Brend, the cxodus fmm
Egypl wu also commcmomcd through lhc consccration ofcvcry ñratborn male (13:2, l l-
16). This, howcver, is nol dircclly associalcd with lhc Passovcr sacriñcc.
25, There nre vnrious ways of understanding the chronology of lhe Pnssovcr and Ihe
Fcasl of Unlcavcncd Brcad in Ex. 12:18, dcpcnding upon lhc slarling timc of thc calcndar
dny. According w dc Vaux, Ancíem lmzeL 180-181, in the p0u-cxilic pcriod lhc chish
ulmdur wns bnacd on lhc duy bcginning nnd cnding wilh sunscL Mnny scholnrs supposc
lhal lhis syslcm of dnling undcrlics thc prcum pussagc. For lhis lo work, howcvcr, il ís
ncceuary to usunu lhat lhc 'evcning' comes prior lo sunut and nm nftcr il (cf. R\T.
Bcckwith, 'Thc duy, ita divisiona and its limits, in biblicnl lhought' va Q 43 (l97l) 2|8~
227). Allcrnutivcly, lhc dalinu Íormulnc ndoplcd in al| lhc Pemalcuclml Passover lcxls
may rctlecl lhc prc-cxih'c syllcm in which thc day bcgins wilh sunrisc, wilh 'cvcning'
Íullinu. morc nuturally, uflcr aunscL
2(›. (.'f. EL 29:l; l.v. l:3,10;3:l, (›-7.' 9:3.
 The Passover Samfíc'e 21

27. Ex. 12:S. Thc chrew term fch rcfcrs to eilher a hmb or n kjd. Malc
amm'als, lxkÀe male human bcíngs, were less lhblc Io n'tual uncleanness. Thc youthfulness
of lhe ammal' may also have guarantecd thc purity of Ihc sacriñcn
28. ln his Gospel John ¡m'plies thal Jesus fulñls lhe role of lhc Passovcr vm'um› by
obscrvmg lhat h¡s” bones were not broken al lhe um'e of his cruciñxion Un. l9:36).
29. This applicd to all sacnñ'ccs, apan from those whích wcrc complctcly consumcd by
ñrc upon the alur.
30. Ex. 1226 (cf. Lv. 23:S; Nu. 28:4, 8) uses lhe lcchnícal cxprcssion bén ha"arbayrm'
'betwcen lhc cvenings'. Thc prccisc meanm'g of this phmsc is not known. It probably
refcrs lo thc um'e betwecn lhe sun's disappeamnce below Lhc honz'on and Ihe onset of lolal
dnrkncss (cf. DL 16:3; Ex. 30:8; scc C.F. Keü, Manual of Biblxc'a1 Archaeology
(Edm'burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1388) voL 2, 21-22).
3l. Cf. Wambacq, 'Lcs origines', 321-26; Van Seters, 'The Place of th Yahwist in Ihe
Hbtory of Plssover md Massot', 180-181.
32. Hyssop may hzvc becn used becausc it is an aspergillum (í.c. it prcvcms the blood
fmm congealm'g). Il xsÀ oflcn assocna'ted with cetemonm puríñcaúon (Lv. l4:4, 6, 49, Sl,
52 (the pun'ñcauo'n of lepem),' Nu. l9:6, 18; Ps. 51'.7; ch. 9:l9).
33. Ex. 29233 mtes, 'They are lo cat thesc offerings by which aloncmenl was madc for
theü ordimúon and conseaano'n.'
34. Thc concept of holm'css, mrely mcnuo'ned m' Gcncsis, appcars frcquently m'
Exodus.
3S. The covcnam documcm rccordcd m' Ex. 21:1-23:33 xs' much fullcr than Ihat
prcscrved mA Ex. 34:10-26. Mnny commcmalors wmngly suppose thal lhís documcnt
bcgms m' Ex. 20.'22. Ex. 20:22-26 consists, however, of mlstructions, not laws, and
therefore is plncod beforc the formal m'troducu'on to thc covcnanl lcgislation (21:l).
36. A comparison of Ex. 23:14-19 nnd 34.'18-26 mveals a number of close parallelsz
*Threc um'es a year all your men are to appear beforc Ihe Sovereign LORD, lhc God of lsraeP
(34:23; cf. 23zl4, l7). 'No-one is to appcar before mc emply~handcd' (23:lS; 34:20).
'Bn'ng lhe bat ofthc ñrstfnms ofyour soü Ko thc housc of the LORD your God. Do not cook
n young golt m' ils mother's milk' (23:19,' 34.'26). As we might expccl m' a document of tlns'
km'd, thc Iegklaubn is very concisc. This unfonunatcly crcatcs d1fñ'cullies regarding the
imerpreuúon of lhe IexL
37. Thc Hebrew tcxt is not quite na sxmxla"r as lhc NIV lnnslntion suggests.
38. According lO Hmn, 'The Passovcr Sacrxñ'ce', 9S-96, A. Dlllm'ann, S.R. Driver,
U. Cassum, and M. Noth vicw 23:18 as refemn'g Io any ordmnry' sacnñ'ce. Dn'ver and
Nolh maíntam thnt only lhc sccond part of 34:25 relncs to the Passovcr, whereas H.
Holzingen B. Bacntsch, G. Bcer and K. Gnlling bclícve that all of 34z25 rcfcrs lo iL De
Vaux sces both verses as rcfemng to Lhe Passover, bul ñnds evidence of Dcuteronomic
ediu'ng. The Mekhüta and the Babyloman Tnlmud (Pcs., Tnlmud 63a) undcrslmd Ex.
23118 as Passover legíslnúom
39. Thc only olher offcring which comcs close xo meeling thesc requiremems is the
Lhanksgíving (or confcssion) offermg oullincd m' Lv. 7:lZ-lS (cf. 22:29-30). Howcver, í(
is explicitly smcd lhat this should bc uccompnnied by 'cakcs of brcad mnde with yeasl'
(7:l3).
40. On lhc day which lalcr bccamc known ns PcnlccosL
4L The Ierm qorbãn comes 78 um“cx in Levilicus and Numbcn bul only lwicc
clscwhcre (Iízk. 20:28; 40:43). Nc. lOzSS and l3z3l hnvc qurba'n.
42. ln 2Ch. 30.' l-27 the Fcasl nf Unlcavcncd Brcad ia celcbrmed in thc sccond momh.
Howevcr, il hnd nol bccn cclcbrnled al ull in lhc ñrsl momh.
43. Thcse instruclions upply m rhc following oncringa: dnily, Sahhalh, momhly,
Unlcnvcncd Hrcnd, lhc Day of Firslfruils (associmcd Wilh lhc fcnst of chks), Trumpcts.
Dly of Al<›ncmcnx, Tnbcrnaclcs.
44. Allhough |)1. |61 l-8 mlkcu scvcml rcÍcrcnccs Iu lhc cnling of unlcnvened brcud
(vv. 3, 8). lhc dcsignalion Fcnsl uf Unlcuvcncd Bread cnmcs only lalcr in lb.'16. For Ihis
rcnwn lhc lcrm pcmb 'l'ausuvcr' m v.l (and pcrhnps v42) pmbnblv apcciñcs nol mcrcly lhc
22 Sam'fice m' lhe sz'le

ñm mgh't, as clscwhen m' the Pemnteuch, but rather thc entirc week (cf. Keil, Biblua'l
Ardmolom vol.2, 31). In w. 4 and 6, happesab clcarly refcrs lo the passover vícum'.
4S. Exodus 12-13 d1s'u'ngms'hes carefully between the ñrst Passovet mg'ht and lhc wcck
sct aside for future oelcbrauons' of the feast of Unlcavened Bread. The Pusover is
mcntioned only bn°ctly m' Levíticus 23 and Numbcxs 28; unhk'c Unkavcncd Brcad, ít Is'
not chssmcd as a sacrcd assembly, the particular intcrest of chíticus 23, nor docs ít
m'volve an offenhg consumcd toully by ñre, thc main concern of Numbers 28-29. Spcchl
factors also explain why Numbers 9 concznmtes solely on Lhc Passover and ignorcs
Unleavcned Bmd. See chnl, The chrew Passoven 203.
46. The proposal of J. Halbe, 'Passa-Massot un' deuteronomnsc'hen chtknlcnden
Komposition, Entstehung und Programm von Dtn 16: l-8', ZAW 87 (197S) 153, that w.
1-7 form a chns'u'c paucm wílh elcments of lhc Passovcr and Unleavened Bread balancing
cach othcr fails to capture Lhe truc structure of lhe passage. Vcrscs l-4a give an ovcrvícw
of thc combm'cd fcasL Verscs 4b-7 relate explicitly to the evems of lhe Passover nighL
This is apparent from the um'e refercnces: *on the cvcning of lhe ñrsl day untü the
momm'g' (v. 4); 'in thc cvcnm'g, whcn thc sun goes down' (v. 6),' *m' thc momm'g' (v. 7).
Vmc 8 focuses solcly on lhc Fcast of Unlcavencd Brcad.
47. The samc pom'l is echocd m' w. ll and 15 wilh rcgard to Ihe fcasts of chks and
Tabemacles rcspcctively. Versc 16 rcafñrms this emphatically for all lhrce feasts.
48. McConv11'le, Law and Theology, highüghts well thxs' uend wilh regard to the cultic
lchs'lau'on m' Deuxeronomy.
49. chaL Tke Hebrew Pasmver 205, concludes that the tcrm baq'ãr came to be m'cludcd
in the text due to a scn'bal error. P.C. Craigíc, The Book of Deutmmomy (NICOT)
(London: Hoddcr & Stoughton, l976) 242, suggesLs that íl rclatcs to a 'broadeníng of the
on'gínal prcscn°pu'on' to Ln'clude caulc.
50. C.F. Keil, The Pemaleuch (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1864) voL 3, 374-375,
argues that Lhc caule relate to Lhc sacnñ'ces madc dun'ng thc Feast of Unlcavcned Brcad;
cf. McConvxl'le, Law und Theology 116. This is also the positíon adopted m' the Targum
Onkclos on Dcutcronomy, Siphrc on Dt. 16:2, and Mck. on Ex. 12:S. Thc NIV
uanslation rms'takcnly 1m'plics that v. 3 rcfcrs to only onc animal being sacn'ñccd. A morc
litcrzl translaüou of the Hebrcw would be, *Sacnñ'ce Passovcr to Lhc LORD your God small
catde (i.e. shcep and goals) and cattle 1n' thc placc which lhc LORD wúl' choosc as a dwelling
placc for his namc.'
51. Cf.Ex.12:48;Lv.23:S,'Nu.9:10,l4;28'.16;Dt. 16:l; 2 KL 23:21; Z Ch. 30:l, 5,'
35:l.
52. Ex. 12.'21,' Dt. 16:5, 6; Jos. 5:11; Ezr. 6:20; 2 Ch. 30.'15, 18; 35: l, 6, ll, l3.
Deutcronomy 16 1s' Lhe only place whcre thc verb zãb_ah ís used m' coniunctíon with thc
Passovcr sacnñ'cc. Il Is' more usual for Lhe verb hbat lo be uscd (cf. Ex. 12:21; Ezr. 6:20; 2
Ch. 30.'15; 2 Ch. 35: l, 6, ll).
53. Segal, The Hebrew Paxsova 205, draws attentíon to thc fact lhat ín Dcutcronomy
lhis ls' lhc only m'stancc of Lhe Hock (so"n) bem'g mcnúoncd before the herd (bãqa'r). DL
15:19, for cxzmplc, rcfcrs to the ñrstbom of your herds and ñocks (cf. 12:l7, 21; l4:23,
26; 32: l4). Outsidc Dcutemnomy íl ís quitc usual to Iind the order *ñock and hcrd' (c.g.,
Gn. 12216; 13:S; 20:14,' 21:27,' 24z35g 26.'l4).
S4. Thc NIV docs not dmw attention to Lhc prcsence of 'ãla'yw after bolh occurrences
of Lhc vcrb 'lo ea('.
55. Cf. W.L. Holladay, A Conake Hebrew and Ammaú Lextc'on of lhe OId Testamem
(Lcidcn: Bnl'l, l97l) 272-273.
56. Vcrscs 4b-7 clcarly m'dicatc that Lhe actual Passovcr cclcbraúon took placc only on
lhc tirsl cvcníng
57. P.C. Cm'gie, Deuzmmomy 242, suggests that 'âlayw' should be Iranslated 'm' his
prcscnce', following M. Dahood, 'Rcvicw of The Torah. A new Irarulazwn' of rhz Hoyl
Scripmrzs accordthg w the Mawvetzc' uxf Bib 45 (l964) 283.
58. The NIV uanslaúon of ba§'al as 'roast' Ls' too speclñ'c. Most writcrs now sccm lo
acccpt that báíal mcans °to cook' (cf. J.A. Thompson, Deuuronomy (TOTC) (London:
 Tlu Pasmer Sacnjíc'e 23

IVP,1974) l95-196; Craigie, Deuuronomy 244, n. 9; A.D.H. Maycs, Dcuumwmy (NCB)

(London: MarshalL Morgan & Scon, l979) 259; McConwll'e, Law and Theolog l l7-! 18.
Accordm'g to Thompson, l95, n. l , Ihe Akkadian verb baíâlu means lo cook by roasuhg or
boihn'g (cf. CAD, B, 13$-136).
59. A.D.H. Maycs, Deulcronomy 259.
60. DL S:12-15,' cf. C.M. CamxichacL The Laws ochulcrmmy (hhnca and Londonz
Comell Um'versity Prcss, l974) 93-94; McConvillc, Law and Theologv 118-ll9.
61. In Ex. 12216, Lv. 23:8 and Nu. 28:ZS, it Ls' known ns a 'holy asscmbly' (qu1'a"
qodc0_'; m' Ex. 13:6 it is callcd a 'feast' (¡Jag'). The last day of the feasl ofTabemaclcs is also
rcfcrrcd w as an *asscmbly' ('“$m_)t, whjch the NIV Iranslatcs as 'closing asscmbly' (Lv.
23'.36).
62. chaL The Hebrew Passover 206, commen(s, 'Thcsc discrcpancics bctwccn
Dcuteronomy and the othcr Passover documems are capable of compamúvcly easy
mluu'on.'
63. Halbe, *Erwãgung zu Ursprung und Wescn des Massotfestcs,' 332, maíntaíns lhal
the Joshua lext knows nothmg of a saven day festival; cf. TAC. Buder,]osllua (WBC 7)
(Waco, Tcxasz Word, 1983) 56.
64. ThB LSÀ possibly a refcrencc back to Solomon's dedícadon of thc lcmplc and thc
cclcbmuo'ns which zccompanicd it (l Ki. 8.'6S-66; 2 Ch. 7: l-10). Allhough dús took place
ín the scvemh momh, at lhe ume› of lhe fcast of Tabermclcs, thc texl 1m'plies thal Lhc
celebrations lasted for two wceks xnlstead of onc (l Ki. 8:65; Z Ch. 7:9).
65. Mthough thc altzr Ls' nol spcañ'cally mcnu'oncd, ít would appear to be the most
likcly objcct on whjch Ihc blood would havc becn spnn'ldcd.
66. The Chmniclcr gives a smu"lar asscssmcm (2 Ch. 35z18). “The Passovcr has not
been obscrved like Lhis in Isracl sm'cc the days of Lhe pmphel Samueh nnd nonc of the
km'gs oí Ismcl had evcr cclcbratcd such a Passovcr as did Josíah, wízh lhe pn›csl.s, thc
Levites and all ludah and Israel who were lhere with thc pcople of Jcrusalem.' Thc
magníludc of this Passover commcmoraúon can bc iudged on lhc basis of the numbcr of
ammals' sacnii'ced. At lcast 37,600 shecplgoats and 3,800 canlc were offcred up during thc
festival (2 Ch. 35:7-9). This Ls' almost doublc lhc number samñ'ccd al the Passovet mÀ lhe
ñrst ycar of chchah': l7,000 shceplgoats and 2,000 caldc (2 Ch. 30.'24).
67. Note the use of xhg vcrb ba§a1' 'to cook' followed by lhc expmsm ba"z'í “wi¡h ñxt'
(2 Ch. 35:13). Sec nbovc (p. IS) Íor a fuller djscussion of the verb ba§a'1.
68. Thc chrew rcxt of v.l3 does nol ¡m'ply that lhe roasting of lhe Passovcr vuc'ums'
and the boxhng" of Lhe holy offenhgs took place $1m'ullzncously.
69. Thc desngna'u'on 'Fcast of Unleavcncd Bmd' ns' not nscd hcre for thc seven day
fcsu'val, although Lhc ating of unlavcncd brcad ¡s' mcmíoned |n' v.21.
70. Ttús idea probably lics behmd the commcms found m' l Pcter chaps. l-Z. Ahhough
thc rcfcrcncc to 'a hmb wílhout blemkh and dcfcct' (l:l9) nccd not necessarüy deangna'te
lhe Passovcr samñ'cc, lhe contcxt in which it comcs has mny hnk's wilh the cxodus story
(sce especnll'y, l Pet. 2:9-10). Nole m' panicular lhe emphasnk upon holíncss (l PeL l:lS-
16; 2:S, 9).

FOR FURTHER READING

A. Bible Dictionaries

B.M. Bokscr, *Unleavened Bread and Passovcr. Feasls of, The Anchor Biblz Dw'n'onay.
VOL 6, 755-765.
].C. Rylaarsdam, *Passovcr and Fcasl of Unleavcncd Brcad', Interpmnü Dúnbnmy oftln
Bxble, voL 3, 663-668.
R.A. Stewan, 'Passover', Illuumud Blble Dicnanmy', vol. 3, llS7-1158.
M.R. Wilson, 'Passovcr', The Inzemational Suzndard Bible EnLyclopedm', voL 3, 675-679A
24 Sacriñcc in the Btb'le

B. Otber worls
B.S. Clul'ds, Exodus (London: SCM, l974) l78-214.
M. Hmn, 'The Paswver Sacn'ñce', Sludüs m' the Rehgl"on of Ancient Imul (Vl'Sup 22)
(Leidcn: Bn'll, l972) 86-116.
].G. McConvillc. Law and Theology m' Deumonomy USOTS 33) (Shcfñcld: JSOT Press,
l984) 99-123.
J.B. SegaL The Hebrew Passowrfrom the earlmt Iimex lo AD 70 (London 0n'cmnl Scrics 12)
(London: Oxford Univcrsity Prcss, l963)
J. Van Setcrs, "I'hc Place of thc Yahwist m' the History of Passover and Massot' ZAW 95
(I983) 167-182.
R. dc Vaux, Anahl lxrack its Ixf'e and insdtum (London: Danon, Longman & Todd,
19651) 434491
J. Wcllhausen, Pralegomem to IÍICHLSW ofIsrael (Ed1n'burgh: A. and C. Black, l885) 83~
120.
 2
Tbe Levitical Sacnü'c1'al System

PHILIP P . JENSON

l. INTRODUCTION

The descripúon of sacnñ'ce m' Leviúcus forms pan of the div¡n'c m'su'uc-
tion to Isracl about worship extendmg from Exodus 25 to Numbers 10.
Although the rituals are sct out m' gxeat detaü, thc imcrprclaúon of many
aspects of the ch1'ticalsacnñ'cml' systcm remains uncertam'. In part, thís
is because the material stems from a priestly cu'cle which was all too
fammar with sacnñ'ce, and which did not feel thc nced to qucstion or
explain ít. But it is also due to the enormous cultural dístance between a
world wherc sacnñce is a livíng language, and a socicty m' which thc word
“sacr1ñ'ce) has takcn on a very diffcrem scl of meanings.' Some trans-
lations, such as 'mercy seaf (olhc¡s “cover') or 'atone” (othcrs 'expiate' or
'puxge'),z can scriously nu'slead us as we seek to read these complex tcxts.
In Ihe search IO understand sacriñce m' Leviu'cus, Lhree main
approaches can be discemed. Gcrman scholars (e.g. chdtorff; Janowski)
havc cxplorcd historical~cñtical qucstions about the historical dcvelop~
ment of sacnñ'cc. chish scholars, above all Jacob Milgrom, havc studied
Carefully Ihe nuances of sacnñ'cial terrnu21'ology.3 Since understanding
other culrurcs is a central concem of anthropologists, thcir m'sights too
havc provcd valuable m' setting issues of m'terprelau'on and undcrstanding
in a widcr contch
This chaptcr will not anempr to survcy thcorics of the historical
dcvelopmcnt of sacnñcc Following a brief introduction IO the djffcrem
kinds of sacr1ñ'ce (II), one xypc of sacnñ'ce wül bc discussed in morc detaü
(III). In praclícc a pricsdy ritual m'volvcd scveral sacrxñ'ccs, and the Day
of Atonement ülustrates how sacr1ñ'ces can be ñne-tuned lo fulfil thc
speuñ°c purposcs of a ritual (IV).“

II. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SACRlFICE

In ordcr lo give an overview of the mass of dctailed laws found in

Levilicus l-7 and elscwhere, Tablc 1 lists lhe ñve mam' types of sacriñce.
 26 Samjít'e in Ihc Bible

OITM Maurw Atno'n Offerer Prúu

Wd hcrd or Bock or bnrd' completcly brinss offenng' throws blood

bumt offenhg (dove or pigeon) bumed pluccs hmd on ngainst ullnr
wbolc offenng' male amm'al hcad places pieces
holocaust without blcmish slays, skíns, cuts on ñrc
xn' picccs washcs enuaila
Lv. l:l-l7; md legs
6:&13 rcceives lhe
offenn'g

banãLI | pnes'l: bull fatty l,3-5: brmgs' bums fax ctc.

punñ'cau'on 2 congregaúonz poníons offenhg l-2 bums rcst
offenhg young bull bumed 2: eldm do so for outs¡d'e camp
sm' offeñng 3 rukrz malc goal remamdcr congregaubn 3-S: eats llesh
4 mÀdividuah fcmalc caten by pours rest of
Lv. 4:1-35; goat or sheep priests blood out az lhc
6:24-30; cf. S poorz dove ot (3,4,S) or basc of the nlux
Nu. lS.'22-31 plgeo'n bumed
(l,2)

'a§a"m (as for mnkes rcsütutjon bums fat ctc.

repanlion puná'cau'on Lhen as for cats ñcsh
ofTenhg ofTenn'g) punfi'cau'on throws blood on
guilt ochnng' offenhg the almr

Lv. S'.l4-ó:7;
7:l-10

mínbâ tine Bour, cakea, tokcn bnn'gs offcnn'g burm handful

gmh offenhg wafcrs, ñrst fruits (memonal' lakzs handful pn'ests nnd
cereal offcñng wilh oú', Írankm'censc, pom'0n) sacnñcer ut
salt bumed mmainder
Lev. 2:1-16; no leavcn or honey
6:14-23

Flahím from hcrd or ñock fmy brmgs offeñng throws blood on

pcacc offenÀng malc or female portions places hand on alrar
shnred oñenng' wilhout blemxs'h bumcd head bums fmy
complctjon rcmamder slays, skins, cuts ponions
ofrermg eaten m' pnec'es eats breasl and
communíon right dug'h
sacnñ'ce
gift of greeting

Lv.3:1-l7;
7:ll-36

Table l The different types of sacnñc'c descríbed in Levilicus l-7

 The Levinc'al Sacnjíaa"l System 27

The detaüs of thc dxH'erent k1n'ds of sacnñce may be analysed from

scvcral pcrspecn'vcs.

I. The material of sacnjic'e

Most sacnñ'ccs involvc the slaughter of an ammal' and the manipulaúon of
its blood m' some way.S The chief exception is thc gram offerm'g, which
was occasionally offered alone (Nu. 5:15), but gencrally accompam'ed
blood sacnfi'ces (Lv. 23.'13; Nu. 15:l-12).

2. The eating of the sacríñce

Only the peace offenn'g could bc eaten by thc offerer (and hís family),
oncc thc fat was bumt and the priest had received his portíon. The rules
for thc pricst diffcrcd, and hc was allowcd to eat other typcs of sacnñ'ce
(cxccpt for the burnt offerm'g) as long as it was not offcred on hís own
behalf (Nu. 18:8-10).

3. The order of sacnñc'es

Although Leviticus 1-7 describes distmct types of sacnñ'ce, several were
usually combined m' onc rituaL Further, the sacnñces were not
performed m' the order lisxed in Leviticus l-5, which ís a didacúc order
oricntcd to thc pn°est's pom't of view (bumt offcrm'g, grain offering, peacc
offenn'g, punñ'cau'on offcrm'g, reparation offerm'g). Passages describing
the practice of thc n'tual (dcscriptive texts) show that the normal order
was punñ'cau'on otferm'g, bumt offermg (wíth gram offetm'g), peace
offerm'g (e.g. Lv. 9.'15-22,' Nu. 6:16-l7).6

4. The procedure of samjíc'e

A sacnñ'cial ritual comprised several stages, typically (i) the offerer
approaches thc sanctuary with the amm°al to be sacrmced (u") lays his or
her hand on it (iu") slaughters it (iv) thc priest performs a blood ritual
(sprínklm'g, pourm'g out, applying) (v) thc pricst prepares and bums the
sacnñlce on the altar (vi) the ñesh may be eaten and the remams are
disposed of. The detaüed rules for the ñnal thrce stages vary widely
accordmg Io what km'd of sacnñ'ce is being offered for what rcason. Thus
the Ihank offcríng (Lv. 7'.12), Ihc votive offering (Lv. 7.'16), the freewül
offermg (Lv. 7:16), and the ordinatiou offering (Lv. 8:22-29) are all peace
offcrm°gs, but were offered in d1f'ferem circumstances, havc special
names, and have slíghtly dífferent procedures. Similarly the ritual for the
pur1ñ'cation offering described in Levíticus 4 differs from that of
Levíúcus 5:l-13.
The mcaning of Khe dífferent typcs of sacnñ'ce contínues to be activcly
díscussed. Onc rcason for this is that all the sacnñ'ccs have much in
common, so Ihat therc may be a substantial overlap of mcaning and
function, as well as each sacriñce having a distinctive functíon. Anolher
 28 Sacríjíce in the Bible

difñculty is that the sacnñ'cial texts have been transnu'.tted and redacted
over a lengthy períod, and the interpretatíon of a sacnñce or ritual can
change in Lhe course of um'e. So thc ñnal form of Levitícus may wímess Io
morc than onc level of interpretatíom While the assumpuon of cohcrencc
is a good starrjng pom't, therc may bc occasions w.hcn a hypmhcsís of
hístorical change is the best way to explam dxfñ'culnes.7

l. The bumt offenn'g ('ólâ)

Sevcral factors suggest that the burnt offermg is thc most 1m'portant
sacriñce. For cxamplc, it is thc most prommcnt sacr1ñ'cc at thc Israclite
festivals (Nu. 28-29), it has a prc-emm'ent position m° the prescriptive lists
(e.g. Lv. 1-7), only male ammal's could be offered, and it is completely
bumt (i.e. the priest cannot beneñt from its flesh). What, however, is its
purp0se.>
Thcre are two main explanatíons which seek to do iustíce to the range of
occasions on which it was offered, and thc m'tcrprctations suggestcd ín thc
texts. One is that it was thc premíer expta°tmy or atoning sacritice.3
Accordm'g to Lhis understandm'g, the death of the sacnfi'cial ammal'
(symbohz'ed by the sheddm'g of blood, Lv. l7:ll) substítutes for the
offerer and thereby ransoms his hf'e, which was forfeit because of his sm'
against God. In accord with this understandm'g, kipper ('atone') can bc
derivcd from the chrew ko'per, which means ransom m' certain legal tcxts
(c.g. Ex. 21z30; 30.'12; Nu. 35:31-32). The laying on of hands (Lv. 1:4)
1'denuñ'es the substjtute, whosc death (v.5) takes place instead of the
smn'er and results m' acceptance (vv.3-4), represented by the plcasing
odour (v.9). Outsíde Leviticus there are various texts where the bumt
offenhg dcals wíth sm' (Gn. 8:20-21,' Jb. l:5).
However, there is less evidence than wc would expect for the
assocíation of the bumt offering and atonement m' the Levitical writm'gs.
When atonement is associated with both a bumt offermg and a
punñ'cau'on offenn'g (c.g. Lv. 5:9-10; 9:7; 12:6-8), ít could refer to Ihe
latter alone. Further, Nu. 15:3 suggests that the bumt offenhg could bc a
votive or freewill offeríng, whercas Israelites werc required to offer
atonm'g sacnñ'ces m' order to dcal with their un'purity or sm'. It also raiscs
the question how the bumt offermg is dístinct from thc other atonm'g
sacr11'"1'ces.9 The substitutionary m'terpretatíon of the laym'g on of hands
and the ransom understandíng of kipper have also been challenged.
An altcmative explanation is that the burm offering represents a g1'f'no
God. Thc laym'g on of hands idcnuñ'cs thc g1f't as that of thc offerer's, ° no
retum ís expected (whethcr atonemem or eating the ñesh“), and the gift
cvokes a positíve response by God. Further, thc burnt offermg can serve
as the fulñlment of a votivc or freewill offering as well the peace offering
(Lv. 22.'l7-l9,- Nu. 15:l-16). As for the texts outsíde the Levíu'cal
wrítm'gs, it is possible that 'bumt offcring' describcd all kínds Of sacr1fi'ccs
which wcre dedicated totally to God, in contrast to Lhc pcacc offerm'g. In
 The Levúúal Sucnfina"l System 29

thc casc of the pricsts, thc contrast would be bctween thc sacrmcc dealmg
with sm', which is more accuratcly descríbcd as a 'punñ'cau'on offcrm'g',
and the priestly burm otfermg that excluded atonement.
One d1fñ'culty which faces both theorics is that they use sophislicated
ideas whose relation to the priestly vocabulary xs' at best indu'ect.
Accordmg lo context, lg1f't' can take on overtones of bribc, contract (do ut
des), honour, homagc, tribute, thanksgivm'g, or a combination of thcsc.
Slm11ar"ly 'expiau'on', 'atonement' and *substitution' are loaded thcologi-
cal terms. This means that great care must be taken m' deñnm'g Lhe
language used. It is also possible to combíne boLh ideas. For examplc, thc
bumt offermg may have been a general glf't sacnñ'ce to begm' wíth, but
was later assmul"ated to thc other blood sacnñ°ces wíth which atonemcm is
associated. The main evidencc for thc assocw'u'on of atonemcnt with the
bumt offenn'g (Lv. 1:4; 16'.24) could dcrive from a later systemauzx"ng
tendenucy which assocxa'ted atoncment with any manipulation of thc
blood.

2. Thc pmücation otfenng' (lza_tt._ãt_)'

Thc older translation (“sin offerm'g') focuscs on thc rolc that this sacnñ'cc
plays m' the forgiveness of sin accordjng to Leviticus 4 (vv. 3, 14 etc.). But
Mügrom has collectcd a good deal of cvidence which suggests that this is
not the best place to start. On many occasions a _hana”_tis to be offercd not
because of pcrsonal sm', but because thc person has sustamed a maior
1m'purity, and so it ís bcttcr callcd a punfi'cau'on offenn'g. '3 As such it is
closely imcgrated with the rcst of the pricstly purity system. From various
laws it is clear that there are two grades of xm'purity, a lesser km'd which
cannot be passed on to someone or somerhmg else, and a morc seríous
degree in which ¡m'purity is communicated to those who come m'lo
contact wíth the affected pcrson or object. M Maior impuñtics dcrive from
ch11'dbirth(Lv. 12:6, 8), skm discase (l4:l9, 22, 31), discharges (15:15,
30) and contact with a corpse (Nu. 6: l l,' 19:l-22). Punñ'cation from the
latter usually rcquires a wait of seven days, followcd by punñ'cau'on rituals
and a punñ°cation offerm'g or its equivalenL15 The lesser grade of
1m'purity requu'es only sun'ple water punñ'cau'on (bathm'g, washing
clothes) and waiting umü evcmn'g.
The conccrn for purity and 1m'purity is largely forcign to Western
culture, which tcnds to emphasüe the catcgorics of sin and guilL But
amhtopologists have shown that 1m'purity plays an extrcmcly 1m'portam
role m' many traditional cultures.16 In such socíetíes, 1m'purity is not an
abstract or secondary conccpt, but a powerful vehiclc of social and
religious realilics. Thc maímcnance of a stablc society rcquíres a carcful
limitation of un'puríty and regular punñ'cau'on. This is what wc ñnd ín
chiticus, particularly sm'ce 1m'purity is m'compatiblc with holm'ess, and
holiness is a neccssary requu'ement 1f' God is IO dwell in the Tabernacle at
the centre of lhe camp (Ex. 25:8).
30 Sacnhc in tlu Bible

It rcmams true that a puriñcaIiOn offeñng is required for *inadvcr(ent

sin' (Lv. 4:2 etc.), which xs' distmguished from dcliberate sin ('with a high
hand', Nu. 15:30-31), for which no atonemcnt is availablc. It has provcd
d1fñ'cult to defme preciscly the rclation belwecn sin and 1m'pun'ty. They
are distinct but overlapping conccpts. Impurity can result from physical
conditions for which a pcrson is not responsible (e.g. Lv. 12, childbirth).
But the purity laws can bc the occasion for conscious or unconscious
uansgression, and it is not always clear whether the problem is Simple
un'pun'ty, an m'advenem ncglect of the purity laws, or a delibcrate
transgressíon of them. If we begm from the idea of 1m'purity, then
°m'advencm sin' could be due to an mTringemem of the 1m'purity laws (cf.
Lv. 5:2-3). Maior 1m'puritim can deñle the sanctuary (Lv. 15:31), and ít is
an offence not to be punñ'ed (Nu. l9:20). If we begin from the concept of
sín, then 1m'purity may be understood as a way to express cultically the
offence against God and socicty, and pur1ñ'cation is the equivalent of
forgiveness. Howevcr, it may also bc lhc case that we are working with
categories that are too sharply deñned and so demandmg too much
prec13'íon from Lhe texts.”

3. The reparation offermg ('ãããm)

Most scholars now prefer the translatíon “reparation 0ffering' to 'guílt

offerm'g', sm'cc ñnancial compensalion is its distinctíve fcaturc (Lv. 52 l4-
26)."i ln addition lo the sacriñce, rcparalion (the amoum plus a ñfthg
must bc rcndcrcd to the party dcfraudcd (S: l4-16; 6: l-7,' Nu. S:5- 10).l
Economíc offcnccs belong to the sphere of cívíl law, bul they are also síns
and a mancr of divíne concem. lt is possible to extcnd lhis interprelaúon
IO sacriñccs wherc Ihcrc is no overl ñnancial rcfcrencc. A Nazirilc who
has bccn deñlcd has had to dclay thc paymcnt of his vow and so must offcr
a rcparation offering (Nu. 6:9-12), and similarly somcone who has hud a
skin discasc hus forgonc n numbcr of sacriñccs and offcrings (Lv. l4:12-
l4). Thc sacriñcc thus compcnsates God for what he is owcd and repays
th offcrcHs cullic debL

4. The peace offcring (.§tlãmím)

Thc distincliveness of lhe pcacc offering is evidcnt in thc ñnal stagc of thc
sacriñcial riIuaL Sincc it was not an atoning sacriñcc, it could be caten by
thc offcrcr as wcll as thc pricsL thrcas thc distincúvencss of thc burnt
ofíering lies in Ihe complcte burning of the animal, the puriñcation
offeríng in the blood manipulaúon, and the reparatíon offering in the
additíonal reparau'0n, the pcace offcring ís uniquc ín thc way in which lhc
pans of the sacr1fi'cc are distribuled.
The usual translations as “peacc' or 'commum'on” or 'fellowship'
offcring suggest thc communion or fellowship that exísts amongst
 The Imnc'al Sachbl Syum 31

parúcipams m' a meal.2° Thc fat which is burm can cvcn bc called 'food'
for God (Lv. 3: l 1,' cf. 21:6). In recem discussion thc notion of n
'commum'on' sacnñ'ce has comc m' for a ccrtain amoum of iustíñcd
criticism Somc of thc carlicr 1m'pcrus for thc communion theory dcrivcd
from amhropological theorics which havc sincc bccn modiñed or
abandoncd (c.g. totcmísm). Nor is thcrc nccessarüy an etymological or
scmamjc connection bctwcen felmim and íâlõm pcace. The texts do nol
stress thc communion aspect (comrast Ex. 12:8-10; 24:11), and the
consumptíon of thc sacriñce happens aftcr the sacr1ñ'ce has bcen
pcrformcd. Scholam have madc scvcral altcrnalívc suggcstions, includm
that ít represcnts a güt thax bnn'gs about ^agreement' or 'rcconciliation',
or that it is sun'ply a 'completion offcrm'g', sm'ce it is Lhe last of a serics of
sacnñ'ccs.22
Despíte this uncertam'ty, the un'ponance of the sacnñ'ce as an occasíon
for the common enjoymcm of a meal befotc God should not be
undercsum'atcd. It is 11k'ely that fcstivals and famüy trips to the sanctuary
(cf. 1 Sa. 1221) werc thc only occasions whcn mcat was eatcn, and Ihc
un'portancc of this opportumty to feast and reioice m' God's goodness is
evidenL23 lt is not neccssary to understand the mcal and communion
aspect in a crude or líteral way. Thc Israelíles were as aware as anyone that
God díd not physically cat f00d, but ealing ís a rich symbolic rcsource for
thcological rcficcu'on.24
Thc pcace offcríng is also thc fmal sacr1ñ'cc in a series (cf. the translation
'complcu'on offcn'ng'). Once thc punfi'cation offermg has dcalt with any
fauk that might hm'der celcbration and feasting, and God has bcen
honourcd with a burnt otTerm'g, a peace offeñng ís an appropriatc
cxprcssion of harmonious rclation with God, thc ulum'atc goal of worship
(cf. Ex. 24:9-ll).

IIL THE INTERPRETATION OF SACRIFICE

l. A Gencral Theory of SacriñceP

Thc prcvious scctíon has cxplmcd thc distincúve chamcter und meuníng
of thc individual s'.¡cn'ñccs. but whcrc should we start in trying to
undersmnd lhe purpose and mcaning of sacríñcc in gcneralP Qldcr
theorics somclimcs sought to cxplain all kinds of sauriflce in tcrms of onc
kcy mcaning. Dc Vaux rccognizcd the panial validity of lhcsc suggcstions
by suggesting that lhcrc are threc kcy idcas to sacriñccz communion. gift,
and cxpiation.25 As we havc scen abovc, it is often d1f'ñcu|t to relate a
general idea exclusively to a particular kind of sacriñce because of the
ovcrlap between sacriñcial rituals. A burnt offering as well as a peace
offeríng may well cxpreu communion belwcen God and an offcrcr.
Perhaps bccause blood ís closcly linkcd with atoncmcnt, the blood of thc
bumt offcríng could also havc becn rcgardcd as alonm'g.
32 Sacrljíce' m' dqub'le

Thcre 1s', however, an altcmative appmach whícb may pmvc useñ11m'

lookmg' at the whole of the Levitical system of worship, and the rcst of the
chapter w111' pursue thls' p<:rspcctivc.26 Sacnñ'cc can m1"ua'te a statc of
affaus' (c.g. priestly status, Lv. 8-9), ít can correct a stalc of aífam (e.g.
sm', 1m'pun'ty), and it can mam'tam' and strengthen a relationstúp (the
pcace offcnng'). It can be argued xhat the CCntral concern of Lhe pn'estly
wrínngâ xs' the cneation, mamtennnce and rcstoratíon of an ordcred
world. Thc conoern with purity and 1m'pun'ry Is' 1n' part a conccm for
boundaries which must not be transgrcssecL Othenvlse',
thcre w11l' be a dcscent m'to chaos, d1sas'ter and dcath.
me thls' perspcctive, sacnñ'ce has a crucml' role m' mmn'tamm"g order
and rtstonng' the equxlx"bn'um when that order 1s' d1$'turbed. Both sm' and
nn'pun'ty czm be undemood as genemung' dísorder, a bmad category
which can apply to the personaj and the 1m'personal, the unavoídablc and
the deliberate, the m'dividual and the corporate. This is thcrefore onc way
to do iusticc to the rangt of faults for wlnch' sacnñ'ccs are prescribed It
also makes some sense of Lhe substannal' ovcrlap betwecn Lhe conccpts of
sm' and 1m'pun'ty.

2. Gtadmg' and Sacnñ'ce m' Leviticns 4

We oftcn tlunk' m' tcrms of suictly disun'ct bm'ary categories. A person,

placc or action is cithcr holy or pmfane. However, Lhe priestly system of
wnrship ls' more nuanced, and sets out various grades or levcls of hohn'css
and 1m'pu.ríty. The grades of holmess can bc seen most clearly m' the
archjtccmre of the Tabcmacle. Thc Holy of Holies, thc Holy Placc, and
Lhc Coun arc clcarly divided by walls and cntranccs, and the mn'ermost
area is Lhe holícst and the one most closely associatcd with the presence of
God (e.g. Lv. 16:?.).2s The gradm'g of various aspects of priestly worship
axc comclated closcly with cach othcr, dependmg on the character of the
problem bemg' dcalt with. The usc of space, thc pcrsons m'volved, thc
procedurc carried out, and the um“e Lhat it is done can all be s1'gnnñ'c3nt
factors m Lhc structurc and movemcnt of the overall rítuaL
The fruitfulness of Ihls' approach to sacnñ'cc may be 111'ustrated from
Levílicus 4. Thls' chapter consists of tive sections, each of which dcscribes
a parricular casc of the punñca'tion oñenn'g. Some of the detaüs are
summanzed' 1n' the table below.
Sevcral kmds' of gradm'g are evident here. The rituals in the holy placc
are descñbed fixsl, and the nearer Lhe blood comes to the centre of the
sanctuary, the morc effectivc ís the punñ'can'on. The m'ner rimal ('Lhc
maybr blood rite”) 1s' also morc complex, comprising a sevenfold
spnnklm"g as well as appücation to the horns of Lhe m°cense altar. In thc
other Lhree cases ('thc mm°or blood rire'), the blood is applied only to the
homs of Lhe mam' ahar and the sacrlñ'c1'al meat may bc eaten by thc
offenn'g príest. The ritual of the punñ'cau'on offering on the Day of
Atonemem can be m'tegmted with the scheme, smce the ritual on that day
 77wlmncal"$amjíaal"8ysm 33

A. Maybrbloodñtemkzsplacchthcllolyñzoe
LVJ Oñendu Aan Bloodspnw Amhum Foodfor
3-IZ nnan'mdpnes'z bull 7xm'fmmofmc hnmsoftheW noonc
B-21 congmgmm bull veü ahar no-one

B. Mmo'r bbodúlelxkcsplacehtheCmmofúcTabemlc
Lv. 4 Offmder Amml' Blood splmklcd' Aple ro Pood for
zz.26 luder í gon homs of the dux of pnm
27~3l anyonz f gun bum oEmng' pnuu'
32-3$ nnyont m hmb pnesu'

TableZ TTKn'nnloftbepunñcznon"oñ'enng'aooo¡úmg'tonñucus'4

¡s' Lhc most potent punñ'cation of alL The hjgh pricsl, takcs the blood m'to
the holy of Holíes, the highest grade ofspace, sprmkl'es it on thc surfaoe of
the cover, and thcn spnnld'cs it before the cover sevcn um'cs (Lv. 16: l4-
lS).
The spaual' gradmg ¡s' correlated wíth the pcrsonal d1m'cnsion. The
maior blood n'te ls' performcd for zhc anomted pricst and for thc
congregation, whüc the lcadcr and thc ordm'ary pcrson am atoned for by
Lhe blood ritual m' Lhc outer coun. The deñlement of the anom°ted pzicst is
so serious because he is the rehg1"ous head of the community and
represcnts the peoplc, who ane bound up m' his guüt (Lv. 4:3). The
sacnñ°c1al' code thus rcflects and remf'orces the hierarchical order of
society reñected m' olher pn'estly texts.
The natum of the sacnñ'c1'al ammnl' is anothcr 1m'pomnt elcmem of thc
sacnñ'c1al' codc. In the rwo most 1m'pommt cascs, bulls arc offercd, whüe
thc fourth and ñfth are disung'msh'ed only by the alternative sacrmcs
which a common person may offer, a femnle goat or a female sheep. The
gradc of thc amm'al dcpcnds pnn'cipally on its cost (the bull is the most
expensive, a member of the flock thc least) and its gcnder (a malc has a
hígher sacnñ'cial status than the female). Such obsemtíons mmam
largely unañected by the m'terpretations given to particular aspccts of the
sacrmce and províde an 1m'po_rtant way m' which a grmt numbcr of
disparate ritunls are m'xegrated and unxñ'cd.

IV. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT

Onc of the dangem of concentratmg on Leviticus l-7 is Lhat the djversity

and ñexibmty of sacnñ'cial practice is underesum'ated. The ritual of thc
Day of Atonemcnt mustrates how thc pnn'ciple of gradmg' can bc
developed to mummatc a um'que and puzzlmg rituaL As set out m'
Levíticus 16, thc heart oí the ritual comprises two disuhct acu'ons. One of
these is a specíal form of thc punñcation offcrm'g, whüe thc other |s' the
34 Sacrifíu m' zhe Bible
famous scapegoat rítuaL These two parts arc oftcn regarded as distm'ct,
and havmg dnfT'erent origins.29 But whatever the history of the n'tual, an
analysis of the prescnt ritual m' its several d1m'ensions reveals that thc two
parts complemcnt one another in a remarkable way.
The Iwo parts of the ritual m'tr0duce two unique movements in space.
Only oncc m' the year ís the blood of the punñ°cation offering brought m°to
the hcart of the Tabemacle, thc Holy of Holics, and sprinklcd on and
before the cover of the ark (vv.l4-lS). The sccond movemem is even
more 1r'regular, sm'ce the second goat, assigned by lot 'for AzazeF (v.8), ís
drivcn out m'to thc w1l'derness. It is d1fñ'cult to avoid the conclusion that
this contrary spaual' movcmcnt comprises a delíberate structural comraSL
Spacc has a quality as well as a quantity m' the priestly writings, and the
two goats cvemually encompass the extrcme reaches of s1'gn1ñ'cant spacc
m' the priestly worldview. The blood of one goat reachcs to thc heart of
holy spacc, whercas Lhe other is driven out to where maior 1m'purities have
Ihcir proper place (cf. Nu. 5: l-3). At no other t1m'e of the year are these
spaces employed m' priestly rituals.
This extrcme polar structure is also reñected ín the personal d1m'ension,
1f' Azazcl is correctly undcrstood as the name of a demon.3° The blood of
one goat is brought m'to God's presence (v.2), while the scapegoat is
driven imo the w11'demess, the home of demons (cf. Lv. l7:7). Whüe ít is
unhk'cly that Azazcl is conceíved as havm'g any m'dependent power, the
unusual reference would stress in Lhe strongest possible way that the
scapegoat represcnts thc polar oppositc of God*s holy presence in thc Holy
of Holies.
In some way, it appears Ihat this movement restores harmony betwcen
God and IsraeL At the begmn'm'g the two goats are indistm'guishable, and
arc both designated 'for Lhe punñ'cation offerm'g' (v.5). At the conclusion,
they mark the extremc spanãl and personal boundarics which delineate
thc priestly world. The movement of the goats represcnts, or cvcn effects,
the re~establíshment of the normative world order, thus allowing normal
offenn'gs to be resumed. The remarkably comprehensive blood manípula-
tion should also be noted. The blood ís spnnk'led on every part of the holy
domain, bcgmnm"g at the Holy of Holies (v.16), then the Tent of Meetmg
(v.16),31 and finally thc altar of Burnt Offermg (vv. l8-l9).
The human sidc of the personal d1m'ension also displays unique
elements which have a ñtting ritual logíc. The central ritual is carried out
by the High Priest, but he has a peculiar double role. He acts as thc
pn'estly representaúve of the people, but also needs to atone for hun°selí
and his own household (v.6). This double status is reñected in the
character of his garments, which are not hís usual resplendent outñt (Ex.
28), but of sxm'plc línen (Lv. 16:4). The clothing codc perhaps sigmñ°cs
the levelling of all hierarchical díslmctions in a common membcrship of 3
people who need to be pur1fi'ed. Only when atonemem has been
succcssfully pcrformcd is thc normal hicrarchical order rcestablíshed and
the distmktivc hígh priestly garments oncc again donned (v.24).
 The Leviuw Samfíaal'. System 35

Perhaps thc most d1fñ°cult qucsúon about the ritual logic xs' about thc
function of thc two parts. Thc purposc of thc blood rimal (v.16) and thc
scapegoat (v.21) arc stated as follows:

Thus he shall makc atoncmcnt for the sanctuary, becausc of the unclcannesscs
of Lhe peoplc of Israel, and becausc of thc1r' transgrcssíons, all thck sm's . . .
and confcss ovcr it all thc 1n1”'quíu'es of thc people of Isracl, and all (th
mnsgressions, all theu' sm's . . . (vv.16, 21, NRSV)

These rcfer to thc two mam' classcs of fault m' the priestly system,
1m'purity and sin (sins, iniquíties, transgressíons). But what kind of sin
and 1m'purity is thc object of lhe n'tual, and is therc any d¡f'ferencc
between the function of the blood and scapegoat ritualsP It scems un11k'cly
that thc pricsts would worry about minor 1m'purítícs, sm'cc they could be
punñ'ed without any rccoursc to the cult and were not contagíous. But
idenufy'm'g the particular source of major 1m'purity which needed to be
punñ'ed is not easy. Dclíberate refusal to be punñ'ed from a maior
1m'purity resulted in death not punñ'cau'on (e.g. Nu. l9:l3), so it is
possible that the Day of Atonemcnt dcalt wíth thc effects of such
unpurmcd 1m'purity on thc sanctuary. Howcver, it seems more hk'ely that
the purpose of the ritual is comprehensive and should not be deñned so
narrowly. The Day of Atonement was the appoíntcd um'e when all the
serious 1m'purities accumulatcd throughout the year were dealt wíth. The
ordercd world of the cult could be compromised by an unchcckcd
multiplicatíon of ímpure people and places, but on thc Day of Atonement
the appropriate boundarícs were re-established and the sanctuary puriñed
from every possible deñlcment.
The other focus of thc ritual is sm“. If this refers to the deliberate neglect
of the purity laws, Lhere is an overlap of the concepts of sm' and 1m'puríty.
This partial ovcrlap betwcen sin and impurity could cxplam the close
association of uncleannesses and sm's in v.16, and thc way in which thc
scapegoat rítual is associated with atoncmcnt m' v.10. But it is also true
that certam sm's which do not have a d1r'ect bearing on the purity syslem
can be described using the language of impur1'ty.3z Whüe the exact
relation betwecn sin and impurity is never spelled out, it seems
appropriate to havc some sort of ritual which deals with the cultic aspccts
of sm', however these are perceivcd, and this is what happcns on thc Day
of Atonement.
Similar difñculties are found when it is asked what the rclation is
between the two parts of the ceremony. One possible explanation would
be that the puriñcation offering dealt with 1m'purities and the scapegoat
wílh sins. Howcver, thc text refers once to atonemcm m' connection
wíth the scapegoat (v.10), and both v.16 and v.21 m'clude “sin' words.33
Another explanaúon would be that the ritcs are cominuous m' theír actíorL
For example, Kiuchí has argued that thc scapegoat completes what Lhe
purxñ'cat1'on offeríng could not do. The atonemcm systcm m' Lv. 4:1-12 is
36 Saaifice in the Bíble

defectivc because a príest cannot atone for his own sm' and so no
forgiveness is recorded, a lack remedied m' Leviúcus 16. Normally
atonement comprises two parts, the pur1ñ'cation of the sanctuary and the
bcarmg of guilt, which is removcd by the burmhg of the Hcsh of the
punñ'cation offcnn°g. In Leviticus 16, the cxpulsion of the scapegoat m'to
the wüdemess ís the symbolic cquivalent of burnmg the punñ'cation
offermg outsidc the camp.34 A thu°d possíbüity is that the two parts of the
ritual fulñl the same function from d1ff'erent pom°ts of view.35 Thís would
do iustice to the comprehensive character of the texts and the structural
relatjon between the two parts of the rituaL
The Day of Atonement also has a unique place m' the calendar of
fcstivals. Indced, strictly spcaking it is not a fcsu'val, for on thís day the
Israelites werc commanded to 'afñict themselves' (Lv. 16229; 23.'27-32,'
Nu. 29:7). The problem of sm' and 1m'purity plays a nun'or role m' the
other festivals, and at most is alluded to in the prescríptíon of a goat for a
sm'gle punñ'cation offerm'g. The ncgatíve aspcct of Isracl's hf'c wíth God
becomcs domm'ant only on the Day of Atonement. In the list of sacrlñ'ces
m' Numbers 29, the scapegoat ís cxplicitly called the punfi'catíon offenn'g
of atonement (v.11). Its date near the begmnm"g the sevemh month (the
tcnth day) also means that ít is a ñtnn'g comrast to the 1m'portant Festival
of Booths. A successful atonement ensured a pur1ñ'ed sanctuary and the
assurancc that the large numbcr of sacnñ°ces offered at Booths would be
acccpted. Furthermorc the afñiction, which probably m'volved fastm'g,
would suitably set off and heighten the subsequem rejoicmg and feastm'g.

V. LEVITICUS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE

It is clear that the authors of the Levitical texts have a morc dctailcd
acquamtance with the sacnfl'cia1 systcm Lhan ís evidcnt elsewhere m' the
Bible. The presentation is characterúed by a clear distm'ction betwcen
sevcral types of sacr1ñ'ce and an attempt to construct a coherent practice
and thcology centrcd around Ihc sanctuary and íts service. At the same
timc, the paucity ofconscious reñcction on the mcamhg of sacnñ'ce mcans
that grcat carc must bc takcn not to read latcr conccpts back m'to the texts
or imposc an cxplanatory system that is too rigid.
A particular cmphasis of this chaptcr has been that ordcr, grading and
hierarchy are central organizm'g prínciples m' the Levítical system. In this
way the cult sceks to íntegrate all aspects of IsraePs hf'e and brm'g them
under God's rule. Sacrmce plays a role m' that cnterpríse by summmg up
and reñecun'g the values and híerarchies found m' other areas of life. It also
performs the essential task of restoríng the order of thíngs when it is
compromised by fault of some kind. As such, it prescrves and enhances
IsraePs hf'c bcfore God, which is constamly threatened by the disordcr
and dcath assocm'ted wíth un'purity and sm'.
 The Leviuca'l SacnñaHal Symm 37

In terms of the wider biblical context, the chítícal understandmg' of

sacnfi'ce 1s' a dístmctive and positive conmbuúon Though thc patriarchs
pcrformcd sacnñ'ccs from um°c to nm'c, chiticus dcscribes a comprchen~
sivc systcm appropriate for a pcople and nation with considcrable
resourccs and a wíde variety of needs. It is Lhus an cssentíal pan of thc
lawgívm'g at Sm'ai, sctun'g out the religíous dnn'cnsion of Isracl's hf'c, and
provídmg thc mcans for m'dividuals and people to dcal with theu' faults
and respond wholeheanedly to God. The Tabernacle and its sacnñ'c1al'
scrvicc is thus a gracious glft' from God which allows a libcratcd pcoplc to
worship and scrve God m' purity and hohn'ess. The magnitude of this ngt
1s' emphamzed' m' thc exodus narrative by contrast wíth Pharaoh°s
restrictíons and his prohibítíon of sacnñ'ce (e.g. Ex. 8:25-32,' 10.'24-29).
The tone of thc chitical writmgs is posiúve and conñdcm thal this task
of worship and ordcnn'g can be carried out successfully within thc pricstly
systcm. Thcrc is littlc cvidcnce of thc falsc consciousncss and misusc of
the cult which the prophcts dcpict so vividly. Although thc history of
Isracl shows clcarly that sacnñ'ce could be subverted and used to
leginm'ate m'¡ustice and oppression (see Chap. 3), these truths quahfy'
rather than undermme the Levitical perspecu've. EzekícL who is both
priest and prophet, dísplays the same priestly concems for ordcr and
system 1n' his portrayal of the rcstorcd templc systcm (Ezk. 40-48).
From a histon'cal-critical pom't of vicw, many scholars consider that
Lhe príesdy texts reccived thck ñnal form m' the cxxl'e. It is questionable
whether the priestly sacnñ'c¡al' system was ever regarded as a detaüed plan
for thc people on their retum. Rathcr, the prm'ciples at work abide as
pattem and m'sp1ra'tion for anyone concemed to worship God in rich
divcrsity and cxph°c1'tdcta11'. IsracPs rclatíon to God at her b1r'th expressed
through sacnñ'cc 1s' a pattcm for futurc rcbmh's and rcnewals, though m' a
way that must take m'to account changcs in cultural and historical context.
It is thercfore understandable Lhat latcr reñection on Levítical sacnñ'ce
in a d1f'fcrem cultural context proceedcd m' a number of dxf'ferem
directíons. The NT as a whole is not aware of or m'terested in the ñne
techm'cal disnn'ctions bctween types of sacnñce which are xm'portam m'
the Levitical system. The mam' cxccption is Lhe Epistle to the Hebrews,
where the radical way m' which the author has taken up pricstly concepts
of grading and sacnñ'ce displays a fundamemal and comprehensive
approach to the challengc of m'terpreting thc Levitical systcm m' thc
context of the rest of the 0T, and thc coming of Chn'st.
In fact, the Sm'ai covcnant with its sacnñ'ces was already portraycd as
temporary and m'adequatc ín thc OT (Heb. 102 l-18, quoun'g Ps. 40:6-8),
endlessly rcpetítive and so powerlcss to deal decisively with sín (7:27; 8: 7-
13 quoting Je. 31:31-34; 9:25-26). Thcrefore a completely new way had
to be found, m'volvm'g a priest who was not subject to thc hnu"tau'ons of
thc Aaronic high priesthood (the pricsthood after thc order of
Mclchízcdck), a ncw covenant, and a bcttcr sacrLñ'ce. Prccisely through a
careful consideration of the details of the sacnñcial procedure the author
 38 Samfia in lhc BÍMI

is nblc to cxpound the uniqucness of xhc offcríng of Christ by mcans of a

subtlc a foru'on' nrguman
Thus in chrcws 9 lhe nuthor summmzes' thc spathl architecture of
the Tabernaclc, panicularly strcwm thc distinclion betwccn the outer
Icm, thc Holy Placc, and thc Holy of Holics thal lies bchm'd a sccond
curtam (vv.1-5). In the chitical system, thc gravcr thc sm', thc morc
potem Lhe sacnñ°ce rcquúed and rhc nearer it had to be brought to the
prcscncc of God by the one most conformed to the holiness of God, the
high priest. In all thcsc features Lhe dcath of Christ is shown to be the
supreme sacnñ'cc. For the earthly Holy of Holies was a mcre copy of the
heavenly sanctuary (cf. Ex. 25240), which is where Chríst entered upon
his death, m'to thc very presence ofGod (ch. 4: l4; 8:S,' 9: l l , 24). Nor is
he unqual1ñ'ed for this task, smce he is the promised high priest after thc
order of Melchízedek (5:5-6,' 7:l-28,' cf. Ps. 110:4). Rather than cakmg
the blood of goats and calves, he bnn'gs his own precíous blood,
supremely powerful to purify from sín (9:12-l4; 10.'ll-14). And because
of thc ult1m'ate value of this self-offer1n'g, he does not need to offer a
sacr1íi'cc cvery day, or even once a ycar, but oncc for all (9:12), thereby
cstablíshmg a better covenant than Lhat of Sm'ai (9:15-22).
The 1m'portant thmg to note is that the power of the author's argumem
assumes the validity, albeit 11m'ited and 1m'perfect, of the Sm'ai order of
worship. The basíc parametcrs ofdiscourse remam' Lhe same (Tabemacle,
príesthood, sacr1ñ'ce, nm'e), but the work of Christ transcends and
m'tens1fi'cs them m' ordcr to open up a ncw way of punñ'cation and
forgíveness (l:3; 9:l4). This bnn'gs to an end Lhc old order of sm' and
death, and establíshes a new age of holm'ess and holy worshíp (10:l4;
12:18-24). The power and pcrsuasiveness of the argument can be
apprecíatcd only 1f' we treasure and respect the remarkable achievement of
his mcntors and tcachers, the príestly writers of Exodus and Leviticus.

NOTES

l. For lhc connolaúons of *sacnñ'ce' see G. Ashby, Sacrijicer Its Nature and Purpose
(London: SCM, l988) l-4.
2. Both thesc terms have the same root m' lhc Hebrcw (Izpr), the meamhg of which is
disputcd (sce bclow).
3. Some of lhe diffcrcnt lranslations arc lístcd m' Table l. Milgrom has now
summnrised much of his previous work ín his mg¡'sterml' commemary on chíücus l-16
(Le-zn'ncus' l-16: A New Tnmxlation with lruroducnbn and Commmtary (AB) (New Yorkz
Doublcday, I991), where dctailcd information aboul practically cvery aspcct of sacnñ'ce
may be found, togclhcr with funher bibliography.
4. Compare Ihe wide variety of forms a eucharist or mass can takc in dMerem conlexts.
S. An cxcepúon which proves thc mlc ís Lv. 5:ll-13, wherc ñnc ñour can subsútute
Íor an ammal' if lhe offcrcr is loo poor. The nccd lo make aroncmcnt takcs prccedencc over
thc good of offering a blood sacrnñ'ce.
6. A.F. Ram'cy, °Thc Ordcr ofSacriñccs ín Old Testament Rilual Tcxts', Bíb Sl (l970)
485-498.
 The Leviuc'a1 Sacnfcml" Syslm 39

7. J.W. Rogenon, 'Sncnñ›ce in lhe Old Testnmmn Problema of Melhod lnd

Appronch', ín M.F.C. BourdMon and M. Forlca (ed.), Sacnfu (New York: Acadenúc
Press, l980) 45-60, espccinlly 4S, 56.
8. h'.g. G.J› chham, Thc Book of Lomucus (N1COT) (Gmnd Rnpids: Ecrdmms.
l979) S7-63; Mügrom, Levum l7S-| 77. 'Exp1a'¡c' gcncrally rcfers to lhc muns by whjch
sins arc dcall wilh. 'A¡onc' has such a wide rangc of meaning lhm il can mcan pncúcally
anything or nolhing~a useful fearurc for the lranslation of a disputed tcrml Anolhcr
cxplanalory lerm found is 'propiu'au'on', the appeasmg ofan offcndcd pcnon (i.c. God, on
accoum ofsin). B.A. Levine, In the Presme ofthe Lord (SJLA S) (Leiden: Bnl'l, l974) 74~
77) also refcrs lO lhe 'apolropajc' function of sacr1ñ'ce, lhc means by which nn evil
mñ'ucncc or forcc ¡s' avcrted (e.g. un'pun'ty conccived as a demonic forcc; cf. ]. M11'gmm,
SzudmÀ m Culnt Thealogy cnd Temuw'logy (SJLA 36) (Leidcn: Brill, l983) 75-84).
However. thcrc is linlc cv1d'ence in chiticus Ihal sacnñ'ce ís undcmood mÀ Icrms of Khesc
last lwo conccpxs.
9. chham, Levmcus" l l 1, disu'ngws'hcs bctwcen lhc burnl offcnng' for broad sm's and
other sacnñ'ccs for more spccúic' sms', but lhe lcxts givc litdc support for Lhis
mxerprctauon.
10. See D.P. Wn'ght, 'Thc Gcsture of Hand Plncement m' the chrcw Biblc and m'
Hinite Lireramre', JAOS 106 (l986) 433-446.
ll. R. de Vaux, Anam Israek lls L1['zand Inmmaom" (London: Darton Lnngman &
Todd, 1961) 452-4SB.
12. J.R. Poner, Levmcus" (CBC) (Cambn'dge: CUP, l976) 20.
13. Mügrorm Smdm~ 67-84.
l4. See D.P. Wn'ght, The Düposal oflmpmly (SBLDS 101) (Atlnnta, Gcorgia: SBL,
l987). Thc dcgrce of contact ((ouch, in the samc room) wíll dcpcnd on the 1m'pun'ty.
15.n In Lhis comext, Ieippn may wcll mcan 'purge' (Milgmm, me 1-16, 1079-
1081).
16. Mary Douglas' bn'lhzn't and posilive volume Pvruy' and Dangn (London:
Routlcdge & chan Paul, l966) mmains a classic lreatmem of thcmes relevam to
undcmanding Lhe pn'cs(ly worldvicw.
l7. B.A. Levmc', Lmncus” UPS Torah Commemarv_) (Philndelph|a': chish Publmúon
Socicty. 1989) l9, considcn that lhc lcgal and n'tual comexts have been blended in
Leviu'cus, so tlm lhe punñ'cau'on offeñng both pun'ñcs and rcmoves guilL Comparc lhe
coalescencc of s¡n' and un'purity idcas in rcxts such as lsaiah 6 and Psalm Sl, and m' lhe NT.
18. A greal dcal of confusion anses' bccausc of lhe dxchrcnl mcamhgs of the word
translated 'rcparau'on offenng" (J . Mügrom, Cull and ConscWe (SJLA 18) (Lciden: Brill,
l976) 1-12). Accordmg' lo contcxt, il could refer to a sacnñ'ce of rcpamúon (Lv. 5: l4-26),
lhc pennlty for guill (for which a punñ'cau'on ochring |s' prescribcd, Lv. 5:6) or lhc sme of
guül (4:13, 22, 27; S.'2-5).
l9. The cXCcption m' Lv. 5:l7-l9 may be becausc defmudm'g is suspecled, bul no
specmc sum can be dctcrmincd.
20. Thc clnssic slalcmcnt of the lheory is gencrally amiburcd to W. Robcnson Smilh,
Lectuux an lhe Rehgwn" oflhe Scmuc's.' The Fundamnlal Insmutions (Edm'burgh, A. and C.
Black, 1889).
21. Poner, me 29u30.
22. R. Rendlorff, Studm zur Geschichu deJ Opfm im alml Irrul (WMANT 24)
(Neuldrchen-Vluyn: Neukirchencr Vcrlag, l967) 133. However, in his Leoinm (BKAT)
(Neuldrchcn-Vluyn: Ncukirchcncr Verlag, l990), Vol 3.2, chdtorff Iranslatcs 'commu-
nion offcrm'g' ('Gemem'schafls-Schlachlupfcr').
23. chm*e, Levilicus 14, suggcsls lhat the sacnñ'ce was 'a sacred gm ofgrcexing' wilhin
thc comcxt of a sacrcd mcaL
24. Y. Kaufmann, The Religwn' of lxmel (Chicago: Universily of Chicago Prtss, 1960)
lll-112. Sublle cxpositícns of symbolic behaviour by amhropologms have madc iK
unlikely lhal 'primitivc' riruals are as crudc as is somcum'cs assumed. Compare lhe mcal
qualixy of Ihc Chrisúan Holy Communion.
40 Sacnjíc'e in the Bible

25. De Vaux, Ancienl Irratl 451-454. The NT oflen strcsses the rclation of sm' and
sacnñ'ce, Lhe gift thcory Is' generally associatcd wilh G.B. Gray, Sacnfíc'e in llu Old
Testamnw Iu Theory and Pracnte (Oxford: Clarcndon Press, 1925), and lhc communion
theory wílh W.R. Snu'th, LectunL
26. For a fuller cxploration of this approach, sce P.P. Jenson, Graded Holm'zss.' A Key lo
zhe Pne'stly Concepzum of lhe World OSOTS 106) (Shefñeld: JSOT Press, l992).
27. F.H. Gorman, The Ideology ofRimak Spacc, Tm andSlatuJ in lhe Prúslly Theolog
(]SOTS 9l) (Shcfñcld: JSOT Prcss, l990).
28. Sce M. Haran, Temples and Templeaínvke m' Anctm Israel (0xford: Clarendon
Prcss, l978) and Wn'ght, DuÀposaI 232-243.
29. E.g. De Vaux, Anazn'l Imul 507-510.
30. H. Tawxl', “Azazcl, The Pnn'ce of thc Steppez A Compamtive Smdy', ZAW 92
(1980) 43-59.
31. Ex. 30:10 includes lhe incensc allar m' Khe pun'ñcation n'tual.
32. T. Frymer-Kcnsky, 'Polluu'on, PunñÀcatiom and Purgalion m' Biblical Isml', in
C.L. Meyers and M. 0'Conn0r (ed.), The Ward oflhe Lovd ShaU Go Forzh: Essays m' Honor
ofDamd Noel Freedman in Celcbmm aleSÀ Síxtülh Bzr'thday (Winona Lake, IN: ASORI
Eisenbrauns, l983) 399-414,' D.P. Wn'ghl, *The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity', in G.A.
Anderson and S.M. Olyan (ed.), Prúslhood and Cull m' Anaen'l Irracl OSOTS 125)
(Shcfñeld: JSOT Press, l991) 150-181.
33. Milgrom, Studze': 81, follows lhe Mishmh (Shcb., Mishnah l:6) and attcmpts to
distm'guish polluüons dcriving from wanton sins (v.16) from m'iquju'es (v.21), but thís
scems forcch
34. N. Kiuchi, The Punjíc'auon' Offenng' m' lhe PnÀeslyl Lummre GSOTS 56) (Shcñeld:
JSOT Prcss, 1987) l48-159. However, the linkm'g of thcse texts remains hypolheticaL
Nor is il cvidcnt that lhe buming of the puriñcalion offerm'g can bear Lhe theological and
cxcgclícal weight Kiuchi scls upon iL
35. KiuchYs objccúons (Pun:ñcatwn' Offering l46-l48) to this view are mainly bascd on
a slrict imerprcmion of lhe order m' which Lhe two rimals m' chiticus 16 are performed,
bul a complex ritual need not have a stn'ct chronologícal logíc.

FOR FURTHER READING

G.A. Andcrson, 'Sacnñ'ce and Sacriñcial Oíferings (0T)', Anchor Biblc DEÀMW', voLS
(1992) 87l-886.
G. Ashby, Samjíc'e: lls Namre and Purpose (London: SCM, l988).
M.F.C. Bourdillon and M. Fortes (cd.), Sacnjíc'e (Ncw Yorkz Acadcmic Prcss, 1980).
F.H. Gorman, The ldeology of Rituak Space, Tíme and Stazus in the Príestly Thcology
USOTS 91,- Shefñeld, JSOT Prcss, 1990).
J.E. Hanlcy, Levintus (WBC) (Waco: Word, l992).
N. Kiuchi, The Punñc'anon' Offeríng ín the Pne'slly Luer'a¡ure: le Mcaníng and Funcm
GSOTS 36) (Shefñcld: JSOT Press, l987).
P.P. Jenson, Gmded Holme'ss: A Key m Ihe Pne'stly Conccpm of the World (JSOTS 106)
(Shcfñeld, JSOT Press, 1992).
J. Milgrom, Smdüs ín Cullic Theology and TmnoÀIOgy (S]LA 36) (Lcidcn: Brxl'l, l983).
J. Milgrom, Lrvinm 1-16: A New Tramlam with Introduum and Commenzary (AB)
(Ncw Yorkz Doublcday, l99l).
R. dc Vaux, Anczm't Imzek Ils szeÀ and Imnuuwn›'c (Lond0n: Danon Longman & Todd,
1961).
G.J. Wenham, The Book of Levúnm (NICOT) (Gmnd Rapídsz Eerdmans, l979).
 3

Saczüce m' tlze Psalms

NIGEL B. COURTMAN

We wm examme thc sigmñ'cance of sacnñ'ce m' thc Psalms under three

headm'gs. The Purpose of Sacnñ'ce' w1l'lexplore the motivcs with which
sacnfi'ccs arc offcred. This is an appropna'te starun'g pom't bccause thc
motíves are thc most readüy díscerníble aspect of sacnñ°cc m' the Psalms.
Thís section wxll' m'volvc a survey of all the relevam texts. Under thc
second headm'g, The Value of Sacr1ñ'ce', we wm examme a small group of
psalms which call imo question the absolutc value of sacnñ'ccs. These
psalms make an 1m'ponam contñbution to our understandm'g of thc truc
sigmñcance of sacnñ'ce. Fm'ally, under the headm'g, The Meamn'g of
Sacnñ'ce”, we w111' examine certam key ideas associated with the mh'erent
meanmg of sacnñ'ce, and explore thek paru'cular relevance to the Psalms.

I. THE PURPOSE OF SACRIFICE

Broadly speakm'g, three distinct motives may be discerncd m' the offermg
of sacnñ'ces m' Lhe Psalms: xo gíve thanks, IO bring a petition, and to offer
worship. Of thesc, Ihe motives of thanksgivmg and petitíon are quite
spcc1f1°c, corrcspondmlg Io the situatíons of distress and deliverance
regularly depicted m' Lhe psalms of thanksgivmg and lament. The motive
of offerm'g worship is rather more gcneral, and corresponds loosely to the
purposc of the hymnic psalms, that is, to offer praise to God. This last
group of sacriñces may be further subdivided into thrcez those offercd as
God,s due, thosc which cxpress ioy, and thosc which speak of devotiorL

l . Thanksgiving
To give thanks to God for a spec15'c occasion of deliverance is the chief
motive of sacriñcc Ln' the Psalms. The idea appears in some eleven psalms,
all of which are eíther lamcnts m' which the notc of assurance
predominales, or psalms of thanksgiving.l They are also all eilher psalms
42 Sacnjíc'e in the Bible

of the m'dividual or psalms m' which thc m°divídual comcs to thc fore. Thc
sacrmces themselves arise out of situations of dístress or delivcrance
which are typical of such psalms, and are offered by the m'dívidual m'
public worship. Thus the purpose of Ihe sacnñ'ces and the nature of the
psalms are very closely related. In the case of the laments, the refercnce to
sacrlñce invaríably occurs in Lhe thanksgivm'g section, usually at the closc
of the psalm: by his sacnñ'ce the psalmist m'dicates his scnse of assurance
of God's salvatiom whethcr ít has arrived or is stül to come.2 In the psalms
of thanksgivm'g, Lhe m'dividual's thanksgivmg always takes place m' a
communal context,3 often accompanied by spoken test1m'ony.4
Great joy surrounds the sacr1fi'ces offered m' the psalms of lament,
reñectmg the conñdcm mood of lhese psalms. This is true even when, as
m' Psalms 27 and 54, the psalmist has yct to be dclivered and Lhe sacrmcc
is promised m' amícipation of salvation. In neíther of thcse psalms is
mentíon made of a vow or a votive offering, nor does the psalmíst'3
promise to God comain any petítíonary element: the promise of sacnñ'ce ís
uncondítional for the psalmist ís already convm'ced that God w111' m'deed
help him. In the light of such certainty, sacnñ'ce is freely offered m'
gratitude and praise, as for example m' Psalm 27:

And I will sacrlñ'ce m' his tabemaclc ioyful sacnñ'ces,'

I wül sing and make musíc to Yahweh (v.6b).

L1k'ewise, at the conclusion of Psalm 54, the psalmist promises:

With a freewill offering I wül sacnñ'ce to you,'

I wül praise your name, 0 Yahwch, for it is good (v.6[8]).

The rather unusual term 'joyful sacríñces, (Ps. 27:6; literally, *sacnñ'ccs of
rejoicm'g'), is essentially an altcrnatíve expression for the thank-offerm'g.
By ít the psalmist emphas1z'es that his offering of praise to God aríses out
ofhis own volition and out ofthe great joy which God's act of salvation has
m'spired.
When deliverance has already been experienced, as in Psalms 22, 56
and 61, then thc scnse of joy ís cven more unm'cdiatc. Xn each case, the
psalnúst is fulñlling sacnñ'cíal vows he made to support his plea for divm°e
assísrance when hc was in trouble. His prayer has been answered, ('For
you, O God, have hcard my vows*, Ps. 61.'5[6]), so now he must keep his
promise. Any sensc of obligation, however, is far outweighed by his
gratitude, and by the generosity with which he offers his sacrmce and
praxsesz

Then wm I sm'g praise to your name contmually

as I fulfil my vows day after day (Ps. 6l:8[9]).
 SaazMàáePnhs 43

Elsewhere, Lhough, tbe fulñllmg of a vow xs' acknow1edged as an obli-

gatíon bcfore God:

Your vows, O God, arc upon mc;

I w¡ll' present dnnkoñcnm to vou, (Ps. 56.'12[13]).

In Psalm 22, fulíilment of thc vows ls~ accompanicd by praise, followcd by

a sacnñ'c1'al meal m' which the poor panicipatc (vv.ZS-26[26-27]). In Ilus'
way, Lhe one who has received God's mcrcy is able to share his experiencc
m'th others. By otfenng' sacnñ'ce m' paymem of a vow, thcreforc, Lhc
psalm15'ts express pranse' and gratitudc to God for Lhcu' dch'vcrance.
A sumlarH pícturc of ioy and abundancc cmcrges from thc psalms of
thanksgiv1n'g.5 thn Lhe psalmists have experícnced God's dclivcrance,
sacnñ'ces of thanksgivm'g are oñercd m' the temple because of what God
has done for them. Again thcse may be, as m' Psalms 66 and 116, Lhc
fulñlment of sacr1fi'cial vows madc when the psalmist was in dxs'tress. On
at least one occasion, the psalmist even goes bcyond the suict
requiremems of a votive offenhg by prcsemmg bumt ochhgs (Ps.
66: l3-15): thc high cost and quality of Lhcsc offermgs clcarly m'dicatc his
wúlm"gness and generosity. The same psalnn'st's tesumony to what God
has done lends funher support to thc depth of prajse and personal
thanksgivmg sígmñ'ed by such sacnñ'ces (Ps. 66:16-20). As m' the lament
psalms, greater emphasis is placed on Lhe psahmsfs eagemess Io show
gratitude than on any scnsc of duty about fulñllmg his vow. He is
cspecially conccmed to give credít to Godz

How shall I repay to Yahweh

all hjs goodncss to ch . . .
To you I wm sacnñ'ce a Lhank~offermg
and on thc name of Yahwch I w111^ call (Ps. 116:12, l7).

Another cxample of thanksgivm'g by sacnf1'ce occurs m' Psalm 107, though

on this occasion wíthout reference to Ihe paying of vows. Thc basic
paltem of Lhe psalm ís buüt around the tcsnm'om'es of God's delivcrancc
for four separarc groups of pcople, and each of the psalm's four mam
stanzas concludcs in the same way:

Let them lhank Yahweh for hís mercy,

and hís wondcrful dceds to mcn (vv.8, 15, 21, 31).

To Ihis refrain is addcd in v.22:

And let them sacriñcc thank-offcrings,

and recounl his deeds ín joyful song.

In three other psalms, Psalms 40, SI and 69, sacrmces arc comcmplated
apparemly as an expression of thanksgiving for a spec1f1'c occasion of
44 Samnu m tlu Bíble
dch'vcrance. Each of thcm strcases thc un'pomnce of gíving tcaúmony m
God's dceds m' public worship. Sincc, howcvcr, thc sacnñ'ccs' arc not ín
fact offered, thcsc pqalmxs will mcríl spccial ancnúon latcr on,
The primary purposc of sacriñcc thcn, m' thcsc clcvcn paalma, is lo gívc
joyful thanks Io Yahweh for a panicular act of dclivcrancc. 'I'hc usual
sacnñ'cc for thxs' purposc ís thc thankoffering, which may or may not be
offered in fulñlmcm of a vow. In various ways the psalmists m'dicatc thcu
eagcmcss zo sacññce gencrously, and to cclebrauz with great joy as thcy
bear tcstimony to thc saving deeds of Yahwch.

2. Petition
In comrast to thc substanua'l and signxñ'can( group of psalms iust
descn'bed, a petitionary motive is associatcd with sacnñ'cc only rarcly.
Thc clcaresx cxample occurs in Psalm 20, which is a praycr of íntcrccssion
for thc king's victory m' batdcz

May he send you help from the sanctuary . . .

May he rcmcmbcr all your sacrmccs
and acccpt your bumt offerm'gs.
May he give you all your hearfs desire
and makc all your plans succeed (w.2-4[3-S]).

Rather than describmg the km'g*s regular sacnñ'ces, these verses probably
refer to one particular occasion. Since acceptance is regarded as a
preconódition of victory, thcse sacríñces clearly have petitionary sn'gn1íi'-
cance.
In Psalm 141 by comrast, the precise nature of the psalmist's attitude
toward sacr1ñ'ce ís less clear, and we shall defer a more dezaücd
consideration of this psalm. Sufñce it to say here Lhat m' praym'g for
dcliverancc from sm' and from the malíce of the wicked, the psalmíst
draws a parallcl bctween his prayer on the one hand and sacnñ'ce and
m'ccnsc on the other. He appears therefore to attribute to the latter a
pctitionary s1'gn1ñ'cance. It may be, however, that the comparison is
lun'ited to the idea of both prayer and sacnfi'ce ascending to God and so
comm'g to his attention.
An even more doubtful case of pctitionary sacnñ'cc appcars m' Ps.
5:3[4]. The psalmíst pleads for delivcrance from malícíous attackz

O Yahweh, in the mormn'g you hcar my voicc,

ín the morning I arrange (. . .) for you, and watch.

Since ín somc contexts, the verb °to arrange' is used of preparing a

sacnñ'ce, the meanm'g here could be that Ihc psalmist ís presenun'g a
moming sacriñce as a petítion ro God (as Rsv,NEB,REB). However, Lhe same
vcrb can also refcr to preparing a case ín a dispute, and this m'terpretation
secms prcfcrable m' thc prcsent contcxt (cf. NIV, GNB). The followm'g vcrb
 Smúct m' llu Plalnu 45

'tu watch', which is uscd of waíting for z rcvclalm or z iudgnmn tcnda

to suppon thw' ídca. Thc psalmm rhcn is sxm°ply prcncnung' hu' complam
to God.

3. Homage
In a numbcr of psalms, sacnñcc takcs on thc sígniñcance of praise whxc'h
is offcrcd lo God as his duc. Unlíkc thc psalms of thankagiving, whjch
tcatify to God's gracíous intcrvcmíon on a spcciñc occasiom lhc maiority
of thcse psalms are hymnic compositíons dcscñbing m' gcneral Icrma the
grcamess of God and h¡s' worl<s.7 Thcy cmphasizc that sacnñ'oc, lxkc'
praise, ís due to God alonc.
Psalm 96 cclcbratcs Yahwch's kingshíp ovcr all Lhc world, and calls on
all nations lo worship him. In this contcxt thc call to 'bring an offcnn'g and
comc m'to his couns' (v.8) suggcsts that sacnñccs and othcr g¡f'ts arc a
pterequisitc of acccss to thc divm'c prescnce, and rcprcscnt an act of
homage and submission to thc km'g before whom the naúons must
tremblc and bow down (v.9). As part of Lhís act of homage, vows and
vou've offenhgs may also bc brought. Thís ís the casc ín Psalms 65 and 76,
wherc thc vows scem to bc mcntioncd in the comcxt of sacnñcc In
neither psalm, howevcr, does the peu'tíonary aspect of a vow have any
relevance, nor arc the oñcnhgs occasioned by any spec1ñ'c cause of
thanksgivmg Thc votive offermg ís sun'ply a vehicle of the praise that is
God*s duc:

Bcfore you sücncc is pmise, 0 God m' Zion;

and to you are vows fulñlkd (Ps. 65›:l[2]).8

Sxmxlar"ly m' Psalm 76, which celebrates Yahwch's dcfcncc of Jcrusalcm

and hís rule m' heaven and carth, the psalmist cncourages ngh'tful
worshipz

Vow and fulñl Io Yahwch your God, all Lhosc amund hun','
lct thcm bnng' gms to thc onc who ís to be fcarcd (v. ll[12]).

This is not a command to make a vow, since the makmg of a vow ís a

purely volumary acL Rather, thc psalm stresscs that whcn promlscs' arc
made, it 15' to Yahwch that thcy must bc paid. The prescmaúon of güls Io
an awesome God remf'orces the idea that the votive offcnhgs themsclvcs
are prescnted as an act of homagc to God.
Two further psalms belong here. Ps. 22:29 descñbes a sacrmcial
fcastmg by the nations m° an cschatological setu'ng. The hymm'c characlcr
of Lhe passage suggests Lhat lhesc sacnñ'ccs arc offered chieñy to honour
Yahwch. Secondly, a hymn-l1k'e praycr occurs mc Ps. 11921082 'Accept, O
Yahweh, the frcewill offerings of my mouth'. Here the sacnñ'c¡al' tcrm is
clearly a metaphor for praise, and Lhe psalm”s formal nature mdícates that
such praisc is quíte gencraL
46 SamfiÀce in the Bible

In these ñve psalms, then, and especíally in Psalms 65, 76 and 96,
sacriñces are offered ín praise of Yahweh as an expression of lhe homage
and submission due to h1m'. The *gíft offeríng' (Ps. 96:8) ís particularly
appropriatc as a means of offering homage, and evcn the special nalure of
vows and frcewill offenn'gs, as a means of gíving thanks on a particular
occasion, can be subordma'tcd to Lhis widcr purpose.

4. Joyful Worship

In a few psalms, sacriñces evokc the pure ioy of worship m' Ihc sanctuary.
Two of these are processional psalms, Where the altar functions as the
very focus of sacr1ñ'c1'al worship. On one occasion, a psalxrúst undergoes
an act of ritual purxfi'cau'0n as he prepares to approach the altar:

I wash my hands m' innocence,

and I will go about your altar, O Yahweh (Ps. 26:6).

His mood 1s' clearly one of ioyful amícipation, as hc speaks of lovc for
God”s house and praise for what God has donc. A very sunLl"ar atmosphere
is cvoked in Ps. ll8, as ñrst the psalmist cmcrs the tcmple gates (w. l9-
20), before approachmg the ahar itselfc

Lead the festal procession with dcnse foliagc

right up to the horns of the altar (v.27).

Sincc both Jewish tradition and Ihc psalm's own languagc (v.27) suggcst
that his psalm was originally associatcd wilh the Feast of Tabemaclcs, ít is
11k'ely to have been accompamcd by sacr1fi'ces m' abundance, offered in
joyful thanks for harvest.
In Psalms 42-43, howevcr, the psalmist m° exile can only cxpress a
wístful longing to be prcscnt at such a celebrationz

Then will I go to lhe altar of God,

to God, my ioy and delightg
And I will praise you with the harp,
O God, my God (Ps. 43:4).

Here again one notes Lhat thc altar rcprescnts not only the very cemre of
worship but also the focal poim of G0d's prescnce. In such a context,
sacnñ°ce expresses both real communion with God and Lhe opponume to
offcr ioyful praisc.

S. Devotion

There remain thrce psalms where sucriñces offered to a particular deity

are seen as a mark of loyalty to that deítyA lndeed, Ihcy mark off the
worshipper of one dcíty from another ín a quile disünctivc way.
 Sacrlfic'c in Ilu Psalnu 47

In Psalms 16 and 106, pagan dcities arc the obiect of dcvou'on. In thc
former casc, the psalmíst repents of hís carlier waysz

I will not pour out thcir libations of blood,

nor w111' I lake up lheir namcs on my lips (Ps. 1614b).

He cxprcsses his confidcnce m' Yahweh by añirmmg his díssoc¡a'tion from

pagan worship. It has even becn conicclurcd that this is the praycr of a
Canaam'te convert to Yahwism In Psalm 106, Lhc whole Israelite
communíty confesses to havmg been guüty m' formcr days of such síns, of
which Lhey now rcpent. Those whose predccessors *yoked themselvcs to
Baal of Pcor' (v.28) and who 'servcd thck idols' (v.36) acknowledge that
by thcir sacriñces thcy worshippcd '11f'cless gods' (v.28) and partícípated
m' the sacnñ'cial murder of chüdren (vv.37-38).
The positivc coumerpart to thxs' misplaced devolion is found in Psalm
4. Herc the psalmíst afñrms his trust m' Yahweh, and encourages those
who are m' danger of apostacy to follow his examplez *Offcr tighteous
sacnñ°ccs, and trust m' Yahweh' (v.5[6]). These 'n'ghteous sacnñ'ccs'
should bc thought of as offcred in the right spm"( and disposition toward
Yahweh, rathcr than accordm'g to Lhe correct rituaL The comext suggcsts
that they 1n'dicate a rcligious 0n'emation toward Yahweh (cf. vv.4, Sb).
Thcy signify a right and m'tcgral relationship with hxm', and express trust
m' the one xrue God.°

6. The Purpose of Sacnli'ce: Summary

Psalm 50 is um'que among the psalms in dcalmg cxplícitly with sacr1ñ'c1'al

motivcs. II is lherefore a convcníent focus for summanzm"g what has been
lcamt from the othcr psalms (a detaücd discussion of this psalm is found
m° Scction II).
The most frequem motíve for sacrmce is Io gíve thanks Io God for a
dcliverance he has already accomplishcd. Such sacnfces are offercd in a
spm"l of gcnerosity and wilh grcat joy, and are ln'tended above all to givc
thc credit to God. Oftcn the sacnñcc had been previously promised when
the offerer was stm m' trouble. ln fact, such a procedure is recommended
m' Ps. 50:14-15, sm'ce God is honoured when people express thcu'
dependence on him m' this way, acknowledging his power lo save. It is
bccause of the lesum'ony and honour they bring to God that thc practicc of
offcring sacrmccs of thanksgivm'g is partícularly commendcd m' Psalm SO
(cf. vv.l4, 23).
One or two pexitionary sacrmces are found in the Psalms. Ps. 50:8-l3,
however, draws anention Io Ihe dangers mh'erent in such sacnñ'ces, which
mighl be offered with a vicw to inñuencing God ín one's favour. This may
cxplain why they are so rarcly found.
The remainm'g sacnñÀccs m' the Psalms rcñect the purpose of offcrmg
worship to Yahweh in a more gencral way. In paru'cular, thcy
48 Samfíu in lht Bible

dcmonstratc thc nccd to rccogn1z'c God's sovcrcigmy by bringmg h¡m' a

wonhy offcring; Ihey express thc tremcndous ioy that is to bc expcrícnccd
in God's presence; and Ihcy indícatc thc depth ofdevoúon thc worshippcr
gives m his God. Thc last of thcse ñnds particular exprcssion m' Psalm 50:
in lhc cnvcnnnl sacriñccs which seal lhc rclationship hctwccn Yahwch and
his worshipping pcoplc (v.5), and in rhc rcquíremcm lo m'tcgratc
approprime atúludcs to sacriñcial worship with thc practicc of covcnant
law in dnüy lifc.

lI. THE VALUE OF SACRIFICE

Dcspitc thc wídcsprcad imponance clcarly nttached to sacrmcc m' the

Psalms, ccrmin psalms sccm lo ma1n'tam' a very d1f'fcrcm attitude. In
Psalms 40, 50, 51, 69 and l4l, the vcry value of sacriñce itsclf is opcn to
questiom Wc bcgin with Psalm SO, wherc the subjcct of sacr1ñ'cc is dcalt
wi(h ín a dircct and comprchcnsíve manncr.

1. Psalm 50
Al ñrst sight, this psalm sccms to cast doubt on the neccssity for any km'd
of sacnñ'cc at allz

l havc no nccd of a bull from your stall

or of goals from your pens, . . .
Do I can thc ñcsh of bulls
or drmk Lhc blood of goats? (Ps. 50:9,13).

This view sccms to be conñrmed by the intervcníng verscs. If a person

makes his offering wilh the aim of pumn'g God m' man's debt, his
sacnñ'ccs are worthlcss, becausc thcre is nothing m' Lhís world that God
does noI already own (vv.10-l l).¡° Furthcr, evcn the vcry idea that God
nceds sacnfi'ces for food, widespread m' Lhe ancicnt Near East, is absurd
(vv.12-13). Man can therefore nevcr use sacrmce for his own cnds.
Bul it is plaín from the rcst of Lhe psalm that it ís the abuse of sacnñ'ce,
rather lhan its absolutc worth, that is so emphatically condemncd. God
h1m'self, for cxample, has entered imo a covenam with his people by
sacríñcc, and he is revealing h1m'self to thcm now ín ordcr to rcnew thal
covcnams

Gathcr to me my devotees
who cmcr into my covenant wílh sacnñ'ce (v.5).“

Indeed, he goes on to cncourage them to offer the ríght km'd of sacnñ'cc m'
rcsponscz

Sacrxñce to God a lhank~offenn'g,

and fulñl your vows to Lhe Most High.
 SamficÀe in Ihe Pmlms 49

Call on me m' time of Kroublez

I will dclivcr you so thaz you may honour mc (w.14-15).

God is honourcd in the sequencc of pelítion, dcliverancc, and

thanksgivíng; and this is truc whclhcr or not a vow is involved. By makmg
an appcal for help, man acknowledges his depcndcncc on God; by thc act
of deliverancc God afñrms hís power to save,' and by his sacnñ'ce man
tesufi'es publicly to Lhe powcr of God. Far from sacnñ'cc being devalued,
thc thankoffcnhg is particularly commended as a means of givmg honour
to God (cf. also v.23). The pcoplc who arc cn'u'c17.'ed arc thosc who prescnt
lheu" offcnhgs without moral intcgn'¡y, as 1f' mcrc n'lual could covcr up or
atone for such thm'gs as slander, theft, or adullcry (vv.16-21). Only to thc
person *who is set m' the way', says thc Lord, 'w11'l I show h1m' tbc
salvation of G0d' (v.23).
The conlrast is therefore betwecn a right and wrong usc of sacnfi'ce. Of
ítsclf, sacnñ'cc is meanm'glcss, possibly cven harmfuL But when it ís
offcrcd wiLh lhc mm' of bn'ng1n'g glory and honour to God, it acquucs'
positivc valuc and mcaning. The Lhank-offerm'g is smAgled out as thc
sacnñ'ce whích most clearly fulñls üús a1m'.

2. Psalm 141

Hcrc the psalmíst makcs hns' plea to God m' d1$'tm'ctive languagez

Let my prayer bc estabhs'hcd (as) inccnsc bcfore you,

lhe hf'nn'g of my hands (as) an evcmn'g offcnn'g (v.2).

Clearly some km'd of relaúonship is cnvtsa'ged bctween the psaltms'l's

praycr, symbohzed' by upliftcd hands, and Lhe daíly offcrmg of sacnñ'ce
with inccnsc m' thc tcmplc, though conuasting cxplanaúons of this
relationship havc bccn offcrcd. II has bcen pmposcd cithcr that praycr B
an mf'cn'or substirutc for sacnñ'cc, pcrhaps becausc of somc physical
hnu"tation, or that prayer reflects a more spm"tual approach that has
progresscd beyond merc cercmomal '2 But Lhcre is no clcar cvidcnce that
praycr ís vicwed as a substirutc herc, and othcr pans ofthe OT conñrm Lhc
commuing imponancc of sacnñcc' m' Lhc post-cxilic pcn'od.” II u' much
morc hk'cly Lhat a d1rcct' companso'n is bem'g madc. Just as thc smokc and
m'censc asccnd to hcavcn every mommg and evenm'g, so thc psalm15't
trusts that his prayers wül' comc rcgularly bcfore God. Although we do
not know for cenam whether hc was actually present al Lhe altar, il Ls'
apparem Lhat tlns' psalmm upholds physícal sacnñce' as a belpful modcl of
man's approach to Lhe dívm'c prcscnce.

3. Psalm 69
Aftcr a long praycr of lamcm, Psalm 69 concludcs on a nolc of thanks-
givm'g:
 50 Sacnñc'e in du Bíble

l wm pransc' the name of God m^ song,

and mangy h1m' with thanksg1'v¡n'g;
Thjs will pleasc Yahwch morc Lhan n bull-ox
havm'g homs and cloven hooves (vv.30-3|[31-32]).

Thc key question here is why song should apparcntly give grcater
pleasure to God than sacnñ'cc. It cannot bc that a song is morc pcrsonal,
for sm'gm' was one of the most distm'ctive features of corporate temple
worship.1 Nor does a song espccíally represcnt the worshipper's m'ner
disposítion, for both sm'g1n'g and sacnñ'ce are outward acts of worship. 15
The d1fT'erence scems therefore to lie m' the fact that whereas sacr1ñ'ce
offers only silcnt praise, a song declarcs God*s praíses 1n' an m'telligiblc
manner to all who lísten.
Far from attcmptmg to do away with sacnñ'ce altogethcr, it is quite
possible that dús psalm would have been accompanied by thank-
offerm'gs. The pom't ís, however, that even the most costly sacnñ'ces have
theü hm'italions. Thc1r' malerial aspects are subordínatc to a deeper
meanm'g, which is made cxplicit only by verbal means. Though sacnñce
and sm'gm'g are both essential to public worship, only thc latter can
actually declare the greamess of God's namc (cf. v.30).

4. Psalm 40

As this psalmíst Iooks back to a spec1fi'c instance of answered praycr

(vv.l-10 [Z-ll]), he recalls Lhat what God had requüed of him was
obedient trust rather than any spec1a'l offeríngz

You did not dcsirc sacnñcc or offering

- You made me undcrstand ít! -'°
You did not ask for burnt offcring or sin offering (v.6[7])

He had expressed h1m'self ready to do God's will, as it was contamed in

G0d's wrítlen word:

So I saíd, 'Scc! I have come;

it ís wn'tten for me in the roll of a scrolL
I have dcsircd to do yom wíll, O my God,
and your Ieachmg is in my inmost parts' (w.7-8 [8-9]). ”

Although the sacnñ'cial referencc ín vcrsc 6[7] is quite comprehensivc,

this need not 1m'ply “Ihe axíomatic repudíatíon of the whole sacnñ'cíal
cult'. w If wc have intcrpretcd the overall structuxe of Lhc psalm correctly,
it would appcar once morc that thc sacrmccs cnvisagcd are imcndcd as
sacriñces of thanksgíving, expressíng gratitude for dcliverancc. lt ís not
ímpossible lhat the burnt offering'9 and sin offcríng20 should bc related to
this purposc. All such sacrlñ'ces, howcver, are subordm'a(e to the
m'tention of dedicating 0ne's life to Lhe wíll of G0d.
 Sacnícc m' tlu Psalnu Sl

S. PsalmSl
Thc most emphatic rciection of samñ'cc anywhcre m' thc Psalms scems to
occur m' the followm'g lm'es:

For you would not delight m' sacnñ'ce, were I to bnn'g it;
a bumt offenhg you would not acccp(.
Thc sacnñccs' of God are a brokcn spm"t;
a brokcn and crushed hcan, 0 God, yuu wm not
desplse' (Ps. Sl:16-l7 [l8-l9]).

To understand thesc lmcs', however, it is essenual' to consídcr theu'

contexL Because of the penitcntial nature of Lhe psalm it might bc
assumed lhat the sacnñces contemplatcd are m'lended to bc t':xpm'tory.2 '
This, howcvcr, crcaxcs a difñcuhy m' thc scqucnce of vv.13-l7[15-19],
whcre a votjvc offering would Lhen be followcd by an cxpxa'tory one.z2 The
confession of sm' and prayers for forgiveness cnd at v.12[l4], whüc from
v. l3[15] onwards Lhe psalmist turns to the outcome of his dcliverance.
The usual responsc to delíverance, as we have seen frequemly in thc
Psalms, ís to oífer both sacnñ'ces of thanksgivmg and verbal test1m'ony.
Síncc thc verbal tcsum^ony herc is m' evidcncc m' vv.l3-lS [lS-l7], it
scems most rcasonablc to concludc thar Lhc sacnñ'ces of w.16-l7 [18-l9]
are in fact sacnñccs of xhzmksgiving23
Morcover, lhc psalmist ls' making an m'djvidual statcmem conccrníng
God's wül for h1m' m' panícular circumstanccs, ralhcr than a gcneral
asscrtion about lhe value or othcrwisc of sacnñ'ce. Morc Lm'portam than
any blood offcnn°g is Ihc psalnn'st's dccp contriúonz thc sacrmcc of his
sclf~will in surrender to God. This docs not mean Lhat comrition itself is
an act of thanksgivmg Truc Lhanksgivmg is Lhe rcsuh of contrítíom
demonstratcd m' a tummg away from sm' and m' a determmaúon to lead
other sinners back to God (v.13[15]).
In thc closing vcrsas, the ind1'vidual's praycr for hun'self passcs ovcr
imo m'tcrccssion for the natíon. When Isracl too has bccn restorcd to
favour,

Then will you dehg'hl in rightcous sacrlñ'ccs,

bumt offermg' and wholc offcrm'g;
Then bulls will ascend upon your nllar (v.l9[21]).

Dcspite thc views of many m'terprctcrs who rcgard vv.18- 19 [20-21] as a

post-cxilíc supplement,24 thcrc is a close rclationship betwcen Lhcsc
vcrscs and the rcst of thc psalm.zs The 'righteous sacriñces', for example,
are to be closely idenúñed with the 'sacnñ'ces of God' (v.17[19]).
Alxhough now they are no longer metaphorícal bul literaL they are offcred
as thanksgivmg sacnñ'ces for sin thal has becn dcalt wi[h, whcthcr on
bchalf of an individual or a nau'on, in gratítude for a restored rclaúonship
with God.
52 Sache ín the Bible

So this psalm also looks for no ulum'ate reicction of sacriñce. In fact,

sacr1ñ'ces are valucd as a symbol of thanksgiving and of one's right
standing before God. More importam, howcvcr, than thc physícal act of
sacriñcc is a true sclf-offcring m' pem'tcncc and thanksg1'ving.

6. The Value of Sacnñ'ce: Summary

Dcspite the fact that sacnñ'cc played a vital role m“ worship alongside the
psalms, it had its hnu"tations. On its own, it was a mute witncss, and thc
mere presentation of materlal' r.hm'gs had no m'tnn'sic value. It was
thcrefore a symbol, whose true value was measured by the purposes and
motivcs with which the worshipper made his offenn'g.
On the basic lcvcl, sacnfce might symbohz'e the regular elcments of
cultic worship (Ps. 141:2). It was particularly valued as a mcans of
offerm'g thanks to God, supremely as a symbol of the worshippefs own
self-offerm'g of thanks. On such occasions, physical sacnfi'ce might be
suspended altogcther, either to allow a specmc verbal test1m'ony to be
more clearly heard (Ps. 69.'30-3l [31-32]) or to enable a worshipper to
ensure that his inncr desircs werc right bcforc God (Ps. 40:6-8 [7-9],'
51.'16-17 [1&-l9]). Havmg conñrmed the motíves of his heart, he could
thcn fully express his renewed faith by physical acts of sacnñ'ce (Ps.
51:l8-l9 [20-21]; cf. Ps. 50:14, 23).

IIL THE MEANING OF SACRIFICE

We have scen that sacnñ'ces m' the Psalms may be offered for a variety of
motives, and that the value of sacnñ'ce is dcpendent on a proper
rclationship bctwccn motive and 0ffcring. Thcsc motivcs must now bc
compared with thc ínhercnt mcaníng of sacrxñ'cc, cspecially the three
mam' conccpts wídely held to lie bchind OT sacriñces. Thcse are, ñrstly,
sacr1f1'ce as a gift to God, usually lmk'ed with the bumt offering and the
cercal offering; secondly, the notion of communion, usually especíally
rclatcd to lhe pcacc or fcllowship offeríngs; and ñnally, the idca of
atoncmcm, which ís parúcularly associatcd with the sin and guilt
offcrings.

1. Gift
Thc idca of sacr1ñ'cc offcrcd to God as a gift is most clcarly prcscmcd in
Ps.96:8: 'Bring an offcrmg and come into his courts'. The Hebrew word
for 'offering' (minhâ) íncludes secular idcas such as 'gift' or 'tribute', and
sccms to m'cludc herc Lhe notion of the tribute offcred to a kjng in
recognitíon of G(›d's sovcrcigmy and majcsly. It thcrefore expresses the
worshippefs homage and submíssion, though the prccise form of thc
sacriñce remains unclcar.
 Sacriñu in the Psalms 53

There ís, of coursc, some dangcr in rcgardíng onc's sacnñ'ce as a g1f't to

God. This ns' spelled out m' Psalm SO, where the idca that man could
somehow gain ctcdit with God, so as to cxpect some retum for hjs outlay,
is erongly condemned. All g1f'ts made to God in a very real scnse already
belong to hun'. The same d1f'ficulty ls' also possible m' conncction with the
pctitionary offerm°gs of Psalms 20 and l4l. In both of thesc psalms,
however, thc sacnñ'ccs function as an appeal to God rathcr Lhan as part of
a contract with h1m'. This ls' clearly the casc m' Psalm 141 , sm'ce sacnñ'cc ís
compared with prayer, which can scarcely be considered a g1f't m' the strict
sense. It is also true m' Psalm 20, where acceptance of the km'g's sacnñ'ces
and the battle's victorious outcomc remam' undecíded. Such sacnñ'ces
may further an appcal to God, but are not to be regarded as anempts to
buy h13' favour.
Votive offermgs also appear m' Psalms 65 and 76 m' a role sxmll"ar to Lhat
of thc glf°t m' Psalm 96. Their normal function as vows, howcvcr, has
dropped out of sxgh't. In fact, as in most cases whcte vows are m'volved
(Pss. 22, 56, 61, 66, 116), thc idea of obligation is replaced by an
overwhelmmg scnsc of gmtitudc. Such offermgs are w1lh"ng gxf'ts, not the
rcsult of a rouun'c duuf'ully fulñllcd.
A des1r'e to express gratitude is a common feature of au Lhe varíous
sacnñ'ces of thanksg1'vm'g, whose chief function ís as a public memorial to
honour God for what he has donc. Indeed, ít is pnm'arüy the thanksgivmg
and honour, rather than thc sacnñ'ce itself, that consútutes thc g1f't to
God.

2. Communion

The sacnñ°cnal' notion of communion is commonly assoc¡a'ted with Lhe

peace or fellowship offerm'gs, whcn worshíppers shared a sacr1ñ'c1'al meaL
In thc líghl of Lv. 7:11-18, this would m'clude the various votíve,
thanksgíving and freewm offenhgs mentioned m' Lhc psalms, with thc
possible cxceptíon of Ps. 66:13[l4] whcrc a vow is fulñlled with a bumt
offerm'g. Only in Ps. 22:26[27] (cf. v.29[30]) ís specmc mention made of
such a meal, where the poor are m'vited to iom' m' celcbrating God's
salvau'on. Fellowship with onc's fellow men as well as with God ls'
thcrcforc m'volvcd, as in all thc rcfercnccs m' the Psalms to sacr1ñ'ccs of
thanksgiv1'ng.
Commum'on as cxpresscd by a scnsc of loyalty to a particular dcity
occurs m' Pss. 4:S[6]; 1624 and 106.'28, though again it is not associatcd
with any one typc of sacnfi'cc. More un'portantly, the covenant itself is
sealcd by sacr1ñ°ce (Ps. SO:5), so Lhat to be m' communion with God is Io
havc onc's cntirc hf'c du'cctcd by the rcvealed naturc of God. A closc
parallcl is found in Psalm 4, whcrc to offer the right kind of sacnñ'ces
means to refram from sin and Io approach God ín humílity and trusL The
covenanl relalionship ís lhereforc lo be mamtaíned through sacr1fi'cml'
meals. As these werc celebrated m' thc presence of God, his people shared
 54 Sacnñce' in dw Bible

not only m' a particular occasíon of thanksgivmg but also m' Iheü own
Covenant commitmem to God and to each other.
The theme of communion with God in tcmple worship is ccntral to
Psalms 26, 4Z-43 and 118. In most cascs such commum'on with God is
probably assoc1a'ted with the pcace offen'ngs, though no spec1ñ'c type of
sacriñce ís mentíoned ín any of these psalms. Here it ís the altar on which
sacriñce is offered which servcs as the focal poim for worship and the
presence of God.
Three aspects of communíon therefore emcrgc from íts associalion with
sacriñce in the Psalms. It involves commitment to and covenant with a
particular deily, indicated both by the physical act of sacriñce and by Lhe
spirit in which it is offered. It includes the partícipatíon of God”s people
Iogcther m' God's gíft of salvation, in an expression of deep gratitudc to
God. It focuses on worship m' the presence of God, symbolized above all
by sacr1ñ'cc on God”s altar.

3. Atonement

The lack of any clear reference to sactiñcial atonement in the Psalter ís

remarkable. The one explicít mention of expiatory sacrüce which does
occur ís purcly formal, wherc it ís símply lísled as one of four differcnt
rypes of sacnñ'ce (Ps. 40:6). Furthermore, the primary cmphasis of the
context is on sacnñ'ces of thanksgiving, suggesting either that forgiveness
of sin ís only one of several reasons for thanksgiving or that the
sígnificance of the sin offering was not conñned to atonemenL
Conversely, where sin is clearly acknowledgcd as the cause of IsraePs
difñcullies, as in Ps. 10721 l , 17, no atoning rite is mentíoncd. This is truc
evcn in Psalm 51, wherc thc rcfcrence to sacnñ'cc (vv.16-l7 [18-l9])
occurs in the context of thanksgiving. The memion of punñ'catory rites in
vcrse 7 seems to be metaphorical rathcr than literaL
Sacr1ñ'ce and atonemem do occur side by side in the opening verses of
Psalm 65, but here too there is no explicít connectíon between themz

Before you sílence is praise, O God in Zion,

and Io you are vows fulñlled.
O hearer of praycr, to you all Hesh will come.
When the weíght of our sms overwhelms us,
it is you who atone for our transgressions (Ps. 65:1-3 [2-4]).

The means of atonement scems not to be 1m'portant to Lhe author of this

hymn of praise, only that God h1m'selfis the source of his forgiveness. God
alone receives praise and sacrifice, God alone answers prayer, and God
alone atones for sín. It ís smk'ing thereforc, that in thosc psalms m' which a
maior concem with the forgíveness of sin m'cludcs somc reference to
sacnñce (Pss. 51,' 65), the latter has to do with xhanksgiving or homage
rather than with atonement.
 Sacriñce in Ihe Psabm 55

All thls' clcarly m'dícates that for thc psalm1s'ts, sacnfi'cc was not
rcgarded as an automaúc means of atoncman The primary sigmñcancc
of sacnñ'ce for them lay outside the realm of aloncmcnt and, convcrscly,
atonement was largely achieved by mcans other than sacnñ'ce (cg. Ps. 25,
32, 51, 103, 130). In paru'cular, due weíght must be givcn to the rolcs of
prazóyen confcssíon, conm'u'on, and even m'strucu'on (cf. Ps. 25:8~9; 32:8-
9).
It should not bc concluded, however, that the psalmists rccognwed' no
atonmg role for sacnñ'ce. For example, a prayer for deliverance from sm' is
comparcd With the regular twíce daüy offermgs (Ps. 141 :2). Ps. 76: 10-11
speaks of votive offenhgs IO a God of wrath, who may therefore need to be
propitiated. Expmory n'tes may have becn performed by p11'gnm's as thcy
cntcred the temple (Ps. 26:6). But the conncction betwecn sacnfl'ce and
atoncmem is never cxpliciL On thc one hand, the psalmists confess Lheu'
sm', pray for forgiveness, and await God's pleasure. On Lhe othcr, they
give thanks lo God for a forgíveness already made freely availablc. The
ñrst approach suesses God's sovercigmy and man's depcndence, whüe
thc second lays emphasis on God's forgívmg nature. Both approachcs
pom't to God h1m'sclf as the only truc source of atonement. By atuibuun'g
atonemcnt to the d1r'ect actíon of G0d, these psalnústs remam consistem
with the theme of the whole Psalter, the “Book of Prals'es', which ís to give
all honour to God.

4 The Meanmg of Sacnñ'ce: Summary

The idea of sacrmce as a gxft', offered to God as his due and as an

expression of honour and thanksgivm'g, is wídespread m' Lhe Psalms. Thc
notion thal such a g1f't can be used to mñ'uence God, howcver, is slmngly
condcmncd (Ps. 50:8-13). With rcgard to commum'on, sacnñ'ce
symbohz'cs a covenant commitmem Io a particular dcity, the thankful
panicipation wilh God's people m' his salvatíom and the focal pom't of
worship m“ the presence of God. Sacnñ'ce, however, can never be divorccd
from the spm"t m' whích it is offered, and it is nevcr automatic m° its
effects. With regard IO atonement, therefore, thc psalmists strcss thc
sovercignty of God, whosc nature il is to forgivc Ihosc who thankfully
acknowledge thek dependcnce upon hm1'.

IV. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SACRIFICEz CONCLUSION

Il is cvídcm from thc maioñty of psalms that sacnñ'cc is m'sun'ctively

acceptcd as a regular feature of OT worshíp. It is also clear lhat the
psalmists are far morc m'terested m° the sigmñ'cance ofsacr1ñ'ce than m' its
material aspecls. This is particularly true of those psalms which seem to
question thc valuc of sacmñ'ce, where it is more 1m'ponant first to make
 56 Sacnhe m' lhe Bible

surc that one's hcart is m' tune with the underlymg a1m' of sacriñcc, than
merely to offer the sacnñ'ce itself.
It is also true that the psalmists are more concemed wíth the specmc
purposes for which sacr1ñ'ces are offered than with any supposed inhercnt
mcaníngs associated with Lhe parücular types of sacnñ'ce. The most
prominent motive is that of givm'g public tcsnm'ony to God”s dclívcrance
from a varicty of distressm'g situaüons, but others m'clude prcscnting
petitions, givmg due recognítion of G0d's sovereigmy, worshipping m'
God's presence, and confessmg devotion and loyalty to Yahweh.
In fact, ít is 1m'possíble to tie down specxñ'c meamn'gs to índividual types
of sacnñ'ce. The meaning of any sacríñcial act must be m'terprctcd m' the
light of the motive with which ít is offered rather than any sigmñ'cancc
aruñ'cially attributed to a particular km'd of sacnñ'ce. The elcmem of g1f't,
for example, is presem in the ídea of tribute offered in due homage to
God's sovereign maiesty as well as in the frcquem exprcssions of
Lhanksgiving. The notion of communion is also associated with sacrlñ'ces
of thanksgiving, as well as with worshippmg ín God's presence and
m'dicating onás devotion m h1m'. Atoncmem, however, scarcely ñgurcs in
the sacr1ñ'ccs of the Psalms, because xhc hope of forgiveness is centred on
the nature and action of God ralher than on what might appear to be the
human aspects of sacriñce.
Ulum'ately, of course, the sigmñ'cance of all types of sacnñ'ce in the
Psalms is detcrmíned by the nature of God and of his relationship to his
pcople. Communíom thcrefore, is encounter with the divm'e overlord,'
gift is the offering of what ís hís due; whílc atonement is a glf't from God
which cannot be elicíted either by sacriñce or by prayer. Thc sacr1ñ'c1'al
cult, howcver, does provide the means by which people can approach
God, and through which God bestows his gifts. If lruc sacriñce tesuñes to
God's glory, it also wímcsses to man,s response m' devotion and ultimately
m' self-offer1n'g. It ís not surprismg Ihercfore that it is the sacriñce of
thanksgiving which ís particularly favoured by the psalmists. thn
combmed with a life of m'tegrity, such sacrmces render true honour to
God.

NOTES

l. Psalms 22, 27, 40, 51, 54, 56, 6l, 69 (lamcnts), 66, |07, llS (thanksgivings). On
(hcsc Psalm types, see H. Gunkel and J. Begrích, Em'leítung mÀ die Psalmen (Go"m'ngcn:
Vandenhocck & Ruprecht, 19662), I72-292; C. Weslcrmann, The Praüc of God in lhe
Psalm (ET) (London: Epwonh, l966) 64›-8|, 102-l ló.
2. Il is oflcn d1f'ñcult to dccidc mÀ lhe lamenls whether lhe psalnúst has alrendy
expeñenced salvaúon or slill awaíls it, and proposals arc someum'cs coniccluraL Sec, for
cxamplc, A. Szórényi m' D.J.A. Chn'es, Ter B l8 (l967) lO7-108A
3. Scc A. chse'r, The Psalms (OTL) (London: SCM, 1962) 468469, 685, 719; cf. S.
Mowm'ckel, The Psalm in IsmePs Warshíp (Oxford: BlackwclL l962) vol. 2, 3L
4. Such tcsum'ony ¡s' encoumgcd m' Ps. 107:22, and actually given in Ps. 66:16-20.
 Sacnfce ín the Psalnu 57

5. Pss. 66, 107, 116.

6. For sxmnlnr›' examples outsíde xhe Psdtcr, cf. e.g. l Sa. 7:7-9,' 13:9-l2.
7. On the disuhcüon betwecn Hymns (or Dcscriptive Prnises) and Thnnksgivnhgs (or
Dcclaraljvc Pmscs'), cf. Gunkcl and Begrkh, E1'›Ilamng' 32-94, 265-292,' Wcslcrnunn,
Pram of God 25-3S, 102-1 16.
8. Most EW follow LXX, 'A hymn (ofpransc') becomcs you . . .', which prcsupposcs l
süghdy dmcrem Hebrew texL MT, howcvcr, rcads 'süence' (and also m' Pss. 22:2; 39:2,'
62:1), which makcs excellenl scnse íf takcn metaphorically to man a 'quiet conñdence' in
God. CL Ps. 62:l and F. Dclitzsch, Psalnu (Grand Rapidsz Eerdmzns, 187l), voL 2, 226.
9. Cf. the occurrencc of an idenúcal phrasc with suml›'nr meaning in DL 332l9.
10. Sec cth. 6, Scction Il(2) for dcuücd evidcnce of lhns' practice.
H. Bolh al Ihc origiml mufxc'au'on ccrcmony of Ihc Smm" covcnant (Ex. 24:3-8) and at
its rmewal (Ps. 50), sacnñc'e plays an ¡m'pomm role m' sealmg Lhc rclauo'nship bctween
God and his pcoplc.
12. Cf. A.F. Kjrkpaln'ck, Psalmx (Cambn'dge: Cambñdgc Um'versiry Press, 192 )) 797,'
M. Dahood, Psalnu (AB) (Garden Cityz Doublcday, l965) voL 3, 309; Weiser, Psalms
811; W.O.E. Oealcrlcy, Tlu Psalms (London: SPCK, 1939) vol. 2, 56L
l3. E.g. Ezr. 3:6; 6.l7,' 2 Ch. 7:12.
14. Cf. Momnck'cl, anbm m' lrracPs Worshím vol. 2, 25.
157 Cf. L. Jncquc(, Les Psaumes tl le Cozur dt FHomm (Belgium: Duculot, 197$-79)
vol. 2, 387; H.C. Leupold, Exposinm of lhe Psabvu (Welwyn: Evangelícal Press, 1974)
508.
16. Thk linc has chn variously lmnslalcd and m'lcrprelcd from anciem um“cs,
allhough lhe Hebrcw MSS conmh no vanan'¡s. Lixerally it may be Iranslatcd, 'Ears you
dug for me', apparcnuy bascd on thc idca thal God formcd lhe cavities ofhis em (cf. C.A.
Bn'ggs, Psalms (ICC) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, l906) vol. l, 355). Mclaphorically Lhns^
may mcan thnt he was given lhc capacily lo hear and understand the un'port of God's wüL
Sec also ]. Calvim Comnumy on lhe Baok of Psalnu (Ed1n'burgh, 1845-49, vol. 2, 99).
l7. For 'Sce.' lhave come' as an cxpression of loyally, cf. 2 Sa. 19.'20; for lhe scroll, cf. 2
Kj. 22:8-13.
18. Wciscr, anlms 338.
19. Scc Ps. 66.'13-15 whcre a bumt offeñng fulñls n vow.
20. The sin offeñng m this comexl may acknowledge eilher lhe oíferer's geneml
smfulncss or lhc Íacl lhnt sin was a factor 1n' Lhe dislress Írom which he has bcen dclivered
(sce v. 12[13]).
21. E.g. R.J. Thompson, Pcnilmtc and Samñcz m Early lsmel Oumdt rhe Lwinzal
Law (Lcídcn: Bn'll, 1963) 150, lSáç J.H. Eaíom Psalnu (Torch) (London: SCM. l967)
142; A.A. Anderson, Thc Book ofPsalnu (NCB) (London: Oliphams, 1972) 401.
22A As Eaton, ibid., ncknowlcdges.
23. H.]. Kmus, anlmen (BKAT lS) (Ncukirchcn-Vluyn: Ncukirchencr Vcrlag,
19785) 547; Jacquet, Psaum25, vol. 2, |81; Wciser. Psalms 409.
24. E.g. E.R. Dalglish, Psalm Flf'Iy-Onc in xhe nghl ofAncmu Near Eamm Panmm
(Lcidcn: Brill, l962) 204~206.
25. Cf. e.g. Dahood, Psalms, voL 2, 2; Ealon, Pmlms l42.
26. Cf. H. McKcalm'g, 'Divíne forgivcncss in lhc Psnlms' SJT 18 (l965) 78~81;
Mowinckel, Psalnu m' Irraclít Worshíp, vol. 2, 13.

FOR FURTHER READING

General works on lhe Psalms:

L.C. Allen, Pmlms 101-150 (\VBC) (Waco: Word, l983).
A.A. Andcrsom Thc Booh ofPsalms (NCB) (London: 0h'phams, l972)
58 Sacnfc'e in zlu Biblz

P.C. Craigic, Psalms 1-50 (WBC) (Waco: Word, 1983).

M. Dahood, Psalnu, 3 vols. (AB) (Ncw York: Doublcday, l966- l970).
H.J. Kraus, Thaology of Ihe Pmlm (Minncapolis: Augsburg, l979, l986).
S. MowinckeL The Psalnls m' ImuPs Worshíp, 2 vols. (Oxford: thkwelL I962).
L. Sabourm', The Psalnu: Their 0rigm' and Mzaning (Ncw York: Alba Housc, 1974).
M,E. Tale, Psalms 5¡-100 (WBC) (\Vaco: Word, l990).
A. Weiser, The Psalnu (OTL) (London: SCM, l962).

Specialist works:
L.C. Allcn, 'Strucmn: and Mcamng' m' Psalm 50', VE XIV(1984) l7-37.
J.\V. Bos, 'Oh, thn Lhc SamÀtsz A Considcration of thc Meanmg ofPsalm SO',]SOT24
(1982) 65-77.
S. Daiches, 'The Mcanmg of “Sacnfi'ces” in thc Psalms', Essays ín Honour ofthz Vny Rn›.
Dr. _7.H. Hertz (London: l944).
H. McKeaun'g, *Divm'e Forgivcncss m› thc Psalms', SJT 18 (1965) 69~83.
R.J. Thompson, Pznilenu and Samñc'c m* Early lmzd Oumde xhe Lan'nc'al Law (Lciden:
Bnll', 1963).
 4
Sacrüce m' tbe Propbets

ERNEST C . LUCAS

l. THE PRE-EXILIC PROPHETS

There are fashíons m' OT studies, as m' most thm'gs. Cenainly the 20th
century has seen a change m' the way Lhat most OT scholars view the
relationship between the pmphets and priesls m° ancicnt IsracL Writing in
l904, Kautzsch summed up thc lcgacy of Lhe ninctccnth ccmury on thls'
subicct when he said,

The gulfbetween Lhe relígion of the Prophels and that of lhe Príests' Codc has
bccn descñbcd as onc thax cannot be bn'dgcd.'

He goes on to endorse that view. Skm'ner, m' his inñuemial book

Prophecy and Religiomz devotes a whole Chapter to 'the two rcligions of
Israel'. Hc brings oul the 1m'plications of this vicw for our topic of sacri-
ñce whcn hc says that the prophcts (hc means lhe prc»ex11'ic ones) held up
to thc1r' comemporaries

Ihe ideal of a rcligion wholly based on moral fellowship between God and man,
and m' which sacrmcial worskúp was at best an u"relcvance, and at wom an
offencc.

As late as l961, Pfe1f'fer could describe Ihe cult as

lhc heathcn elcment of the religion of Israel derivcd from the religion of
Canaan and auackcd by the prophets.s

From thc late 19305 onwards, this vicw came undcr íncreasing cn'u'cism.4
As a rcsult, in the 19605 we ñnd Von Rad saying,

Wc have also abandoned Ihe wholc idcn of a religion of the pmphels as a

rcligion of lhc spirit opposed to thc cultic rcligion of the príesls.'J

Clemems wrote in similar vein,

 Sacn'fíce in the Bible

Some scholals havc cla1m'ed that these pre-ex11'ic prophets wcre givm'g
cxpressíon to a total rciection of all cult m' the 1n'tcrest of a morc spm"tual
religion. Thís view has nccessarily undergone consíderablc criticism and some
mod1ñ'cation in the light of a closcr examination of the evídcncc comam'cd m'
the Old Testamem. In its radical form we must abandon it.°

A more rccem review of the situation shows how dccisively the old
dichotomy has bccn abandoned, for according to Ashby, “the and-
sacr1ñ'cial stra1n' seems to have died out of contcmporary Old Testamem
scholarship'. In ordcr not to be the slavcs of fashion, howcvcr, we necd to
follow Clements› h1n't and closely examme the evidence ín the OT to see
whcthcr the new consensus is just1ñ'cd. Central to the debate are the
handful of passages which we must consider m' some detail.7
Pr1m'acy of consideratíon must go to Am. 5225 and Je. 7:21-23. Both
might be takcn as saying that sacr1ñ'ce played no part m' IsracPs religion
durm'g the wüdemess period, and so has no rcal placc m' it at alL Thls'
carries with ít the un'plication that the wüdemess period was rcgarded as a
um'e of specxal' faithfulness m' IsraePs relationship wíth God. Now, as
Mays recogmz'es,

There ls' no way to reconcüe this view wiLh the extant Pentatcuchal tradílion
which knows nothmg of a period of Israel's begmnm"gs when sacnñ'ce was not
offcrcd.8

Faced with thís contradiction, scholars who belicve that these prophets
were reiecun'g sacnñ'ce outright have adoptcd one of two stanccs. F1rs't,
therc is the view articulated by Mowvley,

Lv. l-9 certaml'y provídcs regulations for elaborate sacnñ'cc and as it now
stands thls' applies IO the wüderness period. Howevet, Lhese chaptcrs arc most
commonly regarded as commg from the ex1h"c ox post-cx1h"c period m' wtnch'
case they would be unknown to the prophets.9

Now, without gom'g to the major issucs of the daun'g of the supposed
Pcntatcuchal sourccs, one can say that cven 1f' the so called 'P' matcnal' ns'
ex111"c or later m' its present form, thls' does not precludc the probabmty
that it enshrm'es traditions and laws of sacnñ'ce that arc prc-cx111"c, cvcn
Mosaic, ín date. Moreover, the so-called 'J” and “E' matenal', hcld bry most
scholars to predate the eighth cenmry prophcts, knows of the
murmurings m' the wüdemess and sacnñ'ces daun'g to the umc' oí
Moscs.l° On balancc, thcn, it secms unhk'ely that Amos and Jcrcmnh'
were totally ignoram of the tradítions which by the carly post-cx1h"c pcriod
at the very latest were accepted as a major component of IsracPs sacred
history and tradítions.
Secondly, Wolff lmks' Am. 5.'25-26 and Je. 7:21-23 (both of which he
artributes to deuteronomistic editors rather than the prophcts themsclvcs)
wíth 'm' a scnsc esotcrícally, preserved tradítions that wcrc otherwisc littlc
 Sacnjíc'e m' dlc Pmpllas 61

known' which prcscnted thc wüdcrncss as thc umc' of absolule

faithfulness." He ñnds evidence of th15' litde-known, sotcrk mdiuon' m
DL 32:10,' Ho. 9:10,' Jc. 2:2-3. Now Lhe ñrst pom't to make Ls' that both
Amos and Jercxmah' are posm'g a quesubn m Lhc pcople at large, and k
would be strangc 1f' cither the prophcts or the1r' editors bascd Lhc qucstions
on csmcric tradítions which the pcoplc wcrc hardly cxpcctcd to knOW
about'. Thc second 1s' that it ¡s' by no mcans clcax that thc csotcric tradiubn
to Which Wolff appeals 1s' cvídenced by thc passagcs quoxed. Dt. 32210
says noúuhg about Israel's spm'°tual state m' thc wüdcrncssz

He found hun' m' a dcscn land,

and m' the howlmg waste of the mldcmcss';
he cncxrc'led h1m', hc cared for hnn',
he kcpt lnm' as thc applc ofh¡s. cyc.

It sun'ply stmsses the goodncss ofGod m' takmg° her fmm the wddemess' to
Lhe Promiscd Land with its plcnty. There ls' nothmg' ln' Ho. 9:10 ('L¡kc'
grapes m' the wüdcrncss I found Isracl . . . But thcy czmc to Baal Peor
. . . and consccmted thcmselves to Baal') or Je. 2:2-3 ('I runcmbcr thc
dcvotion of your youth . . . how you foüowed mc m' thc wüdcrncss;” tlm
gocs beyond an cmphatk strcss on IsraePs rzlanve' Lnnoocnoe' and
faithfulness to Yahwch pno'r to her oontact with thc Bnl culx wbcn shc
reached Baal Peor. Even m' thc golden calf mcn"dcm it :s' Yahwch who u'
m'voked. 'H)e sm' thcrc ns' not worshippmg' anothcr god, but makmg' m
magc' to rcprcscnt Yahweh
Ifwcmcct'boththcnew'thztthcpre-mlx”propbctswut(for
whztcvcr rcason) 1gn'orant of thc mditm tlm Mm msututcd" the
sacnñ'aal' systemm'thewüdc'ncs.anddxndca'thzt.thwwcremnscnuslv'_
followmg' a mmo'n'tv_ vanan't uadmcn", wbn czn we szy abom Ihcsc m
passages?Row1kvdxscussed'dnnumkngth'dnhguc'm'tbCadan
and Snaith m' 19464112 What foüows xs' havíh mdcbmd' m zhk
dJsc'uss¡on',andtoamuchcadn'dncussaon"dAm. 5:.75 byMaakaP
as wcll as oomnmmacs' on thcse pmges.

Anos5.25-

Ifthxs'vu'sexs'tnukmlnazlnuany"'am:'

Wzn'múccs'nd<ñum'mwnmm_m_hdzm
O homederü

wcmust surdy condudcthat, ¡f'anycmdcnccas'wbcm'mthtm

md'cncc, Amof bcams would have answued thh' an anphztt 'ch.".
Thatthcmànothmm'Lbcformcíthcqucsu'mtopmdudctth'Bsbown
by Lbc snmúa.r|"y formulalcd qucsuon' m' l SL 2.27', whcre Lbc chrav zcn
readsz
 62 Sacnhc in the Bible

Did I rcveal myselfto the house ofyour father when they werc m^ Egypt subiect
to thc housc of Pharaoh?.

Here the expectcd answer is clearly “Yes'.“ Where then is lhere a

challenge m' Am0s' question? Clearly onc is m'tended. It is here that
Macdonald helps us by drawing attention to the unusual word order of
Amos' qucstion. The obiect of the verb comes ñrst m' thc sentcnce, so
gívm'g it cmphasis, i.e. 'Was ít sacnñ'ccs and offcrm'gs you brought mc
. . .?'. Thís amoums to saym'g, 'Was it onyl sacr1ñ'ces and offerings you
brought me . . .?'. In addjtion, the vcrb used here for 'bn'ngm'g' (hiph.
ng')s is only rarely used of offeríng sacríñces (normally expressed by the
hiph. ofeither bw' or qrb), and is more oftcn used of °drawm°g near' to God
Ln' worship. Its use herc might be m'tcnded to remind the peoplc that what
is important is not the offering per se but the attitude of worship it is mcant
to express. Therefore, the looked for rcsponse to the question is, “We
brought more than just sacnñ'ces, we brought true worship.' True
worship ís the giving of oneself to God and is reñected m' the obedience of
the totalíty of hís demands. This ís just the poim ofthe preccdmg versts in
Am. 5:21-24. Here God reiects thc pcople's sacrüces not because
sacrifice is wrong, but because ít is meaningless unless accompanicd by
obcdícnce to God's moral commands. Without this sacr1f¡'ce becomes iust
an cmpty rituaL

Jeremiah 7:21-23
This passage is a little less problematic than Am. 5:25. Nicholson
reluctantly recognises that the understandmg of it
usually accepted by commentators today is that it does not deny the validity of
sacrxfi'ce or that it was offered from thc earlicst days of IsraePs history but seeks
to place Ihe emphasis ín IsraePs rclígíon on obedience to God's lawz it dcclares
*obediencc ralher lhan sacnñ'ce' but not 'obcdíencc and no sa<:nñ'cc*.'5

There seem to be four main reasons for this:

(i) A fairly líteralistic translation of v. 21 reads,

for in the day that I brought thcm out of the Iand of Egypl, I did not speak to
your fathers or command them concemmg burnt offerings and sacnñces

However, as we have scen, to understand it as denying that sacr1fi'ces were

ordam°ed in the wíldcrness is to create more problems than it solves.
(u") As Thompson among others argucs, Jeremiah can be undcrstood as
makmg the poínt that, hístorícally spcaking, obcdience to God was the
pr1m'ary covcnant dcmand. "' The sacnñcial cult was only one aspecl of
that obedíence. In fact, ín the accoum of the making of thc covenam ín
Exodus 19-24 lhe primary cmphasis is on God's moral dcmands. A
sa*crlñ'cial cult is presupposcd in places (c.g. Ex. 22:20; 23:l8), but the
details of thc Tabernacle and thc sacr1fi'cíal system werc not given umil
aftcr Lhc covcnant makíng ceremony at which thc pcople said, ' All that
 Sacrijia m' lhe Prophels 63

the Lord has spoken we wül do, and We wm be obed1'ent' (Ex. 24:7).
Jeremlah"s hearers can be iustly accused of havíng gíven sacnñ'ces a
prommcncc in Yahwch worshíp which is not iusnña'ble on historical
grounds, lct alone on spm"tual oncs. This m'tcrprctation is strcngthcned 1f'
the phrase 'al-di_berê (Je. 7:21) is gíven its usual scnse of lfor the sakc of,
because of rathcr than 'concemíng'. 17 Then God is saym'g that hc did nol
spcak lO the people m' the wüdcrness m' order to ask for sacnñ'ces, but to
ask for acccptance of the covenant and the obedience that il requxr'cd.
(u1"') II is a featurc of Hebrew spccch to use absolutc, even hypcrbolic,
language whcrc English uscs compan'st›n,18 as for cxamplc Ln' Lk. 14126
with refcrence to hatm'g one's fanul'y. This is particularly thc case m'
negau'ons.19 It ls' therefore possible to understand Jeremiah as saym'g herc
(speakm'g of God), *I did not speak . . . concemmg burm offenn'gs and
sacnñ'ccs onyl. But, more ml'ponamly, this command l gave . . .'
(iv) Such a readm'g of the passage is consistem wíth Lhe prccedm'g
context, on which the pronounccmcnt of vv. 21-23 is bascd. This accuses
the people of moral evüs (notc how v.9a echocs the sccond part of thc
Decalogue) and apostasy but says nothm'g about sacriñces bem'g evü per
se. It is also consistem with Jc. 6:l9-20, where God reiects the people's
bumt offenn°gs and sacnñ'ces as thcy are oñcrcd by disobedícnt, law-
breakm'g worshippcrs.
Mügrom has proposed a novcl m'terprctation of Je. 7:21-23 which has
been endorscd by Holladay.z° He pom'ts out Lhat Jcrcnuah' rebukcs the
people rathcr than the pn'ests, and spccmes only two sacnñ'ces-the 'ôlâ
and the ze_ba_h. Now, he says, 1n' Lhe Priestly Codc the combmtion of
these two sacnñ'ces occurs only m' thc comcxt of m'divídual voluntary
sacr1f1'ccs.Zl Thc ze_bah nevcr appcars m' any culúc calcndar of public
sacrlñ'ces. Evcn m' non-Priestly sources the combmatíon of 'ôlâ and ze_ba¡,l
appcars only as offenn'gs of the m'dívidual worshippcnzz Mügmm
concludcs that Jcrcmiah xs” urgmg thc peoplc to rcnounce thcü índívidual
offermgs becausc theu" n'tual piety is viua'tcd by the 1mm'oral bchaviour.
What hc says about the covcnant in the wilderness ls' tmc bccausc Ihese
sacrmccs werc not mandatory but volumary and Lhc maimenancc of thc
covcnant did not depcnd on lhenL This m'tcrprctation is m'tercsun'g and
may be correct. Howcver, funher smdy is probably necdcd to csxabhs'h
thc validily of the distincúon on which it is bascd. In addiu'on, it should m'
any case bc taken along with point (iv) ab0ve. Individual voluntary
sacriñccs, 1f' that is what ís in mind, arc not rcicclcd per :e.
ln summary, it scems that both Am. 5225 and Jc. 7:21-23 arc asscmng'
in strong tcrms a view of amma'l sacrlñ'cc which says that it was gívcn by
God as a mcans ofexpressmg devolion to h1m'. Hc also gave thc moral law.
Dcvotion IO h1m' is to bc cxpressed by kccping zhat as wcll. Faüure to obcy
thc moral law brcaks lhe covenam and rcndcrs the oífcnn'g of matcml
sacnñ'ccs null and void as an act of worship of Yahwch.
This vicw of sacnñ'ce1's also cxpresscd m' thrcc oLhcr kcy passagca in Ihc
pre-exilic prophets, which Lhemselves cause somc conuovcrsy.
64 Samjíc'e in the B¡b'le

Hosea 6:6

For I desire steadfast love and not sacnñ'ce,

Lhc knowlcdgc of God, rathcr than bumt offcrings.

Thc renderíng of the second half of the verse as a comparative would

certainly be thc natural way of understandm'g it 1f' it stood on ít is own.
The fact that it was a negatíve statement means that ít is iust possible that
it could be takcn in a privative sense, 'without bumt offerm'gs”, as Wolff
argues.23 Howevcr Rowley,s comment is iudicious:

That the preposítion might have Lhis mcamhg xs' m'dubitablc, but that it is not
the namral rcndcring is clear from thc fact that the Scptuagm't, Vulgatc,
Pcshitta, and the standard versíons m' modem language rcnder by Lhe
comparative. The renderm'g without has been adoptcd only by the school of
writers that was antecedently persuaded that Lhc prophets rcjccted all
sacnñ'ce. A rendenn°g whích rests on a thcory can offer no support to it. The
altcmativc rendermg' is perfectly natural and does not rest on any theory about
Lhe prophets.24

The comparative rendenn'g of the second half of the verse does not
contradict the ñrst half, but serves to complcmem the hyperbole and draw
out its meanm'g. Such a readm'g of Ho. 626 makcs it a parallel to thc classic
statement 1n' l Sa. 15;22-23 that obedíence ís better than sacnñ°ce. It also
accords with Ho. 8:13 where, as the comext shows, Yahweh has 'no
delighf m' the people's sacrmces because they have no m'terest m' obeying
his laws.

Isalah' l: 10-l7

Heaton says of this passagez

Isaiah is quite explicit in dtclaring that sacrxñ'cc is a ludicrous wny of

worshippm'g the transcendent ng . . . lt is smmge that so many
commentators are ablc to m'terpret such vituperatívc language ns beíng no
more than a demand that sacnñ'ce should be offercd only by moral pcrsons
with Lhc right m'¡c:ntion.25

Thc reason why so many commentators do imcrprct it that way is that it is

the natural way to undcrstand ít in view of thc fact that praycr is
condemned alongside sacnñ'ce and Lhc cl1m'ax of the oracle is a call to
moral livmg' and socml' iustice:

Bnhg no monc vam oñenn'gs; m^censc is an abommation to mc . . .

Your ncw moons and your appomtcd fcasts my soul hales . . .
thn you sprcad forth youx hands, I wül hidc my cyes from you;
Evcn though you make many prayers, I w¡ll' not üstem
Yourhandsarefullofblood . . .
 Sacnhe m' du Propkets 65

Ceasc to do evnl', leam to do good,'

Seek iusticc, cortcct opprcssion.

Heat0n's attcmpt to make verse lS mcan Lhat God reiccts thc peoplc's
praycr bccause it has sunk to thc lcvel of sacnñ'cc rcads a novcl26 and
clscwhcrc unattestcd sensc m'to what would naturally be takcn as an
cxample of a well established idiomaúc way of refcmn'g to cnm'es of
violence, v12'. 'hands full of blood'.27

Micah 6.'6-8
This shon passage ¡s' the rcsponse of an 1ma'gmary' Judmn worshipper to
God's m'dictmenl of his people m' vv. l-5. Modcm commcmalors
gcnerally agree that it Iakcs the form of a request for a priestly *tomh',25 m'
tlus° case a rulmg on what kind of sacnñce is acceptablc to Yahwch. It 15'
notablc that the verb used m' v. 7 of Yahweh bcmÁg pleased (rsh) 1s' that
uscd m' Lv. l:4; 22223-27 of sacnñces bemg acceptablc.
In rcsponse to God's cla¡m' that h1$' pcople havc grown tued' of h1m'
(v.3), the worshipper's questions get more and more desperate as he
movcs from the quality of lhe offering ('Shall I comc beforc lnm' with
bumt offenn'gs, with calves a ycar old', v.6b) to ils quantity (“Lhousands
of rams . . . ten thousands rivers of oil', v.7a), to the (for the orthodox
Yahwist) unthmk'able supreme sacnñ'cc ('shall l give my ñrst-bom for my
uansgmssíon?', v.7b; is Isaac m' nun'd?). The reply m' v. 8 sh1f'ts the focus
from thc thm'g offered Io the qualjty oflüe of the offcren God docs want a
human sacr1ñ'cc of a k1n'd-Lhc ch of wúlm"g obedíence to his covenam
requirements, 'do iusticc . . . lovc km'dncss . . . walk humbly with your
God.'
Whilst it is not 1m'possíble to see in thc versc an almost total devalum'g
of sacnñ'cc, Allen is pmbably right When hc says,
il would bc unfak to conclude thal Mjcah Itplaces the forms of rchgl"on with
social clhics, for God's covcmm with Israel tradino'nally m'cludcd a stmns
culúc emphasis as an inlcgral parL So a careful walk wilh God would hn'd
panial fulñlmcnt m' Lhc observancc of n'tu¡l hws. Thc mcssage of Lhc Mnstcr is
herc forcshadowcdz ^ñrst bc recond'ed m vou_r bmthcr, and then come and
offcr your gxf't' (Man. 5:24),"

Conclusion
Thc gcncral conclusion to bc drawn fmm thís study of thcsc kcy ttxts ¡s'
thal the prc~cx1h“c pmphcts did nol reicct sacnñces as sumethm alien xo
Ynhwch worship. Rather, thcy rciectcd as unaccepmblc to Yahwch
sacnñ'ces offercd by pcople who werc living m' disobedicnce to thc
covcnam lnw.
Wmthwcm pmvides suppon for this conclusion m' a form cmical smdy
which includcs passagcs we hnvc oonsidcrcd. togclhcr wiLh somc othexs.3°
Hc argucs Lhat lhesc passagcs are m' thc form of lhc 'cu¡u'c answcr' whim
worshippcrs expcctcd when they broughl offermgs to the Tcmplc.
66 Sacnfic'e ín zhc Bíble

However, m'stead of expressmg acceptance and promísmg blessm'g for

thc offcrer, they express reicction and wam of comm'g evü bccausc of thc
smf'ulness of Lhc offerer. They arc criticisms of cultic abuses from withm°
the cult, not rciection of Lhc cult per se by those who stand completely
apart from it. Würthwem pomts oux Lhat the dcmand for moral obedience
on the part of the worshippcr is not something unique to Lhe wrítmg
prophets. Some of the Psalms, such as 15 and 24, show that it was part of
'pricstly' religion too. The prophcts wcre not making radically new
demands.
The emphasis of the pre-ex1h"c prophets on obcdiencc to Yahweh as his
ftmdamental requirement, With sacnñ'ce as only one expression of it, did
give sacnñ'cc less sigmñ'cance that it had in popular reügíom This may
have helped m' the um'e prophesied m° Ho. 324 whcn the people had to
'dwell many days . . . without sacrmceí Although this was an act of
iudgemem, in the light of the prophetíc tcaching about sacnñ'ce, this was
not thc shattcring blow to truc Yahwistic relígion that it would have been
1f' sacnfi'ce had been allowed the position many Israelites wanted to give it
as thc only, or pnm'ary, means of expressmg worship of Yahweh and
obedience to him.

Il. THE EXILIC PROPHETS

Ezekiel is somcthing of an cnigma to those who hold that thc prc-cxilic

prophcts werc opposcd in principlc to the sacriñcial cult. Inslcad of
sharíng in such opposiliom Ezckicl regards lhc sacriñcial cult as hnving an
impormnt rolc to play in thc rclatíonship bctwccn God and hís pcoplc. In
his vision in chaptcrs 8-l l , hc sccs Yuhwch grndunlly withdruwing from
lhc tcmplc ut Jcrusalcm. This is nol bccnusc he rciccls lhc cull per se, but
bccausc nf lhc Hinfulncxs of thc muion. Thcy urc guilly of idolnlry (8: |0),
violcncc (8:l7), injuslicc (9:9) and ncglccl uf Ihc cuvcnunl ordinunccs
(ll:l?.). lízckicPs vínion of lhc rcslormion 0f lurucl ccnlrcs on n rchuilt
Tclnplr nnd u rcnrunnizvd umtrilicinl cuIL 'l'hcn Ythch will nncc ugnin
bc ublc ln dWcII in Ihc midul of hiu pcoplc und hlcun lhcm.
lf Ihc mnclunion wc cumc ln nbuvc in currccl, wc cnn acc Ilmr lízckicl
ulundu in Ihc numc ulrcmn uu Ihc prc~cxilic wrilinu pruphclN. Hr lun iu
crilicul nl Ihc cull ufhiu duy, cvcn Io Ihc poinl nl'unyiny,, Iikc Ihcm lml in u
diffcrcnl wuy, llml Yuhwch rcicclu il hccaunc lhc wuruhippcm hnvc
hrukcn lhc cnvcnnnL Likc lhcm hc nlrcsncn lhc impnrluncc nfohcdicncc
m thc cnvcnunl luwn us lhc fundumcnlul huxis of Yuhwch woruhíp (18: l ~
32; '4l›:).f› Z7). h iu on|v in lhin conlcxt lhul lhe mncrííiciul cull hccomcn u
mcaningful thing.
Isaiah 4()-55 is clcurly addrcssed lo lhc lalc exilíc situmiun und so
rcquircs cnnuidcrution hcrc. Therc is vcry lilllc mcntion of the Tcmplc
and its culL This is panly bccausc, unlikc E/.'ekicl, the cmphusis is on
God's acl of dcliverancc nnd not on lhe condítíons to which it will lcad.
 Sacnfce' m' tlu Propluu 67

Howcver, 44228 and 52'.11-12 do comam an cxpectation that the Tcmple

wm be rebuilt and thc worship thcre restorcd.
Is. 43'.22-24 calls for special consideration bceause it refers cxplicitly lo
the sacnñ'c1'al cult, though scholars disagrce about íts cxact un'pon. Those
who take Am. 5125 and Jc. 7:22 as dcnymg that sacnñ'ccs had any plaoc m'
the Yahweh cult tend to scc v. 23b as rcpeaung' Lhis dcmal', 'I havc not
burdcncd you with offenn'gs, or wearied you with frankm'censc'.
Howevcr, according to Whybray, who sccms to wam zo adopt such a
readm'g, v. 23 must bc rcad in the líght of v. 24b, which parallels it closely
ín form and m' the verbs used, 'but you have burdened mc with your sins,
you have wearied me with your iniquitíes'.3' It thcn becomcs clcar that
Yahweh is not complaming that thc pcoplc havc not offcred sacnñ'ccs aI
all, nor that they have offered sacriñces when he did not wam them.
Rather, he is saying that

these sacnñ'ces had nol bcen offcred w himz lhal is theír worship had ncvcr
reachcd him, bccausc it had been ochrcd by a people incapable, through its
sinfulness, of acceplable worship'.

Thís ímcrprctation assumcs that thc oraclc looks back to thc prc~cxilic
period. Knight reiects this view.32 He argues that this musl apply Io the
situation c. 540 BC. At Ihis timc the pcople could not offer sacriñces.
Thcreforc he argucs, lhc point bcing madc is that cvcn when Yahwch did
not dcmand malcrial sacríñces of his pcople, bccause lhcy could nol nffer
Ihcm, Ihcy failcd m livc in communion with him by puuing lhcir faith and
rrust in him (v. 223). As a rcsult, says Knight, lhcy failcd to lcarn lhe
lcsson that lhcv could mnke sucriñces of nnolhcr kind, the kind thal the
Scrvant would makc.
'I'his is uu auructivc imcrprelution lhcologicnlly, hut il scems n hil
Í('›rccd. Murcuvcr. il lwrcnks duwn íf vv. 22-›23 arc mkcu zm pnrl ofn singlc
uraclc with vv. 24~28. WcstcrmanmH followcd by Whybr:¡y,“ nrgucs
lhul vv. 22-28 hnvc thc Ihrm ofu Trinl Spccch in which Yalhwch dcfcnds
himsclf nmunul lhc churgc Ihm hc hux tmucd lnrncl nufnirly in vicw ofull
lhc uucrílicu lhcy 0H'crcd m him. Yuhwch'x rcxsponsc in lhul lhc sucriíicca
wcrc nol rcully oflcxrcd lu him hccnusc Ihcy wcrc lllc iuuinccrc wnrnhipufu
ninful pmplc. 'l'|u'.-4 tfflxlillÍV mnkcq mmcl acnxr uf Ihcxc vcr.s'rs. whrrcns
rilhrr w. 1].-M nr vv. 24 zx un thcir nwn uccm lo luck cuhcrcnnx 'I'hc
hlankcl uuulcmmllinn ul va cxnllc wurahip muul lml hc Inkcu lilcrnL
iuticullm smy mnrv llmn Ihc mlullv hlnrk píclurcu <›!› lNl'.'|(fl'N hihlury in
líxckícl l(› und M should hc lukcn lilcrulislicallv. /\ mcnsurcol hypcrlmlc
|'H uscd ln mnkc lhc poinL

HL 'l'lll." P()\."l'~ll'XH.l(í PR()Pl'll."'l'S

Ezckiel lookcd for a rcsroration of lhc Tcmplc und its cuIL ll wua lhc
minislrics uf thc lwn prophcts Haggai and chhariuh whxch led to lhls
68 Saaüe m' the Bible

becommg a reality. For them the rebuüding of the temple was an

1m'portant step of obedience to Yahweh. Only whcn ít had been rebuílt
would the people fully enioy the blessm'g of God. Howaver, this díd not
mean any departure from the carlier prophetic positíon that °obedicnce 1s'
better than sacnñ'ce'. Thís ís made clear m' Zechanah' 7 and 8 and m' Hg.
2:10-19.
Haggai 2:10-19 has been much discuss_ed. Scholars differ over the
mcanmg of v.l4,

'So it ls' with thís people, and with this nation before mc', says the Lord; 'and
so with every work of their handsg and what they offer here is unclean.'

Who are 'this people . . . this nation', and why are theü offenn'gs
'unclcan'? There are three mam' posítions.35
Some argue that the peoplelnation concemed are the mh'abitants of
Saman'a, who were eager to take part m' the rebuüdm'g of the Temple and
to panicipate m' the cult there. There are good reasons for reiecting thls'
vícw. F1rs't, there ís no clear evídence that Samaríans díd offer to help m'
520 BC. Ezr. 3:8-4:3 refers to such an offer m' 536 BC, and thcre are no
good grounds for suggestmg', as some do, that thc passage m' Ezra raally
refers to Hagga¡"s um'e. Secondly, m' Hg. l:2, 'this peoplc' clearly refers
to Lhe Jews m' Jerusalem. In fact, as Hüdebrand shows, m' the prophets m'
general 'this people, nearly always refers to the people of Yahweh, usually
with a nuance of reproach.36
Those who understand 'thís people . . . this nation' as the Jews dMer
over whether the origm of the uncleanness is pnm'anl'y cultíc (the altar
built m' 536 BC bcxn'g unclean because of the rmn'ed state of the Temple) or
moral (thc people were lívm'g m' djsobed1'ence, havm'g put then" own
1n'terests before those of Yahweh). In the light ofwhat is said m' Haggai l,
thc moral ns'sue seems to be the pnmary' one. As Verhoef concludes,

Disobedíence is the mam' reason for God's displeasure m' the1r' sacnñ'ccs.
Salvation and blcssm'g can only be expected when the Lord receives and
retams' the place ofhonour m' the midst of the people. In this respect Haggaí ís
m' full accord with the criticxs'm of the pmnh"c prophets concemmg a
sacníi'c131' system and practice which does not comply with the covenant
relatíonship wíth the Lord.

Malachi is as strong m' his denunciation of the cult of hjs day as any of hls'
pre-exilic predecessors. He declares that God would rather they shut up
the Temple and stopped offermg sacrxñ'ces than go on as they were (l: lO).
L1k'e Hosea and Ezekiel, he denounces specüc cult abuses. Howelver,
there ls' also a strong condemnatíon of moral faílure as welL Yahweh
reiects offenn'gs both because they are ritually unclean (1:7) and because
of the smf'ulness of the offerers (2:13-16).
 Saaúce' in the Prophets 69

MaL 1:11 ís a well known crux interpretum, though we do not have the
space to discuss it m' deta11'.37

From the rism'g of the sun to its settm'g my name is great among the natíons,
and m' cvery place m'cense is offered to my name, and a pure 0ffcr1n'g; for my
name is grcat among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

There are two mam questions. The ñrst concems the identity of the
pcople mak1n'g the offenn'gs. Are they Gentües m' general, Jewish
proselytes or the Jews of the dispersion? The um'versality of the
geographical reference *from the ns'm'g of the sun to íts semn'g', counts
agam'st the latter two suggestions sm'ce m' Malach1"s um'e neither Jews of
the dispersion nor prosclytes could be said to bc so widespread. Also,
orthodox chs would not be offerm°g matenal' sacr1ñ'ces away from the
Jerusalem Temple. On the other hand, nowhere else m° OT prophecy do we
ñnd the idea that the worship of the Gentücs as such is acceptable to
Yahweh. What Malachi says of mam'age to foreigners in 2210-12 does
nothm'g to suggest that he would take a radically new víew on this pom't.
What we do ñnd m' the other prophets ís the belief that one day all the
nations w1ll' come to worship Yahweh m' an acceptable way. Usually thls' is
seen m' terms of theu' rnakmg a pxl'grnna'ge to Jcrusalem (e.g. Is. 2:2-4;
Zc. 8:20-23; l4:16), though Zp. 2:ll speaks of the nations worshippmg
“each m' its place'.
This leads us to the second question. Is Malachi speakm'g about the
prcsent or the future? The only verb 1n' the sentence is found m' the phrase
muqçar' muggãí li§06mí, usually translated '1n'cense is offercd to my name'.
However, mugga§' 1s' a Hoph”al participle and the tense is ñexiblc. It could
mean, as Baldwm' argucs, 'is about to be offercd', givm°g the verse an
eschatological slanL38 Thls' eschatological m'terpretation of the verse is the
most sam°factory one. Vcrhocf arrivcs at it by a d1ff'erent exegetical route
and concludes,

The m'clusion of all nations m' the km'gdom of God was an m'tegral part of
prophecy, but the idea of the sancnñ'cation of the whole world to become one
grcat Zion from the rismg to the scttmg of the sun is found only m' thls' text,
and panly also m' Isa. l9zl9 and Zeph. 2:ll.

Isata'h 56-66 1s' considered hcre because it scems to address the retumed
exües m' Judea. On the wholc thesc chapters assume the restoration of the
Templc and its sacnñ'c1al' cult. This is especxal'ly clear m' chapter 56, which
takcs up the thcmc of Gcntücs comm'g to worshíp m' Jerusalem. It
declaxes that the cult there is Open to all, regardless of nationalíty, who are
w1111n"g to kcep the covenant. Here, by nn'plícation, there is reiteration of
the theme that sacrmcc without that obedicncc to the covcnant which
evidences faithfulness to Yahweh 1s' unacceptable to h1m'.
70 Samfcz' m' du sz'le

Is. 66:1-4 seems to stand out as an anomaly amongst thc post-cx1h"c

prophccics bccausc it apparcndy rciccts thc rcbuüdmg of the Tcmple m'
515 13›C.39 One way of avoidmg such a conclusion 1s' the suggcstion that the
obicct of attack is the dcsu'e of Lhe Samaritans to buüd a temple.'°
However, this ns' purely hypothetical sm'ce therc is nothmg m' the text
itsclf to suggest it.
Jones argues that the oracle should be understood m' the light of the
early post-ex1h"c situation when thc Temple was sull' m' rum's.“l Vcrses l
and 2 are a word of comfort to thc people. The absence of thc Temple m'
no way prevcnts Yahweh from makm'g hís prescncc known to his pcoplc.
He is not tied to any housc made by mcn. Thc mcaning of vv. 3-4 is that
becausc thc sacr1ñ'cial cult is not possiblc at the Temple it is not
permissíblc anywhere. Therefore to practise sacnñ'ce ís to perpetuale a
serious, wüful act of disobedience. Whüe thís interpretation of vv. I-2 ís
plausible, that of w. 3-4 seems forced.
Westermann42 and Herbert43 poínt to the obvíous cchoes of 2 Sa. 7:4-
7; l Ki. 8:27-30 and varíous Psalms 1n' vv. l-2. They conclude that these
verses stand in the traditíon of prophetic warmhgs agamst a reliance on
thc Temple alonc as a basis of secuñty and salvation (cf. Jc. 7:1-15).
Thcre is hcre no more a total reiection of the Templc than there is m'
Solomon's words ín his prayer of dedication of the Temple. There may,
however, be a word of warning to Lhose who put all theu' hopes for the
am'val of the new age of salvation on the rebuildmg of the Temple in 515
BC. Both scholars poim out that the problem with vv. 3-4 is that the
language is very condenscd and that m' LranslaImg v. 3ab, lm'k words have
to be added. Though the Englísh vcrsions díffer ovcr what thcsc should
bc,“ Wcstcrmann and Hcrbcrt arguc that smce it is known Ihat m' the
early Persian period thc Phoemcíans sacníi'ced humans and ate dogs, and
sw1n'e ñesh was forbidden for Jews, Lhe polemic is a1m'cd at syncretistic
worship. Such worshíp is also condemned in Is. 65:l-7. Of the various
possible m'terpretations of this d¡f'ñcult oracle this one seems to have the
ñrmest exegetical base.

IV. WORSHIP, SACRIFICE AND MORALITY

Havmg consídered the texts that have been central to the debate about the
place of sacnñ'ce m' the thínkm°g and message of the prophets, we can now
conclude that m' all periods from the eighth century onwards, Lhe
prophets wcrc to a grcater or lesser extent critical of the sacrmcial culL
However, they díd not reicct matcrial sacrxñccs per se as having no place in
the worship of Yahweh. Rather, thcy stresscd Lhat the sacrmccs had thek
proper signiñcance only in the context of the covenant. To understand
thjs we need to consider briefly the purpose of the culI withín the
covenant commum'ty.
 Samfc'e mA du Pmphus 7l

Here wc cannot cmcr m'to the dcbate about the hmory ofthc ooncqx oí
'covenam' withm Israelf5 What 1s' clcar 1s' that the prophcts undcrstood
that Lhcre was a specxal' relationship bctwccn Isnd and YahwelL We see
thxs' m' the earlicst of the prophets whosc words havc becn prcscrved.
Amos exprcsscs this undexstandmg m' 3:2, whcrc hc says m' thc name of
Yahwch,

You only have l known of all the families of thc emh;

thercfore I w111' pumsh' you for 111 your un"quitícs.

As Am. 2:9-ll shows, thís relationship ls' rooted m' the cvcnts of lhc
exodus, wüderncss wandcrmgs and cmry m'to CanaaxL Hosea speaks of
thxs' rclatíonship as bemg hk'c a mama'ge (Ho. 2) or thc relatíonshíp of a
parcnt and an adopXed chüd (Ho. ll:1-9).
At Lhe heart of this spccial relationship was the pñvüege of havmg
Yahweh *dwcll” with his people. His very prescncc brought them
blessm'g. This is clcarly exprcssed by Ezekíel, perhaps rcficcting his
pricstly background. So m' chapters 8-ll hc writes aboul an cxtcnded
vision m° which he secs thc prcsencc of Yahweh, symbolizzd by the
shckmah glory, departmg from thc tcmple and city of Jerusalem because
of the idolatry and moml sm' of Lhc príests and pcople. Thc high pom'l of
the promise of restoration is,

I will blm thcm and multiply thcm, and wm sct my sanctuary m' the midst of
them íor cvcr. My dwellmg plnce shall be with thcm; and I wül be lhek God
and Ihcy wm bc my pcoplc (37:26-27).

This is expressed pictorially m' chapters 40-48 m' thc vision of thc rebuüt
temple from which ñows thc rívcr of hf'c-givm'g water. This thcme is
takcn up m' Hg. l:8; 2:9 as the pmphet exhons the people to takc up once
agam' Lhc stalled task of rcbuüdm'g the tcmple.
The purpose of thc m'stitution of the cult was to establish the presence
of Yahweh and mediate it to his people. In Ihis sacnñ°cc played a pan. Thc
history of sacnñ'ce in Isracl is another major arca of dcbatc on wtúch we
cannot embark.“ It docs secm clcar, howcvcr, that the ücrmce oñcmd to
Yahwch had threc mam' aspects. Some (wholc burm offenng's, freewül
offerm'gs) wcre cxpressions of pure devotíon and homagc. Others
(communion or pcace offerm'gs) were a way of enioymg fellowship with
Yahwch, sm'ce part of thc sacnñ'cc was eaten at thc sanctunry m' his
presence. Sul'l others (sm' and guüt offerings) madc atoncmcm for all
forms of wrong.
What Lhc prophcts stress is that the special relaúonship bctween
Yahweh and Israel involved more than punctilious observance of lhc
ritual of the culL It was meant to be a way of l¡f'e which m'volvcd
obediencc to ccrtam moral su'pulau'ons. Thus wc fmd Hosca indicling Ihc
people on lhe basis of what seems very ltk'c a summary of the sccond half
 72 SamficÀe in thc Bible

of the Ten Commandments (Ho. 4:l-2). Micah says thal what Yahweh
requu'cs of his peoplc ís 'to do jusu'ce, and to love km'dncss and walk
humbly with your God' (6:8).
This view díd not originate wíth the prophcts, sm'ce we ñnd thcm
condemmhg the priests for failmg IO teach the people the torah, í.e. to
m'struct them about how to live m' the way that Yahweh requked (Ho.
4:6,' Mi. 3.'1,' Mal. 2:l-9).
There are four expressíons the prophets use um'c and again to cxpress
what Yahweh looks for and fails to ñnd in his people. They arc justice,
ríghteousness, steadfast love and faithfulness. Key tcxts in this tegard are
Ho. 2:l9; Am. S:24; Is. l:26; S:7,26,' Mi. 6:8. It is clear that for the
prophets Lhe expression of these qualities m' personal and communal hf'e
was the m'dispensable prerequísite for meaningful public relígion. Thís is
becausc the homage exprcssed by sacr1ñ'ces was meant to be a symbol of a
hf'e of homage to Yahwch, and the homage he looked for was obedience to
the moral laws whích he had gíven to hís people. They were groundcd m'
hjs character, and so should charactenz'e hís people's attítude towards
h1m' and towards one another.
Sacnñ'ce, at its best, was an expression of homage and obedíence to
Yahweh. It was an exprcssion which he orda1n'ed. Such homagc and
dedication, 1f' gcnum'e, would be shown by a 11f'e lived m' daüy obedíence
to hís moral requircments as well as the ritual ones. In other words, it was
the way of hf'e of the person who offered the sacnñce that Yahweh looked
at, not mercly the sacnñ'ce itself.
II ís against Lhís background that we must ñnally come to Isaíah 53. We
cannot givc detaüed consideration to this ímportant chapter here.47 The
maior poínt to be noticed is the reference in v. 10 to the servant making
h1m'self “an offeríng for sin'. Whybray says of this,

nowhere else mA Lhe O.T. is it staled Lhal a man's 11f'e can be a guilt offcrm'g,
whether in a literal or metaphorícal sense, and the idea would appcar to bc
emirely foreign to O.T. thought."8

He therefore thinks it 'unwise to press the signiñcance of this statcmem'.

However, m' the light oí what we have concluded about thc prophetíc
understandíng of sacnñ'ce, it is arguable that Is. 53:10 does nol presem an
idea Ihat is cmirely forcign to thc OT thought. Rather it is a natural
dcvelopment of í(. It takes up the vícw that the real sacnñ'cc that plcases
God is the hf'e of the offerer and goes on to comemplate the possíbüity that
that hf'e, given over totally to the obedicnt servíce of God, may be
accepted by him as an offerm'g on behalf of other people.49 Ahhough we
have disagreed wilh Kn1'ght's excgesis of Is. 43:22-24, he may well bc
right ín makmg the pom't that the exilic experícncc núght havc helped m'
the devclopmcnt of such an ídea about the value of sacnñ'cial obedíence.
In fulñllíng Lhe prophctíc expectations of the servam, Jesus fulñlled all
that thc prophets taught about sacnñ'ce.
 Sacnhe in lhe Propheu 73

NOTES
L E. Kautzsch, Haxnngs'* Dw'uonary' ofllu Bible voL S (Ed1n'burgh: T. à T. Clark,
l904) 723a.
2. ]. Skm'ncr, Proplmy and Rtligtm (Cambnd'ge: Cambñdge Univcrsity Prc$, l922)
182, nole.
3. R.H. Pfexff'cr, Rellgwn" m' lhl Old Teslmnnu (London: AA & C. Black, l96|),l91.
4. E.g. A.C. Wclch, Prophel and Prnaz' m' Ihe Old Tnmmnu (London: SCM, 1936);
W.O.E. Oeslerlcy, Samñc'es in Awm lsmcl (London: Hoddcr & Sloughlon, 1937).
5. G. von Rad, Old Tmamm Theology (London: SCM, l96$) vol.2, 4.
6. R.E. Clcmcms, Prophuy and Covnlmu (London: SCM, 1965) 95.
7. G. Ashby, Samjíc'4: lu Nazun and Purpose (London: SCM, 1988) 47.
8. ].L. Mays, Amos (0TL) (London: SCM, l969) ll.
9. H. Mowvley, Gmde' lo Old Tzslamtm Pmphzqy (Gml'dford: Luncrwonh, l979) 79,
n.81.
10. E.g. thc 'Ritual Dccaloguc' of Ex. 34:12-26 (J): Ex. 32-33 (D: Ex. 15:20-27 (E),'
Ex. 20-23 (E).
ll. H.W. Wolff,]oel and Anw (chncncla') (Ph1h'delphn': Fomess, 1977) 264-265,'
H.W. WolH, Haxm (Hermenm') (Phúa'dclphu°: Fomess, l974) 164.
12. H.H. Rowley, BJRL 29 (l946) 340rr.,- C.]. Cadoux, Ezp m ss (1946/47) 43-46;
H.H. Rowlcy,Ezp Ttm' 58(1946/47)69-71;N.H. Snailh.Exp TnnÀ 58 (l946/47), l52-153;
H.H. Rowley, Exp Tim 58 (l946/47) 305-307.
13. D.B. Mncdonald, '0.T. Notcs 2. Amos v 25',]BL lX (1899) Zl4-215.
14. J.A. Moyler, TIu Day oflhe Lwn' (L0ndou: IVP, l974) l34, n.4.
15. F..W. NicholsonJercmmh l-25 (CBC) (Cambn'dgc: Cambridgc Univcrsity Press,
l973) 81.
16. J.A. Thompsom ]crmuz'h (NICOT) (Grand Rapidsz Ecrdmans, 1980) 287-288.
l7. Cf. BDB 184 (dã_bãr §IV.8).
18. C. Lattey, 'The Prophels and Sacnñ'ce3: A smdy m' biblical relalivity',]TS 42
(l941) 155-165.
19. H. Krusc, 'Die “dxal"ekusc'he Negau'on” als semiúsche Idiom', VT 4 (l954) 385-
400; R.de Vnux, Ancwl Ixrael (L0ndon: Danon Longmnn & Todd, 19651) 454~455.
20. J. Mjlgmm, 'Conccming JeremiaNs rcpudàúon of sacnñ'ce', ZAW 89 (l977) 273-
27S; W.L. Holladay,]emníah (Hcrmcnen') (Phüadelphia: Fonress, 1986), vol.1, 262.
21. Lv. l7:8; 22:l7ff.; Nu. 15'.1ff. The u_ba¡; m' Lv. 23237 rcfcrs to lhe Pcntecoat
offeñng bmughl by th individual (vv. l9-20) nnd is nol pan of lhc regular public offcñng
for Lhal day.
22. Cf. Ex. 18:12: DL lZ'.ll: Jos. 22:26-28: l Sa. 15:22: 2 Ki.5:l7',10:24;ls.56:7.
23. WOIÍÍ, Hoxza 120-12|.
24. H.H. Rowley, The Uníty ofllu Bük (London: Carey Km'gsgalc, |955) 40, n.l.
Both BDB 582 (mm'§ 6a) and A.B. Davidson, chrewSynlax (Edm'burgh: T. & T. Ckrk,
19013) §34 rem.2, mke Ho. 626b as comparau've. GKC §ll9w lnkcs il as pr1'vau'vc.
25. E.W. Hcatom The Hebrew Km'gdm (Ncw Clarendon Bible) (Oxford: Oxford
Univcrsity Prcss, 1968) 324,
26. E.C.B. Maclaun'n, The Origín of du chrcw Sacnjí'aa'l Symm (Sydney: 1948) 13,
scems lo have becn lhc ñrsl person Ko suggest Lhis inlcrprctau'on, as pan of his anempl Io
show lhat sacrmce was nol original to Israel's rcligion and was lotally rcjcclcd by lhc prc~
exilic prophets.
27. Sec BDB l96-|97 (dãm §2d.0. Nole in parúcular ls. S9:3; Ezk. 23:45.
28. On xhis li¡emry form, scc G.v0n Rad, Old TmammlTheology (London: SCM,
l962), Vol. l , 244~248, and lhe lilerllure cited lhcm
29. L.C. AllenJoeL Obadm'h._7onah and Micah (NICOT) (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans,
l976) 324. Sec also 249-250,
30. E.Wu"rlhwcin, *Kultpolcmik odcr Kullbcschend?', in E. Würthwcin & 0. Kajser.
Tradítian und Sítuatizm (Gõlu'ngcn: Vandcnhocck & Ruprcchl, l963) HS-131.
 74 Saaqhü IhBuNe

31. R.N. Whybray, Isanl 40-66 ÇLmthm thlnn'ts, l975)91-92.

32. G.A.F. ngh't, Scrvau ThmlogycA Cmmryon th Boú ofIsmM MS (1TC)
(Edm'burgh: HancbcL l9843 68-7D.
33. C, Wcstununm lmuü 40-66 (OTL) (London: SCM. 1969) 130-133.
34. R.N. Wh'ybray, Imd 40-óó '\\;'CB) ÇLondonz Olíphnnts, 19753 9l-92.
35. P.A. Vcrhocf, The Books of Haggai mud Malatki (NICOT) (Gr¡nd Rapüsz
Eerdmans, 1987) llO-137, pmvidcs a dcuüed dlsc'ussion of Ihe Meñng ln'¡erpmtnu'ons
of üus' oncle, with bíbliognphícal rtfcrenccs.
36. D.R. Hüdebrand, 'Templc Rituat a Paradigm for Moral holiness in Haggai ii 10-
19', ZAW 100 (1988) Zl7-244.
37. Vcrhocf, Haggai and Malathí 222-Z32, providcs a dctailcd discussion with
bibliogmphical refcrenccs. Sce also chap.10, Sect. II(l).
38. J.G.Baldwm', Haggai, Zechamh', Malachi (TOTC) (London: IVP, l972) 228-229.
39. So for exxmplc, J.L. Mackenzic, Setond Isa¡a'h (AB) (New Yorkz Doublcdny.
1968); G.A.F Knight, Thz New Israek A Commemary on the Book oflsmbh 56-66 (ITC)
(Edm'burgh: Handsel, l985).
40› B. Duhm, Das Buch jesaja (Gõtun*gen, l922).
41. D.R Jones, Ismah' 56-66 andjod ('l'orch) (London: SCM, l964).
42. C. Wcstermnn, Isaxa'¡l 4M (0TL) (London: SCM, l969) 41 l-4l4.
43. A.S. Hcrbcrt, Isauzh' 40-66 (CBC) (Cambn'dgc: Cambridge Um'versity Prcss,
197S).
44. (i) *whoever. . . ís llk'c onc who . . .' (NRSV, cf. NIV, RSV, REB),' (ii) 'lo . . . or
lo . . .' (NEB, cf. GNB); (m"') 'somc . . . some . . . “ UB).
4S. E.C. Lucas, *Covcnam, Treary and Prophecy', Themelw': 8 (1982) l9-23, provides
an m'uoduction to zhc debate
46. H.H. Rowlcy, 'Thc Forms and Mcam'ng ofSacr1ñ'ce', m' H.H. Rowlcy, Warshíp in
Anam lxmel (London: SPCK, 1967) lll-l43, provides a useful, if dated, díscussion of
thc mancr.
474 Sce Lhe discussions of thís chapter m' e.g. S. Mowm'ckel, He That Comerh (0xford:
BlackwclL l956) 187-260; H.H. Rowley, The Smmm ofthe Lord (London: Lutterworth,
1952) 1-88; C.R. Nonh, The Suffm'ng Seroanl in Deuteronazbh (0xf0rd: Oxford
Univcrsity Prcss, 19562); R.N. Whybray, Thanksgívingfor a Liberaud Prophet USOTS 4)
(Shcfñeld: JSOT Press, l978).
48. R.N. Whybray, Isaíah 40-66 (NCB) (London: Olíphams, 197S), l79.
49. H.L, Gm'sberg, “Thc Oldest Imerpretatíon of the Suffermg Servant,' VT 3 (l953)
400-404, has argued that thls' idea, dcn'vcd from Is. 53, ls' applied to the mskílfm ín Dn.
ll:35,' 12:2-3. Thc lmk', he suggests, is lhe word yaíkíl m' Is. 52:13.

FOR FURTHER READING

G. Ashby, Samic'2: its naturc and pwpose (London: SCM, l988), chap.3.
R.E. Clcments, Praplmy and covmanz (London: SCM, l965), chap.S.
H. Mowvley, Gutde' to Old Teslamem prophay (Lutterworth: Guüdford, 1979), chap.ll.
H.H. Rowlcy, The unity afthe Bible (London: Carey Km'gsgate, 1961), chap.2.
 5
Tbe Theology of Old Testament
Sacnã'ce

GORDON J. WENIIAM

Today Kheology is a byword for irrclcvancc. Among thcologians sacnñcc

is usually rclcgalcd to the fringc of thcír conscíousncss. So to wmc about
the theology of sacr1ñ'ce is to court the charge of thc ultlm'a(c in acadcmic
Um'ewastm'g. But the modcm ínstmctivc rcicction of lhe valuc of sacriñcc
and rítual ís quite misguided A study of the sacr1ñ°cial system illuminalcs
some of the most fundamcmal principles of biblical faillL
In this shon essay I wam IO cxplorc four issucs. First, why is sacnñcc
1m'portant to an undcrstandmg of OT theology? Sccond, how should it bc
interpreted ín general? Thu'd, what ns' the function of somc of the
sacnñces> Fourth, what theological prm'ciples are expressed through the
sacnñ'cml' systemP

I. THE IMPORTANCE OF SACRIFICE

First, why is sacnñ'ce with its assocm'ted rituals so Lm'portant that thc
Pematcuch dcvotcs about half its spacc to cxpoundm'g it? Social
anthropologists have alerted biblícal scholars to the 1m”portance of rituaL
For thcm the key lo a society's decpest values is its rimal system. Wn'u'ng
m' 1954 Monica Wüson said, 'Rituals reveal values at their dcepcsl lcvel
. . . men express m' rítual what moves them most.' Ritual revcals 'thc
valuc of the group. I sce m' thc study of rituals thc kcy to an understandmg
of the essemial constitution of human socicty."
Let me explam what she means. We reson to ritual when we want to
express our deepcst feeljngs. Consider Ihe rituals used in grcetmg people
m' our society - a nod, a handshake, a kiss, or a hug. One gesture xs'
appropriate when lhe milkman calls for his moncy, anothcr for your aunt,
yet another for your w1f'e. We exprcss our rclationships to othcr pcoplc
through thesc ritualized greeu'ngs. Indeed the more moved wc arc
emotíonally, the more ritual we employ. Thmk' of baptisms, weddm'gs
76 Samfic'e in lhe Bible

and funerals. On such occasions people dress up to look their best. The
givmg of ñowers, and Lhe consumption of food and dnnk' is conspicuou5,
That we have rituals on some occasions, e.g. a twenty-ñmt birthday pany
or scventielh birthday party, mdicates that we regard reachm'g twenry.
one or scventy as sígmñcam m11'cstoncs, but few peoplc would wam xo
make such a splash on theü twenty-second or seventy-ñxst bu'Lhdays.
People express in rítual what moves them most.
Monica Wüson clalm's that ritual does not merely express personal
1n'dividual feelm'gs, but group values. That is, the rituals peoplc perform
m' Britain reflect thc values British society in gcneral holds imponant. For
cxamplc, whcn thc age of maiority was reduced from twenty one to
eighteen, the eíghteenth bhthday bccamc much more 1m'portant and
often people celebrate this m°stead of the twenty-ñrst today. Why are
degrce ceremoníes held but rarely GCSE or A-level ceremom°es.> Because
a degrec ís supposed to be of more value than one of these othcr
qual1ñ'cau'ons. Why do people make a big splash at weddm'gs but make
divorces as quiet as possiblcP What does it tell us about British attitudcs
that Good Friday ís no longer strictly observcd as a rcal holiday, but that
New Year's day is? According to thc anthropologists, riruals express Lhc
deepest fundamental values of socíety, not the m'dividual convíctíons of
the people m' socíety. In tribal and traditíonal societies, m'dividual
conviction and socxal' values usually go hand m' hand. In ours they often
d1ff'er. Enghs'h Roman Catholics celebrate Guy Fawkes Day despite its
Protestant messagc, and atheisls fecl compclled to celebrate Christmas
because socíety says it must. A srudy of the rituals of British society ls'
therefore a key to its deepest and most fundamental values. So too, a
study of Lhc numerous OT ritual texts ought to unlock the fundamentals of
biblícal theology.
But by and large they have been neglected for more than a century.
Books on OT relígion and theology devote very h'ttle spacc to discussm'g thc
meamn'g of the sacnñ'ces and other rights described m' the Pentateuch,
whüe commentarícs on Levítícus tend to be the Cmderella of their sen'es.
Biblical scholamhip has, hk'e much popular thmkm"g, been intluenced by
the romantic notíon that spontaneity is authenticíty, that formalíty and
ritual rcprescnts shame or hypocn'sy. This attitude of mm'd has deterred
peoplc from studying the ritual law, which is hard cnough to pcnctratc
even without the discouragcment of bem'g told it ís umm'ponant.
Amhropologists have ríghtly told us the error of our ways: ritual is m'dccd
of central un'portancc m' the OT. Howcver that does not solvc thc d1f'ñculty
of m'terpretau'on: it sun'ply makes the task more 1m'portant.

II. THE INTERPRETATION OF SACRIFICIAL RITUAL

How s.hould sacnñ'c1'al ritual bc m'terpreted? Some non-sacnñ'cial rítuals

arc qune easy to follow bccause they often m'clude the words that
 The Theology of Old Tmament Sacnfíw 77

accompany thc n'ghts, such as m' the casc of a w1f'e's suspccícd adulxery
(Nu. S:11-31) or a faüurc of thc dutics of a broLher-in-law (Dl. 25:5-10).
But with the sacnñ'ces, thc rites of ordm'ati0n, and cvcn Lhc day of
atoncmcnt ccrcmonies the problems of m'terprctation are often bafñm'g.
The rites are usually carefully dcscribed, but we arc lcft with few clues as
to what was said durm'g them or why thcy should bc pcrformed m' a
particular way. Four d1f'ferent types ofanimal sacrüce are mcnu'oncd, yct
on ñrst m'spection there secm but trivíal d1f'fcrcnccs ín proccdurc and thc
reason for usm'g onc type of anímal rather than another xs' opaque.
The rcason for this obscurity is not far to scck. Evidcmly thc meanm'g
of these rites was so obvious that it was unnecessary to spell it out m'
words. We know why people give ñowers at wcddm'gs, or funerals, or to
thc Queen whcn she goes on tour. It docs not nced explauun"g. Sunúar"ly,
it is not necessary to cxplam why there are ñreworks and bonñrcs on
November 5th, unless thcre arc foreígncrs prcscnt or chüdren who do not
know the story of Guy Fawkes. So too m' anciem IsraeL It was undcrstood
by everyonc what a bumt ofíermg symbohz'ed, why the priest could eat of
the Hesh of the sm' offermg and guílt offermg but not of Ihe burnt offcrm°g.
It was plam to the worshíppcrs of anciem Israel why somcumes the
sacnñ'cml' blood was poured out at the foot of the altar, why at othcrs it
was smcarcd on thc homs of thc altax, and at othcrs spnnkl'cd bcfore the
vcü of thc Holy of Holics. But these pomts mysuf'y us. Wc aIe tcmpted to
guess wüdly iust to ñnd a pom't m' it all. Thc only way to arrive at a
dcñm'tive m'tcrpretau'on of these acts would be to resurrect an ancícnt
Israelite pricst and ask h1m'. But unfortunately we cannot. Instead we
must makc do with hypothcsis buüt on carcful and thorough cxcgesis. Wc
must comparc cach sacnñ'cc vcry carcfully with thc other sacnñ'ccs Ko
discovcr, 1f' we can, what is spccxal' to each one and on what occasíons onc
sacnfi'ce is used rather than another. The occasional phrase of explanaúon
'to make atonement', “as a soothmg aroma', must be carcfully noted and
cvcry possible m'tcrpretau'on explorcd.
There are a fcw works, ancíem and modem, Ihat procecd m' this way
and I believc some m'sights arc cmcrgm'g.2 For cxamplc, it ís clcar that Lhc
opposition betwcen hf'c and dcath is fundamcntal to the whole ritual law.
God is the sourcc of hf'e, so that cvcrythmg brought near m God, whelher
sacnñcial amm'al or priest must be physically unblerxu'shed. Dcath is the
great evü, and everythmg suggcsting it, from corpscs to bloody discharge
IO skm disease, makes pcople unclcan and thercfore unñt to worshíp
God.3 Another themc is thc clcction of Israclz Lhat thc Lord has made an
exclusivc covcnam with Israel explams thc choíce of ammal's for sacnñce
and why some amm'als are unclean and thereforc not to bc eaten by
Israelites.' Thu'dly, m' sacnñ'ce it appears lhat Lhe worshipper1'denuñ'es
h1m'self with the amm'al he offc:¡'s.S What he does to thc amm'al, hc docs
symbolically to h1m'self. The death of the amm'al portrays Lhc dcath of
hun'sclf. In thc animaPs ímmolation on thc altar hís own surrendcr to God
is portrayed.
78 Sacnjice' m' thc Bíble
Fmal'ly, it must be rccogmz'cd that m' sacnfi'ce, the same pom't ís oftcn
madc m' a van'etv_ of wa_vs. With most amm'al sacnñ'ces it was customary Io
offer a ccreal offcnng° of Wheat and also to pour out a libation of wm'e. In
the symbolic system of Israel, clean amm'als offered m'. sacrmce
repnescnted the Israelite worshippen and so did wheat and wmc. Thus
burmng' of part of the wheat and pounng' oul the wm'e, hk'c Lhe slaughler
of thc ammal' and pounn'g out its blood, portrays thc worshjpper dym'g for
his sm° and givmg h1mse'lf cnure'ly to God. Meat, bread, and wm°e made a
banquct m' anciem Isracl, so that the whole proccdures reprcsemcd a
wondcrful nml m' honour of God the creator, who supplied man with all
his physical and spm"mal ueeds.
It may then be obiected that the bumt offcrm'g and its traditional
accompamm'ems, the cereal offermg and the drink offenn'g, each
symbohzcd' much thc samc th1n'g, thereby rendcrmg thc laucr two
redundanL Howcvex, repetition xs' charactens'u'c of symbolism6 and
mdccd' of much great an. Saymg the same thmg m' a variety of ways
rc1nf'orces and enhances communication. Remarks made only once are
gencmlly un1m'portam and soon forgotten. Elegant repetition and
vam'u'on charactenzc' great music, drama, litcrature and limrgy. Thc
mcsagc of thc bumt offermg ritual, dramatically settmg out thc effect of
s1n' and the need for totaJ consccration to God's servíce, is powerful
enough on its own. Imensúed' by thc accompanym'g of cereal offermg and
hbauo'n, it becomcs overwhelmm'g.
These broad pnn'ciples of sacnñce' have been stated sun'ply m' order to
alJow lhose unfammar°' With the topic IO have an 0vcrvíew, but it must be
undcrhncd' that am'v1n'g at a secure m'terpretation is fraught with
dnfñ'culty. It m'volvcs both close observation of the rites themselves usm'g
methods by anthropologísts to m°terpret the rítual of contemporary
pnm1"tive socictics and carcful exegesns' of those few passages whích
explam the 51gn1tícan"ce of sacnñ'ce.
In Pumy' and Dauger (l966), Mary Douglas analyscd thc wholc ritual
system cnshnn'ed m' the laws of chiticus m' a way that for thc ñrst um'e
showed them lo bc a coherent and mcanmgful whole, not a 'hotCh-potch'
of unrclatcd ceremonies, laws and regulau'ons. She m'sisted that it is
neccssary to undcrstand the whole rítual system and not just parts of it, or
more preasc'ly to undcrstand the parts of it m' the líght of the whole. This
may bc mustraled by hcr approach to the food laws. Earlicr commemators
picked on ccrtam' clemems m' thc food laws as suggestive of a particular
m'(erprctatíon. For ms'tance sheep were clean because they reminded man
of h15' divme shepherd, whüe serpems were lmclean because they recalled
the agem of the falL But multitudes of amm'als m' the list found no easy
explanatíon of this type, for example camels, eagles, grasshoppers, etc.
Douglas drcw attcntion to that feature m' Levíticus ll and Dcutcronomy
14 that Lhe bíblical writcrs scem to concemratc on, namely the mcans of
locomotion of thc ammal's, how many feet and what type of feet they have.
From surveym'g Lhe hs'ts as a whole she deduced that the amm'al world
 The Theoloy of Old Tesumau Sacnha 79

m1rro'rs the human world. Just as therc are threc pnnc°iple divisions
among mcn, Genul'es, Jews and pricsts, so there arc thmc classes of
amm'als: unclcan, that cannot bc caten; clean, i.e. ediblc; and sacriñchl
beasls. Hcr thcory of corrcspondcnce bctwccn Lhe human and thc amm'al
km'gdoms is conñrmed by othcr texts scattercd through the Pemateuch.7
These msíghts are corroborated m' thc earliest commentarics on thesc
laws. For example, the second century BC Lcner of Aristeas sces thc
behaviour of clean ammal's as models of human conducLa Acts 10 lmk's
thc preachmg of Petcr to thc Gentíles wíth catíng unclcan ammal's. In
other words, as soon as men of all nations could bclong to thc people of
God, those food laws which had symbohz'cd Isracl's clecúon and scrvcd to
scparate hcr from thc nations became u-r'elevant loo.°
This parallelism bctween Lhc human and ammal' worlds clanñcs' onc of
the most discussed issues m' the m'terpretation of sacnñ'ce: what is thc
relation between the worshipper and the sacnñ'cml' vicum'? What is
symbohze'd by the 1m'position of thc worshippcr's hands on the ammal"s
head?
Accordmg to some OT theolognan°s thc laym'g on of hands has littlc
signú'cance. It is sm'ply a statement that the ammal' belongs Io the
worshipper and it cxpresscs the hopc that the bencñts of thc sacnfi'ce
should accruc to hnn'.'° Howevcr dús is such an obvíous poínt that it
hardly sccms to bc worth makm'g. It also faüs to do iustice to the Hebrcw
tcrm uscd of the laym'g on of hands; sama'k_ does not iust mcan 'placc' the
hand but “press' (Is. 59:16; Ezk. 24:2; 30:6; Am. S: l9). The very action of
pressm'g down on the amm'al's head suggcsts an anempt to establish an
ídenlity between worshipper and vict1m'.
Another possibmty is that the 1m'position of hands conveys thc
worshipper's sm°s to thc amm'al, which thcn dies m' thc worshipper's
placc. This is certam'ly the most probablc m'terprctation of Lv. 16.'21,
where 1n' Lhe day of atonemem ceremony the high pricsx lays both hís
hands on the scapcgoat's head, confesses 'over h1m' all the 1m"quitics of Lhc
pcople of Israel . . . all the1r' sm's; and he shall put Ihem upon the head of
thc goat, and scnd h1m' away imo thc wildemess.' Bul as Péter has pom'(ed
out,“ hcrc two hands arc used m'stead of thc one hand used elsewhcre m'
sacnf1'cc, so that it is not obvious that the two gestures arc the same or that
both have the same sigmñ'cance m' sacnñ'cc. Furthermore, as Kíuchi has
argued,12 it seems hk'ely that m' the sm' offenn'g at least, it is the priest not
the amm'al who bears the worshipper's sm's. And fmally the idea that the
amm°al aclually carrics sm' itsclf would makc iI dlñi'cul¡ lo use m' atoning
for sin or cleansm'g the sinner and sanctuary. The mn'ocence of the
sacnñ'cial vicum' is presupposed m' thcse n'tcs.
So the most probable explanation of the nn'position of thc hand m'
sacr1ñ'cc ís that thercby Lhe vicnm' is ídenufl'cd with the offerer.13 This has
been recogmz'ed by Edmund Leach" who states, 'the plain 1m'plicau'on is
that, m' some metaphysical sense, the víctím is a vicarious substitution for
the donor himsclf. ' This m'terpretation is strengthencd by thc commem m'
80 Sacnhe in thc Bible

some Hittitc texts that thc ammal' is a substítute for the worshípper.15 It ís
conñrmcd funher by Gn. 22:13 which states that Abraham offcred up the
lamb 'as a bumt offenn'g ms'zead ofhu' son'. Now whüe Ihís could bc laken
sun'ply as a statemcnt of fact, it seems more probablc Khal Gcncsis 22, hk'c
many storics m' Genesis, is also paradigmatic and clucidatcs thc 0'r
undcrstanding of sacr1ñ°ce in gcncraL16 Il shows an amm'al suñering
vicariously in a mmfs place.
Now this substitutionary concept of sacnñ'ce ñts m' very well with the
symbolic interpretatíon of clean and unclean animals advocated abovc,
which sees parallels bctween the amm'al world and the human síluau'on.
The lsmelite, a member of 1hc clean nation, chooses a clean amma'l to
sacnñ'ce on his bchalf. The 1m'posiu'on of hands makcs the cquation even
morc expliciL But a sacnñ'ce is not merely a suitable amm'al being offered
for the group of people symbolically ident1fi'ed with it. The m'dívídual
Israclite must choose it h1m'self and then place his hands on its head m' a
dramatic dcclaration that he ís this amm'al, Lhat it is takmg his placc m' the
rítuaL
A sccond characterístic of all the sacnñ'ces ís that at least part of each
offenhg is burnt on the altar and makes a 'pleasing odour' (Rsv) to the LORD
(e.g. Lv. l:9,' 2:2; 3:S; 4231). In what way do sacnñ'ces please God? The
adiectíve translated “pleasm'g' (níboa'h_) by RSV comes from the root *rest'
and would thereforc be better translated 'soothm'g', lpacífy1n'g', 'quíctcn-
m'g'. 17 The word suggests divme uneasiness which is quietcd by sacr1ñ'cc.
This understanding of the phrase “pleasm'g odouf as 'soothing aroma)
is conñrmed by its very fust use in the OT 1n' Gn. 8:21, a passage of great
sigmñ'cancc for the OT víew of sacnñ'ce. When Noah left thc ark he offered
burm offenn'gs, “then the LORD smelled Lhe soothmg aroma, and the LORD
said to himself “I shall not curse the land agam any furthcr bccausc of
man, for the ideas of man's mm'd are evil from hns' youth.” '. Thís verse
cchoes and comrasts with Gn. 6:S where God*s motíves for sendm'g the
flood are explam'ed. 'The LORD saw that the evil of man was great in the
earth and every ídea of the plans of his mind was nothing but evü all the
um'c.' Why did God view man's m'veterate sínfulness as a reason for
sendm'g the ñood m' 6:S but as a ground for mercy in 8221?
The comment that 'the LORD said to h1'msclf' comes ímmedíately after
the lthe LORD smelled the soothing aroma'. The obvious Lm'plicau'on of thc
scquence of verbs “the LORD smelled . . . said' is that God's thoughts about
mankm'd were prompted by his appreciation of thc sacnñ'ce. This was a
common view among older commentarors. Indeed, Gunkel, Skinner and
von Radls hold that Lhe sacriñce was essentially propítiatoryz 'He offercd
. . . to quiet thc remains of his wrath'.'9 “Noah's ñrst act is to offer a
sacnñ'ce, not of thanksgivmg but as v.21 shows of propitiatíom its effect is
to move Ihe Deity to gracious Lhoughts towards the ncw humanity.'20
However, Cassutozl sees no nced for further atonemem after all the
suffermg and dcalh m' Ihe Hoodc Ihe sacnñ'ccs were simply an expression
of Lhanks for deliverancc and trust in God for the future. Wesxcrmann
 Tlu Theolog of Old Teslamenx SamÁcÀt 81

concurs.22 Thcy obiect that God's anitudc to Noah has alrcady becn seen
to bc gracious from the momem 'he rcmcmbcrcd Noah' (8:l). It can
hardly bc said that the offcring of Lhc sacnfi'cc changed God's altitudc Io
Noah.
Howevcr, tlus' is not really what Gn. 8:21 is assemn'g. From thc vcry
start “Noah found favour m' thc cycs of the LORD' (Gn. 6:8). It ís God's
attitude lo lhe rest of mankind that is tumcd aroundz Gn. 8:21 sxands in
particular comrast to Gn. 625 “The LORD saw that the cvü of man was great
m' the earth and cvcry idea . . . of his mm'd was nothmg but cvil all thc
um'e'. Now, for the very samc reason, the LORD dcclares that he wxll' not
curse the ground funher. And the only hm't lhat thc narraúve givcs for
this change of heart is 'God's smelhn'g of the soothmg aroma'. Skinncr
statesz 'that the pleasmg odour is not thc motive but mcrely thc occasion
of his gracious purposc (Knobcl) may bc sound thcology, but it hardly
expresses thc idca of thc 1;›assag<:'.23 Ulum'atcly, of coursc, thc acceptance
of every sacnñ'ce depcnds on God's antecedcm gracious purposc,
whereby he appoimed Lhe sacníi'cial system as a means of atonement for
reconcíliation between God and man. A fundamemal prmciple of the
Levitical law is 'I have given (the blood) for you upon the ahar to makc an
atoncment for your souls, (Lv. l7:ll). This is not to deny sacrlñ'ce's
un'ponancc; rather it is to asscn íts real efñcaciousness, because God has
declared ít so and promised to respond to iL
Looked at m' this light, we can view Noah's offcring of sacríñce as a
protorype of the work of later priests, who made atonemem for Isracl, or
of Job, who offered bumt offerings for his sons and for hjs 'fricnds” (Jb.
1:5; 42:8). Hcrc, howevcr, Noah,s sacnñ'ce is effectíve for all mankjnd.
The Lhird 1m'portam key to understanding sacnñ'ce is the verb 'make
atonement' (Izipper), which llk'e 'soothing aroma' is used in connection
with most of the amm'al sacnñ'ces (e.3. Lv. 1:4; 4:20; 5:16). Likc many
terms associated with sacrmccs ít is exlremely dífñcull to pinpoint its
exact meaning, even its etymology is a mancr for dispute. Is Hebrew
kipper related to Arabic kafara 'to cover'? If it is, making atonement could
be sccn as m' some way 'coverm^g' sm' and Ihcreby maknhg ít invisible to
God. Or should it be associated with Akkadian kuppuru *to wipe'? In thís
case atonemem may be viewed as a wipmg away of sin or its associated
pollution, so that God can comínue to dwcll wilh man. Or is il linkcd wíth
the Hebrew noun kop'er 'ransom pricc', a sum of moncy paíd m' chrew
law m°stcad of cxacun°g the death pcnalty? Thc animal would then bc
viewed as m' some senm a payment, whcreby the sm'ner, instead of paym'g
with his own 11f'e for hís síns, paid instead with the anímal's hf'e. Though
the üur'd altemative has probably more to commend it than the others, it
is usage of a word that dexcrmmes its mcanm'g, nol its historic ctymology.
The careful study of kipper, 'make atonemcnl', by Kíuchi24 has lcd to
Lhe followm'g conclusion. *Makc atonement' is a broad ideaz5 ínvolving
scveral subsidiary ones. Thc offering of sacrmce makcs atoncmcnl and
thís m'volves a variety of consequences. Altars and priesis are “sancuñ'cd'
 82 SaaWe m' the Bible
(Ex. 29:33, 36, 37) i.c. made ñt to otñciate m° worship. 'Lepers, and othem
arc clcanscd (Lv. 12:7, 8,- 14:20). Sinners are forgivcn (Lv. 4:20) and guüt
is cam°cd (Lv. 10:17). Sm° and uncleanncss lcad a person from the realm of
hf'e imo the realm of death. Sacnñ'ce stops this process, m'deed reverses it.
It givcs hf'e to those doomed to die.
One of the most un'portant statements about sacnñ'ce is Lv. 17:ll 'for
the 11f'c of the ñesh is m' the bloodg and I have given it for you upon the
altar to make atonemcnt for your souls,' for it ís the blood Lhat makes
atonemcnt by rcason of the hf'e., Yet the very brcvity of thís statcment
makcs it obscure. Though Mügrom26 has argucd that only peace offenn'gs
are bem'g discussed here, it seems more hk'ely to see it as commentmg on
the role of blood m' every amm'al sacnñ'ce. Blood m' every ammal' sacnfi'ce
makes atoncmenL HowP Thc last phrase says *by reason of the l1f'e'. Thís
long-wm°ded RSV translatíon of four Hebrew consonants covers a
complicatcd exegetical problcm. What does the prcposítíon be, 'by reason
oP, mean, and whose is the hf'e, the amm'al's or the worshipper's? All the
various proposals havc the1r' problems, but fewest are posed by takm'g
“life' to refer to the amm'al's lífe, and be to mean 'through'. It is thus the
amm'al's hf'e united to its blood that makcs the atonement for human lives
(RSV, °souls') on the altar. 'The above m'terpretation of v. ll supports the
víew that the prm°ciplc of substitution is at work on the altar: amm'al le'e
takes the place of human 11f°e.'27
All the amma'l sacnfi'ces have a common procedural core, í.e. gestuxes
that occur m' every sacrxñ'ce, laym'g on of the hand, killing the amm'al,
catching the blood and usm'g it, bummg at least part of the flesh on the
altar. It thcrefore seems hk'ely that cvcry sacr1fi'ce has a common core of
symbolic meamn'g. This is what we tricd to clucidatc abovc. The amm'al is
a substitute for the worshípper. Its death makes atonement for the
worshipper. Its 1m'molation on the altar quietens God,s anger at human
sm'. But to say that every ammal' sacr1ñ'ce has a common core of rítual
meanmg is not to say Lhat m' other respects the sacnñ'ces are not very
d1f'ferent and have a divcrsity of symbolic mcamn'g. Thjs may be
111'ustrated by lookm'g at three diffcrent sacr1ñ'ces, the burnt offcring, the
sxn' offermg and the peace offenn'g.

III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PARTICULAR SACRIFICES

Thc burnt offermg is the offcrmgza m' which the whole amm'al (exccpt its
skm') is bumt on the altar. The bumt offering was a regular offenn'g ín the
temple ofTercd every mormn'g and evenm'g. It was also offercd on great
occasíons such as the makíng of the Sm'ai covenant (Ex. 24:3-8) or the
entry mto the promísed land (Dt. 27:6). Individuals might offer bumt
offerm'gs m' thanksgivmg for delívcrancc or whcn a vow was fulñlled (Nu.
6:l4; 15:3; Ps. 50,' 60:13-15). In the burnt offeríng the whole animal was
burnt, í.e. given to God. If the amm'al reptesents the worshipper, thcn the
 The Theology of Old Tmament Sacnhe 83

particular idca expresscd by the bumt offcnn'g is total consccration by thc

worshipper to God. It madc visible his desirc to love God with all his
heart, soul and mighL It cxprcsscd cnur'c allcgiancc to thc LORD and hk
service. This element of thc commítmcm and self-surrcnder to God ls'
most evidem m' Ge. 22 and l Ki. 18:38-39.
In the sin offenhgz9 or more preciscly the punfi'cau'on offcrm'g, the
most disun'cu've feature is thc use made of thc sacríñcíal blood. In thc
othcr sacnñ'ces the victim's blood is sun'ply givcn IO God by bem'g pourcd
over the sides of the altar. In thc punñ'cation offermg howcver it is
handled much more discretely. Somctimcs it xs' used to smear on the homs
of the altar of sacr1ñ'ce, sometun'es it is taken m'to the tabemacle ítself and
smeared on the m'cense altar or sprm'kled on the Curtam', and once a year
thc high pn'est takes the blood m'to the Holy of Holies and sprínkles it on
the ark of the covcnant, the thronc of God. In this casc it sccms that thc
blood is vicwed as a km'd of spiritual dísmf'cctam pun'fying thc sanctuary
of the pollution associated with sm' and uncleanness. Unatoncd sin cannot
be tolerated by God and he must eiLher punish it or lcave the sancmary.
By purifying the sanctuary and the offerer or those he represents, thc sin
offermg makcs possible the conun'ucd dwcllmg of the holy God with
sm'ful man.
Thc pcace3° or fellowship offerm'g was most hk'ely to be offercd
spontaneously and was the most joyful offerm'g. It was offcrcd at the
ordination of the priests (Lv. 8.'22-29) and over a hundred thousand
peace offerings were presemed at Lhe dedication of the temple (l KL
8:63). Individuals might offer them when Ihey madc vows, or lhck
prayers or vows werc answcrcd, or cvcn when they wíshed to enjoy a meat
mcal wílh their fricnds (Lv. 17:5). The Passover lamb was a kmd of peacc
offering.
In the peace offering only a few choice portions were burned on thc
altar, thc rest was shared by the príest and worshippcr. In all thc othcr
sacnñ'ccs the worshipper received nothing back, bul in thc peacc offcrmg
most of the ficsh was shared om by thc worshippcr with his famüy and
friends, thus making Lhc sacr1ñ'cial mcal a ioyful barbccue.
But ¡f' the animal in some sense represents the worshipper, how can the
worshipper eat some of the sacnñ'cial vicnm'? Does not the practícc of the
pcace offermg undermme lhc m'terpretau'on of Lhc laying on of hands
given earüerP At ñrst sighl it is paradoxical, but it is not unm'tclligiblc. ln
the pcace offering God is thc host. When thc animal is slaín, its blood
poured over the altar, and the flesh partly burm, lhe worshipper is givm'g
himself to God. Then having received the gift from the worshippcr God
shares it with h1m'. What was acted out m' this sacriñce was the believefs
daüy experiencez God had given h1m' life and health uu"u'ally, and every
day in grace rencwcd these gifts. In evcry sacr1ñ'ce the worshipper gavc
himself back to God m' penitencc and commitmcnt, and in rcturn reccivcd
back a rencwal of physical and spiritual lifc. Usually howcver there was no
immediately visible sign of thís renewal of life, but in the pcacc offermg
84 Sacnjíc't m' the sz'le

thcrc was. Thc shared luxury of a mcat meal was a tangiblc, m'dced cdiblc,
tokcn of God's contm'u1n'g mercy and grace. It was lhis that made peace
offerm'gs usually such ioyous occasions.
Thís glance ax three sacnñ'ces has attemptcd to show Lhat whüe they all
havc a common core meamn'g, each has disuhctivc mcam'ng of its own.
They all prcsuppose that Lhc amm^al vicum' is a substitutc for thc
worshippcr, makcs atonement for h1m', and thereby restorcs h1m' Io
favour with God. But whereas the bumt offermg focuses on the total
consecration of thc worshippcr IO God, the sin offerm'g focuses on Ihc
punñ'cation from sm', and the peace offermg on God's contm'ued blcssmg
of the worshippcr.

IV. THEOLOGY OF THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM

What then are the theological principles expressed Lhrough the sacrxñ'c1'al
system, or ín thc words of Mom'ca Wilson, 'the group values' revealed m'
sacnñ'ce? It is generally agrecd Ihat the most 1m'portant conccpt in Isracl's
sclf-undcrstandm'g, at least as the OT writers see it, ís the covenant, most
obviously the Sinai covenant. In thís covenant the LORD declared his choíce
of Israel to bc his spccial people segregated from and hopefully holíer than
the naIions of the world (Ex. l9:4-6). Israel for her part was oblíged to
obey lhc laws set out ín thc Ten Commandmcnts and thc rest of the
Pentateuch. She was promiscd great blessmgs if she obeyed and
thrcatencd wíth du°e punishment if she transgressed.
It is Ihesc covenant prmciples that are expressed visually m' sacr1ñ'ce.
Fus'l, God's choice of Israel ís recalled every um'e an amm'al, or wheat, or
wine, was picked to be offered. Second, God*s demand to be holy, to keep
thc commandments and so on was recallcd in every sacr1ñ'ce. It was not
sun'ply that Lhe right spccies had to be picked, ít had to be a perfcct
blemish-free spec1m'en of that species. The total consccraúon to the
service ofGod required of every Israelite was most clearly portrayed m' thc
bumt offenn°g when the enm'e beast was unm'olated in the ñre. But Isracl
both corporately and m'dividually often fcll short of this ídeal, and undcr
the covenam sm' was never ignored, indeed it provoked God,s angcr.
Levitícus 26 and Dcuteronomy 28 contam lengthy descriptions of thc
Ierrible judgcmems that IsraePs sm' may provoke m'cluding famm'e,
diseasc, death and loss of Lhe land of promisc. God the giver of hf'e may
Lake ít away from his people if they faü to live by hís commandmems. This
message is underhhed m° every sacnñ'ce, m' Lhat the animal represemmg
the Israclite is condemned to death. Its shcd blood dcclares that the wages
of sm' is death. The ccntralíty of sin witlún Ihe OT consciousness is
emphasücd by Lhe fact that all these sacrüces have an atomhg aspect at
theu' core, that all of them create a 'soothíng aroma' (Lv. l:9, 13; 3:5, 16;
4:3l) that appeases dív1n'e wraLh. But the very ínstitutíon of sacrxñ'ce
signals the 1r'repressible hopc buüt m°t0 the covenant, that however much
 The Theology of Old Tesummu Sacnfícek 85

Isracl sms', restoration and new hf'e are possible 1f' she repems (Lv. 26:40-
4S,' Dt. 30: l-10): Lhe amm'al dies so that Lhe Israelite may livc. L1f'c ml íts
fullness is God's ulum'a[e plan for Israel, m'decd as Gn. 8:21 (cf. Gn. 12:3)
says, for Lhe whole world, and every sacnñ'ce dcclarcs the gospcl of hope,
that the God who so hatcs sm' that hc comcmplates dcstroying all mankind
has through sacnñ'ce provided a way of salvation. And Lhesc grcat truths
were reafñrmed, not iust by m'dividuals when they needed Io offer
sacrüce for Lhemselves or theu' families, but by the priests who day by
day offered the full range of sacnfi'ces on behalf of the wbole nation
(Nu. 28-29). In this way Israel through her spiritual lcadcrs symbolically
rcconsccratcd hcrselfto the LORD's scrvice, praiscd h1m' for his mcrcy, and
was assured of thc forgivcness of her sm's.

NOTES

l. M. Wllso'n, Ammtan Anlhropologbt 56 (l954) 24l, quoled by V.W. Tumer, Thc

Rímal Procexs (London: Routlcdge & Kegnn Paul, l969) 6,
2. For lhc surge of rccem publíczúons m' this area, see bibliograpby.
3. For discussion sec E. Feldman, Bx'blu'a1 and Posl~Biblüal Deñlemmlt Law as
Thcology (Ncw Yorkz Kmv, l977),' P.P. Jcnson, Gmded Holinm USOTS 106) (Sheñicld:
SAP, 1992) 56-88.
4. E. Firmage, 'The Biblial Díctary Laws and lhc Concept of Hohn'css', in J.A›
Emcrton (ed.) Srudm m' Ihc Pmmuuch (VTSup 4l) (Le1d'en: Bn'll, l990) l77-208; W.J.
Houstom Purity and Manothmm': Clean and untlean animals m' biblxtal law (JSOTS I40)
(Sheñield, SAP, l993); J.E. Hartlcy, The Book ofLm'nc'u: (WBC) (Waco: Word, l992)
140-47.
S. Cf. E.R. Lcach, Cuhun and Commumca'n'an (Cambn'dgc: Cambridge Umversiry
Prcss, l976) 89.
6. E.g. J.B. Prítchard (ed.), ANET (Pnn'ce¡on: Princaton Um'versity Press, 19552)
349-356.
7. Douglas devclopcd her ideas funhcr m' Namral Symbolx (Ncw Yorkz Bam'e 51
Rockchff'c, l970), and in Implm"l Meamhgs (London: Roudedge & chan Paul, l975).
J. Soler ('Thc Diewy Prohibiúons of lhc chrews', New York Revw nf Boolu 26.|0
(l4 June 1979) 24-30, C›M. Camúchael ('Somc Sayíngs ín Genesis 49',_TBL 88 (1969)
43S-444, and idcm, Thc Laws of Deumnm (C0mell: Comell Unjversily Press, l974)
160-162, camc to esscnúally smu"lar conclusions by dxff'erent routcs. E. Fu'mnge, 'Biblical
Diclary Laws', and W.]. Houslom Pun'!y mxd Monolheum, rhoroughly discuss the issuc.
Recantly M. Douglas has put forward a differcm symbolic m'¡e¡pmau'on of Ihc food laws,
'The Forbiddcn Anun'als m' Levilicus', JSOT 59 (l993) 3-23. Her ncw suggesúom
equaúng the unclcan amm'als with oppressed peoplc 1n' IsraeL is an atmcúve one, bm
explains lhe data lm saúsfnctorily thnn hcr carlicr proposals.
8. Lcllcr of Ar|'s¡cas, lm'es l44ff., m' J.H. Charlcswonh, Tht Old Testamnu
Pseudeptgr'apha lI (Ncw Yorkz Doublcday, 1985) 22-24.
9. G.]. chham, *The Thcology of Unclcan F00d', Ev Q 53 (l981) 6›-15.
10. E.g. R. de Vaux, Sludüs m OTSamjc'e(Card1'ff: Univcrsity of Wales, 1964) 28,'
R. chdtorfL sziticus (Ncukirchcn: Ncukirchcncr Verlag) 43-47; J. Milgrom, chinm
l-16 (AB) (New Yorkz Doublcday, l991) 151-152; B.A. Levme,Lm'nc'm(Philadelphn':
Iewish Publicaúon Sociery, 1989) 6; R. KmÀenm', Text and Conccpt m Levíum l:I-I9
(Tu"bingen: Mohr, l992) 35-40.
ll. R. Pétcr, 'L'm¡'posiüon des mains dans l'Ancicn Tcsumenl“, VT 27 (1977) 48-55.
86 Sacnhe m' the Bible

12. N. Kiuchi, ch szjílaubn Ojfmag' m' rlle Prúsdy Límaturc (JSOTS 36) (Shefñcld:
JSOT Press, l987) 87-109. kü
l3. So B. Janowski, Suhnc" als Hezls'gmhchcn (Ncuk¡xc'hcn: Neuchener Verlag,
1982) 220-221; R. Pétcr-Comcssc, Lémnque" l-16 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, l993) 42,
l4. Lcach, Cultuu 89.
lS. Prílchard, ANET 350-351, 355.
16. Cf. G.]. Wenham, 'Thc Akedahz a Paradigm of Sacnñ'cc,' in J. Mügrom FS
(fonhcomm'g).
l7. Rendtorff, Lmhm 68; cf. Hanley, Levinm 22-23; R.P. Km'en'm, Texl and
Concepl 67-76. Í
18. G. von Rad, Genmk (London: SCM, 19722) lZl-122.
19. H. Gunkel, Genens' (Go"tu'ngcn: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, l9103) 65.
20. ]. Skmn'cr, GmmÀ (ICC) (Edm'burgh: T. & T. Clark, 19302) 157.
Zl. U. Cassuto, A Canunentary on Ihe Book ofGenens', lI (Jcrusalem: Magnes, 1964)
H7.
22. C. Wcstermann, Genesü l-lI (Mm'neapolis, Augsburg, l984) 453,describes itasa
'cclcbrau'on of lhc act of salvau'on.'
23. Slunn'cr, Gnmü 157-158.
24. Kiuchi, Punlíc'auon' Offering 87-109.
25. Lm'guisucal°ly kippn ís a supcmym whilc 'clcansc, sanctify' etc. are hypemyms, cf.
dwelling (supcmym), housg bungalow (hypemyms).
26. J. Mügrom,]BL 90 (197l) l49-156.
27. Kiuchi, Punfíc'anon' Offerm'g 107.
28. For discussion of thc bumt offen'ng, see commentaries on Levíticus 1; also
R. Knxe'nm', Texz and ConcepL
29. On thc sm' oñenn'g, see commcntañes on Leviticus 4; also J. M1l'grom, Studu': in
Cultk Teminology and Thcology (Leiden: Bnlll, l983); Kíuchi, Punñc'anon' Offmng'.
30. On the pcacc offcnn'g, sec commcmaries on Leviticus 3,' also R. Schmid, Dax
Bundesopfer in Ixrael (Munich: Kosc'l Verlag, 1964).

FOR FURTHER READING

A. General Works

G.A. Andcrson and S.M. Olyan (cds.) Pnes'lhood and Cult in Ancient Israel (Sheíñeld:
SAP, l991).
B. Janoka Sülme als Heilsgeschehen, (Neukirchen: Neukhchencr Verlag, l982).
C.F. Keü, Manual ofBühcÀal Archaeology, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1887).
N. Kiuchi, Thc Pun'/ícalwn' Offen'ng in the Pne'slly Literaturc (JSOTS 36) (Shefñeld: JSOT
Prcss, l987).
J.H. Kunz, Sacn'fiaa'l Worxhip of the Old Tesmmem (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1863
(repnn'tcd Klock & Klock, l980)).
R.P. Km'cnm', Texl and Concepl in Lm'ncus' 1:1-9 (Tu"bm'gen: Mohr, l992).
].Milgmm, StudIe'3 in Cullú Tenninolog and Theology (Leíden: BrilL l983).
A. Schcnker, Sludim zu Opfer und Kulz im Alten Teslamem (Tübingen: Mohr, 1992)-
R. dc Vaux, Smdíes ín Old Teslament Sacriñce (Cardiff: Umversity of Wales, l964).

B. Works dealmg with telated issues

M. Douglas, Purity and Danger (London: Routledge & chan Paul, l966).
F.H. Gorman, The ldeology ofRitual (JSOTS 9l) (Shct'h'cld: SAP, 1990)-
 The Theology of Old Testament Sacrifíce 87

W.J. Houston, Pwily and Monolhezsm': Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law
(JSOTS l40) (Sheñ"1eld: SAP, l993).
P.P. Icnson, Graded Holincss (]SOTS 106) (Shcfñeld: SAPI, l992).
E.R. Lcach, Culture and Communicanbn (Cambridgc: Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, l976).

C. Commentaries
T.R. Ashley, Tha Book of Numbm (WEC) (Grand Rapidsz Eerdmans, l993).
J.E. Hartley, Lwínm (WBC) (Waco: Word, l992).
R. Péter-Contesse, Lévilique 1-16 (Gencva: Labor et Fides, l993).
B.A. chm'e, Leviukus (Philadclph1a': chish Publication Society, l989).
J. Mxlg'rom, Leviticus I-16 (AB) (New York: Doubleday, l991).
]. Milgrom, Numbm (Ph11'adelphla': Jewish Publícation Socicty, l990).
R. chdtorfñ Leoinm (Neukirchcn: Neukirchcner Verlag, 1985).
G.J. Wenham, The Book of Levmcus" (NICOT) (Grand Rapidsz Ecrdmans, l979).
G.J. chham, Numbers (TOTC) (Leiccstcr: IVP, l981).
 6

Sacnü'ce m' the Ancient Near East

MARTIN ]. SELMAN

I. INTRODUCTION

Anyone who attempts to understand sacnñ'c1al' concepts and practices m'

the ancient Near East outside Israel has to beg1n' by facmg several maior
challengcs an's1n'g from the nature of the enterprise.
(i) The subiect is extremely van'ed. Even though evidence for any
aspect of ancicnt Near Eastem civ1hza"tion is ínevítably dístributed
unevenly, the problem is particularly acute ín the case of sacnñ'ce. An
m1"tial d1fñ'culty ís the unusually varied assortment of text types, rang1n'g
from passm'g references m' mythical literature to thc highly technical
language of ritual texts. Further, Lhe avaüable evidence does not always
display an mn'er consistency, especially when one tries to harmomz'e the
archaeological record with literary matenal's. Sm°ce the scope of this
survey is far too hnu"tcd to 1n'vesu'gatc all thcse issucs, some practical
l¡m1"tau'on has to be 1m'posed. We w1ll' conñne ourselves thereforc to an
m'vestigatíon of Mesopotamia and Ugarit, sm'ce these areas are of greater
relevance Lhan, for example, Egypt m' any comparison with the 0T.
(u") There is littlc agreement about whether to adopt a descriptive or
comparatíve approach. D1r'ect comparisons between the Bíble and its
contemporary world are always of Course m'trm'sícally attractive, but it ís
1m'ponant to tecogmz'e that apparently sunú"ar practiccs occurríng in
d1f'ferem places may m' fact be of widely divergent signxñ'cance.
Unfortunately, the real nature of thcse underlym'g differences has not
always received proper recogrútíom especxal'ly by those who have
approached the subiect from thc standpomts of Christian theology or
comparativc religi0n.1 Any adequate comparison, however, must takc
account of the dístmctíve features m' sacriñcial practice and termm'ology
as well as extemal s¡m11an"'u'es. The approach adopted in this study will
Iherefore be ñrstly to describc and intcrprct the varíous km'ds of sacr1ñ'ce
m' thc light of thcu' own comext, and only then 10 make comments of a
 Sacnñc'c in llu Ancten'l Ncar Ean 39

comparativc naturc. In order not to míninúzc thesc d¡'ffc1'cnces,

categorics borrowcd from tradiüonal Chn'suan' thcology or from
traditional approaches to Israclitc sacnñ'cc wül gencrally bc avoided.
(m'") A particular problem exists wíth m'tcrpreu'ng ancient sacnñ'c¡al'
texts. Anciem scribes were m' fact much more concemcd wíth givmg
detaüed practícal instructions to thosc carrymg out the rítuals than with
explainm'g the m'ncr mcam'ng of such rítuals to pcoplc who djd not sharc
the1r' cultural prcsuppositions. Thls' problem is not a ncw one of coursc,
and wül be famlha"r to all who havc struggled to understand thc sacnñ'c¡al'
texts of thc 0'r. The result is, however, Lhat far morc can be said about
what was done m° sacnñ'ce than about what the rítuals meant Io Lhose who
performcd and watched thCIIL It also demands great caution from Ihosc
who arc try1n'g to m'tcrpret rituals thcy may not yet fully undcrstand.
(iv) Finally, bccause an up-to-date overall survcy of thls' subicct is snll'
not yet avaüable, “somc fundamental questions thcrefore arc sull'
unresolved' (H. Rm'ggren).2 This is particularly unfortunate m' the casc of
Lhe key areas of Babylonm' and Assyna'. Onc maior reason for thns'
connn'mn'g lack is thax sacr1fi°ce m' its narrowcr sense played a com-
parativcly mm'or rolc withm thc Mcsopotamm rchgl"on as a wholc. Rítual
was a much morc un'portam concept, and it may wcll be that the d1fñ'culty
of dls'entanglm'g that which may rightly be called sacnñ'ce from the larger
issues of religious ritual and ceremomal has lcd to scholars' reluctance to
address the subiect m' a comprehensive manner.

II. SACRIFICE IN MESOPOTAMIA

l. Deñm'tion

Any m'vestigation of sacnñ'ce m' Mesopotamna° has to face the question of

what is actually meam by the tcrm *sacnfi'cc'. As a stamn'g p0m't, it ís
esscntíal to dls'un'guish betwcen offermgs gíven to temples generally and
sacnñ'ces made spec1ñ'cally to the gods, cvcn though no such formal
disun'ction is made m' Sumenan' or Akkadian litcrature. Undcr thc
headm'g of offermgs are IO be m'cluded the vast range of goods whích were
brought, indced oftcn requu'ed, for thc upkecp of ancient tcmplcs. The
templc, cspccially m' dnr'd m1ll'enníum Sumer, was a large cstatc,
comparable in s12'e to that of thc statc, and to some extent m'depcndcnt of
it. 3 Although from the Old Babylonian pcriod onward m' thc early part of
the second míllennium BC, thc mñ'uencc of the Icmple gradually dcclíncd
as the authority of the km'g increased, lhe amoums of offcñngs givcn to
Lhc lcmplc reman"cd subsmliaL These offcrmgs includcd a widc varicty
of agricultural gifts, includmg large hcrds of cattlc, shccp, and goats,
maml'y dcsigned for thc support of the templc adnúnistration and
economy. Their purpose was not d1'ssum"lar to that of the tithcs and
offermgs givcn for Lhe upkcep of the Jerusalem Tcmple and its staff.'
90 Samfic'e in the Bible

Sacnñcc on the other hand is a term to be reserved for that which was
presemcd to a deity. This does not mean that thc conccpt of sacrmce m'
Mcsopotamia was neccssarily thc samc as that which is known from the
0T. In Israel, for example, sacnñ'ccs were usually offered to God upon an
altar, whereas m' Mesopotamia sacnñ'cc was often presented wíthout the
use of an altar. Also, sacnñ'ce m' Mesopotamia was usually performed by
priests usm'g Lhe wide rangc of offeríngs already prcscnted to the templcs,
whereas in Isracl laymen had opponuníty to sacnñce directly to God by
brm'ging the victim to the altar and kllhn"g it there.

2. Care and Feedm'g of the Gods

The mam' conccm m' Mcsopotanúan sacriñcial practicc was undoubtcdly

the care, and espccially the fccdíng, of dívine un'agcs. Thís view of
sacriñce was fundamentally mñ°ucnccd by the idea that deities were
represented by man-made 1m'ages, and led to a much greater concem with
the 1m'age's own mundane needs Lhan with the person and requkemems
of thc dcity as such. As a result, sacr1ñ'ce m' Mesopotamía was a rather
more down to earth affak in comparison with the concepts of sacnñ°ce
rcpeatcdly advocatcd by the OT writcrs.
The cht most usually offered as an example of the care and feedm'g of
the gods is actually a late one, dann'g from the Seleucid period at Uruk
(biblical Erech), but it ís qujte clear that Babylonian religíon even m' thosc
Hellenistíc um'es showed very little change from practices and beliefs of
much earlier days.S According to this text the gods werc given four meals
a day, d1f'fcrcnu'atcd m' snz'c rather Lhan by thc variety of theu' menu. Two
were in the morning and 1wo 1n' the afternoon or evemn'g. Interestíngly,
the tenn used for these was naplanu, which ín fact was also a word for an
ordm'ary meaL6 This seems to indícate that the worshippers did not
distinguish between a meal offered as a sacnñ'ce to a deity and one which
thcy ate themselves. The two activitíes scem to havc been regardcd as
cssentially one and the samc, without any awarencss that the d1f'ñculty of
persuadmg a statue to consume regular meals might lead to a
consideratíon of the d1ff'erent natures of dívm'e and human beings and of
thek d1f'feríng needs for food.
On the basis of several tcxts, lhe followmg procedure for one of these
meals can be rcconstructcd. A table was ñrst placed before thc 1m'age, and
thcn a bowl ofwatcr was províded for washing. Aftcr this, food and drink,
especially beer, were served, during which tíme musicians played
appropnáte music. When Lhe meal was completed, Lhe shnn'e was
fumigated, apparemly to remove the smell of food. Finally the table was
cleared and water was offered in a bowl for the Lm'age to wash its ñngers. It
is not known how thc god was actually thought to eat thc food, though a
curtam' was drawn m' front of thc table while Lhe deity was actually eatmg
and whüe he washed hís or her ñngers. Apparently the deity was thought
to eat just by lookmg at the food! The menu could be vcry varied. It might
 Sacnfic'e in the Ancnm Near East 91

m'cludc oxen, sheep ('good sheep, sheep ñt for Lhc temple, fattcncd
shcep'), lamb, poultry (geese, ducks, doves), m'censc, soup, bread, ñour,
sesame, wines, beer and fruít.
A good cxample of the daüy routmc ís provided m' a tcxt from
Babyloma' of the Seleucid períodz

(i) 'Dunn'g the níght umun scrmal~ankw' (an incamation) ¡s' recítcd for Anu
and an elum umma (a hymn) for the gods as the dtk' bíti (awakemn'g oí the
templc) m° Ubshuukm'akí.
(u") At dawn the gate is opened. The night vigü is endcd.
(1u"') Water for thc hands is brought and oü is Iakcn.
(iv) The mam' momm'g meal comcs, Lhc sm'gers sm'g and the mam (mcal) xs'
rcmoved.
(v) The sccond meal (= the sccond coursc?) comes. The sccond mcal ns'
removed. _
(vi) The mam' aftemoon (1da"m = last part of the day) mcal comes, the
sm°gcrs smÀg (and xhe mam' aftemoon meal is rcmovcd).
(vu") ('I'he second aftemoon meal comcs). The second aftemoon meal ns'
rcmoved.
(vm"') 'Thc gate ís locked.'7

An 1m'portam vanan't on this practicc was an Assyrian ritual called tâkultu.

Evídence for the tãkulm xs' known from texts of the Neo-Assynan' pcriod,
but its origm reaches back to Middle Assyrían nm'cs m' the latter ccnturies
of the second xmll'enm'um BC. In this n'tual, the km'g offercd sacnñ'ccs to
Lhc chief deiry of a tcmple or a group of tcmples, and thcn pronounced a
blessmg for the town, thc land, and the km'g of the city of Ashur. As a
result of the tãkultu mcal, all the gods were then asked Io pour out an
abundam blessm°g on the km'g of AshuL It secms Lhat the real purpOse of
thís ritual meal, therefore, was to ensure prosperity 1n' the land and thc
welfare of thc king.8
Anothcr vcry 1m'portant aspect of the fcedm'g of the gods was thc food
and dnnk' offerm'gs regularly provided for thc spirits of the dead. Much
Mesopotamian religion was ammx"stic Ln' character, and particularly as far
as ord1n'ary people were concemed, relxg1"on was probably more about
placatmg the spirits and dcmons rather than the maior gods who had
temples and 1m'ages of their own. When a person died, it was belicvcd Lhat
his spirit cmcrcd thc undcrworld, the placc whcrc 'dust is thcir food and
clay their sustenance'.9 It was thcrefore nccessary to provide thc spm"ts of
the deceased with a more satisfying diet, for 1f' Ihis responsibüíty was
neglected, the spüits might retum to earth hungry and thirstyz

The gods which sexz'e (upon man)

Have come forth from xhe grave;
The evíl wind-gusts
Have come forth from thc grave;
To demand the paymcnt of ritcs and the pourm'g of libations
92 Saaüe m' the Bíble

They have come forth from the grave.'°

Such wandcnn'g spiríts wcre grcady fcared, and a great responsx'b1h"ty

restcd on later generations to cxercxse' propcr carc by makm'g rcgular
offerm'gs to the1r' ancestors. These issues could affect national lifc as well
as individual fam1h"es. For example, Ammisaduqa, a km'g of the ñrst
dynasty of Babylon, made offermgs to various spm"ts of the dcad who had
no-one to yrovide for them m° an attempt to ensure the security of his
km'gdom.l In contrast, the scvcnth century Bc Assynan° monarch
Ashurbanipal carried out vengeance even on the ancestors of his Elamjte
enenúesz 'The graves of theü former and later km'gs, who had not fcared
Ashur and Ishtar, my sovereígns, and who had harrassed the k1n'gs of my
fathers, I ravaged, dcstroyed, and exposcd to the sun. Theü bones I took
to Assyrla',' upon theü spm"ts I un'posed resdessness and cut them off from
food offcnhgs and líbations of watcr."Z
Sacnñ'c1al' food was not the only item providcd for the 1m'agcs of
Mcsopotamían deítics. Clothm'g and other matenal's were also offcred m'
order to dress the 1ma°ge, whüe further ng°ts and sacnñ'ces were made on
special occasions such as regular festivals for the repaü or buüdmg of a
temple. A partícularly m'tcresu'ng event was the ínstallatíon of a new
dívme statue. Thls' was the moment when the hf'elcss creatíon of the
craftsmcn ncedcd to be endowed wíth the strcngth and power of deity,
and for this there was a special ritual, often callcd mís pí, 'the washm°g of
the mouth'. In one account of dús cercmony, the phrase 'Washm'g of the
mouth' occurs at each stage of the rítual, and four'teen um'es m' all. The
rituals began in the temple workshop, from where the statue was brought
at night by a torchlight processíon to the n'ver side where further
sacnñ'ces of such thm'gs as a ram, beer, and Hour were offercd to a varicty
of dcin'es, planets, and stars. Work on the statue was ñnally complctcd at
the river side with the m'sem'on of íts eyes, which were opened at dawn by
a priest with the aid of a tamarisk twig. The trappm'gs of royalty such as a
processíonal throne and an appropríate divine headdress were thcn given
to the deity, before the statue was led back to the temple to be ínslalled ln'
its shrm'e.13

3. Rituals and Incantations

Although sacnñ'ces offered as food to divm'e 1m'ages were 1m°portnnt in

maíntaining both human and divine socíetícs, m' thc wider comext of
Mcsopotanúan rcligion the practice was comparatively núnon The main
religious preoccupatíon of the texts was not sacnñ'cc but rituaL Not that
these two categories should be kept separatc from onc anothcr, for many
rítuals m'cludcd some form of sacríficc, though the laner was not
necessarily offered to a deity. Rimals however were performed on a great
vañety of occasions and wcre acatssíble to a much widcr rangc of people
than thosc who witncssed thc amñ'cial ccrcmonícs of Lhe feeding of the
 SamM m' du Amm' Near Eaxl 93

gods. Though some n'tuals spec1fi'cally m'cludcd lhc kmg' and hígh
ofñcms of templc and smte, many others m^volved iust a pricsr and a
sm'gle anonymous supph'ant.
Riruals were often collected imo groups of Iexts, many of Lhcm m'
serics. Two of Lhcse scúcs were known as Shurpu and Maqlu, words
which both rcally mean 'burmn'g). The series were written down on clay
tablets, someumcs as many as nm'c altogcthen Closely associated With the
ríruals were various m'cantations, prayers, and omens. So close was the
connection m' fact that the serics of n'tual texts were often more
preoccupied with thc m'camau'ons than with the rítuals thcmsclvm, with
dctaüs of the lattcr bcmg conñncd to either thc ñrst or thc last tablct m' thc
sen'cs. In the Shurpu series, for m°stance, the rimal tablct is only the ñmt
out of a total of nm'c. In pract1'cc, howevcr, Mcsopotamian Lhought did
not divíde a ritual and its m'camau'ons, for words and actíons were
regarded as d1f'ferent aspects of one activity.
Rituals were prescribcd for a wide variety of c1r'cumstanccs. Many were
:oncemcd with thc removal of some km'd of troublc, such as sickncass or
:v11' spu"it3, whüc othcrs wcre carried out as a means of obtammug purity or
feruh"ty. Three of the bettcr known types are bríeñy descñbcd here, m'
ardcr to give some m'dicau'on of how the thought patterns and practices of
ritual pcrvadcd Mesopotamian culture. Thc ñrst examplc conccrns the
wvo seríes mentioncd abovc, Shurpu and Maqlu. Thc Shurpu texts lístcd
various cvüs which might happcn to a person and from wkúch the rituals
night deliver h1m'. For cxnmplc, a person may have committed an
)ffence, whether moml or cultic m' character. Hc rnight have 'eaten what
s taboo to his god(dess)', or 'pom'ted his íinger bchmd the back of his
e'llow'. The god Ea, a god of magic who was also onc of thc thrcc highesl
luthoritics in thc Mesopotamian panthcon, núght thcn m'struct another
god of magic, Marduk, also thc chícf god of Babylon, xo purify thc
:ufferer through the rituals of sympathetic magic. Actions m'volving
›biccts symbolizing the affiicuhg cvils or sins such as thc pcelmg of an
›nion or the pluckmg of goats' hau' were carricd out, and were often
bllowed by buming. The rituals wcre also always accompanicd by
Ippropriatc incantations. In fact, the Shurpu texls comam morc dctaíls of
hc praycrs and m'cantations addressed to thc gods than of the actual
iruals. In the Maqlu scn'cs, the rituals and m'camntions wcre directcd
ngamst various forms of black magic, and m' these the burm'ng n'tuals
vere rather more sigmñ'cam. Wax or wooden ñgurines of the sorccrer, or
nore often the sorccress, were burnt, with incamaúons addrcsscd lo Lhc
fñgy or to the ñre-g0d. The act of buming an obiecx to which thc cvü was
hought to havc bccn transfcrrcd symbolizcd both dcsuucúon of thc
ausc of troublc and libcration for thc suffercr.”
Another sct of ritunls concemed the bít nkmki or 'wash housc'. This was
place where preparations wcrc made for van'ous sacral duties and for
mr1ñ'cau'on. The punñ'cau'on rituals included van'ous forms of n'tual
vathmg for such divcrsc pcoplc as priesxs, a pcm'tem km'g, a corpsc dunn°g
94 Sacnfí'ce m' the B¡b'le

funeral rítuals, and even divm'e 1ma'ges. The 1ma'ges received n'tua'
washm'gs m' daüy, monthly and annual cultic cycles. The purpose was tc
transfcr or remove evü mñ'uenccs, though one had to be carcful not lo use
unclean water, sm'cc ths° could bnn'g furthcr bad influences.'5
A thkd typc of rítual was thc so-callcd namburbi rituaL '° Thcsc had a
very spccxñ'c purpose, namely, to ward off portended cvü or to undo its
effects (the term namburbi meant '(Ritual for) the undom'g ofi1', ie. , ofthc
poncnded ev11'). Thcy had close assocxa'u'ons with omens, sm'ce they were
m'lcnded Io negate the m'evitable outcome alrcady predicted by an omen.
Accordm to Oppenhum', they were 'the answer of the theologians to thc
divm'cr'.1 Divm'au'on of all km'ds, of course, occupied a central role m'
ancícm Ncar Eastem rcligion. The ulum'ate a1m' of the namburbi rimals
was to 'sanctífy' (quddu§u) the thrcatened person. This was achievcd by
thc use of punñ'cation techm'qucs applied both to the síte where the rítual
Iook place and to the sufferer. For example, a rced hut might be marked
off as a suitable placc for punñ'cation, wherc thc threatened person
washed hlm'sclf and put on clcan clothes. Oñcrmgs usually comprísm'g
sxm'plc food and drmk' offcnn'gs were frequently made to various dcities,
though slaughtcred amm'als would occasionally be m'cluded. Ahhough
such offenn'gs were m'tended to make the gods fecl at home, the rituals
were cssenuall'y apottopaic m' character. They might m'volve the
destruction of a portemous objcct such as the drowmn'g of an amm'al, thc
settm'g up of an obstruction such as smcarmg a door with a m1x'ture
m'cludm'g bats' blood and crushed spider, or the substitutíon of another
1ma'ge as a means of transferrmg ev1l' from the person who was expectcd to
suffer. Although as m' previous examples, thc rituals were accompanied
with prayers, m' thís case the rituals secm to have been of grcater
1m'portance.
Thc rituals as a whole were based on an underlying thought strucmre
which demonstrated itself in thxee distmct modes:

(a) Sympathenc' or symbolic magw'

An example may bc taken from one of the Shurpu rituals, as m' thc
followm°g phrasc, 'by the coniuratíon of Ea, let the curse be pceled off hk'e
this onion, let it bc wrenched apart 11k'e this date, let it be entwined hk°e
this wick'. The action performed m' such cases, accompanied by an
appropriatc m'cantation, was thought to symbolize the removal of cv1l'.
Thc usc of both audíble and visible mcans was a double security doubtless
intended IO convm'ce both priest and worshippcr as well the troublesome
spmt.

(b) Substu'uzwn' or transfer

Thjs pattern might be employed when a person was 1ll' or under the curse
of dcath. An ammal° might be drcsscd as a human beíng and laid near the
afñictcd pcrson, or a wax 1ma'gc of thc suffcrer might bc laid m' a famüy
 Samjíc'e in lhe Ancwn'l Near Easl 95

grave togcther with clay 1m'ages of thosc sp1r'its that were thought to bc
causm'g the afBiction. In this way, the diseasc or evü spu'1't was
encouraged to attack the ritual object, so transfemhg its ancmions fmm
thc sufferen II is to bc noted m' passing that this approach dealt with causc
as wcll as cffcct!

(c) Direcl exoram

This method depended on how the lroublesomc spm"t was |'dcnnñ'ed, and
was bascd on the idea that thc spu"it nceded anothcr placc to which it
could bc scnt. If the spm"t's idcntity was unknown, a long list of possiblc
types of spm"t was mentioned, concludmg with thc phrasc “whatever its
name”. When on thc other hand, a particular spm"t was in mm'd, its name
might be m'scribed on the 1m'age of the spm"t, and the un'age was then
brokcn and buried.

4. Conclusions conceming sacníi'ce m' Mesopotamia

(i) The natuxe of sacnñ'ce m' Mesopotamia was determmed by con-

temporary concepts of div1m"ty. Because the gods were thought to possess
human as well as divme qualities, sacnñ'ce had a much morc domestic
ñavour than it does m' the 0T. The pnm'ary reason for this was probably
morc to do With thc sacnñ'ces made Io unseen spkits rathcr than to the
gods in theír temples, since Lhe former seem to have bcen much more
accessible to ordmary people. Those spm"ts who were ncar at hand,
m'deed, often far too close for comfort, could apparemly be approached
with the km'd of g1f'ts Lhat belonged to ordmary human hf'e. The fact thal
cven the great gods apparently acceptcd the samc food and dnnk' offerings
only confirmcd that sacnñ'ce, although carríed out according to strict
rules, remam'ed ín cssence an activity closely associated with the regular
pattem ofhuman existence. This conclusion ís not affected by the sense of
Lhreat that many felt from the sp1r'it world. Indeed, iI is quite smkm"g that
it was thought that the Lhreat of evíl could be avcrted by actions as routm'e
and familiar as providm'g the hospitality of a meaL
(ii) Thc emphasis on the fcedmg of gods and spírits reveals thc
mterdependence of the human and div1n'e worlds. Deities and spirits were
felt to have human needs and depended on human bem'gs to meet them,
while conversely humanity relied on well-fed gods as a necessary basis for
30_wer and blessm'g. In fact, m' the vicw of Oppenhcim, a process of
Iansubstantiaüon was Lhought to Iakc place by which the physical
)ffcrings wcre convcrtcd m'l0 divm°e powcr and strcngth." What should
›c strcsscd hcrc, howcvcr, is that thc ultimalc purpose of the fecdmg of
:he gods had more IO do with the need for king, land, and people to bc
›lcsscd rather than that the gods were pleased. To that extent,
Vlesopotamian sacnñ'ce was amhropoccmric rather than theocenuic, and
was obviously susccptíble to bcm'g manipulated for human purposcs.
96 Samñc'e in lhe Bible

(u"i) II is consistent with the previous paragraph that the correct

performance of ritual enjoycd a higher priority than concern for the
m'terests of the gods. For m'stance, the two chief gods of magic, Ea and
Marduk, probably receíved more attcntion than other deities, not so
much because of the1r' own m'trínsic worth as for what they might do for
thosc who brought them sacnñ'ces and offcrm'gs. This led to a morc
mechanical approach to sacnñce than that advocated m' the OT, and meant
that m' Mesopotamm' the magicían was as ¡m'portant as the priesL In fact
therc was no great dístmcüon between the two, or betwcen them and the
dívm'er.
(iv) The purposes of the sacnñ'c1'al practices of Mesopotamia seem
much more hnn"tcd m' comparison wíth Israelite practice m' thc 0T. The
idea that sacnñce might cstablish or restore a sense of cornmunjon
between the deity and the worshipper is not found m' Mesopotamlan°
tcxts, while the absence of any concept of Lhe 1m'portance attached to
blood rituals m' Israelíte sacnñ'ce is quite stnk1n"g. To saus'fy thc gods”
hungcr and thirst and the worshippers' need for blessmg were quite
sufñcicnt motives for the offenn'g of sacrlñ'ce.

III. SACRIFICE IN SYRIAIPALESTINE

l. Sourccs
Our mam' sources for sacníi'cial practice m' Syna/P'alcstíne outsíde the 0T,
which itsclf can hardly be sajd to be süent on thc subjcct of Canaanite
sacnñ'ces, are the founeemh and thm'eenth century BC texts from Ugarit
1.n' nonhem Syna'. These tcxts are of two types, poetic myths and epics,
and lhe so-called *practical' texts. Although the religious stories m' the
myths and epics refer several nm'es to various km'ds of sacnñ'ces,19 it is
probably unwisc to use them as a ba315' for reconstructing the cultic
practices of Ugarit dunn'g the períod in which our texts were written. It
scems more hk'ely that they relate to practices and ideals associated wíth
earlier pcriods. Unfortunately this awarencss has not always been shared
by biblical scholars,2° but the temptation to assume that the myths and
epics can tell us about what went on m' ordinary Ugaritic tcmples must bc
resisted.
Although thc numbcr of extam *practícal” texts is much smaller than
the literary compositions, it ís to them that we must tum as our mam
source for the actual practíce of sacr1ñ°ce. The texts themselves are quite
varied, m'cludm'g lists of offerings, pantheons, and a few steles, but it
scems quitc clcar that the cultus at Ugarit shared many of the samc
cultural presupposítions as thosc found elscwhcre in the ancicnt Near
East. For example, a regular pattem of cultic offerm'gs and rituals was
based on the calendar, with specxal' weekly and monthly ceremoxúes
supplementmg the mam annual feasts. Accordíng to one 1m'portam text
(KTU 1.112), three types of g1f'ts werc madc m' these regular 0fferm'gs›
 Sacnfic'e in Ihe Anczen'l Near Easl 97

namely, amm'als, vegetable products, m'cludm'g breadlgram and wm'e,

and mm'erals. A tendency for g¡f'ts to be made m' groups of threcs and
scvens is also noticeable. As m' Mesopotamía, the king and the royal
famüzylplayed a key role m° actually presenting many of thc offermgs to the
gods.
Two cautíonary notcs must be sounded, howcver. Thc ñrst is that lhc
avaüable evidence does not allow us to assume that there was a sm'gle
pattern of religious pracúces throughout Syn'a. Each city seems to havc
had its own traditions and emphascs, and although considcrable
s¡m'11'aritícs did cxíst bctwecn practíces at various sites such as Emar, Ras
Ibn Hani, and Alalah, it would bc unwise Io assumc that we can do much
more than derive samplcs of sacnñ'c1al' practicc m' ancicm Syría. Sccondly,
the extcm and s¡'gmñ'cancc of Ugan't's sacnñ'cal cultus should not bc
overesnma'tcd. Thc numbers of an1mal's involved arc much smallcr than
those descn'bed m' the 0T, wiLh no more than thmy'-eight bem'g used on
any one occasion. Whüc thc view has bcen cxpresscd that 'the most
1m'ponam religious action at Ugarít was, of coursc, sacnñ'cc), Lhís is a
somcwhat misleadmg statement, sm'ce it is based maml'y on Lhe frcquency
with which sacnfce was offered in the ofñcxal' cultus.22 In the light of our
ovcrall knowledge, it is more accurate to conclude that, 'the sacr1ñ'cml' cult
remams a modest one'.23
Three issues of special m'terest emerge concernmg the practice of
sacnñce m' Ugan't, namely, the sacnñ'cial terms used m' lhe texts, thc
meamn'g of the §Imm sacnñ'cc, and the special issuc of human sacnñ'ce.
An exannn'aúon of Lhesc íssucs ís not only esscnual' for a concct
understandíng of what took place at Ugan't, but wül also clearly ülustratc
that sacnñ'cc m' Syría was m' scvcral ways closcr to that m' ancicnt Israel
than to that m' Mcsopotarma'.

2. Termm'ology

Three of the most frequently used terms at Ugarit havc a clear afñnity
with important Hebrew sacnñcial terms:
(a) db_h. The Ugarític form of this widcly known Senútjc root is
usually a noun (cf. Heb. ze_bah, 'a sacnñ'ce, sacnñ'cial meal, slaughter'),
though ít can occur as a verb (cf. Heb. zãb_ab, 'to sacnñ'cc'). Its usc is very
sml'1l'ar to that of its Hebrew eqm'valents, m' that it can refer either to a
sacnñ'cial meal or to sacr1ñ'ce with blood.
(b) s'lmm. This is lhe commonest term for sacnñ'ce in thc practical
rexts. It is clearly cognate with the Hebrew (zeb_ah,) §elam'ím (*peace/
fellowshiplcommunion offerm'gs'), Lhough it is not certam whcthcr lhe
ãnal -m in the Ugarític form is a plural sufñx or an enclític In Ugan't,
flmm is usually cmployed for amm'a1 sacnfi'ce, and ís often found in
:ombm'ation with thc vcrb, 1hm, 'to eat'. It also frequcmly occurs m'
98 Sacwíc'e m' the Bible

combmation wíth the term §rp ('bum( offerm'g'?) m' thc phrase §rp w
('and') flmm.
(c) srp'. This noun appears to be a term for a particular type of
sacnñ'cxal' offering, and ís frequently assocm'u'on with §Imm. Since ít is also
usually mentíoncd in the comext of 'ñrc', ('is't), it is most líkely to bc a
“holocaust” or a *bumt offer1n'g' (thc root frp is well-known m' the Semitic
languages, appearmg m' chrew mainly as a vcrb meanmg 'Io burn', cf.
s0'ra'151m', “bumm'g ones,). Although therefore the cognate Hebrew words
do not have a sacnñ'cxa'l meanm'g, ñp does seem to be closely related to a
type of sacnñce well known m' the OT, that is, the 'burnt offering' or 'wholc
offenn'g' (Heb. 'õlâ, kãlíl).

3. The Sigmñcance of slmm'

Despíte the obvious attractiveness of m°terpretm'g s'lmm m' the same way as
the Hebrew (ze_ba¡_¡) sVlãmínu the relationship between the two expressions
is by no means straightforward. The basíc problem ís that m' spítc of thc
comparativc frequency with which s'lmm occurs as a sacrücial term, its
precise meanmg rcmams unclear. The issue is complicatcd by at least four
factors: (a) the varíety of meanmgs of words formed from thc root flm ín
Semitic languages; (b) the exístence of a deity Sal1m' m' Ugarit; (c) the
urú1k'ehh'ood of Lhe singular form of the word (§lm) having a sacnñ'cíal
meanm'g; and (d) the lack of any explanation of §lmm in thc ritual tcxts
themselvcs.
Closer comparison of the chrew and the Ugaritic tcrms m' fact shows
that to claim they are more or less identical m' meaning is unwarranted.
For example, in completc comrast wíth what ís known of Israel, thc
ciuze'ns of Ugarit somenm'es offered §lmm sacr1ñ'ces m' connectíon with Ihe
cult of the dcad and the ancestor culL Furthcr, thc chitícal assocíation
bctwecn a íelãmím offering and a blood ritual, and the fact Lhal Israclite
priests sharcd part of the animal offered in a §elâmím sacnñ'cc have no
parallcl m' Ugarit. Another d1f'ñculty ís that in comrast to Hebrcw usagc,
in Ugañtic Ihe terms flmm and dbh arc not associated wíth cach othcn
On thc othcr hand, flmm and felãmím arc nol totally disun'ct. Both thc
Ugarilic and Israelite sacriñces wcre catcn by the worshippcrs. They also
sccm to share common fcatures with practíccs clscwhcrc in thc ancicm
Near East, espccxa'lly othcr parts of the Nonhwcst Scmitic area and
Greece. The typical Greek thysta', for example, was a sacríñce in which
part of an amma'l was burnt on an altar and parr was ealen as a cultic meal,
whilc Punic inscñptions comain refercnccs to a sewa'at sacriñce wherc
pan was givcn to Ihc pricst and thc rcsl to the offcrcr.
In fact, many scholars bclicve therc is a dircct rclalionship bctwccn
Israelítc communion sacriñces and these wider practiccs. Thc nature of
the relatíonship may be explam'ed m' two alternative ways. While some
belíeve that the Greek and Norlhwcst Semític customs shared a common
origín (Rosl, de Vaux), olhers have argued that thc Israelitcs inhcrítcd lhc
 Sacnjíc'e ín lhc Anaen't Nmr Ean 99

pracúce of a paníally burned ammal' sacnñ'cc from the Canaam"tes either

vía the Greeks and Mm'oans (Schmid) or thc Myccncans (G¡11').“ Dcspilc
the d1f'fcrenccs bctwccn thc Ugaritic Ilmm and chrcw fllãmm xhcrefom
it docs sccm that thcre was a 'basic rcscmblance' betwccn thc Ugariúc and
Israclíte practíces.25 Tlus' sxrm"lan'ty is in marked conlmst with Mcsopota-
mian praclice, Where neither Lhe bunun'g of parts of an anuna'l sacnñ'ce
nor the idca of a communion sacnñ'cc scems to havc bccn known.
Although it has becn cla1m'ed that the Akkadum' tcrm Mmhu (*gxccun'g,'
(ofñc1al') gxft")26 provídes a lmk' betwccn Mcsopotamh and thc sacnñ'ccs
of pcoplcs to the wcst, the proposcd assochtíon rcmams unsupponcd.27
The Akkadm term is not a sacnñcial word, and has no clear connectíon
with the practice of sacnñ'cc.
When onc tums to the pmctíccs associatcd with bumt offenn'gs, Lhc
evidcncc sccms to conñrm lhc picture dcscribed abovc conccrmn°g rhc
ílmm and s<'la›m"m. Thc bumt ochn'g, for cxamplc, was known m' vanbus
parts of the Nonhwesl Scmitíc area, m'cludm'g not only thc Ugaritic :rp'
and the Israelite 'ôlá and kãlíl, but also Punic kalil and NcoPunic 'lx.
Both thesc latter terms are phüologically as well as semantically
cquivalem to thc chrcw ones, whüe 'o'lâ and 'II arc also cognatc wilh Ihe
Greek holokautmna'. thn thereforc the Ugaríúc scñbcs combmcd Lhe
tcrms for two of theu' maior sacnñ'ccs m' thc phrasc frp ws'1mm, thcy were
dcmonstraun'g that thcsc un'ponant elcmcnts of thcu' sacrifcial systcm
were pan of a wider pattern evidcnt m' Greece, Israel, and othcr parls of
Syna'. Mesopotanua' on the other hand, did not partícípatc m' either of
thcse typcs of sacnñcm28

4. Hnman Sacnñ'ce

A spccial problcm is ralscd' by referenccs m' the OT Ko sacriñccs offercd to

thc god Molek.29 Each of thc passagcs conccmcd mcntions *passing a
chüd lhmugh thc ñrc to Molck', and it is widclàrl agrecd thal thcsc
passagcs, along with a numbcr of others in thc 0T, are conccmed with
lhc practicc of child sacnñcc in lsmcL Somc cvidcnce cxisls to suggcst
that similar practices were known occasionally in Syrl'a/Pnlcsu'ne. though
thcy wcre probably most frcqucnt among thc Phocm'cm'ns.“ Thcy werc
cmpluyed mainly in timcs of crisis and as pnn of foundalion ríluuls, as is
dcmonstratcd both by thc 0'r (c.g. l Ki. 16:34; 2 Ki. 3:27) und by Punic
and c|assical sourccs.”
A morc difñcult issuc is th ímcrprclatinn of xhc lcrm Molck. For n
while. many scholars acccpled lhat lhc Dcutcmnomists actuully crcuted
thc divinc namc 'Molek/Mol0k', on lhc bnsis of a tcrm molk found m'
Pum'c inscsripu'ons.” This laner word wns lhoughl lo bc a tcchnicul tcrm
for sacriñcc which was lhcn adaplcd by lhc oT wrilers by adding vowcls
fmm thc Hebrew word b0'!e_t, 'shamc' (cf. thc changc of Mcphibanl lo
Mcphibosheth) to makc it imo thc namc of a god. Howcvcr, this view hns
recently been effecüvely abandoncd on the bnsis of wide-r.m'gm'g survcys
100 Sacnjíc'e m' the Bible

of thc avaílablc cvíd<=n4:c.34 Whüc molk was a gencral term for sacnñ°cml'
offcnn'g, it was conñned to the Puníc inscriptions, and must be
distinguíshed from Lhc name of a Syro-Palesum"an deity known as Mahk',
latcr M11k'u/i or Molek. This god was worshipped as an underworld deity
m' Mari, Ugan't, Israel, and was also known in Ebla. He was closcly
associatcd with a cult of the dead, which m°cludcd offenn'gs made to
dc11i'cd anccstors varíously known as shadcs (Npã*ím, mum) and as mahk'u',
mlkm. His cult was probably associated more with popular rather than
ofñcml' rclígion, and was conducted írregularly m' Israel until Lhe tnn'e of
Josiah. It m'cluded chüd sacnñ'ce, though for what precise purpose
remams unclcar.
The only clear evidence for chüd sacnñ°ce m' fact comes from thc OT and
from classical and Pum'c tcxts sourccs conceming thc Canaanite world. It
is not mentioned m' Ebla or Marí, its existence is doubtful m' Ugarít, and 1f'
ít was known m' Mesopotamia it was sul'l rare there. One can only
conclude that chüd sacnñ'ce was not a maior elemem in the sacnñ'cml' cult
of the ancient Near East.

IV. SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE OT

(i) Several aspects of Israelite sacr1fi'ce are found ín a variety of contcxts

outsíde the 0T. They fall m'to two groups, accordmg to whether or not they
wcre acceptable to the writers of the 0T. Thc first is certain basic featurcs
of two of the major types of sacr1ñ'ce, the bumt offenn'gs and communion
sacrlñ'ces, which the Israelites clearly shared with theü neighbours. In
contrast to this, the second group m'cludes a number of pracüces regularly
condemned m' the 0T, such as food offered to gods,35 sacrmces offercd m'
connection with exorcism and magíc,3" and chüd sacr1ñ'ce. Thc existencc
of these two quite d1f'fercnt patterns makes it clear thal thc OT was able to
disun'guish betwecn lhose aspects of sacnñ'ce which Israel could adopt as
part of theu-' common ancicnt Near Eastem culture and those that were
harmful to Israel's faíth. The mere fact of an overlap m' somc areas does
not saem to have caused any d1f'ñculty, which is all the more surprísmg
given the vchemence wíth whích foreign religious practices werc often
dcnounced m' the 0T.
(u") Isracl's lmk's wcre much stronger with Syria/Palestinc, and to some
cxtent with Grcece, than wíth Mesopotamia. This conclusion applies
partícularly to practices assocxa'ted wíth the bumt offerm'g and the
commum'on or fellowship offenn'g, but also m'cludes elemems of
sacnñ'c1'al Iermmology which was common to Hebrew and Canaam'tc. It ís
xm'ponam to rccogmz'c, howcvcr, that thc common features arc at bcst
treatcd neuually ín tbe 0T, and that cven where sacnñ'cial practices were
outwardly sun'1l'ar, the values assoc1a'ted with them are treated very
d1f'ferently m' thc 0T. It is ccna1nl'y not possiblc Io go as far as onc recent
author who has suggestcd lhat an Israelite worshípper of Yahweh mighl
 Samhe in the Anam Ntar East 101

say ofCanaaníte sacnñ'ce, 'it was the “other gods” who were “pagan”, not
Lhe sacr1fi'ces”.37 Our m'vestigation of s'1mm and §Cla'mim, for example, has
revealed how wide Lhe variatíons can be between sacnñ'cm'l practices that
scem superñcially comparable. Sacnñ°cc is a complicatcd phenomcnon
whose mcanmg depends on an m'tcrwcavm'g of cultumL amhmpologicaL
and lm'guistic elemcnts as well as rcügíous ones. Verbal and formal
sunxl"ariu'es alone are insufñciem grounds for concludm'g that Israelite
sacnñ'ces were basically the same as thek Ugaritíc or Canaanite
countcrpans_ Evcn wíthin Syna' and Palesúne, m'dividual sacññccs secm
to have dcveloped m° dxff'crent ways evcn m' the various culmral ccntres,
quite apart from the thcologícal mñ'uences that tendcd to makc Israel
distinct from its neighbours.
(1u"') Dcspite the existcnce of sxm11"arities bctween Isracl and the rest of
Syna/P'alesun'e, there remam two maior aspects of Israclite sacnñ'ce for
which no obvious pnrallcl exists. Thc first is the various atoncmcnt
sacriñccs of the OT. Though some analogics have becn proposed, they do
not bave thc samc sígx¡1f1'cancc as Lhcy do 1n' thc 0T. Further, thc nearest
parallcls are morc concemcd wíth the removal of evü than with mceting
the personal moral standards of a supreme deity.3' Thc second case
concerns the Passovcr for which, despite all scholarly endcavour to
explam' its origm's, no real cquivalcnt cxists outsídc Lhc 0T. Thc attcmpts
of scholars to dcrivc the mam' Passover ritual from apouopaic blood
rituals m' Israel's nomadic pcn'od, and Unleavcncd bread from Canaanite
agxicultural pracu'oes, rcmam uncertamly foundcd on m'temal literary
analysís of OT chts.
(iv) Sevcral gencral features also tend to scl OT sacrmce apart from the
pracúces of its ne1'ghbours. The monolauous oullook of most of thc OT
writcrs, for cxample (probably to be distmguished from thc views of Lhe
maiority of ancicnt Israclites), resulled in a grcarcr concem with
Yahweh's character and demands expressed through sacnñce than thc
rather vaguer rcquu'ements of the pantheon and spm"t world thought to
exist throughout much of the anciem Ncar East. A second dífference B
the lack of any overt Lheological system concem1'n§sacnñ'cc outsidc the
0T. Ugañtic sacnñ'cc, according to de 'I'arragon,3 was concrete rathcr
than speculan'vc, and Ugaritic religion was morc namralisúc than
theologicaL The s1m1l"ar lack of any comprehensive view of Mesopoxa-
m1an' sacrxñ'ce has already been noted. Th1r'dly, íl is of considcrablc
s¡'gn¡ñ'cance that an emphasis on sacnñ'c1'a1 atonement was generally
lacking outside anciem IsracL This d1ff'erencc of oudook probably dcrives
from d1f'ferem undcrstandíngs of the purposc of sacrlñ'cc. threas m'
Israel, it had to do with mam°tam'm'g a right covcnam relationship wíth
Yahweh, elsewhere (and often m' Isracl loo!) it tended to scrve the needs
of the worshippers themselves (cf. the outlook of thc Persian km'gs m' Ezr.
6:10; 7:23). Fm'ally, nothmg outside the OT remotely corresponds to the
covenantal context of lsraelile sacr1ñ'ce, eithcr m' thcory or in practice. ln
other words, it is prccisely somc of thc most m¡'portant and fundamcmal
 102 Samñc'e m' lhc Bible

faturcs of Israelitc sacnñ'cc that are the most dístmctive m' the sctun'g 0f
thcu' comcmpomry culture.

NOTES

l. E.g. ].G. Frazcr, The Golden Bough (London: Macmíllnm l907~19153). Sec also the
commcms of G. Ashby, Saawu its namre and purpose (L0ndon: SCM, l988) I-25;
A.R.W. Grecn, The role ofhunum samhe ín tht anmt Nzur Ea:1(ASORDS l)(Míssoula:
Scholnxs, l975) 3-l7, especially thc commcnl on p. 16, 'The basic problem in dealmg wilh
the subiect was onc of method'.
2. TDOT, vol. 4, 16.
3. Sece.g. A. Falkcnslcim Tthumman umple city (MANE l)(Malíbu: Undcna, l974)
(on'ginal French vemiom 19S4).
4. For a descripúon ofa syslem ofoffeñngs given IO a tcmple at Drchem, near Nippur,
sec B. Lafom, RA 77 (l983) 97-1 l7. In this casc, no disúncúon was made bctween gms
made for lhc support of the lcmple and íls staff and lhose which would be givcn djrccrly lo
the dciu'cs.
S› G.J.P. McEwan, Prim and Temple in Hellems'nc' Babylonm' (Wicsbadcn: Stcincr,
1981). For Ihc text, sce íor cxample, ].B. Pn'tchard (cd.), ANET 343-345.
6. Thc word m'ndabú, 'food, provisions', was also uscd in bolh cultic and sccular
comcxls. Cf. CAD, N, 236-238, 319-323.
7. Translalion from G.J.P. McEwan, Prúsl and Temple in Hellenu'tt'c Babyloma'
(Wicsbadcn: Stcincr, 1981) 170. Tcxt m' F. 111urcau-Dangin, Rinuls accadmu' (Pan's:
Lcroux, 1921) 92f., 10-14.
8. For funher details, see R. ankena, Tãkultu, de sacrale maall|¡"d in het Assynkche
nfuul (Leidcn: Bríll, l954) (scc also B¡'bltot'heca Onen'lahk 18 (l96l) l99~207).
9. CT XV, P|.45, l.8.
10. R.C. Thompson, The droils and wil 3pmsz ofBabyloma' (London: Luzac, 1904)Vol.
u", Tab. Y.
Il› Scc W.G. LambchCS 22 (l968) pp.lff.
12. R.C. Rawlinson, Inxcnprwm fmm Wexlem Am (London: 1891) VoL S, 61, 48ff.
13. For dctaíls, scc S. Snu'!h, 'Thc Babylonian rirual for Ihc conservalíon and induction
oÍ a divinc slarue',]RAS (1925) 37-60.
l4. For furthcr derajls on zhcse scu'cs, sec E. Rciner, Éurpm a collection ofSumerian and
Akkadla'n inmnmriom (Af0 Bc1h'cf¡ ll) (Graz: l958),' G. Mcier, Dü assynkchc
Bexchwom"ngssammlung Maqlú (Af0 Bexh'cft 2) (Bcrlin: 1937).
15. Sce funhcr, J. Lacssee, Srudxés on lhe Axyrían rilual and series bít n'mki,
(C0pen.hagcn: l955).
16. Some 140 of thesc tcxls have bcen collecled and studicd in various nrúcles by R.
Caph'cc. Scc R. Caplice, The Akkadian Numburbz uxrs: an inlroduum (SANE l/l)
(Malibu: Undena, 1974).
22617. A.L› Oppenhcim,Anaenl' Mcsopolamú (Chicago: Chicago Univcrsily Prcss, l964)

181 Oppcnheim, Ancinu Muopotamia l91.

th9. (|Ed4(.Kbcrel) ii:62-79; íu".'130-1; iíi:156-iv:l7l (J.C.L. Gíbson, Canaaniu
myl a gz s In urgh: T. & T. Clark 1978 83-84, 86-87,' TA 19 A h ' '›
184-6, 191-2 (Gíbson, op. cít., 120). , > C ( q wW
197290). Eg. I. Gmy, Thc Bíbhkal docrrint ofrhc rcign ofGod (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Cllrk,

ZL . F°f. a hthM , Proposal

_ _ concerning lhe kind of melh od lhal shuuld bc udo tcd m '
Udesctftblhnu lhe McrgñcnÀal lJtcralurc at Ugar¡|, scc G. dcl Olmu Lclc, 'Thc cullic
glnn crmmcuncal lilcrulpurc of
lssucs nnd (hcir ' " riun lu KTU l.|lZ', in K. Hcckcr '-lnd w~
lAENE - ÍHHLIOTECA
N."...I*...(CÍ.V/ ...... ......
v L›*./..L."... ..
 Sacnke in lhe Anaen'l Ncar East 103

Sommcrfcld (cd.), Kcüschñfdúhc Luer“atuml (Bcrlmc'r Bcimg'e zum Vordcrcn 0ncn't)

(Berlm': Reincr, l986) lSS-164.
22. A. Caquot and M. Sznyccr, Ugavink nbgwn" (Lciden: Br1I'l, 1980).
23. J.M. de Tamgon, Le ndu à Uganl Íapréx lcs texus de la prallqlu m aaúfm
alphabénqu's (Pans': Gabnlda, l980) 39.
24› R. de Vaux, Ancmu' Isnul (London: Dmon Longman & Todd, l965')440-441;
L. Rost, 'Erwãgungen 7u,m ismlisxjschen Brandopfer', m' Van Ugam' nach anu (FS
O. Eissfeldt) (Berlm': l958) 177-l83; R. Schm1d', DaxBuadesopln m lrracL Wm,
Urspnmg und Bedeunmg dcx AT Schelamvn' (Muních: Kose'|. 1964); D. G¡'l.|, 'ThyM' md
Flanmn": Questions to R. Schrm'd's Das Bundcsopfcr m' Isncl', Bü 47 (1966) 255-262.
25. J.C. dc Moor, 'The peaoe-offen'ng m' Ugnril znd Israd', m' Sckríft tn Unln (FS
W.H. Gispcn (l970) 112-ll7; B. Janowski, *Emgun'gcn zur Vorgeschjchlc dcs
mac'litischen ekumm"-Opícr', UF 12 (1980) 231-259.
26. G. von Soden, AHW 1268.
27. Conuzsl lhe vicws of B.A. chm'e, Iu llle pmmce ofdu Lard (SJLA S) (Lciden:
Bnll', 1974) 18›-20 and G.A. Andcxsom Saaiñczs tmd afknw m' Maau'1rmel(HSM 41)
(Atlanta: Scholars, l987) 44-49›
28. For a smul"ar conclus¡'on, sce G.A. Andexson, op.¡:í(., 34, 27-55.
29. Lv. 18121; 20:2-S,' 2 KL 23:10; Jc. 32:3S.
30. E.g., 2 Ki. 16:3; l7:3l; 21'.6; Je. 7:31; DL 12:31.
3L S. Bmwn argucs that Phoenman" chüd sacnñ'oc is um'que m' its positjve acctpunce
ofchxl'd-k111m"g m' a nhnl comcxt (Laze Canhaglmm cluld saaúu and xacnjínal momms
m' lheúMedumanean cmuexl USOTIASOR Monognph Scncs' 3) (Shefñdd: SAP, l991).
32. See e.g., R. dc Vaux, Ancw Imul (London: Danun, Lcmgman & Todd, 19652)
445-446; ]. Day, Moledu a god of klnnau mmjíu m lhe Old Testmnnu (Cambn'dgc:
Cambñdge Um'vem'ty thss, 1989) 86-9l.
33. 0. Exss'fcld1, Molk als Opferbegnlfm Pamuchen und Hebnmc"llm Imd dax Endc da
Gotm Maloch (Hnllc: Niemeyer, 1935).
34. G.C. Heíden Thz ndz ofMolek-. a nasmmmu (JSOTS 43) (Sheñcld: JSOT Pnss,
1985); ]. Day, Molcclu a god of humaa samfu m' Ilu Old TtMMI (Cambn'dgc:
Cambridgc Um'vcrsíry Press, l989).
35. Cf. Ps. SO:7-lS, and lhe phmsc 'brud/food of God' m' Lv. 21:6,l7,21,22; ctÍ
3.'ll,16; Nu. 28:2; Ezk. 44:7). This phrase has not yet been satisfaclorüy explam'ed,
lhough il sccms 10 bc a general tcrm covcnn'g all lsmcüle sacnñ'ccs.
36. Cf. c.g. Lv. l9:26; 2 Ki. 23224.
37. G. Ashby, Samfia: iu namu andpurpou (London: SCM, l988) 28.
38. A. Caqum has suggcstcd thc cxistencc of an equivalcm lO Yom Kippur nx Ugirit
(CTA 32), but Ihc comparison is cxtrcmely hypozheúcaL Thc lexl has no parallcl ín
Ugarilic rinuL md it is quile unclear whelher lhe evenl ms a rcgular or umque
occurrcncc. Cf. A. Caquot and M. Sznyocr, Ugaritic nltgwn' (Le¡dcn: Bnll', l980) 17-18.'
A. van Sclms, UF 3 (1971) 235-248; J.M. de Tarmgon, Leruln à UgaruKPmst Glbalda,
l980) 92-98.
39. de Tamgon, Lc culu à Ugmil 74.

FOR FURTHER READING

General

AVRÀVL Grecn, Thc mlc afhuman mcnjíce m lhc uncmu' Nmr East (ASORDS l) (Miuou|a:
Sdmlars. l97S).
J. Qunegebeur (ed.), Rírual and sucnjía ín lIu ancmu Ncur Ean (0n'emnlu' Lovnnicnsia
Andccu SS) (Lcuven: Pccncm l994).
 104 Sacnjíce' m' the Btb'le

W. von Sodcn, TIu cnaau' Onem' (Grand Rapidsz Eerdmans, l994) (Êl' of Gem
on'gmal', 1985) 18&-202.

Mesopotamia

R. Caplicc, The Akkadwn' mmlmrbí lexm an wrod'ucnon' (SANE l/l) (Maljbu: Undcna,
1974).
J. Laessac, Swdm' on tlu Anym ntual' and sam' lm nmln" (Copenhagen: Munksgurd,
l955).
G.].P. McEwa.n, Pnest' and tanple in Hellenútü Babyloma' (Wicsbadcn: Slcm'cr, I981).
A.L. Oppcnhum', AncunlÀ Mzmpommm (Chícago: Chicago Um'vcrsity Prcss, l964) 183-
l98.
E. Rciner, Surpw A collectm omeena'n and Alzkadm incamnow (Af0 Bcnhc'f( ll)
(Graz: l958).
A. Sachs, 'Akkadun' n'tuals', m' J.B. Pritchard (ed.), ANET 33l-345.
F. Thurcau-Dangm', Rinuls accadtm (Pans': Lcmux, l921)

Syna/P'alestm'e
A. Caquot and M. Sznyccr, Ugannc" reltgwn” (Lcídcn: Bnl'l, l980).
J. Day, Moledu a god of Iwman xamjía' mÀ thc Old Tmament (Cambn'dge: Cambñdge
Um'vcm'ty Press, l989).
G.C. Hcidcr, The mll ofMolok a rzassexmm USOTS 43) (Shcffield: JSOT Prcss, l989).
B. Janowski, 'Erwãgungen zur Vorgeschíchte dcs israeliusc'hen Selmum'-Opfer', UF 12
(1980) 231-259.
J.C. de Moor, 'Thc pcacc›offcn'ng m' Ugarit and Ismel', m' Sduift en Uitleg (FS W.H.
Gíspcn) (1970) 112-117.
H. Rm'ggrcn, Imulíu relxgzon" (London: SPCK, l969) 158~169.
J.M. de Tamgom Le mlle à Ugaril d*aprês les uxm de la pmnque' nl cunlifomu
alphablqu (Plns': Glbalda, l980).
 7
Sacnü'ce ín the World of tbe
NeW Testament

ROGER T . BECKWITH

This chaptcr is a countcrpart to M.J. Sclman's chaptcr 'Sacnñ'cc m' thc

Ancient Near East'. Jusx as Lhat chaptcr provídcs a contemporary contcxt
for OT tcachmg on sacnñ'ce, in thm chaptcr somethmg sum"lar ¡s' attemptcd
for NT teachmg on sacn'ñcc. The contemporary context here is not
Babyloman and Canaanite but Greco-Roman and Jewísh, for Chrísüamty
was on'gmal'ly a Jewísh faith, ñrst preachcd and practised among Iews,
but among chs who livcd in a world where Grcck culturc and Roman
power rcígncd supreme.
Thc Lraditional religion of the Grecks and Romans was a form of
polythcism, in which somc of thc gods worshippcd wcrc bcncvolcnt and
othcrs malevolcm, and m' which cven thosc who wcrc bcnevolem sharcd
Lhc vices as wcll as thc v1rtu'cs of theu" worshippcrs. Thc gods wcrc
worshjppcd by sacrxíi'ce, and, as m° Judaísm, both amma°l and vcgetablc
offenn'gs werc madc, though Lhc dctaücd cercmonial d1ff'crcd from
Judaism considcrably, and frcc usc was made of una'gcs as the repre-
scntativcs of Lhe gods. The purposc of sacnñ'ce also had various
sun11"ar1'u'cs to Judaism. Thank-offermgs', propitiatory offcrmgs and
sacred meals were pracu'sed, and very frequemly sacnñ'ces wcrc offered in
fulñlmem of vows, which had been made to sccure somc beneñt. Sacnñ'ce
was maml'y concemcd with sccurmg eanhly bcncñts and avcmn'g earthly
disastcrs, and wholc offeríngs werc madc for the laner purposc Io the gods
and spin'ts of thc underworld. Two markcd differenccs from chish
Sacnfi'cc wcrc that human sacnñcc was not cxcluded, and thal m' thc
ecstatic cult of Dionysus (Bacchus), thc worshippcrs wcrc belicvcd to eat
the1r' dcity in his amm'al rcprcscntau'vc.
Not surprism'gly, tradiúonal Greco-Roman religion had comc under
criticism from philosophers and poets, on both rau'onal and moral
gmunds. By m um'es, a more spu'1'mal notion of the supreme God was
106 Sacnjía' in thc Bible

becoming common among Greeks and Romans, and vírtue was beconúng
recogn12'ed as thc supreme good. The valuc of sacnñ'ce had bccome a
matter of dispute, though stül gencrally practised and cvcn m'sisted
u r1.l
Anpo interestmg applícation of sacnñ'cx'al ideas ín Greek and Roman
literature ís thc subject of Martm HengePs book The Atonemean He
draws attemion to thc frequent theme of the dym'g hero, givmg hís lüe for
his people or hxs' friends. He sees this idea reñected m' Jn. 15213 and R0m.
S:7, and considcrs, plausíbly enough, that it came into Judaism from
Greek sources m' thc m'tertcstamental períod. Occasíonally, thosc Greek
herocs Who die for theu' people are said to die for the nation's laws, and he
compares this with the Maccabean heroes, who gam'cd an everlasting
namc by dying, not iust for their pcople, but for thclr' God and his laws
(l Macc. 2:50-51,64; 6244; 2 Macc. 13:14). There is also an exhortatíon to
be w1ll'm'g to díe for God's truth m' Ecclesiasticus (er'. 4:28),' and in
Dam'cl, which Hengcl dates in thc same period, Shadrach, Meshach and
Abednego are commended for yíeldmg Lheü bodies, that Lhey míght not
serve nor worship any god, except thcü own God (Dn. 3:28). The parallel
with Greek ideas is m' the last two passages rather remote, and even thc
Maccabees were much more markedly relígious m' the1r' a1m's than 1heu~'
Greek countcrparts; but Hengel ís probably right in arguíng that thc
emphasís of thc Maccabean literature on thc pcrsonal hcroísm of thc
Maccabces is rather morc Grcck than chrcw m' origin.
Though thc examples of Samson and Jonathan, dym'g for theír pcople
and praiscd for ít, can be quoted from thc 0T, thc OT is remarkably
restramed m' givm'g glory to men, and constantly emphasües that all glory
rightly belongs to G0d. Nor is thís truth absem from thc Maccabcan
literature, which leaves one in no doubt that the source of thc hcroism of
the Maccabees was Lhek faith m' the Lord.
As chgel goes on to say, m' Greek and Roman üterature thc hero dym'g
for his pcoplc is often spokcn of m' sacnñ'cial terms and is said to atonc for
thcm. At these pom'ts religious languagc is certaml'y used, and it is
sacnfi'cíal m' character. The danger that threatens thc nation ís traced to
thc anger of thc gods, pcrhaps provoked by a human crnn'e, and thc hero
who averted that danger at thc cost of his own hf'e is considered to have
appcased thexr' anger. Hengel m'tcnm'ngles these m'stances with examples
of the hom'ble practice of human sacnñ'ce, presumably becausc no clear
distmction is drawn m' hís sources; but only 1f' thc human sacnfi'ce was
voluntary can thc parallel wíth thc other examples be considered close.
In thc Founh Book of Maccabees, whjch is a moralizmg work of thc
ñrst century AD, strongly mñ'uenced by Grcck phüosophical thought, thc
story of certalh martyrs of thc Maccabean pcriod is retold. They did not
die m' banle (hk'e many of those discussed hitherto) but were cruclly
executed for their faith. Theu" deaths are spoken of m' sacrmcial terms, as
an atoncment for thc natíoxL The dym'g words of one of thc martyrs arez
 Sacríjíce in the World of the New Ttsuzment 107

Be mercxf°ul to thy peoplc, and be satisñed with the pum'shmem of me on thir

accounL Let my blood be a punñcation for thcm, and takc my hf'e m'
recompense for theu's (4 Macc. 6:28-29).

Elsewhere the wrilcr commems:

They became a recompense for the sm' of the mu'on, and the Dívme
Providence saved Israel, prcvíously afñictcd, through thc blood of rhosc pious
ones and the pr0p1'ua'u'on of theü dcaLh (4 Macc. l7:22).

Hengel does not quote thcse passages, and it seems doubtful whether thcy
go back to the same source as thc matenal' he mentíons. Smce they arc
cases of unjust execution, they rather recall the Suffermg Servam ofIsauah'
53, who, despite his mn'ocence, ls' unjustly oppresscd, iudged and cut off,
and whose grave is made with the wickcd (vv.7-9), and who is sm'd'arly
spoken of as a sacnñ'ce for the sm' of the nation (v.10, cf. v.8). Onc is also
forcibly remm'ded of the cxccution of Jesus Christ, lhc most m'nocent of
all sufferers, whose death was bemg sacníi'cmll°y m'terpretcd by h1m'self
and his díscíples at about Lhe same period when 4 Maccabces was wn'tten.
To pass on now from thc Greco-Rornan to the morc purcly chish
context, the ñrst thm'g to note is that thc líteral sacnfi'ces of thc
Pentateuchal Law werc st111' beíng offercd m' the NT period, and conúnucd
to be offered unnl' the destrucúon of the Temple by thc Romans m' AD 70.
The most accessible comprehensive accoum of first-ccntury practíce 1s'
still that given by A. Edershe1m' m' his book The Temple: its Mm'u'try and
Services as they were at the lime offesus Chnkl (1874), bascd upon the
rabbm'ical litcrature, though in detaü it of coursc nccds to bc comparcd
with lalcr studies of the OT sacnñ'ccs. Edershe1m' acccpls, probably
rightly, thc statements of Josephus and the rabbim'cal literaturc about thc
general Lm'plementau'on of Pharisaic tcaching even m' the Temple.
Though the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes d1f'fered m' thcu'
interprctatíon of the Mosaic Law on many pom'ts, and though lhe
Sadducecs held the high priesthood from about l 10 BC onwards, yet such
was the m°ñucnce of the Pharisees with thc people thal m' practice the
Pharisaic m'terprctation was followcd.3 The Sadducean and Essenc
intcrpretations are known to us from literary records,4 but how far they
werc ever practísed is uncertmn'. The Saddueean and Essene m'terpre-
lations are both probably attcmpts to reform traditional Pharisaíc practíce
from Scrípture, and consequently have a good dcal m' common. Thcy
tcnd to opt for the morc obvious or literal meaning, as m' thc famous case
of Lv. 232 l l ,15, where they take 'sabbath' to mean thc weekly sabbath,
and not the rest-day of the fesu'val, as the Pharisees understood iL The
devotion of the Pharisees IO Iradition meant that certain additíonal
customs not mentíoned m' thc 0T, such as the water-p0uring at Lhe feast of
Tabernacles, were also practised in the Templc.
108 Sacrúle m' the Bible

In the Pharisaic conception of salvation, the placc of the rítual of the

Templc, and especml'ly of the grcat sm' offcring of the Day of Atonement,
was imponam but not basic. Pharisaísm was a religion of action rather
than reñccu'on, m' which the ñrst requ1r'ement was to obey God's Law,
onc pan of hls' Law (but only one) bem'g the law of sacnñ'ce. By obcdience
to any part of the Law one could achievc men't. The Pharisees did not
havc a clear conccption of the gravity of human sm', but (unlikc the
Sadducees) they díd belicve m' an indívidual futurc iudgcment after this
11f'c, and as the basis for this iudgemem they adopted the notion so
common m' human religions Ihat God w1ll' weígh our good deeds against
our bad and see which preponderate. However, they held that many oí
our evü deeds could be paid for m' advancc by suffering or dcath, or
atoned for by pcnítence and the sin offenn'g of the Day of AtoncmenL In
tlus' way a person's prosgects m' the iudgement to come could bc made
much more promísing. Thc NT idea Lhat God demands absolute
obcdience, and that anything less than this warrants condemnation (an
idea held not only by Paul, wíth his emphasís on faith, but also by James,
with his cmphasís on good works), is absent from standard Pharisaic
Lhmkm"g.
In the Intertestamental literature, the spm"tuahz'ation of sacr1fi'cial ideas
which we ñnd m' the Psalms and Prophets comm'ues. Examples arc SLr'.
35:1-3; Test. Lev. 3:6; IQS 8, 9,' Ph11'o, Som. 2:183. The m'stances from
the Dead Sea Scrolls are particularly m'teresting, because the Qumran
community had scparated itself from the Temple until better t1m'es
arrived, and was thus actually substitutmg spm"tual sacrmcc for líteral, to
a degree which even the Jews of the Dls'persion, who oould vns'ít the Temple
only ocmsionally, did not equaL When the Tcmple was destroyed m' AD 70,
rabbnm"c Judaísm followed a sxmüar" coume, as the prayers of the later Jewxsh'
líturgy m'dicate. Chn°st1am"ty had probably done so rather earlier m' the same
century (certainly Gentüe Chrisúanity), though Christianity of course saw
its great and only sacnñ'ce of atonement not in any spm"tual sacnñ'ccs
offercd by Chns'tíans but m' the death of Jesus ChrisL
Around the bcginnm'g of the Chn'sua'n cra, there was much dls'cussion
of Abrahamk unfulíilled sacrmce of Isaac - unfulñlled, bccause God
reiects human sacrnñ'ce, yet acceptable to God, because Abraham was
wúh"ng to surrender his dearest possessíon, his only son. An NT example of
this dlsc'ussion 1s' Heb. 11:17-19, but it ís also discussed m' 4 Maccabces,
the Bibhc'al Anuqúítús of pseudo-Ph11'o, the Aramaic Targums and the
rabb1m"cal literature. In these places ít is often stated that Isaac was
h1m'self wúhn"g to bc sacnfi'ccd, and that the sacnñ'ce was not only
acceptable to God, though unfulñlled, but atoned for Isaac's descendants.
G. Vermes has argued that the Akedah (or bm'd1n'g) of Isaac, as it is
usually called, provided a model for NT wrítcrs m' theü m'terprctations of
Jesus” death,° but as the earlicst examples of thjs traditíon of thmkm"g are
the least exph'cit, ít is d1fñ'cult to know which came ñrst. All that the
evidence of Hebrews entitles us to say is that the first Chrisuan's attached
 Sacnfic'e in the World of the New Textammt 109

xm'portance to Lhe wxllm"gness of the offerer of a sacnfi'ce both m' the

unfulñlled sacrücc offcrcd by Abraham and m' thc fulñlled sacnfi'cc
offered by Christ.
Therc was also at this period much dnsc'ussion of thc Suffermg Servant
of Isalah' 53. In later Judaism, as m' modem biblical srudy, thís mystcríous
ñgure has someum'es becn ídennfi'ed with Israel and someum'es wiLh the
prophetíc author, but as the prophecy itsclf exprcssly dístmguíshcs hun°
from both (from Isracl in v.9, and from Lhe prophct in vv.4-6), thesc
íntcrpretatíons havc never given much satisfaction. It is 1m'pomnt
therefore to note that m' thc carlier Jew15'h tradition, as represented by Lhe
Targum on the Prophets, the halakic midrash Síphre and the Babyloman'
Talmud, he |s' often idcntmed with the Messmh'.7 The NT clalm' that Jesus
was both the Messxah' and thc Suffenn'g Servant Was therefore cons1'stent,
m' this rcspcct, wíth contemporary Jewish m'terpretation. It was only after
Judaism had rciectcd Jesus as its Messxzh', and aftcr the dcchn'c of any
form of Jewish mcssmm"c expectaúon followm'g the faüure of the second
Jewish rcvolt of AD 135, that thc mcssmm"c m'terpretatíon of Isaiah 53 fell
m'to dísrepute, iust as the messianic m'terpretation of Daniel 9 díd at the
same pen°od.
The sacnfce of Jcsus utterly surpassed the anticipations of eithcr
Greco-Roman or Jewish rcligion. As chgcl pom'ts out, it did not iust
expíate a particular cnm'e or avcn a particular eanhly calamity, hk'e the
deaths of Greco~Roman heroes, but ít expm'ted all the sm's ofmankmd and
averted etemal iudgment, and thxs' before the Lribunal of the true God and
as an act ofhis dívm'e grace. Even so, the pre-cxisun'g bcliefs of thc Greeks
and Romans at least explam why thc Chns'tian mcssage was mcaningful to
them and found converts among them. Paradoxically, it was pcrhaps
bccause Jewish religion had less to leam that it was so unwülmg to leam
what it needed to. A messmh' who was divm'e as wcll as human, who by hls'
own sml'essness shamed the smfuln'ess of men, and challenged thcm to
accept atoncmem as a totally undeserved g1f't from God, proved a
stumblíng-block. Yet ít could hardly be denicd that his sacnñ°ce crcdibly
fulñllcd the shadows and prophecíes of thc OT, and in a way which
contcmporary Judaism could undcrstand, evcn though thc shadows and
prophecies were transcended by the fulfilmenn8

NOTES

l. A useful modem summary of sacnñce m' Grccchoman rcligion is found m'

F.M. Young, The Use of Samñcm"l Ideas m' Gmh cmm Wrítm (Cambridge
(Mass.): Phüadelphia Patrislic Foundatiom 1979), chap. L A fuller account is givcn by W.
Burken, Greek Rehgwn'”: Arthaíc and Classlkal (ET, Oxfordz BlackwclL 1985).
2. ET, Londonz SCM, 1981.
3. Thcre is a discussion of this qucstion m' R.T. BcckwiLh, The Old Teslamenr Canon of
thc New Teszamem Church (London: SPCK, 1985) 32-34.
4. In the case of the Sadduccan imcrprctation, we nrc depcndcm on the accoums givcn
in thc rabb1m"cal lítcrature, but m' the mse of lhc Esscnc m'lerprttauo'n we have thc cvndcn'cc
110 Samfic'e m' the BíbIc

of writings probnbly cmanating from (hc Essenes lhemsclvcs or lhcir prccursors, v¡z'. l
Enoch, thc Book of Jubüees, the Aramaic Testamcm of Levi and thc Qumran Tcmplc
ScrolL
S. It wül bc evident from this Lhzl Lhe vm'tcr cannot acccpl lhc revnlurínnnry accnum of
Ph¡n'sns'm given by E.P. Sanders m' his Paul and Palesm'xa'n judam (London: SCM,
1977)as true to lhc mcml sources. On rabbinícal idcas of alonemcnt. scc J. Jercmus', Tlu
Eucharürk Words othsus (ET, London: SCM l966) 229-231, and Búchler and Slrack-
Billcrbcck lhcxe quoxed.
6. Scrípnuz and Tradinon' in Judm (Sn¡dia Posx-Bíblica 4) (Lcidcn: Bn'll, l961)
chap.8. For a dlñ'erentv1'ew, sec P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton, 'The Aqedahz n Reviscd
Tndiúcn History', CBQ 40 (1978) Sl4-S46.
7. Sce A. Neubauer, S.R. Dn'ver and E.B. Puscy, The 53rd Chapm oflxmh' acurdw
w lhejewúh Interpmers (Oxfond: 1876-77; repnn'ted Ncw York: Ktzv, 1969).
8. Thc wn'lcr would l1k'e to acknowlcdge grcal hclp ín Lhe composition of this chapter
from mnlcmlÀ prepared by P.M. Head.

FOR FURTHER READING

W. Burken, Greek RellgWom Archaü and Classac'al (0xford: BlackwelL l985).

A. Edershum', The Tmple: u's Mímkny and Smntts as they werc at lhe m ofJenu Chrür
(London: Rcligious Tract Society, 1874).
M. Hzran, Tmplcs and Templeemu m' Anam Israel (Oxf0rd: Clarendon Prcss, l978).
M. HengeL The Axonemnu (Lond0n: SCM, l981).
 8
Tbe Self-Oñ'enn'g and Deatb of Cbrist
as a Sacnñ'ce m' tbe Gospels and the
Acts of tbe Apostles

PETER M. HEAD

The a1m' of this essay is Io m'vestigate and d15c'uss rhc ways m' which Lhc
four canonícal evnngehs'ts prescnt and m'terprcz the passíon and dcath of
Jesus of NazaretlL Of parúcular m'tcrest is whethcr and/or how thc ideas
and termmologíes of *sacnñ'ce' werc used by the evangelísts to express thc
signlñ'cancc of Jcsus' deszl chcrthclcss wc shall noI lmu"t our attcnúon
only to thosc passagcs which can be shown to ucat Jcsus' deaLh as
'sacnñ'cial'. Rather we shall discuss any such 'sacnf1'cxal" lcrmmology
withm the broader context of thc theologícal m'tenn'ons ofeach evangelisn
Our overall m'tcmion is conccmed with pmviding for, and conm'bunn'g
to, a bibljcal thcology of Jcsus' pasáon and deam So, for example, wc
shall bc m*tcrcstcd m' thc shapmg of Lhe wholc gospel narrau'ves,^ thc m'lcr-
prctative tachmgs of Jesus; and Lhe redactional (or cditoml') intcrests
thal appear m° thc passion namtives pmper. After discussing the gospels
m'dividually (Mark, Matthew, Lukc & Acts, Jolm), our conclusion wm
focus on thc common clements m' lhe1r' prescntau'ons.

I. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

Evcn the casual reader ofMark's gospcl is 1m'prcssed by Lhe action~packcd

style of the narrative,' the breathless succcssion of evems raccs bcforc us
from the abrupt begmn“m'g to the em'gmnu'c cnd1n'g of Ihc gospeL Thc
reader ís faced repeatedly with thc quesu'on, *Whu is lhis man?'. Intro-
duecd sun'ply 1n° thc opcnm'g vcrsc as 'Jcsus Chn'st', lhe qucstíon of his
idenlity is constantly poscd m' thc first half of Ihe bookz 'Wha( new
tcaching is this?' (l:27); '\Vho can forgivc sins bux God alone?' (2:7),'
'Wh0 then is üu's, that even wind and sea obcy hun'?' (4:4l); 'Where did
 112 Samfic't m' du Biblc
Lhis man gct all this.> What is thc wisdom given to h1m'?' (6:2); *Do you not
yet perccíve and undcrstand?' (8: l7,21); 'Do you see anytlun'g?' (8:23).
This comes Io a focus at 8:27 when Jcsus asks the disiplesz '\Vho do mcn
say that I am?' . . . 'But who do you say that I am?'
The uluma'te answer to dús question is found on Lhc lips of a Gcntüe
soldícr as hc sccs Jcsus die upon thc cross: 'Truly this man was thc Son of
God'.' (15:39). Hcrc is the chmax' to Mark's prescntau'on-not sun'ply that
Jesus can be rccogmzcd' only as *Son of God' at the pom't of his death, but
that his death m' some uniquc way exprcsses hís dívm'e sonsh.íp.2 The
un'portance of Jcsus' death for Mark is not rcally the subject of any
disputc. Thcre art caxly indications of his fate (2:20; 3:6),' and thc thcme
of conñict which is prominem m' Mark (particularly m' 2:1-3:6 and l l:27-
12.-40) provides thc human backdrop for thc cvents of the passion.
Many scholars rcgard thc passage which follows Jesus' question to
Peter as the key to Mark's m'terpretatíon of Jcsus” death. Followmg
Peter's answer: °You arc the Christ', and the command to secrecy, Jcsus
begms a new typc of Icachmg conccrning thc suffcrmg of thc Son of Man
(8:31-32). This saym'g is thc ñrst of thrcc passion prcdictions (8:3l ,' 9.'3l,'
10:33) which focus the attcntion of Lhe readcr on thc dcath and
rcsurrcction of Jcsus. They appear wíthm and provide the structural
framework for Lhc whole passage from 8:27-10:45.3 Thc structure of thns'
passage can be seen outlm'ed m' the table below:

Place Prediction Misunderstandln'g Teachm

Caesarea 8:27 8z3l 8.' 32-33 8.'34-37
Galüce 9.'30 9.'31 9.' 33-34 9.' 35-37
Judea lOzl 10:33-34 10.'35-41 lO:42-45

Thcre ls' little doubt that Mark prcsants hcrc a dclibcratc structurc.4
Throughout thc scction thcre Ls' a conun'um'g cmphasís on Jcsus' joumcy
to Jerusalem Concerning the passion predictions Lhemsclvcs threc thmg°s
attract attenu°on. Fus't, thc thu'd prcdiction (10:33-34) corresponds
panicularly closely wíth thc coursc of cvents chronicled m' Mark
(dclivercd to the Jews, l4:53,' semcnccd, l4:64,' scm to the Roman
authon'u'es, 15:1,10,' mockcd, spat upon, scourgcd, l4.'65,' lSzlS-20,'
kíllcd, lS:20-39,44; and raxsc'd from thc dcad, 16:1-8). Sccondly, thc
conm'tcnt usc of 'Son of Man' in thcsc sentcnccs. Thirdly, thc imponant
term dei ('ít ís necessary') is used in 8:31. It is ncccssary for the Son of
Man to suffcr becausc ít is thus written (9:12; l4:21). Whilc no OT
passagcs arc menlíoncd by Mark m' thís connectíom thc lheological
rau'0nalo-fulñlmcm of thc pmmim madc undcr thc old covcnam--m'
clcar, and in fact is cven more prommcnt in Matthcw and Lukc.s
Mark 10:3S-45 is the climax of this sc'ctíon. Third in lhe serics of
misundcrstandings~followed-by-teaching, il takes up Ihe question of
discíplcshíp in some dctaiL panicularly m' rclalíon to Jcsus' dcalh. In
answcring thc question raíscd by twu tüsc1'ples, Jcsus rcfcrs to his
 Chrút ax Samjíc'e ul' Gospcls and Acts 113

1m'pending suffenn'g m° tcrms of a cup which must be drunk and a

bapu'sm. 'Bapu'sm' su§gcsts the scnsc of bem'g ovcrwhclmed by somc
disaster or cataslrophc. Sum"larly, 'cup' is a wídely uscd symbol in lhe 01',
wherc it is uscd to m'dicatc somconc's dcstiny or fate, m' both good and
bad scnscs (c.g. Pss. ll:6; 16:5,' 23:S). Thc most pmminem aspecl of thc
background is m' the usc of 'cup' to dcscribc a vhitalion of God's wmh.
The locus classtc'u: is Is. 51:l7-22 whcrc lhc pcoplc of Jerusalcm are
dcscríbcd as those 'who havc drunk at thc hand of thc LORD thc cup of lns'
wralh, who have drunk to thc drcgs the bowl of smggenn'g.'7 This usage
comm°ued to bc used down to thc ñm ccmury and is found m' scvcral
chish sources comemporary with thc NT.' Thus thc suffermg to which
Jesus looks forward is not mcrely pom'tlcss mn'occnt suffen'ng, but the
terriblc spcctre of alicnation from God and suffcrmg under hís wmh
(cf. Mk. 15.'34).9
A funher mxs'understandm'g on Lhc pan of the other disciplcs pmvokes
funher tcachmgz mst'cad of scekmg positions of authoñry (hk'e thc Gcmüe
rulers), thc disciplcs must bc scrvants and slavcs. Indeed, accordmg Io
v.45, thc mxss'ion of the Son of Man m'volved exactly the km'd of scrvice
which thc dlsc'iples are to exhibiL The ñml phrasc of tlus' verscz 'and Io
give h1s' hf'e as a ransom for many' refers lo thc ulumtc cuhmmtion ofthe
Son of Man's scrvice as hh dcath (as m' 8:31; 9:3l,' lO:33-34) which he
hcre m'tcrprets for us as a 'ransom for many' (lyrron anti poüon'). For Mark,
dus' vcrsc supplics thc foundation upon which the 1m1"tnu'on of Chns't
must be based. As Best saysz

Verse 4Sb offcrs a suiublc endmg' lo Lhe lona Iecuo'n on dm"pluhíp wlnch'
commenced Il 8.27, Íor il bnngs' lhedealh ofOlnn'backm'lomcccnue oflhe
p1c'ture; thc discussion began fmm the ñm prcdiction of thlt dalh (8.3|).
Morcover m' providmg' nn m'terpreuu'on of Ihe dcath il openn up lhe way Íor
thc ñml ioumcy to Jerusalem nnd the punbn itsclf.'°

The phrasc lytmn amí pollõn is obviously a crucnl' onc fmm our pom't of
vicw. lylmn gcncmlly rcfers to 'moncy pnid n a nnsom' and is cua~
tomarüy uacd with rcspcct to thc rclcase oÍ pnso'ncrs of vm andlor alaves
and to rclcasc from n bond.“ Allhough the ransom pricc (m' the LXX)
denolcs a subsúlutjonary pa mem,” il is ncver (unlnk'c lhc vcrb) linkcd
specxñcally with a sacn'ñcc.' The substitutionary nalurc of 1hls' phrasc ia
clearly illusmncd m' thc parallcl in Joscphus (Ant. l4.107). Joscphus
rcports Lhc visit of Crassus (govemor of Romm Sym' from 54 Bc) w thc
Tcmplc m' Jcrusulcm Hc bcgnn to collcct a lot of moncy and m'lcnded to
srrip nll thc gold from lhc sanctuary. Eleazar lhc pricsl saw Lhis and gave
him a bar of gold as n mnsom for all the rcst (u?n dokon auló lén chvysln
lymm ami panum' edo'ken). Crassus gavc Elcam nn ussumnce thm hc would
not stcal nnything clsc, hul would lakc th gift, obviously funcu'onm3' na a
suhstilute (the fact that Crassus rencgcd and violatcd his oalh by sledmg'
thc gold anyway docs nol changc thc meanmg nf lhc phrasc hcn).
114 Sachz m' zhe Bible

This passage speaks clearly of Jesus' supreme sel.f-sacnñ'ce, although il

is less clear that an allusion to any specmc OT sacnñ'ce is bcm'g made. Thc
parallels betwoen this passage and Isaiah 53 have been oftcn discusscd,
and no conscnsus has yct bcen rcached among scholars. “ Barrett argued
that 'the mñ'uence of Isa. 53 upon Mark 10245 is by no means so clear and
unambiguous as ís often supposed'. '5 If there ís a referencc to Isa¡ah' 53
hcre Ihen it could be argued that, sm'ce m” Isalah' the Servam is given /
gives hís own hf'c as an offcnn'g for sm' (Heb. )ã§ãm), thereforc *thc
Messianic Servant offcrs h1m'self as an ':m' m' compcnsation for thc sm's of
the people, m'terposm'g for them as Lhe1r' substitutc'.16 If Jesus idenufi'cs
h1m'sclf with thc Servant, he Lhereforc claJm's that his death shall be the
atonmg sacnñ°ce or guüt offerm'g referred to m' Is. 53:10. But thc allusion
is far from certain, the rext speaks of ransom (from slavery?) tather than
forgíveness (of sm's), and ít secms unwíse to base too much on what 15' not
actually clcar m' Mark's texL Nevertheless, although at one level this text
ls' theologícally rcstrained, ít offers an 1m'portant poínter to Mark's
undcrsnanding of Icsus death as a substitutíonary ransom for many. It is
diñicult to conceive how such an idea can be enur'ely divorced from an
associaúon with sacnñ'cial categories.
A clear allusíon to sacr1ñ'cíal mtcgories does occur m' Marles narrative
of Ihc last supper (Mk. l4:22-25). The m'stitutional words of Jesus,
particularly v. 24, “This ís my blood of the covcnant, which is poured out
for many', clearly echo Ex. 24:8, where Moscs formahz'ed thc terms of the
covenant by taking the blood from bumt offerm'gs and pcace offcrings,
and threw halfof it agamst the altar, and half of it over the people, saym'g,
'Behold Lhe blood of the covenam which the LORD has made with you m'
accordance with all thcse words. ' Thc dcath of Jesus ís obvíously rcgarded
here as a SLm1J"ar covenant-m'auguraun'g-sacnfi'ce (note agam' that ít is not
connected explícitly with sm' or expiation). The vicarious nature of the
sacnñ'ce ís presented-'poured out for many)_in words which are again
renu'm'scent of Is. 53:12: “he poured out his soul to death'. The beneñt
accrues IO *many' (cf. lO:45), probably understood here as the m'clusive
*many* of the covenam community.l7
Also relevant to our discussion is the fact that the meal is a passover
suppeLm Jesus appropriates the contcnt of the paschal lamb 1m'agery, ín
order to speak of the redemptive power of God m' makíng his covenant
operative, through his sacnñ'cial deathz
hls' dealh ls' Lhe vicarious dcath of the suffcnhg servanl, which atoncs for the
sms ofthe 'many', . . . which ushers m' thc begmn'm'g of the ñnal salvation and
which cffects Lhe ncw covenam with God.19

Mark's passíon narrative contams no obvíously sacníi'cxa'l interpretation

of Jesus' death.2° Thc mam' theme would appear to be Lhe k1n'gsh¡p of
Jcs›us.21 This km'gship ls', however, ponrayed ralher 1r'onically: Jesus is
mocked as *ng' of the Jews' (Mk. lS:9, 12, 2(›-32),22 only to bc maní-
fcstcd as “Son of God' (i.e. Messxam"c Km'g) at lús death (15:39).
 Chrü as Samfíc'e m' Gúspelx and Acu llS

II. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATYHEW

Matthcw begms hís gospel (Mt. l:l) with the dec1s'ive añirmation that
Jesus is both Jewish Mcssiah ('Son of Davíd*) and Gentüe hope ('son of
Abraham', i.e. fulñllcr of God's promises to Abraham that he would blcss
all natíons through Abraham's sced). Hc funhcr imroduccs Jcsus to the
rcader m' chapters 1 and 2, dcscribmg who hc is (Jesus, Emmanucl ctc.,
chap.1), and where he came from (ch:-1p.2).23 Whüe many of the themes
and terms from chapters l and 2 come together again at the conclusíon of
the gospcl (Mt. 28: 1(›-20),24 at least one (the m'terpretau'on of the namc of
Jesus in l:21) is grounded for Mzmhew m' the dcath of Jcsusz
you shall call hjs namc Jcsus, for hc wül save his peoplc from lhelr' sm's.z S

Herc Manhew anticipates Jesus' teaching m' 26228 (sce bclow). Through
his death, 'his people' (that is Lhe ekklêsia, both Jews and Gcnul'cs) wül
reccive salvation from sm' (a fundamcntal aspect of thc blessm'gs of
messxam"c salvau'on2°). Matthew does not herc providc any answer to the
question how Jcsus would save his people from theír sm's, and m'deed,
throughout the gospel Matthew pom'ts to lhe avaüabüity of salvation
(m'cludxn'g forgiveness) dunn'g the earthly ministry of Jesus (e.g. 8'.16-17;
9:8; 12:l7-21).27 chertheless, it seems clear Ihat Matthcw 1s' antícipat-
ing thc atoncmcnt obtamcd by Jcsus” dcath.
Matthew's gospel ls' structured, m' part at least, along morc topical hn'es
than Mark. He tcnds to bnn'g togethcr logical groups of saymgs and Lhcn
mkacle stories.28 He also holds all teachmg about Jesus, dcalh umü aftcr
thc disclosure of Jesus' Messiahship m° 16:16, which lends support lo Lhe
vicw that 16'.21-22 is the most importam structural division in thc wholc
gospeL29 While the whole section 16:Zl-28:20 can thcrcfore be sajd to
dcal with 'thc Suffen'ng, Death, and Resurrection of Iesus',3° thc passíon
predictions m' Matthew are presemed m' a much lcss structured manncr
than m' Mark (see 16:21-22; l7:22-23;20:18-l9;26:2). The result of this
is that lhe ransom saym'g (20:28) is not as chnm'ctically placed m' Matthew
as in Mark. Thc ordcring of rhe cvents of the passion and thc wordm'g of
both thc ransom saymg and thc words of m'stitution gencrally follow Mark
cxactly. One charactcristic nole, which we have already menu'oned, is the
addition of the phrase “for thc forgiveness of sm's' to thc words of
instilutiom “for this ís my blood of the covenam, which is poured out for
many for the forgiveness of sm's' (26:28). Here Manhew reveals zhc locus
of forgiveness, the means by which forgiveness is madc avañable-thc self
offering and death of Jcsus.31
Matthew's passion narrative cmphasúes scveral themes when com-
pared with that of Mark.32 None of these relates du'ectly to a sacnñ'cial
understandíng of the dealh of ]esus, but several arc of un'ponance. In
paru'cular, lhe OT background of the passion is spelled out more clearly
(e.g. the general statement of 26:54; also quotations in 27:9-10 from Je.
3217 and Zc. ll:12, and ín 27:43,50 from Ps. 22).33 In connection with
 116 Sacnfic'e m' the Bíble

this it should also be noted that Jesus is presented more explicitly as

Messiah (26:68; 27:l7,22), and Lhat the eschatologícal s1'gmfi'cancc of
Jesus' death is spclled out more fully (pam'cularly m' 27:Sl-53, but also
26:52-54; 27:3-10, l9).34 Thus Matthew appears to rcgard the death of
Jcsus as thc chm'ax of the fulñlment theme which has bcen promment
throughout the gospeL Th1s' also coheres with Lhe christologícal m'terest m'
Matthew's passíonz it is Jesus the Messmh' who is also Son of God and
appears m' control of evems, who gives h¡m'sclf 'a ransom for many'.35
Thus Manhew stands m' the traditíon of Mark. He sees the death of
Jesus as the sacnñ°ce of the new covcnant, and understands it along thc
lm'cs of ransom and substitution (without spelling these out 1n' any way).
Matthew also cmphasxz'es the fulíilmcnt of scripture and the eschatologi~
cal sigmñcance ofJesus' deathz ít is the source and ground of the blessmgs
of the Messíaníc Age (m'cludm'g, promm'ently, forgiveness of sm's).

III. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE AND THE

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Of all the gospels, Luke's alone has a sequeL In Acts, Luke begm°s by
refcmn'g back to the gospelz 'In the ñrst book, O Theophüus, I have dealt
wiLh all that Jesus began to do and teach . . .' (Acts l. l). Thc historical
pcrspectivc m'volvcd m' thls' two-volume story of Jesus' m1m"stry has led
many scholars to suggest Lhat Luke díspenscs with both apocalyptic and
atonement m' connectíon with his presentation of the death of Jesus.
Kase“mann suggested that m° Luke: °a theologza' glona'e is now m' process of
replacmg the theologzh aucts'.'3° By this he means that “the Cross of Jesus is
no longet a scandal but only a misunderstandmg on thc part of Lhe chs
which the m'tcrventíon of God at Easter palpably and man1f'cstly
corrects.'37 P.G. Voss summanz°ed his d15c'ussíon of Luke's theology of
Lhe death of Iesus by scauhg that 'm' Luke the death of Jesus has neither
the character of a sacnñ'ce nor is it understood as an atonm'g work.'38
There is no reason, of course, why every wn'ter in the NT should
emphas1ze' the atonmg 31'gmñ'cance of Jcsus' death, or m'dced unhzc"
sacnñ'cxal' tcrmm'ology to do so. It seems hk'ely, howcver, that this víew
over-emphas1zes' the d1ff'ercnccs between Luke and the oLher gospels. It is
cleaI that Lhc sermons m' Acts often mention the death of Jesus (Acts
2.~23_24, 36,- 3.-13_15, 18; 4.-1o,- 5.-3o,- 7.-52,- 10.-39,- 13:28-29; 2o.-28),39
although the focus tcnds to be on hxs' rcsurrection as God,s sign of víclory
ovcr death (2:24-28, 3I-32; 3:13-15, 26,' 4:10,' 5.'30, etc.). Forgívcncss of
sms' 1s' another prommcm element ín the apostolic preachm'g, avaüable to
thosc who rcpent and bclieve (2:38; 5:3l; 10:43; 13.'38,' 26218; cf. Lk.
24:47). The blessm'gs of salvatíon (whether 'forgiveness of sins', healm'g,
or rcceipt of the Holy Spm"t) are never predícated exclusívely upon thc
dcath of Chns't, but arc rather sccn as products of the whole complex of
his death-rcsurrecu'on-asccnsion (so clearly m° 13.'38-39: '. . . through
 Chm'1 as Sacnjíc'e m' Gospeb and Acu H7

this man . . . by h1m' . . .').“° In addín'on, Luke rcpons that Lhe carly
preachers commonly referred to Jesus as God's *Servant' (Gk. pats'; 3:13,
26; 4:25, 27, 30). Whilc this term could mcan 'child', it seems hk'c1y that
the servant passagcs of Isana'h were in the background (cf. the quotation of
Is 53:7-8 m' Acts 8:32-33). Jesus ls' 1'denuñ'ed (in his suffermg and
hum111"ation) with the scrvant of Isaiahf1 In additíon, Lukc also records
Paul's statement to the Ephesían elders m' 20:28 (RSV): *Take heed to
yourselvcs and Io all the ñock, m' which the Holy Spm"t has made you
overseers, to care for thc church of God which he obtamed with thc blood
of his own Son.' Whatcver is made of this vcrse (and the d1fñ'culu'es are
both textual and gmmmau'ca.l), it should certaml'y be rcgarded as an ocho
of Pauhn'e teachmg on the death of Christ2 whetcby the church was
constjtuted through an act of rcdemptionfz
In his gospel Lukc has Jesus' death m° focus long before the narratívc of
the passion ítself. When Moscs and Eliiah appear at thc transñguration
they spcak of thc 'dcparturc which hc chusl was to accomplish at
Jerusalem' (Lk. 9:31). It 1s' possible that Luke uses the tcrm cxodos hene 1n'
order to make a parallel between Jesus' dcath and thc exodus from Egypt
(i.c. God's act of rcdemption which m'augurated the Mosaic covenam).
From this momcm the narrative begm's to focus on the approach to
Jerusalcm and to Jesus' death (cf. the passion prcdictíons m' 9:22, 44).43
In particular Lk. 9:51 scts thc scenc for thc m'terprctau'on of Lhc long
Lravel section (Lk. 9:52-l9:27): 'When the days drew near for h1m' to bc
received up, hc sct his face to go to Jemsalem.' Thc RSV herc preserves the
ambiguíty of the word analem'pns', which could refer either to Jesus' dcath
or to his asccnsion.“ Luke h1m'sclf, of course, could be awarc of thls'
ambiguity, and havc m' mind thc dcath-rcsurrccu'on-asccnsion of Iesus
understood (as m° the sermons m' Acts) as a unity. It is tlus' long scction
which contams not only regular notices of thc advance to Jcrusalcm (e.g.
Lk. 13:22, 33,'l7:11;18:31, 35; l9:l, ll), but also two more prcdictions
of Jesus' passíon (l7:25; 18'.31-3›4›).45
Luke 22 contams what can be described as Jesus' farewell address to hxs'
disciples.“ As such thc wholc passage assumcs a grcat 1m'portancc m'
assessmg Lukc's undcrstanding of the death of Jesus. Wc shall discuss
here three passagesz 22: l9, 20 concerning thc bread and thc cup, 22:24~
27 (and Luke's omission of Mk. 10.'45), and thc issue of the fulñlmem of
Is. 53.-12 m' 22.-37.47
Lukc clearly prescms the last supper (22:14›-22) as a passover meal
(w.7, 15), and describes traditional passover rituals (m'cluding two scp-
aratc cups, vv. l7, 20). Thc m'tcrprctation of thc brcad and wm'c (1n' l9b,
20) is as followsz
Thls' is my body which is givcn for you.
This cup which is poured out for you is the new covcnanl in my blood.

This whole passage ís omitted in some manuscripts (Codex Bczae, the

Old Lann' and thc early Syriac versions), and thus by somc English
 118 Sacnfic'e m' the Biblz

uanslations (notably REB). As a consequence, d1ff'erenccs of opuu"on

conccmmg the authcntícity of this text have rcsultcd in dnff'ercnt views of
Luke°s theology.“ In this casc, however, the omission is lmu"ted to only
one branch of Westcm tcxts, and the vast maiority of manuscrípts (bolh
carly and of diverse provcnancc, m'cludíng p75 and the maior uncíals)
include the long vcrsíon, and thus recent commentators have regarded its
overwhelming attestaúon as 'the decisive argument m' favour of the Long
Tcxt' Íg
Essentially wc have two parallel statements, the first concerning the
body of Jcsus, which ís gíven hyper hymon' ('for you'),' and the sccond
concemmg his blood, pourcd out hyper hymon' ('for you'), which is (seals?)
the new covcnam. The term 'ncw covenam' is an obvious allusion to Je.
31:31 (LXX 38:31), brought m'to bcmg here by means of Jesus' blood
(i.e. dcath). There is almost certaml'y another allusion to Ex. 24:8:
'Behold the blood of the covenam', especíally 1f' we recall the passover
settm'g. Both parts of the saym'g ínclude reference to the vicaríous nature
of Jesus' dcath, and both verbs, 'givcn' and °pourcd out', in this context
bear a sacr1ñ'cial connotatíon.5° The last phrase, 'poured out for you', ls'
remimscem of Is. 53212 ('he poured out his soul to death'). In view of the
more general parallel 1n' which pourm'g out of one's blood sxm'ply means
death (e.g. Gn. 9:6; Is. 59:7; Ezk. 18.'10,' Lk. ll:50) it is 1m'possibleto bc
sure whcther Luke m'tends an allusion to Isaiah here, but 1f' we note
Luke's quotalion from Is. 53212 below (22:37), this could be regarded as
an amicípation of that passagc.
The conclusion to be drawn from this discussion ís that Luke does
present Jesus' death as a sacnñ'ce. There are allusions to the covenam
sacnfi'ce, the sacnfi'ce of the passover, and a generally vicaríous sacnñ'cial
dcath, all within Ihis one double phrase. In the context of the last suppcr
Jesus proclaims a new passover mcaL Hís body ís ín placc of 'thc bread of
affliction' (Dt. 16:3) and his poured out blood is in place of the passover
sacrííice, marking out, as ít were, those who are the Lord's (cf. Ex.
12:13). At the same um'e, Jesus' death is regarded as the means by which
the new covcnam ís inaugurated. Thís coheres with other Lukan passages
whcrc i¡ was through Jesus' death (and resurrection-ascension), that
forgívcncss of sm's was made avaüable (characteristic of the new covcnam
of Je. 31.'34, and emphasized ín Acts), and the church of God was
constjtuted as his people (Acts 20228 cf. Je. 31233-34).
If Luke regarded Jesus' death in this way, it is fair to ask why he does
not teproducc the ransom saying ín Mk. lO:45 (par. ML 20.'28),
particularly sínce Lk. 22:24-27 seems to parallel the passages in Matthew
and Mark apart from the closing saying. The likcly solution to thís
question is that Lukc is not following Mark (or Matthcw) at Ihis poim,
but is recalling an independem tradition.Sl Of the sixty-seven words in
Luke,s account, only ñfteen are paralleled ín Mark, and out of that ñfteen
Icn are rclatively m'signiñcam (pr0nouns, particles, articlcs). lndecd the
descriptions of the Gentile leaders and thcir activíty are diffcrent, as are
 Chm't a: Sacnñc'e ín Goapels and Acn 119

Lhe terms of thc parallel ms'trucu'on (Mark uses the concrasts greadscrvant
and ñxstlslavq whüe Lukc has grcatcstlyoungcst and leadcr/servant).
Tlus' passagc should bc placcd 1n' thc samc catcgory as Lk. 5.'l-ll and
13:6-9. At all thrcc places Lukc appears to havc access to tradiúons which
overlap with Mark, but prefers to m'clude the m'dependcnt mdiu'on. This
somewhat defuses Lhe argumcm that Lukc objccted to the sacnñ'c1al'
m'tcrpretation of Jesus” dcath, but it docs suggcst (assum1n'g ofcoursc that
Lukc kncw Mark) that Lukc was not m'tcrcstcd m' emphasmn"g this
panicular undcrstandmg of Jesus' dcath (Lhc evidencc of Acts and thc
passíon narrativc proper bear this out).
The next passagc of m'terest Ls' 22:37. Here Jesus has taken the uu"tm'tivc
and asked the disciples about the1r' provisions for thc mission (cf. Luke
10). They lackcd nothmg thcn, but now, m' Lhe líght of the approachmg
passion, he warns thcm to bc prcpaxed and makcs thc (probably 1r'om'c)
commcnt about the swords. Versc 37 quotes from Is. 53.'12 and can bc
taken m' two ways: on the s1m'plest level it could mean that the
approachmg passion m°volves the servant (i.e. Jesus) bem'g m'creasmg'ly
opposed by transgressors. On the other hand, m' view of the cmphatic
m'troductory and concludmg formulae, 'that which is writtcn about Jesus'
(22:37b) would bc his dcath (cf. Luke's m'sistcnce on the necessity of
Jesus' death becausc ít is writtenz 18:3l; 24.'26-27, 46). Thc quotation
then m'terprets that dcath vicariouslyz Jesus the scrvant is reckoncd with
the smn'ers. Thus the next phrasc m' Is. 53:12: 'he bore the sm' of many'
could also be m' view. In light of what wc said about Luke's use of Isaiah
53 m' Acts, and his understandmg of Jcsus' dcath ín thc preccdm°g vcrscs
of chap. 22, thís sccms to be thc morc hk'cly view.sz
We have littlc space for an examjnation of Luke's passion narrau've.5 3
Many scholars have noted that Luke presents Jesus as a martyr figure,
emphasm'm'g Jesus' mn'ocencc, his ñrm rcsolve and ñnal conñdcnce
(23:28, 34, 43, 46).54 It is foolish, however, Io oppose a martyrological
presemation to an atomnÀg 0ne, sm'ce m' 4 Maccabces that is cxactly the
pom't: the dcath of the manyr atones for sm' (cg. 4 Macc. 1:10-ll,' 6:28-
29; l7:20-22).
Thus it may fau'ly be concluded that, whüe Luke does not emphasnze'
thc sigmñ'cance of Jesus' dcath as a sacrlñ'cc, it Ls' a category with which hc
ís fannh"ar. Further, m' rcportmg thc msútutional saym'g and thc
preachmg of Lhe early apostlcs m'cludm'g Paul, Lukc 1'denuñ'es Jcsus'
death as thc new covcnant sacr1ñ'cc. As such, it is the mcans by which
forgivencss of sm' is providcd and the mcans by which God's new
covcnant pcople are constituted (m' fulñlment oí ]e. 31'.31-34).

IV. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

It is a truism to say that John's gospcl is morc christologically explicit than

the three synoptic gospelsz °In thc begmnmg was Lhc Word and the Word
 120 Samhe ín the Bible

Was with God and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became ñesh
and dwelt among us, full of grace and truLh,' we have bcheld his glory,
glory as of the only Son from the Father' (Jn. lzl ,l4). The prologue sets
the scenc and provides the thcological framework for the rcst of the
gospeL Many scholaxs regard the confession of Thomasz 'My Lord and
My God' as the chmax° (20:28). Accordm'g to this view, John*s purpose is
fulñlled when his raaders also believe as Thomas does (cf. 20:3›1).ss
There ís a tendcncy among some scholars to regard John's chn°stologi-
cal presentau'on, especíally the emphasis on Jesus as revealer of the
Fathcr, as cxisting m' somewhat uneasy tcnsíon with the tcachmg about
the passion and dcath of Jesus. Kãsemann for example was temptcd to
regard the passion narrative 'as bem'g a mere postscripf to the gospeL56
Bultmann argued that the atonement language comam'ed withm' the
gospel was not part of John's own position but was church tradition,
which stands as “a foreign element m' h15' workí 57 It is un'portant therefore
to reahs'e lhat ít is preciscly the cmc1ñ'cd Jesus, now raiscd but bcann'g the
marks of crucúix1"on, whom Thomas confesses to be 'Lord and God'
(20:26-28). In addition, Lherc are other 1m'portant m'dications that mark
the crucxñxx"on as the clnn'ax of the gospeL
Thc ñrst of these is the “wítness' theme, which is very promm'ent
Lhroughout the gospel (and also m' 1 John). It is speafi'cally related to the
death of Chn'st: “He who saw it has bornc witness-his testun'ony is true,
and he knows that he tells the truth-that you also may believe' (l9:35).”
Sccond1y, throughout the gospel the narrator has referred to *Lhe hour'
whích wns to come (2:4; 7:30; 8.'20; 12:23, 27,' l3:l,- 16:32; l7:l, cf. also
possibly 4:21, 23). This theme clcarly hnks' the early sections of the gospel
wíth the passion, sínce the 'hour' rcfers to the um'e whcn:
a) Jesus would be arrested and hands la1d' on h1m' (7:30; 8.'20,' cf. 18:12);
b) he would be glor1ñ'ed hk'e the seed which died (12:23-24,' cf. l9:30);
c) the Passover feast was to bc hcld (13:l; cf. 19:l4, 31); and
d) the disciples would scatter (16:32; cf. 18:27).
Thc 'hour' is spokcn of as a glonf'ym'g (12:23; 17:1), and m' a smu"lar
way Iesus had alrcady spoken of his death as a “l¡f°un'g up' (3:l4; 8:28,'
12:32-34).59 Th1r'dly, the hyper ('for, on behalf of) saym'gs throughout
the gospel (6:Sl; 10:11,15; ll:50-52; 15:13; 18:14) functíon not only to
interpret, but also to alert the reader to expect the laym'g down of Jcsus'
llf'e. These factors suggest that whüe John's gospel is written from a
chrislologically mf'ormed perspcctive, dús perspcctive should not bc
opposcd to the sígmñcance of Jesus” dcath for John; rather, Ln'
Schnackenburgk words, John's 'Christology is completely oríented
tfowards soteriology'°° and thís soteríology is oriemed towards the death
o Jesus.
A promm'cnt characteristic of Johanmhc Christology is the manncr ín
which Jcsus takes ovcr and fulñls chish holy placcs. So, for cxamplc, the
Jerusalem templc is dns'placed by 'the templc of hxs' body' (2:21 and cf.
 Chm'z as Sacnjíc'e in Gospels and Acu 121

8:59), as are other holy placcs (Bethcl, 1:51; Jacob's wcll, 4:6-15; Mount
Genz1m", 4:20-21,' and perhaps Bcthzatha, 5:1-9; and thc Pool of le'oam,
9:l-ll).°' The result is that, *In the Fourth Gospel thc pcrson of Jcsus
becomes 'the place' whích replaces all holy placcs.""2 It is Icsus h¡m'sclf
who becomcs the locus of true worship, as of rcvclation and salvau'on.
A complcmemary charactcristic 1s' that Jcsus takes ovcr, fulñls and
displaces Jewish festivals. Jcsus breaks thc sabbath rcgulations, and
iustmes his actions on the basís of his unity with the Father (S:l7-27).
Further, hc hnn'self is 'the bread of hf'e' (6:35,48), dísplacmg the manna
from heavcn and passovcr brcad (chap.6), as thc true sourcc of God's
wísdom and word (cf. Slr'. 15:3,' 24:19-23).63 Hc is sourcc of lívm'g watcr
(7:37-39), and °thc light of thc world' (8:12, cf. 9:5), replacmg and
displacm'g thc cercmoníes of the festíval of tabernaclcs (7:Z, 10, l4, 37;
8:20, 59).“ And at the Fcast ofDedication (10:22-39), he dcclarcs that he
hxmse'lf thc one whom the Father consccratcd and scnt m'to the world
(10:36).
This Johannme charactcristic could cxplam both thc pmmincncc and
ambiguity of John the Bapt1'st's announccmentz *Behold Lhc Lamb of God
who takes away the sm' of the world' (1:29, rcpeatcd m' v.36 as sun'ply
'behold the Lamb of God'). It has never bcen clear to commentators
exactly which 'lamb' is here rcfcrred to, and this (among other thm'gs) has
lcd scveml scholars to rcgard the saym'g as of margmal m'tcrest to Iohn.°°
This hardly follows, cspeclall'y sm'cc John the Baptist is givcn great
pronun'cnce m' this gospcl as a truc and dccisive wimess to Chn'st.°7 If
John the Baptíst is 'the idcal witncss to Chríst','58 then his ñrst statcment
rcgardmg Chn'st's identity and role must be allowcd some pmmm'ence.
Sccondly, this is the ñrst clear christological pronouncemcnt aftcr lhc
prologue, and Ihus not to bc rcgardcd as umm'ponant (sm'ce to somc
cxtcnt l:l9-51 funcúons as an m'tmduction to Lhc rest of Lhe gospcl, just
as l:l-l8 functions as an m'(crpretative prologue).°9
The abruptness of Lhcsc saymgs' means that we havc líttle m'terprctativc
help m' thc_ context. In addition the word fot 'lamb' (am›ws) 1s' a rclaúvely
uncommou word m' thc NT.7° Barren wrítes, 'It is certam that tlus' phrasc
has an OT background, less cemuh what that background is.'7' Dodd's
suggestion that thc lamb rcfcrrcd to is thc apocalypu'c, conqucrm°g lamb
(mcnu'oned m' Test.]os. l9:8; Eth. Enoch 90:38; Rev. 7:l7; l7:14 etc.),
docs not adcquately Iakc account of the fact that Lhc phrase, 'who lakzs
away the sm' of the world', places this saying m' the realm of a sacnñcm
offermg which provides forgiveness of sm^ (cf. l Jn. 3:5).72 Sm'cc Iambs
arc rclatively common m' the 0T, and sacr11i'cial lambs not much less so,
most of the altematives have bccn proposcd at some tu'n'c.73 One
possibility ís thc lamb menúoncd m' Isaiah 53. Acls 8232 m'dicates the
possx'b1h"ty that anmos could bc used m' Lhc translation of Is. 53:7, and m'
the only other place where amnos is uscd m' the NT (l PeI. l:l9),1salah' 53 is
vcry promm'ent." In addiu'on, Isamm"c ideas are presem m' this speech of
Iohn the Baptist (Jn. l:32 echoes Is. ll.'2; 42:l,cf. also Jn. 12:38), and we
122 Sacnjíc'e m' thz Bíble

fmd thc combination of airõ ('to bcar, take away') and sm's in thc Aquila
vetsion of Is. 53z12. Another contcnder is the passovcr lamb. This scems
to be supponed by John's presentation of the death ofJesus (cf. l9: l4, 3 l ,
36), and the fact that amnos was often used to refer to a young lamb (e.g. as
a one year old, and as a sheep which does not yet have homs75),
corresponding to the instruction of Ex. 12:5 which requires that the
passovcr lamb be onc year old.76
Wíth so many possíbilities it is not surprísing that most commentators
take an °all xhe above” approach. As Mom's suggests, 'a lamb takm'g away
sm', even 1f' it ís distinguished as G0d's Lamb, ís too indeñnite a
descriptíon for us to pm'-pom't the referenceV7 It seems hk'ely that John
has delíberately used an ambiguous tcrm, m' order to mamtain Lhat Jesus'
death fulñls and displaces all the OT sacrlñ'ces, by dealm'g ñnally wíth sm'.78
John*s understandmg of the death of Jesus is ñlled out in scveral other
places. Caiaphas' statement (Jn. ll.'50 repcated m' 18: l4) that *it is
expedient for you that one man should die for Lhe people, and lhat the
whole natíon should not perish' ís accepted and m'terpreted by John as a
death *for the nation'. This language, whüe not necessarily sacnñ'cial,
índicates that for John, Jcsus' dcath not only had salv1ñ'c value, but was
actually and clearly substítutionalz either the pcople perish or one man
docs m'stead of the people.79
The hyper ('for, on behalfoP) passages ín John are as followsz *the bread
whích I shall give for Lhe life of the world is my ñesh' (6'.51); 'The good
shepherd lays down his hf'e for the sheep' (10: l l); 'I lay down my life for
the sheep, (10:15: cf. also vv.l7,18); and 'Grcatcr love has no man Lhan
this, that a man lay down his hf'e for his friends'(15:13). All of thesc look
to the death ofJesus as a volumary act of self-sacnñ'ce on behalf of (for the
beneñt oO his people.
It is well known that John's gospel appcars to differ from lhe synoptics
in giving thc day that Jcsus died as the day of thc Passovcr (15th Nisan).”°
Rcfcrcnce to the Passover appcars early m' thc passion account (13:l), and
latcr passages (e.g. 18.'28, 39; l9.'l4, 31, 42) apparcntly cmphasize that
the cruc1fix1"on took place on the day of the prcparaüon of the Passover. As
Smalley poíms outz *1f' Jesus is represented as dym'g on the day of Lhe
preparalion of thc passovcr, thcn his dcath com'cides wílh lhe slaughter of
the sacr¡f¡'c¡'al passovcr lambs; and lhis is lhcologically suítablc in a Gospel
whích uniquely designatcs Jcsus “the Lamb of God".'”l This vcry pom't is
cmphasv'.'ed at l9:36: 'thcsc lhings took placc thal the scripturc míght bc
fulñlled, "N0t n bone of hím shall be br<›ken”.' Herc *these lhings' refer
Io all thal Ihc prcvious vcrsc had ín mind, viz., thc death of Jesus as lhe
gmuud of failh. Thc quolalion comcs from Ex. 12:46, and thcre refers to
thc cating of lhc passovcr lamb."z
John, thcn, prcscnts Jcsus' dcath as a passovcr sacrm"cc, the means by
which síns arc forgivcn, and as subsitutionary in intent. John's
prcscnmion, although vcry diffcrcm from lhc synoptícs at ccnain levels,
cuhcrcs with lhcírs in varíous ways. Panicularly 1m'ponam is lhc
 Chns't as Sacnñc'e in Gospels and Acu 123

combinaüon of varíous OT themes which are focused in the death of Jcsus

as the new passover, with thc result lhal Jcsus' m1m"stry is regardcd as a
ncw exodus. This approach has the advamage (over, for cxample, Ihat of
ForestelD of showing that John's gospcl stands m' Lhc samc thcological
position as the ñrst cpistlcz Jcsus' blood [i.e. dcathl clcanscs from sm'
(1 Jn. l:7), by means of his sacrmce of atonemem (hüasmos: l Jn. 2:2;
4:10). L1k'e the 'Lamb', hilasmos is used of varíous sacnñces m° thc
LXXÊ3 and here is said also to provide the means by which sm's arc
forgiven.

V. CONCLUSION

It is apparem that the four gospcls are to a large extem unitcd m' thck vicw
of Lhe 1m'portance and necessity of the dcath of ChrísL In thc hg'ht of
comemporary views about the scandal of crucxfmbn this is no mean
thm'g.'34 Thc imponance of Lhe death of Jesus is sccn in Lhe amoum of spacc
gívcn to it by thc evangclists, as well as thcü prcscnmúon of Jcsus'
nnm"stry as onc which chm'axcs m' lhc cross. The Mcessity of thc cross ns'
cxpressed m' many places, and is obviously bascd on thc scripturesz 'the
Son of Man gocs as it is wn'tten of h1m".
Although we have seen a mulu'-facetcd prescmatíon of Jcsus' dcath m'
thc four gospels, includm'g but by no mcans hm1"ted to languagc which
alludes to various rypes of sacnñ'ces, thc fundamemal aspect of lhc gospcl
prcsemation of thc dcath of Jcsus, underslood as sacnfl'cc, should
pmbably bc rcgardcd as that of covenam m'auguration.” Thxs' is spcllcd
out clearly, albeit m' diffcrem ways, m' all lhrcc synoptic gospcls, and is
1m'plicd in John's usc of thc Passovcr mou'f. In addition, Manhcw's
fulñlmem schema and John's displaccmem schema serve to cmphashc
thc same poím: m' Jesus, and particularly m' his dcath, thc Old is fulñllcd
and replaced by Ihe New. Jesus' deaLh is thc sacnñ'ce of thc New
Covenant (cf. Ex. 24:8). The blcssings of salvation under Lhe ncw
covenant ñow from thc aloncmem wroughl upon thc cross, and lhe
evangclists (as thc othcr NT writcrs) usc a varicd clustcr of othcr thcmcs to
cxpand nn thc thcmcz thc suffcring scrvant, lhc passovcr, lhe sm' otTcrm'g.
Thc nature of thc atoncmcnl ís ncver clearly spcllcd out in Ihc gospela,
though il ccrtainly appcars lo contain a strong subslitulionary compo-
ncnl; intcrcstingly, only m^ Manhcw and John is thc dcalh ochsus rclalcd
clcarly and explicílly to the forgivcness (or in sacnñ'cia| lerminology,
cxpiation) of sin(s). chcrthelcss, it will be rcadily secn how this
prcscnlaxion cohcres with lhe Paulinc prcscmalion of lhe dcalh uf Jcsus,
and cvcn morc su wilh lhc Paulinc cschatology of fulñlmenL
Thc gospels thcn rightly inlroducc the *New Tcstamcnt', rcprcsenúng
thc inauguralion of the New Covcnam in Ihc death uf Chrisl, and
providing Ihe kcy which links thc OT prophcts and lhc NT apostlcsz Chr1's¡'s
 124 Sacnfic'e in the Bible

death bem'g the means by which the New both fulñls and displaccs the
Old.

NOTES

l. For our purposcs wc shnll concentmc on nllusíons to partícular sacnñ'ccs withm lhe
OT and contemporary Judaism. On the widc rangc of tcrmmology and lhc düñculty of
defming “sacnñ'ce' adcqualely see, m' addítion to the earlier essays m' this book, S.W.
Sykcs, 'Sacn'fice in the Ncw Tcsmment and Chrislian Thcology' in Sacnjíc'e (eds. M.F.C.
Bourdülon & M. Fones; London: Acadcnúc Prcss, l980) 62-63; D.R. Joncs, 'Sacnñ'cc
and Holm'ess' ln' Sache and Redempnon': Durham Esmys m' Theology (ed. S.\V. Sykcs)
(Cambridge: Cambridgc University Prcss, l991) 9-ll.
2. E.S. Johnson, 4Is Mark 15.39 thc Key to Mark's Chn'slology?' ]SNT 31 (l987)
3-22.
3. W.L. Lane, Thc Gmpel Accordmg' w Mark (Grand Rapidsz Eerdmans, 1974, l979)
292.
4. See most recendy R.E. Warts, The lnjhmlct oflhe lsaianic New Exodux on the Gorpel
ofMarh (P'h.D. lhesis, Unívmity of Cambn'dgc, l990) 9S-122. Cf. E. Bcst, Following
jenm Duc'iplahíp m' lhe Gospel ofMark (JSNTS 4) (Shcfñcld: JSOT Press, l981).
5. Scc lhc pamllels Io Mk.8:31m' ML 16:21; Lk. 9.'22, as well as Mt. 26.'31, 54, 56; Lk.
13.'33; l7:ZS; 18.-31-32; 22.'22; 24:7,26-27,44ff. For a detaücd exanun'aúon of thc passion
predíczions of Jesus scc H.F. Bayer, jems' Predncn"ons of Vindicution mld Rmanctmn'
(WUNT II.20) ('I'u“bm'gen: J.C.B. Mohr [P. Siebeck], 1986).
6. Diod. Sic. l.73.6: 'swnmpcd WiLh taxcs'; Plut. Galba, 21.3: '1mm'crscd m' dcbtsü
Joscphus, War IV.137: “ovcrwhelmed Lhe city'; sec also MM 102.
7. Tlus' meanmg domímles m' lhc prophctic books (Jc. 25:25, 27-29,' 49:12; 51:7; La.
4:21; Ezk. 23.'31ff,' Hab. 2:lS-16; Zc. 12:2; cf. Ps. 7S:8), and is also charactcrístíc of lhc
Apocalypse (Rev. l4:¡0; 16:l9; 18:6). See further L. Goppelt, TDNT VI l49-153.
8. l QpHab xí.10-15 for Lhe commentary on Hab. 2:lS-16: 'thc cup of Lhe wrath of
God shall confusc h1m' . . .'; Pss.Sol. 8:l4-15; Mart.1sa. 5:13.
9. The same note of Jesus' suffermg under divm'e iudgemem is also presem m' l4:27,
whcrc Jesus quotcs from Zc. 13:7: 'I wm smitc lhc shepherd . . .'; cf. E. Bcst, The
Templanon'aud thePamm (SNTSMS 2) (Cambrídge: Cambridgc University Prcss, 1990z)
lS7-158.
10 Bcst, Follouw 127.
lL F. Bu'chsc|, TDNT IV 340.
12. So L. Moms', The Apouolw' Prcachmg' of the Cross (London: Tyndale, l955) 29.
l3. Ex. 21'.30(b¡s');30:12; Lv. 19220; 25:24, 26, Sl; 27:31; Nu. 3:12, 46, 48, 49, 51,'
18215; 35'.31,32; Pr. 6:35,' 13:l8; Is. 45:13.
l4. For posíúve asscssmems sce I. Jeremns', New Tmament Thcalogy (London: SCM,
l971) 292-293; R.T. Francc, *Thc Servam of lhe Lord 1n' rhe Teachmg of Jesus' Tyn. B.
19 (l968) 26›-52. The evidcnce does nol allow ñrm conclusíons: duz'leoneín ís Saldç to
corrcspond to thc Scrvam mouf'm' Isaiah $3, bul in fact ís not uscd in Lhc LXX, and in any
case Ihe lsamm"c Servant scrvcs the Lord, Jesus here serves the *many',' though dounai len'
psychcn' aulou cortesponds to Is. 53.'10,12, lhe Servam gives his life; lymm corrcsponds to
thc sm' offcnhg ('a'!mn') of Is. 53.'lO, but ls' ncvcr so used ín Lhc LXX,' ami pollõn
corresponds Io the subsúmúomry minisuy of the Servant exerciscd on bchalf of the
'mnny' (cf. ls. 53:1 l-12). See also P. Sluhlmncher, 'Vicariously Gívíng His Life for Mnny,
Mark 10:45 (Mm. 20:28)' m' Recorm'lw'non', Law, G Righuaurnes:: Esmys m Biblúal
Theology (Phllad'clph¡a: Fomcss, 1986) 16-29.
15. C.K. Barrell, 'Thc Blckground of Mark 10.'45'. New Tmamml Euayx (FS T.W.
Mansom ed. A.].B. Higphs) (Manchcalcr: Manchcsler Univcrsily Prcss, l959) l-2. Cf.
 Chnkl as Sacnjic'c in Gospels and Acls 125

also M.D. Hooker, Jem and Ilu Scmant: The Influence oflllc Smxnu Concepr ochmm
lsamh m' lht New Tmamcnt (London: SPCK, |9S9) 74-79.
16. BDB 80.
l7. Sce Jermm's, TDNT VI 536-S4S. Lane wn'tcs, 'Thc “rmny" are lhc redccmed
community who have cxpeñenccd lhc rcmíssíon of their sins m and lhroush Jesus'
sacññcc and 30 arc cmblcd 10 panicipalc in the salvalion providcd undcr thc ncw
covcnant' (Mark, 507).
18, On lhc passovcr viewcd as a sacn'ñcc, scc Ex. lZz27,' 34:25; Nu. 9:7,13; Joscphus,
AnL 2.312; 3.248; War 6.423; Exod.Rab. lS.SSa,b; Phüo. ViL MasA Il.224›
l9. ]. Jercmlas', The Euchanbnt Wmds ofjem (London: SCM, l966, I973) 231.
20. Study of the Markan passion narraúve has tended m focus on Lhe quesuon of prc-
Markan sources; sec ].B. Grccn. The Dzath of]cru: (WUNT 2.33) (Túbm'gen: I.C.B.
Mohr, l988) 9-l4.
21. Suggcstcd by H. Conzelmxmu 'History and Thcology in Lhe Pnasion Nnrratives of
thc Synopúc Gospcls', Inl 24 (l970) 178-l97, on pl9l,' and expoundcd by F.J. Malera,
Tlu ngx'hip ofjmm Componm and Theology m' Mark 15 (SBLDS lS) (Chico, CAz
Scholars, I982).
22. Notc m' panicular the purple garment (porphyran) of Mk. lS:l7, whích Is'
characteñstkally undemood as a royal garmcnt (Dio Chrys. 4.7l ,' Joscphus, AnL ll.256-
257,' l Macc. 10:62; cf. BAG, 694).
23. Sce K. SlcndahL lQuis ct Undc? An Amlysis of Mt l-2', The lnurpmam of
Manhew (cd. G.N. Slanton) (London: SPCK, l983; origmal versi0n, 1960) 56-66.
24. For cxnmplcz lhe 'Emmmucl, “God with us" ' of 1123 corrcsponds Io Jesus' ñml
promise ín 28r20; the Gcnúle m'terests expresscd m' thc genenlogy (l:1-l7) and thc
womlúp of the Magi (2:l-11) corrcspond to the command for Gentüe mission m' 28:l9,
and uuu"tarnn' contcnt is presenl m' both (l:l8,20; 2:15; cf. 282l9).
25. 'Thus thc enúrc gospcl 1s' lo be rcad 1n' lhc light of its cnd', W.D. Dnvics & D.C.
Anisom Jr. , A Cn'nc'al and Exegmtal Commenwy m thz Gospel Accordm'g lo Sauu' Mauhew
(ICC, vol.l) (Edinburgh: TA & T. Clark, l988) 210.
26. On salvation from sm' as pan of chxs'h hopc sce Is. 53:4-6,10-12;Je. 31234; Ezk.
36:24-31;nlsoTesL Lev. 18.9,' ELIL Enoch 10A20-22,' SL Enoch 64.S,' Pss.SoL l7.28-29,
4l,' llQMclch 2.6-8; Tg. Isa. 53:4, 6-7,' Tg. Ezk. 36:25.
27. See furlher B. Gcrhardsson, 'Sacnñ'c1al” Servicc and Alonemcnl m' lhe Gospcl of
Mauhcw', Reconcüünm and Hopc: Ntw Tmamnu Essays on vamnau and Eschawloy
(FS L.L. Mom's, ed. R. Banks) (Exeler: Palemoslen l974) 25-35.
28. nús ¡s' scen mosz clearly 1n' thc ñve discourscs which nll cnd wíth Lhc formuh, hax
egmxo hote mlnm ho Iêsous (7:28; ll:l; l3:$3; l9:l; 26:l).
29. Due to the rcpctíúon of lhe phrasc apo wuemto ho Iàous (m' 4-.l7,-16:21). ForthuÀ
view, see mÀ panicular ).D. Km'gsbury, Manhewz Srrucnm, Chnsro'logy, ngdom'
(Ph11'adelphia: Fonrcss, l975; Londonz SPCK, l976).
30. So Km'gsbury, Srrucnm Zl-25.
31. Mauhew's dLs^un'cu've eís aphenh hmmmon'” may reñect lhe Mucnce of Jc. 31234
(=LXX 38:34). Others have suggested a possiblc dcñvalion ímm Is. 53:10-12 (Hook:r,
Servant 82).
32. For a demílcd sludy which emphlsizcs a nnge of Mmhcm inlcrcsls (wixh
Christology bcing the most pronun'cm) sce D.P. Scm'or, Tlu Passwn Narratiu acrordíu m
Matthem A deacmml Study (BETL 39) (Lcuven: Lcuven Univcrsity Press, 197$).
33. See R.H. Gundry, Thc Usc ofllu Old Tmmnmt m SL Manluufs Gospel wull xpccial
ufzrmce w lhc Mesmt Hope (NovTSup XVlIl) (Leidcn: Bn'll, 1967) 20|-204.
34. Sce Scnion Passum 307-323. Man 27:Slb-53 is usually rcgnrdcd as dcriving from
un npocalyplic m'terpretaúon of E1.k. 37:1-l4 (parallelcd in frcscocs n Dun Eumpos).
35. On 'Son ofGod', see 27.'401 where thc passcrs by ironicnlly ccho the dcvíl's lcsts In'
4:2,6: 'IÍ you are thc Son of God, comc down from lhc cross' (whereas it is prccmc'ly
126 Samñc'e m' du Bible

bccause hc is the 0bed1c'm Son lo his Father thm hc gocs as il is wriuen of hun'; scc 26:39,
42; also cf. 27:43). Malthcw clearly presems Jcsus' dcath as occurring at thc um'e of his
choosing, signalling this al thc outset by Lhc iuxtaposiúon of 26:2 and v.5 (cf. funhcr
26:18, 50, 52~54, 61,' 27.'50).
36. E. Kascmnnn', 'Mm'isn'y and Commumly in thc Ncw Tcslamcnt', Enays on New
Temmnu Themes (mns. W.J. Monmgue; SBT 4l) (London: SCM, l964) 92.
37. Kzsc“mann, Esmyx 92. Kãscmann bujlds on H. Conzclmann, The Theology ofLqu
(P?u'ladelphu': Fonrcss, l982) 200-201.
38. P.G. Voss, Dú Chnkwlogú dcr Iukants'chm Schriften m' Gnmdzúgm (Stuchot 2)
(Paris Bz Bruggcz Descléc dc Brouwer, l965) 130. Others argue lhat Lukc aclivcly
supprcsscd such an understandm'g, c.g. D.A.S. Ravens, “S¡ Lukc and Atonemcnú Exp
Tm 97 (l986) 29l-294.
39. For dlsc'ussion sce E. Richard, 'Jesus' Passíon and Dealh in Acts' in Rewging dle
Dcath of Ihe Lukan Jesus (cd. D.D. Sylva; BBB 73) (Frankfurl-am-Main: Hain, l990)
125-152, cspechy 134-152.
40. On thc inseparabilíry ochsus' dcath and resurrecu'on, scc A. George, 'La Scns dc Ia
Mort dc Iesus pour Luc', RB 80 (l973) 186-217, cspecially 215.
4l. For discussion see D.L. Bock, Proclamazwn from Prophuy zmd Pallenu Lucan Old
Teslanmu Chnsiology (JSNTS 12) (Shefñeld: JSOT Press, l987) 188-l90, 226-230.
42. C.F.D. Moulc, 'Thc Chrislology of Acts', Studüs ín Luke-Aczs (cds. L.E. Keck &
J.L. Martyn) (London: SPCK, l968) l7l,' cf. C.F. Víne, 'The “Blood of God" ín Acts
20.28', CBQ 9 (l947) 381-40&
43. Earüer m'dica(ions of conñict and reiectíon occur m' Lk. 2.'34-35; 4:16-30,
espchly v.24,' 6:l l.
44. BAG S7.
45. Thc passion predicúons in Luke (í.c. 9:22,44; l7:25,' l8:31-34) emphasisc the
ncccssity ofjcsus' dcath, the themcs ofsuffcring and rejeclion, the fulñlmem of Scripture,
and the resurrccu'on. It is noteworthy that thc rcsurrected Jesus repcats lhe same themes
mÀ 24:25-27, 44-47.
46. Scc W.S. Kurz, *Luke 22:l4-38 and Greco~Roman nnd Biblical Farewell
Addresscs', JBL 104 (l985) 251-268.
47. A rcccm study (although only concemed wíth 'L' matem'l) is M.L. Soards, The
Pasrum' Accordíng zo Luke. The Specül Mazmbl ofLuke 22 (]SNTS 14) (Shcfñcld: JSOT
Press, l987).
48. Thcological díffercnccs betwcen vcrsions of Luke (n0t only herc at 22.' l9b,20, bul
also 22.'43-44; 23.'34; 24:51-52, etc.) havc recendy been emphasíscd by B.D. Ehrmzn,
The Orlhodox ConuptumÀ ome'pmr2: The Effect ofEarly Chm'lologu'al Controomies on lhe
Texl ofrlu New Tesmmenr (0xford: Oxford University Press, 1993). I have discusscd some
of lhc cvidencc (and dcfcnded a more modcmtc pos¡'u'0n) m' 'Chris¡ology nnd Textual
Transmissiom Revercnüal Aherations m' Ihe Synopric Gospels' NovT XXXV (l993) 105-
129 (although I discuss only Lukc 22:43-44 ín any dem'l).
49. Jeremm's, Euchan'slic Words lS9. The commcntaries by Marshall and Filzmycr
support lhis, though the remaining problem is Io explain why Ihc text was omiued.
Jcremias suggcslcd thal Ihe lcxl was abbrcvíatcd in Ihe imcrests of sccrecy, sincc bcing a
liturgiml texl the rest would haVC bccn wcll known. B.M. Melzgcr suggcsls that confusion
causcd by thc mcntion of two cups lcd to thc onússion (A Tcxlual Commentary on the Greck
Ntw Tesramnu (London: UBS, |975) l74.
50. For dtdàmi uscd u1' this way clscwhcrc, sce Mk. 10:45 (pnr. ML 20228; l Tim. 2:6;
GaL l:4; TiL 2:l4,' l Macc. 6.'44, cf. 2250 (BAG l93). For ekrhynnó, sce Mk. 14224 (par.
ML 26:28); Lv. 4:7; l Clem. 7.4.
Sl. Scc V. Taylor, The Passion Namtwe 0f St Luke: A Critical and Histon'cal
lnwsrigatm (SNTSMS l9) (Cambrídge: Cambridge University Prcss, l972) 6l-64,' so
alw Soards, Panm 48.
 Chnkz as Samjíc'e in Gospels and Acts 127

52. See furthcr D.J. Moo, Thc Old Teszamem in tlu Gospel Pasmm Narmm
(Shefñeld: Almond, l983) 132-l38, and lhc litmture citcd Lhere. Other fcamrcs which
also suggcsl the ¡m'ponancc of the Isaianic scrvam moúf m'clude Luke's emphasis on
Jesus' Inn'occncc (chap.23, cf. Is. 5321 l); Jcsus' refuul lo spcak m' sclfdcfcnce (23:9, cf.
ls. 53:7); and the mockcry which dcscríbcs lum' as 'thc Choscn Onc' (23:35, cf. Is. 4Z:l),'
cf. also Lk. 2:32; Is. 49:6. Grcen suggests that this background cxplams bolh lhe emphasis
on Lhc ncccssity of Jesus' dealh m' Luke and Lhc focus on vm'dicau'on-exaltau'on as salvmc
event (both mouf's atc hcld logether in ls. 53:ll). See funher J.B. Green, 'Thc Dealh of
Jesus, God's Scrvant', Reímam lhc Death of lhe Lukan Jerus (ed. D.D. Sylva; BBB 73)
(Frankfun-am-Mam': Ham', l990) l-28.
53. J.T. Carroll argues lhnt the crucxñxn"on itsclf funcúons as thc chmax' to Lhe
confromalion betwccn Jesus and IsmeL as thc focus of lhc reicction of Jesus by Icwish
people (23:22-25; cf. v.Sl', also Acns 2:22-23, 36; 3:12-13;4:10; 5230; lO:39; l3.'27-28);
'Lukc's CrucxñJuÀbn Scene', Reimagzhg Ilu Dealh oflhe LukanJeM (cd. D.D, Sylva; BBB
73) (Frankfun-am-Main: Ham', 1990) 108-124.
54. For a balanccd asscssmcnt see B.E. Bcck, 'lmilatw' Clmkti and lhc Lucan Passbn
Narrau've', Suffmu'g and Marlyrdom m' the New Tzsmmem (FS G.M. Stylcr; cd. WA
Horbury & B. McNeIl') (Cambn'dge: Cambñdge Um'vcrsity Press, l98l) 28~47. D.
Schmidt rclales lhe mn'occnoc of Jesus Io lhc Righleous Onc of ls. 53.'ll; scc “Luke's
“Innoccm" Jesusz A Scriptural Apologcu'c', Poliuc'al lsrues m' Luthcts (eds. R.J.
Cassídy & P.J. Scbaspeü (Maryknoll: Orbxs', l983) lll-121.
55. On Lhe cvangehs'u'c purpose of John, sce D.A. Carson, 'The purpose of lhc Founh
Gospelzjohn 20:31 reconsidcred',]BL 106 (l987) 639-651.
56. E. Kase'mann, The Testament ofjenu (London: SCM, l968) 7.
57. R. Bulunann, Theology othe Ncw Tmmnem (trans. K. GrobeD (London: SCM,
1983; rcpnn't of l952-SS cdiüom 2 vols.) voL 2, S4. J.T. Forcstcll largcly followa and
amplmes Bulunann's posiúonz revelaxion and not expm'u'on is thc cssenual' Johanm'ne
soteñology (T¡u Word oídu Cro::: SalvaaonÀ ax Revclanon' m' the Founh Goxpcl (AnBib S7)
(Rome: Bíbücal Insútule Press, 1974). For a cn'u'que, sec M.M.B. Tumcr, *Atoncmcm
and thc Death of Jcsus in John: Some Queslions lo Bultmann and Forestelr EvQ LXII
(1990) 99-122. Thc most rcccm stnlemcnt of Lhe Kãscmantulumanorestcll posiúon
is J. Ashlon, Undmuzndthg Ilu Founh Goxpel (0xford: Clarendon, 199|) 485-50l.
58. Sce cspecially 5.'3¡-40 for thc maior smcmem (md l Jn. 5.'6-12); cf. als01:7-8,15,
l9, 32-34; 3126 []ohn]; 3zll, 32-33; 8:13-|4, 18; 18137 [Jesus]; 10225 (works]; 15:26
[Spm"t]; l9z35; 21224 [Bc|oved dxsc'iple]. Cf. A.A. Trites, Thc Ncw Tcswmcm Conupl of
Wímess (SNTSMS 31) (Cambridgc: Cambridge Universíty Press, 1977) 78-127.
59. G.C. Nicholson, Dcalh as Depamlm Thc]ahmmw' Dcscml-Ascmt Schema (SBLDS
63) (Chic0, CA: Scholam, l983) righlly places Lhesc sayings m' lhc broadcr comcn of thc
exalted retum of Jcsus to lhe Fathen a thcmc pronúnenl in John and wunhy ofaucnúon. l
cnnnol bul thm'k thnt he cxnggemcs hIs' lhesis m' chap.4 where he nrgues Lhat due 'hour'
nnd lhc grain of wheat saying (12:24) rcfcr nol lo Icsus' death bux nnher lo hn mmm Lo lhc
Father (sce pp. 14S-155). His conclusion lhat lhe dealh of Jesus m' John funcuo'ns (and
reccives its meaning) only as lhc mcans of Jcsus' retum lo Ihe Fathcr (scc pp.153, 163) ls'
hardly adcquntc, as we shall sec.
60. R. Schnnckcnburg, Thc Gospcl Accordm'g w Sljolm (Lundon: Bums 61 0¡m, 3
vols., 1968, 1980, 1982) vol.l, 548.
61. Scc W.D. Dnvics, Tha Goxpel and tlu Land (Bcrkeley: University of W'omn',
1974) 288-318.
62. Davics, Goxpll and the Land 318.
63. On lhe messianic associalionx of thc mnnm from hcnvcn ace 2 Baruch 29.8,' Mek.
on Ex'. 16:25; Ecclcsiastcs Rnb. on Ec. l:9, qumcd m' R.E. Brown, Tlu Gospcl Accmiíng w
]alm (AB) (L0ndon/New Yorkz Doublcdny, 2 vols, 1966, l970) vol.l, 265.
64. Sec Sukk. Mjshnnh 4.9-10; S.2-3 and C.K. Bnrren, Thl Gaspcl Accordmg' lo Sl
]ohn (London: SPCK, 197az) 327, 335.
128 Sacñfíce m' m Bwu
6S. Scc BrownJohn 4ll.
6ó. See, e.g. ForcstelL Word ofdu Cron l94.
67. We ñnd hun' memioncd m' thc prologuc (1:6-8,15), the ñrsl seclion of Ihc gnspcl
(l:l9-42) m' which he gives a dccisive wimess lo Chn's¡; larcr m' 3222-4:3 in which hc agm
witncsses lo Chrisl; and m' refcrenccs m' S:3l-47 and 10.'40-42; both concermng' thc trurh
of John's tcsum'ony.
68. W. ka', Jolm tlu Bapns'l in zlu Gospel Tradmon" (SNTSMS 7) (Cambn'dge:
Cambñdge Univmity Press, l968) lOS: ']olm is madc Lhc normaúve 1mag'e of thc
Chns'uan“ prcacher, apostle and mxssx"onary, me pcrfcct prototype of the true evangel¡'st,
whosc onc gonl ls' seHeñamnem before Chns't: “He must m'cmsc, but I must dccmne"
(3.-30).'
69. Sce also Tumcr, °Atonemcnt', 121.
70. Found only in Jn. l:29,36,' Acts 8.'32,' l Pct. l:l9.
7l. BarremJahn l76.
72. C.H. Dodd, Tlu Inmpremuon' af zlu Founll Goxpel (Cambnd'ge: Cambñdgc
Univexsity Press, 1953) 233ff. Sevcrnl rccent oommcmators (e.g. Barren, Brown, and
Basley-Murray)1rguc that dus' could have bccn Iohn thc Bapu'sl's understandm'g.
73. In addíubn to Lhe two menúoncd here, oonsidcrntíon m13'ht also be gíven to Lhc
lamü, thc lnmb offcrcd twice a day m' the lcmplc (sce Ex. 29:38-46), or thc sin oñcñng
(Lv. 4:32).
74. lt ¡s' possible Ihnr a more prease' allusion to the passovcr lamb ns' m'tcnded by
lvlvinlmut blemish or spof (l PeL l'.19;cf. Ex. 12:S), but Ihis ls' m' fact a reqmrem'ent ofall
OT sacnñ'ccs (cf. Lv. l:3; 3:l; 4:3; Nu. 6:l4,' l9z2 ctc.).
7S. Sce lhc refcrcnccs m' BAG 46.
76. Agnhst thk is thc fact thax thc LXX consislendy uses probaton for the paschal
lamb.
77. Moms',]oh›I l47.
78. B. Lln'dars noled that l:29, 36 bracket thc account of Jesus' baptisnL Thns'
assocm'u'on suggcsts Lhat the eschatolognw cleansmg of thc one who bapuz'es with the
Holy Spkit is cñcctcd by Jcsus' sacrmcm dcath (cf. l3:8-10 for a snmxl"ar assocm'u'on). See
B. Lm°dars, *The Pnssíon m' the Fourth Gospel', God's Chm'z and Hu' Peoplc ÇFS N.A.
D¡h1; ed. J. Icrvell & W.A. Meeks) (Oslo: Um'vcxsi¡ctsforlagct, 1977) 71-86, cspecmjl'y
72-73.
79. Sec c.g. Moms', fohn 568,' Brown, fohn 442-443; D.A. Carson, The Gospel
Atcordmg' Iojohn (Lciccsler: IVP, 1991) 422-42.3.
80. For rcccntdns'cuss1'ons concemmg lhc rclationship bctwecn Iohn and thc synoptics
at tlus' pom't, scc R.T. Francc, 'Chronologícal Aspects of “Gospel Harmony" ', VE
16 (1986), especmll'y 43-S4; R.T. Beckwith, “Cautionary Notcs on the Usc of Calendm
and Astronomy to Dctcrmm'e rhe Chronology of Lhe stsion', Chmnos, Kairos, Ckns'tos
(FS J. Fincgam eds. J. Vudaman and E.M. YamauchD (Wm'ona Lake: E¡'senbrauns,
l989) 183-205.
81. S.S. Smallcy,]ahn; Evungclu'l and Inurpmer (Exeter: Patcmostcr, 1978) 24.
82. nc use of lhc samc phrase m' Nu. 9:12 shows that it is a slandard term for Lhe
pnssovcr,' Ps. 34:20 does noK conlradict ths'.
83. In particular sce Nu. 5^.8: *Lhc lamb of atonemenl'; l Ch. 28'.20: 'the house of
atoncment'; Ezk. 44:27: 'lhe sm' offerm'g'; Lv. 25:9: *the day of hdasmos"; (also Ps. 129:4;
Am. 8:l4; Dn. 9:9; Su". 18:20; 32:3; 2 Macc. 3'.33). Philo uses thc term s¡x' um'es, m'
connccxjon with the day of atoncmenr (Plant. 6l ; Congr. 89), and other sacnñces (Rer.
Dm Her. 179).
84. Sce M. Hengel, Cmayím m' rhe Anaau' World and zhc Folly of tlu Mmage of the
Cnm (London: SCM, 1977).
85. Cf. B. Cooke, 'Synopu'c Prcscntauo'n ofthe Euchans't as Covcnant Sacnñ°ce', TS 21
(l960) 1-44.
 Chns'l as Sacriñce in Gospels and Acls 129

FOR FURTHER READING

M. Barth, Was Chns'fs Death a SamheP (SJT Occasional Paper 9, l9617).

J.B. Green, The Deazh 0f]csus: deim and Imzrprzzalwn' in lhe Passion Nmm
(WUNT II.33) (Tu"bingcn: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Sicbcck], 1988)V
R.J. Daly, The On'giru oflhe Cluu'nan' Doctrw ofSamfíu (Ph11'adclphia: Fonress, l978).
M. Hengel, Cruañx'¡on' in zhe Anaen't World and lhc Folly of zhe Message of du Cross
(London: SCM, l977).
M. chch The Atonemenu A Sludy oflhe Ong1'ns ofthc Doctrine in the New Tenamem
(London: SCM, l981).
J. Jeremias, The Euchans'nc' Words ofjaw (London: SCM, l966).
F.J. Matcra. Pamm Nanamm and Gospel Thwlogúr Inzerprelíng lhe Synopncx lhrough
lhzir Pamon' Slonü (Ncw Yorkz Pauhs't, 1986).
L. Mom's, The Cross m zhe New Testmnent (J .A. McElwam Lcctures) (Exetcr: Patcmoslcr,
l960)
F.M. Young, SucnfícAz and lhe Dealh afChnkl (London: SCM, l975).
 9
Tbe Death of Christ as a Sacafi'ce ín the
teacbiug of Paul and Hebrews

ROGER T. BECKWITH

P.M. Hcad's chapler gíves us ample rcason to think that m' Mark, m'
Manhcw, ín Lukc and Ac¡s, and m' John and l John, lhe dcath of Jesus ls'
descríbcd, someümes by h1m'sclf and sometimes by 0lhers, sometimes
cxplicitly and somctimcs ímplicítly, as sacrmciaL Thus, m' the Synopüc
Gospcls, he speaks at thc Last Supper of 'my blood of thc covcnant' (or
'thc new covcnant m' my blood') 'whích ís to be shed for many' (or lfor
you'), Matthew's version addm'g *for the remission of sm's'. He is spoken
ofin John (and also, incidemally, m' 1 PeL l:19 and Rev. 5:6-10; 13:8) as
thc slain '|amb' of God, who by h¡s' precious blood “(akcs away lhe sin of
the world' - a lamb bcing an amma'l used m' varíous sacrxñ'ccs, m sm'
offcrm'gs, guüt offcrings, burnt offcrmgs and pcace offerings, as well as
thc passover sacr1fi'cc. In 1 Peter, again, Christ ís said to bc a sacrmcc
*wi1hout blemísh', Lhat is, without the moral blcmish of sm', not lhe
physical blemns'hes which disqualmcd OT sacriñccs,~ and we ourselves arc
said to bc 'sprm'kled' with hís blood (l PcL l:2, l9). Sun'ilarly, in l John
wc arc said to bc 'clcanscd' by his blood 'from sin' (l Jn. l:7,9), thc
language of sprinkling and cleansing being drawn from the OT sacr1ñ'c1'al
ritual, and perhaps fmm thc Covenant sacnñ'ce of Exodus 24, also alludcd
to at the Last SuppeL This is to recall only some of the morc explicit
passages, from various books of thc NT, ín whích a sacnñ'cml' m'terpretau'on
of Chr¡'sl's death is gíven.
Passmg on now to thc teachm'g of Paul, we ñnd thcrc smu"lar
statements, along with others. Paul too has his ínstitutjon narrativc of thc
Last Suppcr m' l Conhthmns ll, where, as in Lukc, Jcsus spcaks of 'thc
new covcnam' m' my 'blood' (v.25). Here, no less than m' the Synoptists,
the language of lhe Cowenanl sacnñcc of Exodus 24 ns' bcing used at the
Last Supper, and thc Last Supper was probably takmg placc on the
occasion of the feast upon thc Passover sacnñ'cc of Exodus 12, thus
suggestmg that Jesus is seen as fulñlhn'g boLh. By his sacnñ'cml' death, ít ¡s'
 Chnkl as Samfic': m' Paul and threwx 131

1m'plicd, hc m'augurates lhe predicted 'new covcnanl' of Jcmmah' 31, Ihc

covcmm which wn'tes the Law not upon stones (11kc' the Sm'aí covcnant)
but upon the hcan; and which bnn'gs nol iudgemem for thc transgrtssion
of that law but forgivcncss-*thc1r' sm's and theír iniquitics I wm
rcmcmber no morc' Oc. 31:31-34,' cf. 2 Cor. 3). ch Jcsus also fulflls thc
Passovcr sacnñ'ce, with its rwo fcatures of the blood which dclívets from
y'udgemcnt, and Lhe meal which proffcrs communion with God. The
Passover sacr¡ñ'cc also ma'ugurated deliverance from bondage, and was
regularly observed m' commemoration of Ihat delivcrance; and lhc ncw
passover meal, IO bc hcld m' commcmoration of Jcsus, spmks likcwísc of
dcliverancc from bondage, though not from the bondagc of Egypt, of
course, but from the bondage of sm' and dealh. The link with Lhe Passover
is made explicit m' 1 Cor. 5:6-8, wherc Paul du'ectly compares Jcsus Io thc
sacriñced Passover lamb ('Chn'st our Passover has bcen sacnñ'ccd for us,
Lhcrcfore lcl us kccp lhc feasl'), and bids us keep the feast not iusl for thc
ncxt weck bul throughout our Christian lives, not wíth literal unlcavcncd
brcad but wilh the 'unlcavcncd brcad of sinccrity and trulh'.
Anothcr conncctcd passagc in Paul ís l Cor. lOzl4-22, where iI is lhc
Lord's Suppcr that is comparcd noz iust with lhe Passovcr meal but with
post-sacn'ñcial meals morc gcncrally, the peacc offeñng mcals of lsrael
and lhe comparablc meals of Ihc Gemilcs; and lhc signiñcancc for Paul in
cach casc is Ihat thc mcal pmffcrs “communion' with lhe dcity to whom
thc sacnñ'cc has bccn offcred, whcthcr Lhc truc God or a falsc god; for onc
cann0(, Paul says, have commumbn with both. k is un“p0nant lo obscrvc,
with most commcnmtors on l Con'mhians (Grosheide, Hénn'g, Fce, etc.),
lhat Paul is comparing lhc Lord's Supper nol with the offenÁng of Jewísh
and pagan sacr1ñ'ccs, but with Lhe fcasl upon lhosc sacriñccs which
followed. Thus, the I.ord's Supper is a fcast upon Christ's sacrlñ'cc, but
Ihc offcring of his sacnñ'cc took place elscwhcre.'
But if rhc sacriñcc of Christ fulñls both the Covenam sacnñ'ce and the
Passover sacnñ'ce, Paul does ncl scem lo lcavc it therc. For, by a
commonly received interpretalion of Rom. 8:3, hc also twches Ihat
Chrísfs sacríñcc fulflls the sin offenn'g:

For what lhc Law could not do, m' thal il was weak lhrough lhc Hesh, God,
scndmg his own Son m thc likcncss of sinful ñcsh, nnd as an offering for sm',
condemned sin m' Khe ñcsh; lhat lhc ordmancc of lhe Law might be fulñllcd in
us, who walk not aftcr the ñcsh but aflcr thc SpiñL

The words here translatcd 'as an offering for sin' are simply peri
hamarlia3, 'for sm"; but sincc lhiS is a normal way of cxpressing 'as an
offcring for sin' in thc Scptuagim (Lv. 5:7,ll; 9:2,3; etc.), there is no
strong reason for doubling that this very appropn'ate mcaning is what
Paul intends, or at least pan of what he imends Commemators on
Romans who imerprel the words as “t0 dcal with sin' (e.g. Sanday and
Hcadlam) are nm thcrcby excluding a sacnñ'cial 1m'plicau'on.
 132 Sacnñc'e m' Ihe B¡b'le

The contcxt herc (1n' Rom. 8:3) of law and iudgcmem remm'ds us of an
1m'portam facL Though sacnñ'ce bclongs to the realm of worship, and law
and judgement belong to thc realm ofthe lawcourt, the sm' offermg bnn'gs
the two togcthen The God who Ls' worshipped in sacnñ'cc is also thc God
who givcs thc Law and iudgcs sm'; and thc sm' offcnhg is that form of
worshjp by whích man approaches God m' both his characters, as the one
whom he worshjps and the one whom he has smn'ed agamsL If, thcn,
thcre is a pcnal elemem in Rom. 8:3, it may well be because therc was a
penal clement m' the sin offenn'g; and the combma'tion of ídeas whích is
cxplicít m' the accoum of the Suffcnhg Servam of Isaíah 53, who, whcn he
undcrgocs Lhc punishmcnt of IsraePs sm's, makes lnm'sclf a 'gu11't offcrm'g“
for them, may go back to Lhe Pcnmeuchal n'tual, as weU as forward to thc
NT.
When wc move on to thc Episdc to thc chrews, we ñnd, among other
thm'gs, thc tlur'd mam' class of Iewish sacnñ'ces, bumt offermgs (not iust
sm' and peacc offenn'gs) also apparemly seen as fulñllcd m' ChrísL It Is'
oftcn considcrcd that thc spm"malmn"g of sacnñ'cc m° OT thought rcachcs a
hlgh' pom't m' Lhc psalm quotcd and m'terprctcd m' Hebrcws 10, Psalm 40,
wherc the psalmist, offenn'g hunse'lf to do God's wm and fulñl his Law
from the hcart, scems to set asídc Lhc extcmal ccrcmom'es of sacrmce and
offerm'g, sm' offcnn'g and bumt offenhgt
Sacnfi'ce and offcrmg thou hast no delight m'; mm'c eam hast thou opened;
bumt offenLng and sm' oífcnhg hast thou nol rcquircd. Thcn saíd I, Lo, Iam
come3 m' Lhe roll of the book ít is wn'tten of me,~ I dclight to do thy wxll', O my
God; yca, Lhy law is wíthm my heart (vv. 6-8).

Though the psalmíst mcntíons not only the bumt offcnn'g but also the sm'
offenn'g as gívmg' no pleasurc to God,2 yet the ídea of consecration to
God's wül, whích hc substítutes, is thc spm"tual idea most closcly akm to
thc bumt offenn'g. In Lhe sm' offcring, the cmphasís was on the atoning
applicatíon of the blood,' m' the peacc offcnn'g, the emphasis was on thc
communion mcal with God that followcd; but m~ the burnt oífenhg
(havm'g no meal attached, and not bcmg pr1m'ar11'y conccmed wíth
atonemcno the emphasis was on Lhe total dcdicatíon of the gíft to God,
wholly consumed by ñre. In chrews 10, the speaker m' Psalm 40 is
ídentmed wíth Jcsus; and the total dedícation ofJesus lo his Fathcfs will,
cvcn to thc pom't of thc cross, is m'dccd the pcrfcct human cxprcssion of
thc same ideaL Admittedly, chrcws 10 docs not stress the link with Lhc
bumt offenn'g, but rather with the sin 0fferíng, as w.4,l l-12 m'dícate.
th therc is another place m' the cpxs'tle whích speaks of Jesus' prayers m'
sacnñ'cml' terms and seems to confirm Lhat thc idea of thc sacnñ'cial
dedication of hís wholc lífe to God was prcsem ín thc wn'ter's mind. This
is Heb. 5:7,
who Ln' the days of hjs ñcsh, havmg' offcrcd up (prospherõ) prayers and
supplícaüons with suong crymg and teaxs umo him that was able to save h1m'
oul of dealh, and having becn heard for his godly fear . . .
 Chns'l as Samfíc'e in Paul and Hebrews 133

It is at thcse poims that thc sacnfi'ce of Jesus comes ncarcst to thc spkilual
sacnñces of kús followers, Lhough it sull' d1f'fcrs m' bcmg unblemjshed by
sm', and abovc all m' making atonemem íor the sins of others. It ís only
*through h1m", that is, through hls' atonmg sacnñ'ce or holy pn'csr.hood,
that Ihek spm"tual sacrmces can be acccpted by God at alL As Heb. 13:15
expresscs it, 'through him let us offer up a sacnñ'ce of praise conun'ually';
and compare 1 PcL 2:5, 'to be a holy pn'csLhood, to offcr up spm"tual
sacrxñ'ccs, acceptable to God lhrough Jesw Chm't'.
In chapter 9 of the prde Io thc chrews, as elsewhere m' Ihe NT (see
abovc), a parallcl is drawn between the sacnñ'ce of Chríst and Lhe
covenant sacnñ'ce of Exodus 24. Bccausc Chn'st's dcath truly atoncs, lhc
writcr says, 'for this cause hc is Lhe medhlor of a new covcnanf (v.lS),'
Lhcn, aftcr comparmg' a covcnant with a testamem or w111', for which the
same word dta'thêke' ¡s' uscd m' Grcck, and which llk'cwisc mvolves dcath,
he conun'ues, 'wherefore cven the ñm covenam (í.e. that of Smm") hath
not bccn dedicated without blood' (v.18).
In the samc chaptu, he compares Chn'st's dcath with two othcr
›a'cr1fi'ccs. Onc is Lhc rcd hechr of Numbers l9, a sin offerm'g ofwhích the
1shcs cleanscd those deñlcd by contact with Lhc dcad. This is m' 9.'13,l4:

For ¡f' Lhe blood ofgoats and bulls md thc ashes of a he1f'er spnnkhng" them that
havc becn dcfiled sancufy^ unto the cleanness oí rhejlesh, how much morc shnll
the blood of Chns'(, who lhrough the elemal Spírú offered h1m'self M'thout
blcmjsh unto God, cleansc your conmme from dcad worlts (not dcad bodxe:') to
serve the IrvmgH God?

Here, as m' the teachmg of our Lord (Mk. 7: l-23) and Paul (2 Cor. 6.-14-
7:l), we sce the ccnmomal cleanness and uncleanncss of the OT ritual
)c1n'g rcplaced by moml clcanness and uncleanness. Uncleanness and sín
lre comwcted idcas m' thc o1', but m' thc New they arc actually idenuñcdz
hc mw unclcanncss is sm', so thc atonmg sacrxñ'ce of Christ, which dcals
vith sm', deals with uncleanncss too.
Fm'ally, chmws 9 and 10 comparc thc sacr1ñ'ce of Jcsus wilh the Day
›f Atonemem oñenhg of Leviúcus 16. It docs thís in vv. 1-12 of chap.9,
'esumm'g thc themc from v.23 to 10:4, and agam in 10:19-25. It is m' this
mcndcd comparison that thc writcr shows the supcrioñty of Chn'st's
acrmcc m' thc most Icllm°g ways. Fus't, hc pom'ts out that Lhe pcrmission
o'r Lhc high priest Io go m'to Lhc Holy of Holies only once a year meanl
hat all the rcst of thc ycar hc was cxcludcd. Thís is an m'dícation, hc says,
hat the OT sm' offenn'gs could not make Ihe worshippefs conscience
mrfect (i.e. frce it from the guilt of sm'), and lhis was bccause lhey, and
hc asaowialed ccrcmom'es, wcrc mercly ordinanccs of lhc ñcsh, or
›utward ord1n^anccs, 1m'poscd umil a time of rcformation (9:l-12).
Secondly, hc nrgues that in the narure of Lhmgs the OT sacnñ'ces could
l0l atone for men's sm's, bccause they wcrc mere ammal's, and “it is
mpossible Lhat the blood of bulls and goats should take away sm's' (10:4).
134 Samfit'e m' lhe Biblz

A thn'd m'dication that thc OT sacnñ'ccs could not atonc, hc argucs, ís u

bc found m' theu' repetition (10:1-2). If thcy had atoned at all, they wouk
havc atoncd completely, and would not havc needed to bc rcpcatcd, as (h4
has iust said) Chrisfs sacnñ'ce does not necd to bc. Thc fact that they wen
conun'ually repeatcd shows Lhat thcy did not atone. They werc not m' fac
remedtks for sin so much as reminders of itz 'in those sacnñ'ces therc isz
remcmbrancc made of sm°s year by year' (10:3).
Thc 1m'plican'on ofthis teachm'g evídcntly is that any grace whích thc 01
sacnñ'ces conveyed came not from themselves but from the sacnñ'ce o:
Christ which Ihey foreshadowed. The epistle, cspecially in chap. l 1 , bearz
ample witness to thc grace of God m' OT u'mes, and m' vv.4 and 28 of IÍN
chaptcr rclatcs it KO OT sacrifices; but the chapter cnds by saying that thc 01
saints nevcrtheless *receivcd not the promisc, God having provídcd somc
better thm'g conccming us, that apart from us they should not be mad(
complete' (vv.39-40). The retrospcctive efñcacy of Chrisfs sacnñcc
bccomes explicit in 9.'15, where hís death is said to have taken place 'fo¡
the rcdemption of the transgressions that were under the ñrst covenant'_:
and thc same thing is implied in v.26 of that chaptcr, as also in Rom. 3:25.
The true Holy of Holics, m'to which Christ entcrcd at hzs' day 01
atonement, was heaven (Heb. 9'.23-8). And that is where we too can nove
boldly draw ncar, thtough faith m' his blood (lO:l9-25). Heaven is the
scene of hís príesthood (8: 1-5), of which this epistlc, un11k'e the rcst of the
NT, says so much. But it was on earth, essentially, that hís samfce took
place. The epistlc lays great stress on the ímportance, in Christ's sacriñce,
of hís death (Heb. 2:9,14; 9:IS-l7, 22, 25-28,' 13:12, 20). All that was
costly in the sacriñce--Khe part of the donor and the vicum'-took placc al
the cross; there remaíned only the priestly part-the presentation of the
sacnñ'ce to God by an acceptable mediator--and we are probably IO
understand that Chríst pcrformcd this at hís ascensi0n, Lhe Líme whcn, as
man, he emered hís Father's presence in the true Holy of Holies. We are
told m' 823 that he 'offeted' (prospherõ) something there, and this probably
refers to the spnn'kling or 'offering' of the blood in the Holy of Holies by
the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:7,21-26,' cf. 12:24), a
Iypical action fulñlled by Chríst, perhaps by sun'ply *appearing in the
presence of God for us' (9:24). Once he had appcared there, hís sacnñ'ce
was over. Thís ís clcar from the numcrous passagcs in Ihe cpistlc which
speak of hís sacnñce as once for all, past and finishcd-not only passagcs
which speak ofhis sacrxñ'ce1'n general tcrms, as l:3 does, but also passages
which speak of it spec1f1'cally undcr its pn'estly aspect (Heb. 7:27,' 9: l l-
12, 25~28; 10.'10-14, 18). This needs to be remembered when theorics of
eucharistic sacnñ'cc are based upon a supposed cominuing work of
sacnjíc'e bem'g pcrformcd by Christ in hcavcm3 Christ'S cominuing
príestly work ín heaven ís like that of Ihe priests m' Ps. 99:6 and Joel
2.'17-it is not sacr1ñ'cíal but m'tercessory (ch. 7.'24-5), and is only ín
thal sense propíúatory (2:l7). He may bc compared with lhe Advocate
who ls' the propiua'u'on for our sm's m' l Jn. 2:2. Hís imercessíon, or
 Chrúl a: Saawc in Paul and Hebrews 135

advocacy, is propitiatory only m' a dcn'ved scnsez it ls' propitiatory because

it ís 4bascd upon Ihe oncc for all propiua'u'on whích he offered on the
cross.
We havc secn how often OT categoñes arc rcimcrpretcd in NT teachmg
on the sacníi'ce of Chns't. Clearly, it 13° not a cercmonm sacnñ'ce, any more
than the spkitual sacnñ'ccs ofChns'uan's are, and it docs not conform lo OT
ccremonial rules. Thls' has led somc to rcfcr to it as a mctaphorical
sacnñ'ce, but 1f' we do Ihis, wc must reahzc' that we arc taking Lhe OT
sacn'ñccs as thc norm, whcrcas, according to the NT, thcy wcrc mcrely
shadows of the true sacrmcc to come, which fulñlled Lhem You cannot
buüd a house without a plan, yet what maltcrs ís not the plan but Ihe
house. The OT sacnñ'ces pmvide providennal' categories for the m'tcrprc-
tation of Chn'st's sacnñ'cc, but they are catcgon'cs which it evcrywherc
transccnds. For thc blood of ammal's, we have Lhc blood of Christ (ch.
10:4; Mk. l4:24). For spodessncs, wc have sinlcssncss<Heb. 9'.14; l Pet.
l: l9). For a swect smcll, we havc true acoeptablcncss (Eph. 5:2). For the
spnnklm"g of our bodies with blood, we have forgiveness (ch. 9:13-
l4,19-22; l Pet.1:2). For symbolical atonemenl, we have real atonement
(Heb. 10:l-10). From a Jewísh poinl of vicw, Lhis m13'ht m°dccd be
mctaphon From a Christian vicwpom't, howcver, il is eschatological
fulñlment.

NOTES
1. For funher discussion of Lhis issuc, scc chap.10.
2A God's reiecnbn of Ihc sin offenhg also mly be due m lhe fncl lhll, lhough il
uknowledgcs sm', íl lssumes sm', whereas God“s ideal is obedience. The Episde lo lhe
Hebrcws adiusls lhls' concept to lcnve room for Lhc mnc sm' offermg of Jcsus, which ía ll
lhe same um'c lhe exprcssion of pcrfecl obedicnce. For furthcr discussion of Psalm 40, see
N.B. Counman's remarks, chap.3.
3. Nolnbly, Lhe thcory propoundcd by S.C. GayforrL Sacriñcz and Pmsdlood (London:
Mclhuen, |924) and F.C.N. Hicks, Tlu Fubmx ofSamjitÀe (London: Macnull'an, l930).
On lhe eucharisüc issuc, sce also Lhe cbapter by S. Wlllon (chap.10).
4. Therc is a iudicious and compendrbus discussion of dcmiled poinls of imcrprelation
m' zhe Epistle ro lhe Hebrcws m' the New London commenury of F.F. Bmce (London:
Marshnll Morgnn & Scot(, l964). The gencnl lcachm of chrcws on thc sacnñ'cc md
pricslhood of Chrisl has bcen vigorously discusscd ar vañous pcn'ods since lhe
Reformau'on, nnd mosl reccmly m' the pcriod betwecn about 1890 ind 1930. Thc most
salísfaclory smcmenl of what Hebrcws leachcs is probably lhat given by H.H. Mceter,
Thc Hcavenly H¡g'h Pnkuhood afChmAI (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmnns, 1916), buildmg upon
the wn'u'ngs of G. Vos.

FOR FURTHER READlNG

F.F. Bruce, Comnmumy on rlu Epu'tl: lo du chnws (London: Mnrshnll Morgan & Scou,
l964).
L. Mom's, Tha Aposlolk Pnaching of du me (Lond0n: Tyndale Prcss, I9SS).
L. Mom's, Thc Cwss in lIu le Tcstanmu (Exeler: Puttmoslen l965).
J.I. Pucker (ed.), Euchansnc" Saailíce (L0ndon: Church Book Room Press, l962).
 10
Sacrzti'ce and Priesthood m' Relation to
tbe Chzistian L1f'e and Clzurcb in tbe
New Testamentl

STEVE WALTON

Sacnñ'ce 1n' relation to thc Christian life and church, and priesthood as an
aspcct of that broadcr arca, arc catcgoríes w1't.h a long history oí
controvcrsy attached to them and a short paper cannot attempt to solve all
the problcms posed by_ church history and systematíc theology m' this
area. Our discussíon wül therefore focus on three themcs. Fxrs't, we shall
consider the sacr1ñ'ce of Christ and Lhe sacnñ'ces of the church, and ask
what thcu-' rclaríonship ¡s'. Sccond, we shall consider the eucharist and
Chn'st's own sclf~offenn'g sacnñ'cc, evaluaun'g thc biblical rcasons that
have been suggested for seemg the euchañst as sacnñ'c1al'. Terd', we shall
considcx thc rclationship of church leadership to Chn'st1an' priesthoood.

I. THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST AND THE SACRIFICES

OF THE CHURCH

This area focuses m'to Lhree key questíonsz What are the 1m'plicatíons of
Lhe sacnñ°ce of Chríst for Christian believersP In what do the sacr1fi'ces of
the Christian church consístP What is the relation of Chn'st's priesthood to
Lhat of the Chns'nan' church?

l. The Sacrüce of Chn'st and Christian Believers

Sacnñ'c¡'al Lma'gery m' relation to the death of Chn'st, paru'cularly Lhe

prícslhood of Chríst, ls' consídered most fully m' Hebrcws within the NT,
and this is also onc place where thc un'plícations of Chn'st's sacrmce and
pn'esthood f0r belicvers arc discussed. Thrce specxñc passages arc
rclevanL
 Sacnjíc'e and Pnu'tllood ín tlu Ncw Talamenl 137

ch. 7:23-28 draws out one un'plicau'on of Chn'st's sacnñ'ce and

pn'csthood, namcly that no other cxpíatory sacnñ'cc or pncs'thood ís
necessary for the beh'ever. The writcr has bccn considcrm'g lhc contrast
betwecn the levitical priesthood and Chnlst's priestly ofñce, and hcre
clanñ'es that no other means of drawm'g near to God ¡s' neccssary for Lhe
believer, sm'ce Christ lives for ever. This 1m'plies zhat he necds no
successor as príest, and also un'plics Lhat hxs' pricsthood goes on for cver:
'hc holds his priesthood permancmly, bccausc he conun'ucs for cvcr.
Consequcntly, hc ¡s' able for all tun'c to save thosc who draw ncar to God
through h1m', smce hc always lives' (vv.24-25). Sunllar"ly, hjs sacnñce has
been offcred 'once for alP (v.27) and has bccn accepted. Thcreforc ít
needs no repetition or replaceman
Heb. 10: l9-22 develops thís pomt funhcr, by showmg Ihat the pricstly
work of Christ (that is, his sacnñ'c1'al death, vv.l9-20) makcs access to
God possiblc for Lhc bclieven This ls' possible bccause 'by a smgle offcring
hc has perfected for all um'e thosc who are sancuñ'ed' (v. l4) and thcrefore
*we have conñdcnce to cmcr the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus' (v. l9).
The lmk' with Chn'st's príesthood 1s' then drawn explicítly (vv.21-22); the
work of Lh13' 'great pn'est' un'plies Lhat bclicvers may 'draw nearZ which is
shorthand for 'draw ncar to God'.
Drawm'g Lhosc two passagcs together, wc may say that Chríst's
priesthood and sacnñ'cc form necessary and suñicicnt conditions for Lhe
beh'ever's access to God. They are neccssary, sm'ce no other pricsthood or
sacnñ°ce rcally dealt with sm' (cf. ch. 10:4), and thcy are sufñciem, sm'cc
his once-and-for-all sacnñ'ce dcals completcly with sm' and he lives for
cvcr (and thcrcforc cxcrciscs a permancnt pricsthood), which mcans that
hc is ablc to offcr thc bcncñts of that sacnñ'ce to thosc who trust m' hnn'.
The Iirst 1m'plícation of the sacrnñ'ce of Chn'st for his church ís open acccss
to God, with no necd for any human mcdiator.
In considermg why the author of Hebrews reasons m' thís manncr,
Moulc points to thc themc of sacnñ'cc and sanctuary in xhe apologetic of
thc carlicst Chr1.r›'n'ans.z He argucs that Lhcy would have necdcd to
rcspond to the accusation from chs and pagnns ahk'c that thc Chrísmn°
Church had no tcmple, altar, sacnñ'ccs or prieslhood~a cogem obiection
ln' a world where all those thmgs' werc consídercd necessary for
:ommum'on with the divm'e. Thus Moule belicves Lhat the argument of
chrews in particular should be undcrstood as a responsc Io n simaúon m'
which Christian Jews werc undcr prcssure to revcrt to Judaism, espccmll'y
;o 1f' thc lettcr should bc scen agamst the backdrop of the chish rcvolt of
m 66-70:3

At such a t1m'e it ís not only a fear ofpersecution and of bemg called traitors bul
also the human ycaming for Lhe ordcrcd stabüity of an ancicnl systcm, wíth
objective, tangible symbols, ihat w111' drivc men back from the bold pioncermg
demandcd by thc Chrislian faíth to the weIl-worn paths of lhc oldcr way. It is
to exactly such a tcmptation Lhnt the Epístle speaks . . . Lhis writcr boldly
 138 Sacnñu m' üle Büle

claun's that . . . íf you would bc loyal chs you arc commiucd to go forward m'
company wíth Lhe new Isracl of thc Chn'suan' Churc'h, _no_¡ back to a prc-
Chn'st1an' suge of Judaism; Iudaxsm' itself 1m'plíes Chnsuamty.

2. The Sacnñ'ces of the Church

Heb. 13:lS-16 draws the other 1m'plicau'on relcvant to our discussion,

which ís that thc sacnñ'ce and prícsthood of Chns't 1m'ply that believcrs
can and should offcr spiritual sacrlñ'ces. Thcsc vcrses comc m' a contcxt of
the sacnñ'ce of Chns't aga1n' (Heb. 13.'10-13), and the writcr goes on from
that point to argue that Chrisxjans should offer various thm'gs which he
calls sacnñ'ces, namely (hcrc) praise to God m' words, and dom'g good and
shann'g what you have (presumably with other Christians m' the ñrst
ínslancc).4 Gunton aptly obscrvcs:s
The Sacrlñ'ce [sc. thc dcath of Christ] ís thc basis and enabler of sacr1ñ'ce5: yet
whal ís ofTered is not Chríst, but that which he camc to reahze', the g¡f't to God
m' worship and hf'c of Lhc pcrfccted creau'on.

By contrast wíth Chn'st's offerm'g, which was bloody, thc sacr1ñ'ces which
bclicvcrs offer arc unbloodyz they cons¡s't m' aspects of Christian livm'g.6
Instead of the sphere of the sacrcd bcm'g lmu"tcd to the temple, Lhc whole
of hf'e is sacrahz'ed, and hence sacnñce can be offered ín the lifestyle of Ihc
beh'ever. Furthet, the km'd of sacnñ'ce is worthy of notc, that ít Ls' a
*sacnñ'cc of praise' (v.lS), rather than an exphtory sacrlñ'ce, agam by
contrast with the death of ChrisL In the NT by far the commonest model of
sacrmca uscd of bclievers' sacnñ'ccs ís the thank-offerm'g,7 sm'cc the death
of Chríst fonns thc ñnal and complete expiatory sacnñ'ce, as Hebrews
argues most powerfully by its use of hapax ('oncc, once for all') of the
death of Christ (Heb. 9:26, 28).
Lookmg more widcly m' the NT, ít ís m'teresun'g (and probably
signmcano Lhat sacnñ'cial language about activilies m' the hf'e of the
belicvcr and Ihc Chrístian church does not speak of activities which
usually merit that termmology Ioday, whích suggcsts how far our use of
sacr1fi'c1al' languagc has moved from that of thc Bible. The followmg
activities occur m' the context of sacnñ°cxal' or príesdy languagczu
Prau'e of God is dcscribed in these terms m' l PeL 2:9 ('a royal
priesthood . . . that you may declare the wonderful deeds of hun' who
callcd you out of darkness m'to lus' marvellous h'ght') and Heb. 13:15 ('let
us offer up a sacnfi'ce of praísc to God, that is, the fruit of lips thal
acknowledgc his name'). Indecd, thc context ín l Petcr is of Chrisuan's
who are *livmg' stoncs . . . buílt m'to a spiritual house, to be a holy
pn'csthood, to offcr spm"tual sacrtñ'ces' (2:5), accumulatmg language
redolent with the thcmes of Icmple, sacnñ'ce and príesthood.9
It 1s' no surpn'sc that prmsc' ís descríbed m' sacnñ'cíal language m' the NT,
sm'ce some of Lhe OT sacr1ñ'ccs were pnn'cipally praísc and thanks sacnñces
 Samfícke and Pruuhood m' du New Teswmnu 139

(e.g. the pcace offerm'g in Lv. 7: l l-18; Lhe usc ofa song m' Ps. 69:30-31).
The earlíest Chn'snan's, who werc predominantly Jews, would carry ovcr
thc models of sacr¡.ñ'ce they knew imo theu' new Chns'uan' contexL
Wzmss is also dcscribcd in sacnñ'cul' terms, bolh m' l PcL 2:9 (which
I takc to bc a delibcratc ambiguity by Pcter cncompassmg both spcakmg
of God m° praise m' the congregaúon and spcakmg of hun' to outsidcrs, cf.
Ps. 107:22'°), and also m' Rom. 15216. Paul hcrc descñbes h1$' mm'1s'try of
cvangelism as “a priestly mims'ter (1eitourgon) of Chns't Jesus lo lhe
Gentües m' thc priestly scrvice of lhc gospel 0fGod, so thal the offermg of
thc Gemües may be acceplable. '“ Cranñeld argucs that 'pn'esr.ly nunls"ter”
ís Lhc wrong translation herc, and prcfcrs sun'ply 'mun"stcr'. Howcver, lhe
context of sacnñ'cial languagc is clcax,lz with thc clustcnn'g of sacnñ'c13'l
language ('pn'esdy service' [hwr'ourgounta], *offcrm'g' [pro:phora], “acccpt-
able' [euprosdektos] and *sancuíi'ed' [he'g¡a:mene"]). Further, leitourgas and
íts word~group are uscd m' the LXX ofprzes'dy scrvice of God, as opposcd
lo the service offcrcd by Lhc whole pcople of Israel (e.g. 2 Ch. ll:l4; Jocl
2: 17,- sz 45:4).13 This suggests that is ít appropriate, pace Cnmñeld, lo
uanslatc 'pricstly mmxs"tcr' hcrc. “ Paul thcreforc sces lns' work of
cvangeljsm amongst the Gcntües m terms which can bc dcscribed as
sacnñ'cml' language.
Prayer ís also spokcn ofm' the context ofsacnñ'cml' language m' Rev. S:8;
8:3, wherc prayer is compared to m'cense smoke rism'g m thc throne of
God, usmg thc language of OT sacrLñ'ccs (e.g. Ex. 302 l-6). This may also
lmk' m't0 the usc of sacnñcial languagc m' Ps. 51217 of thc broken and
conlrilc hcan, whcre repcmance may bc secn as a spec1ñ'c form of praycL
Also worthy of notc m' this comcxt is Lhe usc of thc language of 'drawíng
near' m' Hebrews (proszrc¡wmai, e.g. 4:16; 7:25; 10:22; ll:6; 12:l8-24),
approprhuhg tcrmmology uscd of the (Jewish) príest approachmg the
altar lo offcr sacnñ'cc. 5 Thc rccípicnts of chrews wcrc bcmg
cncouraged by thc wriler to scc that they had genume acccss IO thc
prcsence of God, acccss which had previously been hmJÀted to thc
príesthood. Therefore thcy could 'draw near . . . in qu assurance of faíth'
(Heb. 10:22).
Giving is dcscríbed in lhesc terms also in Phü. 2: l7, whcre Paul speaks
of h1m'sclf as bcm'g *poured oux as a libation upon Ihe sacnñ'c1'aloffcring of
your faith'. What exactly is his pom't herc? Thc commemators dívidc over
whether the genitive 'of your faíth' (te': pts'teo's hymon') should be taken as
subicctive ('thc sacnñce offered by your faith') or as a genitíve of
1pposítíon ('¡he sacnñ'ce which consists of your faith'). In thc conlcxt of
Philippians, ít seems more likely to be a subiecúve gcniu've, smcc
iacrmcíal language is uscd of thcir gift to Paul in 4:18.'6 Funhcr, thc
:arrying of theu gift by Epaphrodítus is dcscribcd usm'g the same
1erminoloF7y (Phü. 2:25). Thus givmg is the subjectin2:17, as i( is m' 2:25
md 41 18.
Heb. 13:16 uses smul"3r language of giving, since il describes sharmg
Nhat you have as a sacnñ'ce (lhys¡a'), along with domg good. Tülard
140 Samhe in du Biblz

describes this as, 'it is a maner of somethmg other than n'tual cuhz i'
conccms a cult whtc'h u' Chnknhn Iwmgu xzs'elf."u
Laying down mw's Ifie far the gospel ís also a sa'criñcial actívity-Phil
2:l7 sees Paul wríting in sacnñ'cial terms of the possibílity of his owr
death: “but cvcn 1f' I am poured out upon the sacnñce and offering of yom
faith' (alla ei kai spendomai epi tê thysm kaí leilourgia lêS pisleõs hymon'). H<
seems to bc alludíng to the dnnk' offcríng which was poured out along
wiLh the bumt offenn'g (Nu. 15:3-10), as a mm'or offermg alongsíde tht
maior atomng' offerm'g. It is readmg too much m'¡o the tcxt to scc Pau
suggesnn'g Lhat hís own death, whüst it may be sccn ín sacnñ'cíal tcrms, is
but a mm'or accompamm'cnt lo the major atonmg sacnfi'ce of the death ol
Christ, for here his death is an accompanun'cnt to the sacnñ'cc of the
th'lipptans”' faizh, i.e. theu" givm'g to PauL Smxxl"ar sacnñ'cíal language m'
connectjon with the death ofa Christian ís uscd m° 2 TLm'. 4:6 and perhaps
Rev. 6:9, wherc the souls of the martyrs arc under the altar.
The consecram of the hf'e w Godíc wxll' is the usc of sacnñ'cial languagc
whích undcrlies all thcsc other uscs. Instcad of part of hf'e bem'g the
sphcrc of the sacred, the whole of hf'e becomcs sacred for the beücver.
Hence in Rom. 12:l the oñering of the bodies of Chrístíans ís described
both as 'a livm'g sacnñ'ce' and as 'sp1r'itual worship'. The sphcrc oí
worship for the Chn'snan' ís not pnma'nl'y the congregau'on, but the world
in which Chn°st is to bc scrvcd. Marshall has argucd that the worship
vocabulary of the NT is used of this servíce of God m' the whole of hf'e and
not of (as wc would say) congrcgaúonal worsh¡p.19 Thls' remf'orces the
poim here, which ís the samc as that noted earlícr from Txll'ard, that the
cult m' the NT is Clu1:'n'an1im'ngitself, and not any smaller scgment of the
Chn'suan' hf'c. Thís is how 1 PeL 2:S,9 should bc undcrstood, whcrc
holm'css of lifc marks the prícstly pcoplc of the church, a holm'ess Lhat is
not merely an 'in church' Lhm'g.
In summary, sacnñ'c131' language and termmology ís uscd by the NT of a
variety of activities, and this poims to the central añirmation of the NT,
that because of the sacnñ°ce of Chríst the whole of11f'c becomes sacrallze'd
for the believcr. chce sacnñcial language can be usad of all km'ds of
acu'viu'es.2°
This ís brought m'to cffect by the Spm"t. In an íntercsting allusion to
sacnñce 1n' speakmg' of *We . . . who have the firstfmits of the Spm"t'
(Rom. 8:23), Paul pom'ts to the Spm"t as the one who enablcs Chrístíans to
appropnhte the access to God achieved by the death of Chríst (w.26-27)
and therefore to offer the sacnfi'ces of Christian living (vv.9-l7).21
Thc othcr pom't wonhy of note ís that the km'd of sacnñ'ce cnvísaged is
ncver an atonmg sacr1ñ'ce, but always a sacnñ'cc of praise and
thanksgivmg'. Cranmer's later distmction holds uue for the NT periodzzz

Onc km'd of sacrxñ'ce lhcrc ls' which ts' called a propx'ua'tory or mcrc1f'ul
sacníi'cc, Lhat is to say, such a sacnñ'ce as pac1ñ'eth God's wrath and
m'dignau'on, and obtam'cLh mcrcy and forgivenms for all our sm's . . .
 Sacnfcz and Prünhood m' tha Ncw Tmamtm 141

And although in thc OT there were ccnam sacriñccs called hy lhal name, yet
m' vcry dced thcrc ¡s' but onc such sacnñ'ce whcrcby our sm's be pardoncd . . .
whích u' the dcath of the Son of God our Lord Jcsus Chns't; nor evcr was any
other sacnñ'cc propitialory at any um'c, nor ncver shall be.
Thm' ¡s' the honour of Lhns' our priest wherem hc admiucd neithcr pmner nor
succcssor . . .
Anothcr km'd of sacnñcc thete is, wbich doth not reconcile ua to God, but ís
made of Lhem dm be rcconcücd by cnrm . . . lo show oursclvcs thankful lo
h1m',' and therefore lhcy be called sacnflc'cs of laud, pmsc' and thznksgivmg
The ñrst km'd of sacnñ'ce Chn'st offcred to God for us,' the second lun'd we
oursclvcs offcr lo God by ChrisL

thls't cenam of thc functíons of Lhe OT pricsthood arc cam'cd ovcr m'lo
the NT material on thc priesthood of the church, onc function not given a
specxñcally pvúslly label m' the NT is tcachm'g, which was, undcr the old
covenam, an un'ponant function of the priesthood (e.g. MaL 2:6-7; Jdg.
18:3›-6,' l Sa. 14:36-42; DL 33:8-10). This is s1'gmñ'canl for our
dlscuss'ion of pricsthood and the lcadcrs of the Chn'suan' commum'ty.

3. The Priesthoods of Chns't, the Chn'suan' and the Clmrcll

This Icads naturally to thc discussíon of lhc form of prícsthood

appropna'tc to Lhc church m' the NT. Only two books of the NT usc thc word
'pn'cst' of Chn'suan's or the church, l Peter and Rcvclation. Thc two
books usc the un'age m' slighdy dsz'ercnt ways, and by rhis give a bothland
answer to Lhe qucstion of whcther thc NT teachcs lhe pn'csl.hood of all
believcrs (i.e. a corporatc form of pricsthood) or thc pnathood of every
bclicver (i.c. m'dívidual prícsxhood).
l Pct. 2:5, 9 uscs the corpome picturc of pn'csthood for thc church,
and transfcrs Lhc titles of Isracl to the Chrisuan' church. Thus, whüst
Israel as a wholc was a pricsthood (Ex. 19:6; ls. 61:6), thc church as a
body now lakcs on that priestly character, and its pricsthood is rcalizcd by
Lhc offcnhg of spm"lual sacnñ'ccs (v.S). Thc offering of sacnñcc sprm'gs
from thc pricstlmess of thc chl.u'ch:23 Lhc church is bemg' buül m'to a
spm"tual house (eu' hwram hagion anencgkai pnewnatíkas thyn'as).
Funhcr, v.9 spells out thc 1m'plications of zhc pricstlmcss of thc church
(wlu'ch ís agam' presemcd m' corporate tcrms: *a royal pricsxhood') in
tcrms very sxmnl"ar to Heb. 13215, using a phrasc which may wcll carry
both senscs of declann'g Lhc dccds of God-in praisc and also m'
cvangclismz 'proclaim the mighty dccds'.
Revelation uscs thc tcrm *pricsts' of Lhe church m' threc places (l:6;
Sz lO; 20:6). and the very usc of it m' this form (rather than the corporate
form, 'priesthood') un'p1ies thal John saw cvcry belicver mdividually as a
pn'cst. Thus m' l:6 believers arc 'priesls to God', in 5210 belicvcrs arc
made *pn'csts servm°g our God', and in 20:6 thosc who sharc m' thc ñrst
rcsurrcctjon are descñbcd as *pricsts of God and of Chn'st'. Bclievcrs arc
*pn'ests' herc, and Lhcrc is no cxclusion of some bclievcrs as pricsts (and
142 SamjícAe m' rhe Bible

thercforc othcrs as not): ít 1s' a mctaphor uscd to describc Chrisuans'

without discrmnn"au'0n.
Revelatíon does not seem to draw ¡m'plica¡ions from the priestlincss of
believers as such. In two places it couples the description of belicvcrs as
Lpriestf with thc description oí thcm as *a kingdom' (l :6,' 52 lO) and m' two
placcs draws the implicaLion of reigníng (5: lO; 20:6), but thís sccms morc
appropriatc to the un'agc of kingship than of pn'csthood. Thus bclicvcrs
corporately form a pn'esthood, and individually may be describcd as
pnesm
What, thcn, of thc relationship of Chn'st's priesthood Io Ihat of the
believer and thc church? Thc NT authors ncver draw this relationship out
cxplicítly, bul we may suggesl two propositions, which go somc way
towards deñning this rclatíonship.
First, becausc Christ is a pricst, believers can offer sacrlñ'ce. This is thc
thrust of Hebrews' discussion of príesthood, especially m' 13.'10-16.
Because Christ has once and for all dealt wíLh sm', belicvers havc access to
Lhe presence of God and thcrefore can approach the throne of grace wíth
confidence (4:l4-16,' 10:19-25), and Ihis must1m'ply a pricstlmcss of thc
Chrístíam for access to God is one ccntral factor to pricstliness m' Lhe 0'r.”
Sccond, because of thc sacr1ñ'ce of Chn'st, believers are constiruted as
pn'ests, and Lhey exercise that priesthood m' offenhg sp1r'1'tual sacrxñ'ccs.
This is the Ihrust of l Pet. 2:4-10. It ís as people come to Christ, the livm'g
stone which peoplc reiected and God valued d1f'ferently, that they are
buüt m'to the new templc and become part of the royal and holy
priesthood which ís to offer spiritual sacnfi'ces through Jesus Chn'st.
Slm1"larly m' Rev. l:5-6, believers are made príests because of Chr1'st's
work of freeing them from the1r' sm's by his blood, by his priestly
sacnñ'cial work. The same thought ís present m' Rev. 5:9-10. The work of
Epaphrodjtus, as we have notcd above, is describcd m' a simílar, sacnñ'c1'al
manner by Paul (Phü. 2.'25).
Thus Ihe two anglcs from which thc NT authors come at the issue ncvcr
quite answer our comemporary question m' the form we have posed it, but
they seem m' combm'ation to be saym'g that the church*s priesthood ís a
dependent priesthood, m' Ihat it is depcndem upon both the sacnñ'ce and
prícsthood ofChrist for its miüation and cominuance. It is fundamentally
diffcrcm from thc or form of príesthood, bccausc sm' has becn oncc and
for all dcall with m' thc death of Christ, and becausc Christ the priest of
the new covenant lives for ever (Heb. 9:l l-15; 7:23-28).

II. THE EUCHARIST AND CHRIST'S SELF-OFFERING SACRIFICE

This subject is a potential mm'eñeld, and we must therefore be clear what

we are attcmptíng We shall look purely at the questíon of whether there
are NT grounds for the view that the eucharist should bc seen as in some
sense a sacnñ'ce and, 1f' so, whal km'd of sacr1ñ'ce.zS This m'volvcs the issue
 Sacríficc aad Pnkuhood in du Ncw Temzmu 143

of thc usc of sacr1ñ'c1'al language about lhe cucharist (which is more

obviously prcscnt m' thc Fnthcrs than thc m) and the rclalion of lhe Last
Suppcr (assumm'g it to be a Passovcr1°) to our vicw of the cuchan'st m' Lhis
connectiom
What biblical reasons arc offered for scem'g thc eucharist as m' somc
sense a sacnñceP On the whole therc arc Lhree grounds prcsemed by lhe
various authors.

1. Malachi l:11 and the Eucharíst

Fus't, the Fathcts saw the euchans't as the fulñlmcm of MaL lzll ('m'
cvcry placc m'ccnse and pure offcrings will bc bmught to my name'), with
its prophccy of world-wide sacrLñ'ce. Thjs ís thc passagc most fthucndy
quoled m' thc first thrce centuries whcn thc Falhers wam to ñnd a biblical
passage to discuss the euchans't m' sacrxñ'cx'al terms.27
In rcsponse, ít nceds to be noted Lhat th13' docs not prove all that is
someum'cs suggested, sm'ce the passage m Malachi is discussmg thc minhã
or meal oñenng', which was not expna'tory, and whích was unbloody.
Thus Justin commcntsz8

Thc offermg of ñnc ñour, wtúch was ordcrcd to be offcmd on behalf of Lhose
who wcrc bcm'g cleanscd ftom leprosy, was a type of lhe bmd of lhe eucharBL
For Jesus Chns't our Lord ordered us to do Lhis m' remcmbnncc of the
suffcnng' which he suffered on behnlf of those who nre be1ng' purged m' soul
from au un"quity.

It is notcworthy that ít ís univcrsally uue m° Lhe early períod thal Ih)s' ls' thc
undctstandmg of thc cucharíst adoptcd by the Fathus whcn considenn'g
it as a sacnñ'ce: Lhcy relatc it to MaL |:l l and draw conclusions about it as
a thanngztn"ng sacnñ'ce, not an exp¡a'tory sacnü'ce. And m' somc cascs (e.g.
Díd. l4: l-2) the oñcrm madc m' the euchañst 1s' lhat of the Chn'su'an's
hcm and conscícnce. Even m' somc of Jusun"s wn'nn'g thc vcrb
pmxphnó is used of thc offcrmg' of thc brcad and wm'c to thc celebranl and
not to God.3°
The furthcr qucsu'on, of whethcr Lhe Falhers wcre corrcct to
undersmnd Lhe vcrsc m' thcse terms, must be answercd with m
unamb18'uous lNo', sm'ce thc verse (viewcd from a Christm pcrspccu'vc)
rclntcs rathcr to Lhe acceptabüty of thc Genlües thmugh thc sacnñce' of
Chríst. Thus Baldwin ng'hdy rtlatts it Io Eph. 2:ll-22 and s1m1l"ar
passages:3'

Thus Lhe inadequacies of thc sacrmcm system, which lud so tmubled Lhe
pmphets, wcrc sccn by Mxlachi as Ibout lo bc mnscmdcd, as m'dccd thcy
Werem'Lhcsncnñce'ofJesusQ1ns't.'n\mu$hthismxñcc'thoscwhowue
strlangcrs to the covenants of pmuúsc would be rcconcded' m God (Eph. Z: l 1-
22).
144 Sacnfce in üu Bible

2. Sacrüce m' the Ancient World and the Eucharist

The second biblical argumcnt put forward for seemg Ihc euchans't as
sacnñ'cial is that of G. D. Küpatrick m' his The Eucham't in Bible and
Liturgy.33 His argumcnt hm'ges on hís vicw of sacnfi'ce in the ancíent
world, which he claxm's is to do with release of hf'e and power, followm'g a
hint m' Oesterlcy.34
Küpatrick argues that this explanation of sacnñ'ce explam's other typcs
of sacnñ'ce, and notes thc 1m'portancc of blood m' Ihis context (e.g. Dt.
22:20-25,' Ex. chaps. 12, 29 and 24:5-8), m' particular Lhat blood was
rcscrvcd for God alone.” Thcn hc discusses a numbcr of bíblical
cxamplcs whcre hf'e givcn up in sacnñ°cc scems to relcase l¡f'e and power
for other purposes.
He first considers 2 Km'gs 3,36 and argues that the sacnñ'ce of the kmg"s
son on the city wall was to relcase hf'e and power to strengthen thc walL
Hc therefore translates v.27, *And thcrc was grcat wrath upon Israel and
thcy departed from h¡m' and rctumed to thcnr' own land.'
Hc sces Exodus 12 as providíng a símüar example,37 where the blood on
the doorposts at the exodus was to prcvent the entry of the destroyer who
(he postulates) m' the on'gm'al version of the story 'did his rounds alone'.
Thus Ihc doorway was rem'forccd by Lhe blood of sacnñ°ce to prevent his
cntry.
A thkd exzmplc he cites is Numbers 22-24›,38 where Balaam asks Balak
to offer sacnñ'ce on seven altars when Balak wants Balaam to curse Israel
(23:1-7). Küpatrick comments, 'We may mf'er that they [sc. the
sacnfi'ces] are offcred to rcmf'orcc the curse or the blcssm'g with the hf'e
and strcngth so released.'3°
Hc discusscs othcr examplcs,'° notably Korah's rcbellion (Nu. 16), and
notcs that the offenn'g of m'cense there led to the powcr released breakmg
loose and destroym'g thosc who bumed it (vv.35-36), Km'g Uzzíah (2 Ch.
26) sufíered sxmúar"ly by bem'g struck with a serious skm' d1s'ease when hc
attempted to bum 1n'ccnsc m' the templc. Küpatrick concludes."l

the world was divided m'to two, Lhe place and condíu'ons m' which supcrhuman
power could be safcly xcleascd m' sacnñ'ce, and Lhe rcst of thc world and the
oonditions m' which it could noL The formcr was holy and the latter profane.

When hc applics dus' hn'c of thm'km'g to the cucharist, hc comcs to

intcrcstmg conclusíons about its sacnñcial naturc. In parn'cular, he
argues Lhat to scc the Last Supper as a Passover (which he sees Mark as
domg') m'd1'cates that it was sacnñ'cial (sce especially Mk. l4:12).
On turmhg to thc evidcnce of l Cor. ll:27-34,42 hc Lhrows líght on the
puzzlmg' v.30 by argumg that Lhc parallcl situatíons to thosc who are lll'
and thosc who have died are precisely ng Uzziah m' Z Chronicles 26 and
Korah m' Numbcrs 16.'3 Thxs' may be a suggestive m'sight as to the way
PauPs mmd' works.
 Sach and Pnes'zhood m' lhe New Texmmem 145

He then argues that Ihe phrase mê dta'knnon" zo soma' m' v.29 should be
understood as meaning 'not separating thc body', and that *Lhe body' hcrc
means-the cucharístic brcad. Thus °not scparanhg thc body' mcans to
treat it as profane, rather than holy. He concludes from this hn'e of
exegesis Lhat Paul saw the eucharist as a sacnñc›e.
Tumíng to Jesus hnm°self, he suggests that the common ground
bctween Mk. l4:24 and 1 Cor. ll:25 Ls' the refcrences to covenam and
blood.“ Sm'cc thc Sm'ai covcnant sacnñ'ce was madc with blood, and
Jesus m' the Last Supper is scmng' up his covcnant sacnñ'ce for hís pcople,
this suggests that Jesus did m'tend the Last Supper to be vicwed as
sacnñ'cial.
Havm'g argued that sacnñ'ce m'volves the release of powcr, Küpatrick
must go on to show the effect of thís relcase of power m' the euchañsL He
argues from Mt. 26228 that one effect is forgivcness, evidenced by the
phrasc 'for thc remission of sm°s'. He furthcr citcs Jn. 6:48-7l, and argues
that v.54 pom'ts to the euchans't as giv1n'g eternal hf'c. Hc traces the
thmkm"g of the Fathers on this, notably Ignatius (Eph. 20:2), who
describes thc euchans'tic elcments as *medícine of |mm'ortalíty' (phar-
makon athanasüs ÍS
Much could be said m~ response to K11'pam'ck's discussion, but wc make
only a fcw obscrvations.
Fu's't, Küpatrick secms to have m15°understood Lhe OT material he
discusses, sm'ce he faxls' to distm'guish pagan forms of sacnñ'cc from those
forms of sacr1ñ'ce which were m'tegral to the religion of IsraeL None of the
examplcs of sacnñ'ce he cites is statcd 1n' the tcxt to bc approved by God,
cither cxpücitly or implicitly, and most arc said to mcct with God,s
djsapprovaL To argue from a vicw of sacnñ'ce Ihal is found only 1n' pagan
or semi-pagan contcxts to seemg the euchañst as sacnñ'c1al' m' a sxmxl"ar
manner must be questionable, to say the least.
Sccond, Küpatrick makes thc classic místake with thc accouuts of thc
Last Supper of confusm'g the lhm'g sigmfcd with thc sign itse1f. It is
bcyond disputc Lhat the bread and wínc of the Last Supper spcak of Lhe
sacnñ'cial death of Chrls't on the cross. But thc thmg' sigmjíe'd (thc dcath of
Christ) bem'g sacr1ñ'cial does not mean that the sign itselfis sacr1ñ'cial. The
strongest statcmem that could be made is that of Aule'n:“

Thc eucharisl of Lhc Last Supper was not m' itself a sacnñ'ce, but it has
neverthelcss a sacnñ'cial character, bccause cvcrythm'g is conccntralcd around
thal ñnal, sclf-giving sacr1ñ'cc which mmn'edialcly followcd.

In othcr words, the Last Supper is not itself a sacnñ'ce, but poínts Io a
sacnñ'ce.
Thu'd, Küpatrick misunderstands Lhe nature of the Passovcr. Two
lm'cs of approach to this topic show Lhis. The firsl ís to noticc that m' the
Passovcr thc propcrly sacnñ'cial act was thc pounn'g out of thc blood of the
vicum' al the basc of thc altar, and Ihis was pcrformed by the pricst in the
146 Sacnlíu' m' lhe Btb'le

tcmple. Thc meal m' the home was presided over by the father of the
house, and was not regardcd as sacn'ñc1al'. Tmard explam's wcll: 'The
meal was a participation, m' thanksgivm'g and hope, m' thc rcdcmptivc
powcr oí the commcmorated evcnt, by the vmuc of the eauhg of the
lamb, the bíttcr herbs and thc unlcavcned bread. m We shall retum to this
m' discussmg the qucstíon of príesthood and muu"stry below.
Moreover, as Green notcs, the Passover itsclf m' its annual celebration
was not regardcd as an atonm'g sacnñ'cc. Rathcr it was a memona'l of thc
ñrst Passovcr, which was an atomng' sacnñ'cc. Green presscs the pom't
homc by gom'g on to note that1'us' wíth thc on'gm'al redempúve Passovcr
that Jcsus compares his death, and thus concludes that 'L1k'e the
Passover, the Holy Communion ís the memonal' of an atonm'g sacnñ'ce,
but ís not ítself an expíatory offerm'g.“8 Thus the analogy With the
Passovcr argucs agam'st thc posítion Küpatrick sceks to establísh.
Küpatriclds position appcars to havc bocn arrívcd at on grounds other
than biblical oncs, and he has thcn sought to ñnd support for that view m'
Scripturc by eísegesis. The Fathers obviously gíve thís km'd of support,
sm'ce all the 1m'pctus towards the eucharist bem'g secn as a sacrlñ'oe
happens m' the Patrístíc pen'od.

3. Plcadmg the Sacníi'ce?

Thc thu'd set of bíblical arguments put forward for sccm'g the cucharist as
in some scnsc a sacnñ'ce is cxpressed by Hebcrtz49

The truc cclcbrant [:c. m' thc eucharístl ls' Chríst the hígh príest, and Lhe
Christian peoplc are assembled as mcmbers of his Body to present bcfore God
his sacnñ'ce, and to be themselves offered up m' sacnñ'ce through the1r' union
wíth h1m'.

Again, Pittengcr writeszs°

. . . the euchnríst as sacnñ'ce ís not a subsútutc for lhc perfect sacnfi'ce of

Calvary, as 1f' thcrc wcre anythmg lackmg m' the uucr completencss of that act
of Chn'st's. It 1s' not a substitute for, or a sacrmce m' addítion to, Calvary; it ís,
rather, an entrancc m'to and a pleadm'g of 'thc meríts' of that sacrlñ'cc, madc
possible bccause the Church is lhe mystical Body of the Lord and thereby can
make thal sacnñc'c its own. Thc Church ís enabled to make íts sacnñcial action
identical wíLb Lhe once~for-all cvent on Calvary bccause ít is Lhe samc Christ
who offered h1mse'lf on Calvary, and who givcs h1m'self m' his Body the Church
. . . The cucharist ís a sacnIi'Ce bccausc ít 1s' that “offerm'g ofChrist once madc',
herem' pleaded and offered to the Fathcr, set betwccn “our sm's ancl theu-'
reward'.

Or agam', Moberly writcsz51

Through thís symbolic cmctmcnt . . . she [sc. lhe churchJ in hcr Euchañstic
worship on canh 15. 1'denufi'ed wilh h1s' sacnñcw sclf-oblnu'on to thc Fathcr; shc
 Sacnjíce'andPnesthood'm'zheNmTalamcm 147

ís mnsñgured up m'to the sccne of Khe unccasmg commemoration of hns'

sacnñ'cc m' heaven; or thc scenc of his ctcmzl offcnhg m' hcavcn ís Iranslntcd
down to, and prcscmed, and reahz'ed ín thc worship on eanlL

The central thought m° each of Lhcse wríters ¡s' Ihat the sacnñ'cc of the cross
1s' m' some scnsc continually bcm'g offcrcd, or that we m' thc cucharist
“plcad' thc sacnñce of thc cross, or Lhat Christ h1m3c'lf m' hcavcn is now
pleading hxs' sacnfi'ce. Thus the d1r'ectíon of the euchan°st ceases to bc
from God to pcoplc, but the eucharist becomes an oñenhg by peoplc to
God. This is often lmk'ed wíth use of the word variously Lranslaxed as
*rcmembrance' or 'mcmonal" (anamnêns'), cspecially followmg thc work
of D1x'.52
On anamne'su', Buehanan, Grcgg and Jeremm betwecn Lhcm have done
cnough to show that it cannot mcan *memor1al', m° the sense of a rccallmg
of an event from the past 1n'to the presenL53 The 'rcal prescnce”, 1f' we may
use that term, m' the Passover celebration ís the presence of the
participams in the past, rather than Ihe haulmg of Lhe past evem imo thc
presenL Thus the participants werc to say, “This the Etcmal did for me
whcn I wem forth írom Egypt.M
In arguing for a “pleading' view, Heb. 7:25 and Rom. 8234 are the NT
passages most commonly used as the basis of the ídea that Jesus plcads his
sacnñ'ce now before the Fathcrz 'he always lives to makc interccssion for
us' and 'Christ Jcsus . . . who m'deed m'tcrcedes for us'. Sykes cxplainsz55

The fact that, as it appears, Chn'st continually m'tcrccdcs with his blood m' Ihe
presence of God on behalf of sinncrs (Heb. 9:24) provides the cssemial key to
thc readiness of Lhe carly church to spcak of thc cucharistic worshíp of thc
church as a sacnñ'ce. The memonal' of the 'new covemmt m' my blood' (l Cor.
ll:25) is the rehearsal of the foundation act of thc new age, xhe sacrlñ'cc of
ChrísL lf that sacnñ'ce is bcmg etcmally plcadcd on behalf of smn'ers by the
exalted Chrisl m' the heavcns, it is but a short step Io say lhat Ihe prayer of
the Christjan body at Ihe euchan'st iom'ed with that of Christ, its hcad, is itself
the offennAg of a sacnhcm

But the verb entygchanõ (translated “make m'terccssion') has a qujte

d1f'ferem meanmg from the clam'ed scnse of “p1eadm'g', sm'ce it mcans
that Christ is around ín hcaven on our behalf, rathcr lhan that hc is trymg
to persuadc thc Fathcr IO accept us bccause of his death. His presencc is
his plea. Thus Calvm commcms on Rom. 8:34:56

For he [sc. Christ] is nol to be thought lo beseech his Father humbly upon his
knees, wílh his hands stretched 0ut; but becausc he appcarelh sull' with his
death and rcsurrection, whúh are mstead ofan etemal xmercession and have thc
efñcacy of lively prayer, that they may reconcile the Father to us, and make
hun' cntreatable, hc is worthily said lo make interccssíon for us.

L1k'ewise, Westcottz57
148 Sacnjüe m llu Biblc

Thc modcm conccption of Christ plcadíng m' heavcn Hís Passion, 'offcnng'
His Blood', on bchalf of men, has no foundation m' the Epistle [$c. to the
Hebrews]. H15' glonñ'cd humanity ís the ctcmal plcdgc of lhe absolute efñcacy
of Hia accomplishcd work. He plcads, as oldcr wn'texs lruly expressed thc
Ihought, by Hxs' Prcsencc on thc Fathcr's lhrone.

Indecd, as W. Stott has shown,“ thc thmkx"ng of Hebrews ls“ m'compatible

with thc idea of our Lord prcsendy offenn'g his blood or hlm'sclf to God.
ch. 9224 is clear that thcre is no altar m' hcaven. The contcxt of 7225 13'
7.'26-28, whcre the ¡m'plicau'on of the dcath of Chn'st, lhat he has no
further nced Io offer sacr1ñ'ces, chm'm'atcs the need for any re-prcscmation
of Ihc sacnñ'cc of Calvary. This was perceívcd m' thc Fathcrs by
Chrysostom, who wrotc on ch. l3:8, *Do not thm'l< bccausc you havc
hcard Jesus is a pricst, thal hc is always offermg sacnñ'cc. He offered
sacnñ'ce once and for all and thcnccforward he sat down.'59
Thcrcforc, any conccption of a 'rc-prcsentatíon' or 'offcnn'g, or
*plcad1n'g' of the sacnñ'cc oncc offered (and note lhe use of “once and for
all' m' Hebrews m' tlus' contcxt!) by Christ has no biblícal foundatíon. This
view of the cuchans't cannot bc said to bc biblically defensíblc.

4. Towards a Biblical Undemandhg of the Eucharist

What should we say as to a correct biblical undcrstand1n'g of the relatíon

of the eucharíst to the sacnñ°oc of the cross? J.R.W. Stott offers five
suggestivc proposiu'ons,°° whích we wm closc this section of the paper by
discussmg brieñy.
First, we remember Chn'st's sacnfi'cial death. He said, 'Do this m'
remembrance of me' (l Cor. ll:24-25), and whatever clse Lhe mcamn°g of
anamnêns', it ccrtainly m'volves straightforward thmkm"g on that past
evem, recalling it to mind. This ís aíded by the dramatic actjons wíth the
bread and wine, whích focus the m1n'ds of thosc prcscm upon the evems
of thc cross.
Second, we pmake of its bcneñts. Thus Paul writes, 'Is not the cup of
thanksgivíng for which we give thanks a partwt"panon' m' the blood of
ChristP And ís not thc bread whích we break a pardcipanbn m' the body of
Christ?' (1 Cor. 10.'16). Thus m' the Lord's Supper thc church of God
fceds spíritually on the *beneñts of his passion', and shares togethcr in
ChrísL
Th1r'd, we procla1m' his sacnñ'ce: *For as often as you eat thís bread and
drmk' this cup, you proclaun' the Lord's deaLh' (l Cor. ll:26). Therefore
the eucharist points back and speaks of the Lord's death. It is someum'es
claum'ed that the verb lzatangellõ used here can mean *procla1m' to God',
almost 'prcscnt as a sacnícc bcfore God', but m' cvery oLhcr NT usc of thc
word it refcrs IO proclamation (o peoplc, not to God. Its most frequent use
is of proclaumn"g 'the word' or 'the gospeP or *Chríst'.°' Thus the claun'
has no biblical foundau'on.
 Samhe and Pnes'lhood ín tlu New Tmamau 149

It is fot this reason that evangclicals have classically understood thc

need for preachmg in the comext of the euchans't, for the 'proclamation'
made by the bread and wm'e ls' dumb without explanatory words.
Obviously these are partly provided by the repetilion of th words of
instítuüom but thc analogy with thc Passovcr Haggadah suggcsts thal thc
proclamation would bc by way of cxplanaúon of the sngmñcan"ce of Lhe
cvents to which thc sign pom'ts (cf. Ex. 13:7-8).
Fourth, we attribute our unity to Chns't's sacrxñ'ce. Thís Ston dnws
from the fact that m' the NT the euchans't is ncvcr m^tended to be cclebrated
solo, but always in fellowshjp with other belicvers (cf. l Cor. ll:20, 33).
This Paul makcs cxplicit m' wn'un'g, 'Becausc Ihcre is onc loaf, we who arc
many are onc body, for we all partakc of Lhc onc loaf (l (;o“r. 10: l7). Thus
thc euchañst pom'ts the church afresh to its unity, whích 1s' solely duc to
the death of Christ and which breaks down human divid1ng' walls (cf.
Eph. 2:ll-22), crcaun'g a ncw mulu'-racial, mulu'-cultural socícty.
F1f'th, wc givc thanks for Lhc sacnf1'ce of Chn'st, and m' domg' so offcr
our livcs up to his service. Ston hcrc refcrs to Rom. 12:l, which is not
hnk'ed to any discussíon of thc cuchan'st, and he is at hxs' most
questionable hcrc. Whüst it is truc that the NT does argue from the
samñ'ce of Chns't to thc servant liva of believers m' the scrvicc of God
(e.g. 1 Pet. 2:21), this lm'k is nowhcre madc m' the context of discussing
thc cuchañsL
Ttús is not necessaxily to qucsu'on thc appropna'tcncss of a praycr of
rcsponse aftcr the reccption of Lhc cucharistic clemcnts,62 for m' rcfocus-
ing upon thc cross m' the euchañst it ís surcly ngh't to bc mmmdcd of tbe
1m'plications of the cross for thc Chns'uan' hf'c m' givmg oursclvcs up to
Chrísfs sem'cc. Howcvcx, wc s¡m'ply observe that lhis is a conncctíon
ncvcr madc explicitly m' thc NT wimcss about thc cucharisL

III. CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP AND PRIESTHOOD

lt has long been notíced that thc NT nowhere uses the word 'priest' Io
describc leaders in the Chrístian community, and Lhat this Icnn is applied
(m' a Christian contcxt) only to Christ lum'sclfand to thc whole church, as
wc havc discusscd above.
Why, thcn, has part of the Chrístian church pcrsísted in Lhe usc of this
category to dcscribe its ordamed leadcrsP The pnn'cipal answer to lhis
comes from thc Patrístíc períod, and cnn bc traced through thc
dcvclopment of a sacnñcial vicw of thc cucharist to the ídca that thc
pcrson who prcsides at thc cuchañst must m' somc sense be pricslly. This
comcs to full ñowcr m' Cyprian in thc third century.°3 Howevcr, thc
Anglican Reformers were clcar lhat their retcnüon of the tcrm 'priesl'
was, ñrst, bccause of íls amiquity as a titlc for elders in Lhe church, and,
sccond, bccausc of thc etymological argumem that thc English word
°príest' is properly derived from presbyzeros (= 'eldcr') and not from hnereus
150 Sacht m' lhe Büle

(=*sacnñ'c1n'g pn'est'). Thus Hookcr defends the usc of thc tcrm along
prccisely these lm'es.“
In closm'g, we shall bríeñy examme why the vocabulary of ptiesthood
was absem from the NT discussíons of the eldcr or other leadcrs. Four
1m'ponan¡ reasons suggcst themsclvcs.
Flrs't, thc connn'uau'on of Iewish pn'cstly sacnfi'ccs, at lcast until AD 70,
must have been one factor 1n' the cmergmg Chrístian movemenfs refusal
to usc thc vocabulary of priesthood and sacnñ'ce of theír ministers. Hodge
acutely obscrvesz65

Every approprla'tc litlc of honour 1s' lavished upon [hcm. They are called thc
bishops oísouls, pastors, teachcrs, rulers, govemors, thc servants or nu'ms'ters
of God,' slewards of the divme mysten'es; watchmem heralds, but never
pn'ests. As thc sacrcd writers wcrc chs, to whom nothmg was morc fanúlm
xhan Lhe word pn'esl, whose mimstcrs of relígion were constamly so
denominatcd, Lhe fact that they ncver oncc use the word, or any of íls cognates,
m' rcfercnce to muu“ste¡s of the gospcl, whether apostles, prcsbytcrs, or
cvangclns'ts, is littlc less than rmrAaculous. It ís one of those cases where the
süence of Scriplurc speaks volumcs.

This rcfiects the emphasis ochbrews, that the OT sacnñ'cial system found
its fulñlment m' the dcath of ChrisL Lightfoot expresses this wcll:“

All fonner priesthoods had borne wimess to the necessity of a human

mcdxa't0r, and this senum'ent had its saus'faction in thc Person and Ofñce of the
Son of Man. All past sacnñ'ces had proclmm'ed the need of an atoning death,
and had thek antitype, Lheu' realisau'on, thcu' annulment, m' the cross of
ChrisL

Further, thc ñrst Christians really do scem Io have grasped Lhat the whole
of l1f'e is sacralized by the death of Christ, and therefore the vocabulary of
sacnñ'ce is rarely applied m' the NT to what Chn'sna'ns do when they meet
together. The NT authors” use of thís temun'ology ís to do with servmg God
m' the world, as we have seen above m' discussm'g the applícation of the
vocabulary of sacr1fi'ce to the Chrístian llf'e.
Sccond, because the early Christians saw the dcath of Chríst as the
fulñlment of the OT sacnñ'c1al' system, they saw the Chríslian assembly
(ekkle'sza') as analogous Io the synagogue, rather than the temple. This has
been argued wíth respect to Chns'u'an forms of worshíp, for example, but
we should here note its 1m'plication for the title applicd to thc leaders of
thc congrcgation. ln Lhe synagogue the leader was known as an “elder' (the
Greek word would be presbyteros), and thís ís suggestive for thc early
Chn'sua'ns' use of presbyteros as thc commoncst Icrm for theü lcaders in
the local settm'g.
An ínterestmg sídelight on Lhís is the modem Roman Catholíc tendency
to usc ¡presbyter' as the term for theír ordained muu"s(crs, rather than
'priest7. Robert Taft, a Roman Carholic liturgícal scholar, observes, 'I was
 Sacnjíc'c and Pnu'lhood m' thc Ncw Tmamau lSl

madc a pricst at my baptismz I was madc a presbytcr at my ordm'u'on.'°7

In this Taft displays a NT understandmg which it ís d1f1i'cult to faulL
Thlr'd, Tnllar'd's analogy wíth the Passover (discussed above) has
m'teresun'g 1m'plicau'ons for a vícw of the euchan'st, and m' particular for
presidency at the eucharisL He pom'ts out that the meal of the lzmb which
had been offered m' the tcmple, eaten 1n' the home, was prcsídcd over by
Lhc father of the famüy, and Ihat the pricstly act was antcccdcm to the
meal-it took place (strictly) at the ñrsl Passovcr m' Egypt or (morc
loosely) in the tcmple whcn the pricst pourcd out the vicum"s blood at the
basc of Lhc altar.
lear'd goes on to argue that the priestly function m' thc euchañst had
alrcady been performed m' thc historical evcnz of the cross, and thus when
Chrísuan's met to celebratc thc euchan'st, they considered that act to be
analogous to the Passover meal m' the home, not to the on'ginal Passovcr
sacrxñ'cc m' Lhe day of Moses, nor to thc Passovcr sacnñ'ce at the temple.
Thxs' meam (T111'ard clmm's) Lhat Lhcy were not m'chn'ed Io use pricsdy
tennmology of the one ptesidm'g al thc cuchans'tic mcaL He also notcs
that dús point is strengthcncd 1f° lhe eucharist ís to be hnk'cd xo a
'fratcmity' banquet and not to a Passovcr.“
Fmall'y, wc observe that m' any case xhc early Chrisuan' communities
appear not to havc becn greatly conccrned about who presided at Lhc
eucharisL If the scholarly conscnsus about 'Lhe brcakmg of bread' bcm'g
the eucharist ls' correct,6° we may note that Acts 2:46 un'plies a
multiplicity of eucharists and therefore (unless xhe apostlcs rushed from
house to housc saym'g eucharistic prayersD a multíplicity of presidems. Ix
1s' even qucstionable whcther our modem conceplion of *prcsidency'
would havc bccn rccognüed by the carlicst Chrisuan's, with Lhe strong
emphasis they had on the commuxúty 'cclcbratm'g' thc cucharisz (e.g. m' l
Cor. lO-11, whcrc all thc vcrbs for the cclcbration of thc cucharist are
plural, with the solc excepüon of the call to m'dividual self-cxamm°au'on m'
11:27-29).
Beckwith cla1m's, in common with much othcr scholarship, that the NT
is süent on the question ofwho ls' to officiate at Lhe cucharísL70 Horvath,7'
reactmg to Bapmm', Euchans't and Mm'ts'uy's claun' that this is thc case,72
offers Ihree verses m' whích he beljevcs Paul is prcscnted as presidmg al a
cucharístic celebration (Acts 20:7-15; 27:35; l Cor. 10:16).
The ñrst seems uncontrovcrsiaL The second is at least arguablc, smce it
pictures Paul *breaking bread' aftcr thc shípwreck, havmg' urged his
compam°ons to cat. Brucc, whom wc havc noticed sccs Acts 2:46 as a clcar
rcfcrcncc to cuchañstic thanksgivm'gs, is amb1'valcm, suggestmg that the
brcakmg of bread herc might have had a dxff'erem sigmñ'cancc for the non-
Chn'stian saüors than it had for Paul and his Chrisuan' companions, who
would have treated it as a eucharistíc thanksgivm'g.73 How:ver, Marshall
correcdy observes Lhat Paul's actions do nol go bcyond normal Jewish
pracu'ce, m' blessm'g God for the food to bc ealen."
152 Samhe m' Ihc Bible

Horvath's thjrd claLm'ed m°stance of Paul presídm'g (l Cor. 10: 16) seems
odd, for hc claun's Lhal Paul, m' spcakmg of *Ihe bread that we brcak', was
descn'bing hímself presidm'g, prcsumably m' absemxa'. There seems to be
no iusuñ'cau'on in the text for this; it seems morc namral to see the use of
'wc' as *we Christíans' than as 'we apostles' or 'we elders'. This is more
hk'cly m' the líght both of the contrast m' l Corm'tham's 10 with pagan table
fellowship, and also of the emphasis m' 1 Conn'Lhians ll on the Chrisua'n
commumty celebraun'g the euchañst Iogcthcr.
Ovcrall, Horvath's case faüs to convm'ce. He can producc only one ñrm
example, which is s¡m'ply an example of practice in one instance, with no
explicit or un'plicit statemem as to whether this practicc was normative.
Cenam'ly, the evems of Lhe rest of the cvemn'g were not normative (Acts
20:9-12)! The conscnsus of scholarship, that thc NT makes no pro~
nouncements on who should be the 'president' at eucharistic celebrations
(1f' therc was such a pcrson rccogmza'ble at all), scems secure.
Thus until lhc developmem of Lhe later pen'od, m' whích presidcncy at
the eucharíst did bccome 1m'portam, and therefore priestly vocabulary
was attached to Ihe one who prcsided, priestly language was s¡m'ply
irrclevam lo the eucharísL
These four pom'ts together add up to Lhe thought that the early
Christians wcre wisc to avoid thc applícation of priesdy termmology to
thcu' leadcrs, because Lhey fcared the loss of the centrality of the priestly
act of Christ on the cross. Church history suggests that we today might be
wise to heed them.

NOTES

1. I acknowlcdge Lhe kind suppon and encouragemem of lhc Church Pastoral-A1d'

Socicry m' thc prepmúon of this paper, the bulk of which was complcted whüst I was a
member of CPAS slaff.
2. C.F.D. Moule, ^Sanctunry and Sacníi'ce m' thc Church of lhe New Tcslnment' m'
]TS 1 (1950) 29_41.
3. Moulc, 'Sanctuary', 37.
4. So Moulc, *Sanctuary', 38.
S. C:. Gunlon, "I'hc Sacrmcc and the Sacnñ'ces: From Mctaphor to Tmnscendenml?',
m' R.J. Feenstra & C. Planunga' (eds.), Trimly', lncamanon', and Amemenu Philosophüal
and Theologüal Essays (Libnry of Religíous Phll'osophy, vol. 1) (Notrc Damcz Um'vcrsily
of Noue Damc Press, 1989) 225.
6. So R.J. Daly, SJ, 'The Ncw TesLament Concepl of Chrísuan' Sacnñcm Activity' m'
BTB 8 (l978) 99-107.
7. For discussion of the various fonns of sacnñce found m' the OT, sce F.M. Youns,
'New Wine in Old Wm'csk1n's, XIVz Sacnñ'ce' m' Exp Tm LXXXVI (l974-7S) 305-309,'
R.P. Shcdd, “Worship 1n' thc New Teslamcm Church' m' D.A. Carson (cd. ), The Church ín
lhe Biblz and lhe Warld (Exclcr/Grand Rzpidsz Patcmoster/Baker, 1987) 136-l37.
8. Cf. R.T. Beckwith, PmsAzhood and Sacmmems (Abm'gdon: Marchnm Manor Press,
1964) 16,' idcm, 'Thc Relation bctwccn Chns't's Sacrnñ'ce and Priesthood and those of lhe
Churchz An Anempt nt a Summary Slalcxncnt', Churchman 103 (1989) 232.
9. Daly, 'Ncw Testament Conccp¡', lO3-104.
 SaayícJ and Pnc's!hood m' Ilu New Teslamem 153

10. D.G. Pctersom Eugaging wuh' God: A Bíblud Theology of Wmhip (Lc1ces'lcr:
Apollos, l992) 268-269 notes the w1d'cr contcxl of l Petu, cspccmll'y 3:l$. m' suppon of
thu' pom'¡. He also secs Ihc ume double numdn m' homlogmmm (mnslatcd 'oonfcss' m'
NRSV) m' ch. 13:15, comparing lhc use m› ML lO'.32; Jn. 9'.22', 12142, whcrc ilbis used
of 'confessm'g' to 'ou¡sidcrs' (ibid. 246, 259, n.4l).
lL Scc C.E.B. Cnnñeld, Ronmu, vol.lI (lCC) (Edm'burgh: T. & T. Clnrk, l979)
7S4ff. for a thorough dnscussx"on ín whích hc nrgues üm PauPs mmxsuy" hcte ¡s' compuable
to thnt of thc orr chitc, not the pn'cst, pn'ncipally from Lhc use of thc tcnn Imoam m' the
LXX md lhc oonlext of duúmu For lhc oonmry vxew', sec Da|y, 'Ncw Testamcm
Conccpl', 102-103.
12. As Cranñcld acknowlcdgcs, Romans II, 7SS.
13. Peterson, Eugagíag wúh God lSO.
14. ln agreemcm wilh J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC 388)(D|1hs: Word, l988)
859-86O ('the cultic lnnguage of thc followxng' chusa pun lhis almost bcyond dispute');
and J.A. Fitzmyer, Romm (AB 33) (New Yorlc Doubleday, l993) 7|l-712.
lS. Scc dncu'ssno'n m' J.M. Scholcr, Proltptü Pmsu' USNTS 49) (Sheñicld: JSOT
Press, l991)chap. 3. Pcterson, Engam wílh God 238-239, refen to LXX usage, whkh is
uscd of pnes'dy m1m"stry m' offcnn'g sacnñccs', c.g. Lv. 21:17, 21; 22:3.
16. G.B. Cmrd', Paurs le fmm Pmon' (Ncw Clarendon Bible)(01ford: Chrendon
Prcs, l976) 127.
l7. Also wonh noúcíng h 2 Cor. 9:12, where givmg' is alsn dcscribed usu13' la'lourgla'.
Sce Shcdd, 'Worship', 147_148.
18. J.M.R. Tillard, What Pnkszhood Hax du MinúnyP (vac Minjacry & Worslúp
Booldct 13) (Bramcole: vac Books, l973, 12) (irz.lics mjne).
19. 1.H. MmhalL 'How Fu Díd thc Early Chn'smn's Worship God?', Clmchwm 99
(1985) 216-229; cf. lhc discussion of Acls 13:2 in Pctersnm Engam wüh God lSO~lSL
20. Young, 'New Wine', 307 pomls oul dm lhc enrly Chn'sunn's wnre nol lhe only ones
to 'spm"tualisc' lhc idea of sacnñ'cc in lhis way. Shc cilcs Ben Sua' md the Dcad Sea
Scrolls, as wcll as lhc lalcr nbbis, as lmúng other thmgs' such ns good dccds, fasun'g.
pmyer, mpemancc and Lhc smdy of lomh, as cquivalem to ochhg anmnl' sacnñ'ccs.
2|. C. Gunton, 'Chn'st lhe Sacníi'cc.' Aspccts of Ihe ngunge md hmgcry oÍ the
Bible', m' L.D. Hurst & N.T. anÀht (eds.) Thl Glovy of Chnsl m' llu Ncw Tmamlnc
Sndlh in Chnklolog ul' Memory ofGeorgc Bmdfoni Cmrd' (Oxford: Clmndon Prcss, l987)
238, ciun'g H.-G. Lmk' & C. Brown, 'Sncnñ'ce' m' NIDNTF vol. 3, 4l7. Cf. F1'lmyer,
Romans 510, who refers to Lv. 22:12; 23:15-2| for lhc origins oflhc 1'dcaof'ñmfrm'u' m'
lsmlite pram'cc.
22. Thomas Cranmcr, 'A Defence of lhe Tmc and Catholic Doctrine of Lhe Sacmment
of thc Body and Blood of Our Savíour Chns'r'. m' H. Jenkyns (ed.) Thc Runaim okaow
Crmmn, voL ll (0xford: Oxford Um'versity Prcss, 1833) 44H49.
Z3. ].N.D. Kelly, TIu Eprkllex of Pelcr and of Jude (thk's NT Commenunca')
(London: A. & C. Blnck, l969) 90-9l; C.E.B. Cranñcld, Tlu Fm Epútlc of Pmr
(London: SCM, 19SO) 49-50.
24. Bcckwilh, Pngs'¡hood, chap. 2; likevtdse Scholcr, Pmlepnc' Prúxu 207.
25. For discussions of widcr reasons for scemg' lhe eucharisl IS n sacn'ñoe, sec J.l.
Packcr (cd.), Euchaiunc" Samjic't (London: Church Book Room Press, l962); ].L.
Houldcn, 'Sacnñ'ce and lhe Euchm'st' in Amhbishops' Commission on Chrisun
Doctrm'c, TMW aboul llle Eucharm (Lond0n: SCM, l972) 81-98; R. Willlams',
Eudwrúríc Sacnjc”c.' Tlu Rools of a Mcmphar (Grove Liturgical Sludy 3l) (Bramcole:
Grovc Books, l982); C. Buchanan (ed.), Exsays on Euchanm Sacnñcc iu rIIe Eurly Church
(Grovc Lilurgical Sludy 40) (Bn¡mco(c: Grovc Books, 1984).
26. See the discussions in ]. Jcremus', Tlu Eudumknc Words afjma (London: SCM,
19661),' I.H. MarshalL Laxl Suppn and Lard's Suppcr (Exeter: Patemostcr. l980)', G.D.
Küpatrick, The Eucharist in Bíble and anrgy (Cambn'dge: Cambridgc Univcrsily Press,
1983). cspchly Lecmre lV; and Ihc commenmies.
154 SamM m' tlu Bíble

27. Sce, for examplc, D¡d'. 14:l; Jusun', Dla'l. 4l. R.P.C. Hanson discusses Lhcse Iexts
nnd olhels mremely helpfully In' his Euthans'nc' Ojferíng in lhe Early Clmrch (Grove
Líturgical Srudy l9) (Bramcotc: vae Books, l979). See also Houlden, “Sacnñ'cc', 84-
86.
28. Dm'l. 4l.
29. Hanson, Eutham'nc' Offaíng S.
30. ApoL I, 67:5, dlsc'ussed in Hanson, Euchans'nc' ijmnj 84
3L Huggm', Zechanhh and Malachi (TOTC) (London: XVP, l972) 227-230 (lhc
quomúon is from 230). Cf. idcm, 'leachi l:l l and thc Worship of the Natíons ín thc Old
Tcstamml', Tyn. B 23 (l972) ll7-124; J. chmam, 'Malar:hi l,ll: An Interpreuuoçnü
CBQ Sl (1969) 200-209.
32. Sce also chap, 4, Sch III, for funher d15'cussx'on of lhis versc.
33. Scc n.26 above. Sce also his 'Thc Eucharist as Sacrmcc nnd Sacramenl m' thc NT' m'
]. Gkaa (ed.) Neuex Tatamenl und K¡r'che (Freiburg: Herdcr, l974) 429-433.
34. W.0.E. Ocslcrley, Sumlíc'zs in Anmt lsrael (London: Hoddcr & Stoughton,
l937) 33-41; cf. zlso l77_|90, cílcd m' Küpatrick, Euchankx in Bible 46.
3S. Euchankt m' Bük 46.
36. Eucllarls'l Ih Bíble 47.
37. Euchmút m' Bíblc 47.
38. Euchmúl ml Bíble 47-48.
39. Eucham'z m' Bible 48.
40. Eucham't m' Büle 49ff.
4l. Euchanst' m' Bible 50.
42. Euchmm m' Bíble 53.
43. Euchanxt' m' Bible 53-S4.
44. Eucham't m' Bible S4.
4S. Eucham't in Biblc S4-57.
46. G. Aulén, Eucharúl and Sache (Phüadclphia: Muhlenbcrg, l958) lSB.
47. Túl^ard, What Prúuhood 18.
48. E.M.B. Grcen, 4Euchnns'u'c Sacnñce' u1' thc New Testamcm and Lhe Early Fnhers'
m' Packcr, Eucharúnk Samjí:'e, especxwy 64ff. (zhc quoution Ls' from p.64).
49. A.G. chcn, quoted m' The Lambnh meference (l958, Pan 2) (London: SPCK,
1958) 85.
50. W.N. Px'ttcnger, The Chm'Mn' Sacnñce' (Ncw Yorkz Oxford Univcxsiry Pm., l9$1)
109-l lO.
51. R.C. Moberly, Mm'u'1maane'sthood (London: John Murray, l897) 255.
52. Dom G. D1x', Thc Shapc ofzhc Lzzur'gy (Wcslmm'stcr: Dacrc Prcss, l94$) 243-247.
S3. D.W.A. Gregg 'chnn'c Ameccdents to the Eucharístíc anamnêsu' Formula', TyIL
B 30 (l979) 165-168; idcm, Anamluú m' the Eucllcm'l (vae Líturgícal Study S)
(Bramco¡e: vae Books, 1976); Jeremn's, Eucharúnc Words 237-255; C.O. Buchannm
ARCIC andLm on Baplmn' and Eucham'r(Grovc Womhip Booklel 86) (Bramcozc: Grovc
Books, I983) 13-l4. Sec also thc discussion m' G.D. Fcc, The Fim Epu'rle w rlu
Covinlhicms (NICNT) (Grand Rapidsz Eerdmans, l987) SSfo.
54. Pes. (Mishnnh) 10:6 (ita1ics mmc'),
SS, S.W. Sykcs, 'Sacnñce' in thc New Tcstament nnd Chrísmn' Thcology', m' M.F.C.
Bourdillon & M. Fones (eds,), Sacríñce (New Yorkz Acadcmic Prcss, 1980) 77 (i(nlics
kns').
56. John Calvm', Romans (Edm'burgh: Calv1n' Translaúon Society, 1844) 235 (íx¡h'cs
mm'e).
S7. B.F. Westcotl, The Eplkllt lo Iht Hebnws (London: Macmjllnm 19202) 232.
58. W. Ston, "I'he Concepúon of “0ffenn'g" ín Lhe Episuc ID thc Hebrews', NTS 9
( 1962-63) 62-67.
$9. Homily on Heb. l3:8.
60. J.R.\V. Sloll, Tlu Cmss ofChml' (Lciccster: IVP, l986) 260-261.
 Sacnfce and Pnes'lhood m' tlu New Teszamnl 155

61. Scc Acts 3:24;4:2;13:5,38;lS.'36;16:17;17:3,l3,23;26:23;Rom. l:8;|Cor.2:l;

9:14;Phil. l:l7,18;Col. l:18. This is a complclc hs'l of NT uus ofkamngtllõ a found m'
VKGNT, Band l, Teü 1, 678.
62. As e.g. mÀ Lhe Church of EnglancPs Alurnarroe Semu Booh, Rile A, Holy
Communjon sem'ce, l44~145 (5552-53), at Ihis poim íollowmg' the pnucm of Lhe Booh of
Commml Pmyer scrvice.
63. Cypmn' considercd Lhnt Chn'suan' tmms"zcrs formcd a specm pn'csxhood. and
argucd thal the pn'v¡l'eges of the lcviúcal pn'cslhood wcrc mnsfemd to thB gmup of
Chn'suan' ministers, whom hc saw as offermg the euchans't, of which hc spokc m' sacnñcial
rcrms. See his Epns'des 3, 4, 43, S9, 63, with lhe summary m' Hanson, Euchaumt Offmnj
l$-l9.
64. R. Hooker, Eccmw PolizyV, 77, 2: 'I ralhcr Icnn the one son prcsbytcrs Ihan
priesls, bccausc m' a mzuer of so smzll moment l would not offcnd lhe ears tc whom d¡e
namc of pn'esthood Ls' odzo'us, though without causc . . . sccmg' lhdl dnt sacnñ'cc |s' now
no part of Lhe church mm'|s'try, how should lhe namc of pn'cslhood be lhmlo applncd'?
Whereforc whcther we call il a pn'esv.hood, or presbyurship, or a m1m"stry, it skilluh noc
although in trulh the wnrd presbyter dolh sccm more ñt, and m' propñery of speech Inore
agreeablc than príest with lhe dnTt of thc wholc gospcl of Jesus Chm'l.'
6S. C. Hodgc, Symmant Thoology, voL II (London: Nclson, 1883) 467.
66. J.B. Lx'gthool, Philíppm (London: Macmmam 18981) 265.
67. Ciled by C40. Buchanan ln' Ntwt ofLmugy 140 (Aug. 1986) l.
68. lear'd, Whal Pnes'zhood 18-l9; so nlso Bcckwidz, 'Thc Rclau'on', 232-233.
69. F.F. Bruce, Tlu Acu of lllc Aposlla (London: Tyndale, 19522) 100 (Brucc
commucs to mamum Lhk posiubn m' Khe 3rd edn. (Le)c'ester: Apollos, l990) 132). He
cilcs Ouo's ugumcm thal the emphasu' on lhe act of brealuhg lhc bread, a “c1rcums'unce
wholry m'v¡al' in ilsdf' was 'Lhe sxgm"ñcam elemem of lhe celcbnu'on', m' R. 0uo, The
Kíngdom of God and lhc Son of Mml (London: Luucrwonh, 19432) 3l5. The followmg'
come to sumlar" conclusionsz H. Conzclmanm Am of du Aposda (Hcrmmm')
(Philadelphn': Fonrcss Press, 1987) 23 (Excursus),' I.H. Marshall, Arls (TNTC)
(Lc¡'CCsIcr: IVP, l980) 83-84; C.S.C. Wúh"ams, A Cowunlmy ou llu Am oflluAposda
(Black's NT Commcntan'cs) (London: A. õx C. thk, 1957)72;E. annducm TheAas of
Ilu Aposdts (Oxí0rd: BlackwclL l97l) l9l-193; Jercmhs, Eucharun'c Woníx l|8-lZL
70. Beckw¡'d¡, 'Thc Relauo'n', 233.
7 L T. Horvath, 'Who Prtsidcd aI lhe EuchuísKP A Commcm on BEM'.]ES 22 (l985)
604-607.
72. Bapnm'. Euchans'l mnd Mmuny (Faith md Order Plpex lll) (Gcnev¡: World
Council uÍ Churchcs. l982) Mmdátry smemem, Commcmary on Sl4.
73. F.F. Bruce, Tlu Booh ofAm, revised cdn. (NICNT) (Gnnd Rapidsz Eerdmans.
l988) 492491
74. MarshalL Am 413414. Sec lhe díscussion of Icwish blcssmgs m” Fee, Fthl
Connlhm'ru 467, n.26. ln agrcemenl wilh Marshau m L.T. Johnson, Tlu Acn ofdu
Apostlu (Sacra Pag1'na, vol. S) (Collcgcvmc: Lilurgical Press, l992) 4SS; annchcn, Acls
707; Cunzelmanm Acu 220.

FOR FURTHER READING

R.T. Beckwith, 'The Relaúon betwcen Chn'sl's Sacnñ'ce and Pn'esthood and Those of lhe
Church: An Altcmpl al n Summary Slalemcnt', Chmhman 103 (l989) 231~239.
RJ. Daly, SJ, 'Thc Ncw Tesuuncnl Conccpl of Chn'su'an Sacnñ'cíal Acu'vily' in BTB 8
(l978) 99~107.
E.M.B. Grecn, 'Eucharislic Sacr|ñ'ce m' lhc Ncw Tcstnmcm and lhe Early lehcrs', m'].1.
Packcr (cd.), Eucharislic Saaifict (London: Church Book Room Prcss, l962) 5H3.
D.W.A. Gregg, Anamnem In lhe Eudnzrül (Gr0vc Lílurgical Sludy S) (Bramcole: Grove
Books, l976).
156 Samjíc'c in tht Bíble

G.D. Kilpam'ck, The Eucham'x m' Bible rmd Limrgy (Cambn'dge: Cambñdge Univcrsíty
Prcss, l983).
J.B. Lighlfoot, "l'he Chrls'u'an Ministry' in his Philipplm (London: Macmmam 18982)
181-269.
I.H. Marshalh Lasl Supper and Lonfs Suppa (Didsbury Lcctures l980) (Exeter:
Palcmosler, l980)A
I.H. MnrshalL 'How Far Did Lhe Early Chrisuans' Worshíp God?', Churchman 99 (l985)
216-229.
D.G. cherson, Engam with God: A Bx'blnc'al Theology af Wmhíp (Lciccstcr: Apollos,
1992).
R.P. Shedd, *Worshíp m' lhe Ncw Tesnmcm Church', m' D.A. Caxson (ed.), The Church
mÀ lÍIl Bible and Ihz World (Exctcr/Grnnd Rapidsz PatemosterlBakcr, l987) 120-153.
J.R.W. Ston, Tlu Crosx ofChru'l (Leioesler: IVP, l986).
I.M.R. Txll°ard, WharPnu'rhood Has rluM1n'utvy'? (vae Ministry & Worship Booklet 13)
(Bmmcotc: Grove Books, 1973).
 11
Saczüce for Cluístians Today

MARTIN J. SELMAN

I. SACRIFICE AND WORSHIP

Thc a1m' of dús chaptcr is Io cxplore m' somc small way how Lbc Bible's
tcachm'g on sacnñ'cc m1gh't bc rclcvant for contcmporary Chn'su'an
worship. Tlns' task is clearly d1ff'erent from that attcmptcd m' the othcr
essays, but it ís no less xm'ponam. Anyone who wams to worshíp God
accordíng to biblical pnn'ciples must take accoum of the whole range of
the biblical Icachmg' about sacnñ'ce. Even though Chn'snan's no longer
nccd to put thcu' gxft's on a physical altar, thcrc is a dkect connection
bctween sacr1ñ'ce as describcd in the Bible and worship today. That lmk'
m'volvcs thc outward forms of worship as wcll as its mn'cr mcanm'g, as
Paul 111'ustrates m' his appeal to Christians to 'offcr your bodícs as livmg
sacnñ'ces' (Rom. 12:1) and m° tús tesum'ony that he was 'bem'g poured out
hk'e a dnnk' offen'ng' (2 Tim. 4:6).
Many Christians today w111' actually bc familiar, Lhough oftcn
unconsciously, with thc presence of biblical sacnñ°cial language m' hymns
and songs ín current use. Songs such as 'Wc bnn'g the sacnñ°cc of praise',
'Lay our lives beforc you', Charles Weslcy's hymn, 'Kindle a ñame of
sacred love on the mean altar of my heart', and thc conclusion to Graham
Kendn'ck's Servant King: “To bríng our lives as a daüy offenng° of
worship to the Servam Km'g', all bnn'g the world of biblical sacnfi'cc m'to
contcmporary worship.l
Thc rclatíonshíp between worshíp and sacnñ'ce, howevcr, goes much
deeper than mere Iiterary metaphor, as careful smdy of thc Bible clcaxly
m'dícates. Even m' pre~Chrislian OT worshjp, sacnñ'ce was concerned Wílh
a great deal morc than obscrving correct rituaL Sacnñ'cc could evcn bc a
means by which a pcrson míght experience thc glory and majcsty of God.
thn Isaiah stood before Lhe ahar, for cxamplc, he saw the Lord (Is. 6: l-
7), and when Solomon dedicated the temple, 'ñrc camc down from heaven
and consumed thc burm offering and the sacr11i'ces, and the glory of Ihc
LORD ñlled the temple' (2 Ch. 7: l). II was only when Jesus offered h¡m'self
158 Samhe m' the Biblt

on the cross, however, that the potcnúal for cncountcrmg God through
sacnñ'cial worship was fully reahzed'. The mystcrious rippm'g apart of the
templc veü as Jesus brcathed hís last decísively demonstrated that
sacnñ'ce had fully opencd the way m'to God's very prescnce (Mt. 27.'51;
Heb. 6: l9-20). What is more, by Jesus* death believers reccived a ncw
opportumty to bnn'g Lheu' own offeñngs m'to God's prcsence (Heb.
10: l9-22). Thc clear 1m'plícation is that far from Jcsus brm'ging about Lhe
abolition of sacr1ñ'cxa'l thought and practicc, hc actually encouragcd its
spread and developman
Sacnícc 1s' not merely associated with worship, it lies at its very heart.
This understandmg has recently been expounded by S.W. Sykes, who
argues that the ideas, language, and practices of sacnfi'ce are central to the
relationships that people enioy with God.z Sm'cc Christms cxprcss theu'
relationship with Jesus most fully through worship, which m' biblical
thought is symb0112'ed extemally and m'ternally by sacnfi'ce, sacnñcial
worshíp is the proper means for communícalmg the meanmg of that
relatíonship. Or to put ít another way, the most profound way to show
one's love for God in worship is to lay everytlun'g on his almn Chn'sun'a
Rosetu"s famous carol, “ln lhe blcak midwm'ter', expresses this perfectlyz
'What can Igívc h1m', poor as I am? . . . Yet what I can I give hxm', givc
my heart'. This was certaml'y the way Jesus showed the depth of the
rclatíonship that existed between hun'self and his Father. His üfc
consistently expressed lhe sacnñchl worship of a lovm'g and obedient son,
whether he was on the mountam' teaching others to pray (Mt. 6:9-13),
pleading wíth his Father m' thc garden of Gcthsamane (Mt. 26:39,42), or
com¡m'mn'g his dym'g moments Ln'to his Fathcfs hands (cf. Heb. 5:7-8).
The ulum'ate sigmñ'cance of sacnñce as a sígn of the reality of a father-son
relationshíp can hardly be summed up more eloquently than m' Jesus,
fmal givmg of h1m'self to God, 'Father, m'to your hands I commit my
spm"t' (Lk. 23'.46).
The implicatíons of this for Christian worship are far-rcachm'g. Once
onc becomes aware of the possibdl"ty that sacr1ñ'ce ís about the exprcssíon
of a lovm°g relau'onship, neither worshíp nor sacr1ñ'ce can be confmed any
longer to mere acu'on, whether performed m' church or elsewhere. On the
contrary, Io worshíp m' a bíblical way makes a cla1m' on every pan of a
Chrisúank hf'c. Worship that ís acccptablc Io God w111' be m'ñuenccd by
sacn'ficial principles at the most fundamental lcch

l. Worship as thanksgivmg

Worship is to be scen as a grateful response for all that God has done and
said on his people's behalf. It is true that this vicw has littlc m' common
wíth that approach to worship which attempts to persuade God to be
gracious Lhrough some kmd of offen'ng. But biblícally-based worshjp ís
bascd on Ihe assumpüon thal God has already takcn a decisive uu"tiau've of
love towards the worshipper and that it is lcft to Ihc worshipper SIm'ply to
 Sacnm for cmm Today 159

say 'thank you'. This ís thc pattcm ofworship found m' both Old and New
Testaments. Just as IsracPs sacnfi'ccs wcrc a rcsponse Io God's gracc
expresscd m' the Sma1" covenant, so the NT church offercd spm"tual
sacnñ'ces to God because of thc love Jcsus had shown them at the cross.
One should not make the mistake of 1ma'g1n'íng that thc response made m'
worship is m' any way equivalent to God's prior acu'on, howeveL Thc
thanksgiving of Christian worship can ncvcr bc morc Ihan a pale
rcñection of what God has alrcady given, howevcr m'tensive or spirímally
uphf'nn'g thc experience or howcvcr magmñlcent the g1f't Ihat ¡s' offered.
It must be admitted that thls' view of worship comrasts sharply with
most comernporary understandings of the nature of sacnñ'ce, whích are
usually to do wíth self-sacnf¡'ce and self-denial. Pcople generally may
spcak, for cxample, of a son or daughtcr who cares sacnñ'cml'ly for an
cldcrly houscbound parent, or of a pcrson sacnñ'c1n'g a ñnanchy
rcwardmg carcer for a noble callmg' such as social work or Christian
m1m"stry. The real focus ín such forms of sacnñ'ce actually falls on Lhe
person m'volved and what they have gívcn up, oftcn to Lhe almost total
exclusion of God's role, whether he is viewcd as gívcr or receiveL The
cxtem to which sacnñ'cc m' thc twcnúcth ccntury is m'sun'ctivcly
undcrstood as sclf~givmg' has bccn eloquemly demonsmted m' several m'-
depth studies of rccent cxnmplcs ofsacnñ'ce. Such diverse examples as thc
1916 Easter Rism'g m' Dublm', Archbns'hop WLlh"am Tcmplc's socnal'
Lheology, and the hf'e of thc French mysúc and philosophcr Slm'onc Weü
werc all motivatcd by the desu'e' of those m'volved to gíve of thcmsclves.s
In such m'stances, sacnñ'ce has bccomc “somedu'ng we're wülm'g to offcr
or thc price wc're wúlm"g IO pay m' ordcr to gam well-bem'g (salvation), bc
it personal, corporate, or national'.4
For the biblical wn'tcrs, howevcr, sacnñ'ce could never be reduced to a
human-ccntrcd cntcrprisc nor was ít possible to entcnam thc ídca of
purchasm'g crcdit wilh God. They saw sacnfilce as a debt to be gladly
rcpaid, not bccause anyonc could bcgm to pay back what was owcd lo
God, but as a way of makm'g public thc dcpth of one's grau'tude. This is
not m' any scnsc to cn'u'c1z'e Lhe hcroísm of thosc who frccly gíve of
themselves for others, sincc self~givm'g is an essenúal elemcnt ofChns'u'an
sacnñ'cc. It ís rather to m'síst that all forms of human sacnñ'ce are as
nothmg comparcd with zhc sclf-givm'g of Ihc Son of God, and that
acccptablc worship must ccnuc on God and not on man.
This prm'ciple is well 1U'usmtcd by the famous mouo of C.'I'. Smdd, an
English Test cricketcr of the Victorm cra who bccamc a lcadmg
missionary to Chm'a: 'If Jesus Christ be God and dicd for me, no sacrmce
can be too great for mc IO make for hnm'.' He rccognhcd that his pcrsonal
sacrxñ'ce for thc pcople of Chm'a was no more than a grateful ccho of Jesus'
lovc for hun', and so hc was ablc Io put lús own givm'g into proper
perspccu'vc. He also undcrstood that Lhe basíc prm°ciple of Christian
worship is ñrsx of all to rcceivc what God has givcn m' Jcsus. Worshippmg
begm's with reccivm'g, ín agreemem with David's tcsum'ony that
 160 Sacnfíc'e in the Bible

'Everythm'g comcs from you, and we have given you only what comes
from your hand' (1 Ch. 29:l4). Wíthout thís recogm'u'on, true worslúp
cannot takc place, but once God's prior actíon ís acknowlcdgcd, every act
of worship becomes a thankoffermg (cf. Ps. 50:l4,23; Col. 3:l7).

2. Covenant worship

Biblically-based worship must always bc a covenant-related acu'vity. The

sacnfi'ccs of Bible um'es were ncver m'tended to be m'dependent acu'v1'u'es,
for Lhc1r' meamn°g was based cnüre'ly on the covenant relationship that
exxs'ted between God and his people. Thís vicw is applicable both to
Israel, whosc rituals all belong to the Sm'ai covenam, and to Lhe worship of
the carly church, which was based on thc new covenant betwccn Chns't
and his church.
The 1m'plícations of seem'g worshjp agamst thc background of thc
covenant are consíderablc. Pcrhaps thc most sigmñ°cant fcature is the
conñdcnce it offcrs worshippcxs about God's unchang1n'g love towards
thcm. Thc covcnams of both Old and Ncw Tcstamcnts províde absolute
guaramees of God's permanent commitmem to those whom he had saved,
whether from slavery m' Egypt or from thc ulnm'ate slavery of sm' and
death. Chrísuan's m' particular cau worshjp God bccausc Jcsus has
established 'the new covenant ín my blood, whích is poured out for you'
(Lk. 22.'20). The letter to the Hebrcws explaíns Lhat Jesus' dcath
established the new covenanL It shows that Jesus' death is thc foundation
sacnfi'cc of the new covcnam, sm'cc thcrc is a d1r'cct analogy betwcen thc
blood ochsus and thc blood spnnkl'cd on thc Israelites at Sm'ai durm'g thc
foundation sacnñccs of the Sinaí covenam (Ex. 24:l-l l,' Heb. 9:15-28).
Two conscquences anse' from seem'g Jesus' death as the foundm'g
covenant sacnñ'ce. The ñrst is that it speaks of God's eternal commíunent
to his church, sm'ce at thc cross God sealed the new covenant and
accompanied ít by an 1mm'utable oath (Heb. 6: l3-20). The othcr is that
Jesus' sacnñ'ce becomcs the basis on which Chrisuan' worship is madc
acceptable to God.
thn worship 1s' trcated ín this way, there ís no cxcusc for Christians
faümg to bnn'g offenn'gs to God. On the contrary, such unparallcled
sccurity gives them every reason to dxaw near to God with fresh g1f'ts of
love. Because the blood oí Jesus 1s' ctemally effcctive, thc way to the
Father is always opcn. Even when people are acutely conscíous of havm'g
faüed God m' thought, word, and deed, they have no need to fear that God
w1ll' reiect theü prayers and praise. God's own guarantee makes theu'
covenam wíth h1m' secure, and they may worship h1m' freely.
The varíous sacn1i'ces assocm'ted wiLh the oT and NT covenants providc
funhcr modcls for Chns'uan' worship. For example, the servícc of
Communíon or thc Lord's Suppcr offcrs Lhe opportuníty for everyone to
share m' the bcncñts of Chr1'st's death, iust as thc Israelites reioiced ín the
 Sacnñc'e for Clmknhm Today lól

covenam blessm'gs at the communion meals which followed thc sacnñc'e

of the peacelfellowshíp/shared offerm'gs. Through brcad and wm'e, all
who participate m' Commumon sharc m' the covcnam blcssm'gs that Jesus
won for them on the cross. It is also important to note thal lhe Christ on
whom believcrs fccd by faith and from whom thcy reccíve frcsh assurance
and strcngth is the same Christ who dicd as a sacnñ'c1al' offerm'g. Just as
the Israelites ate part of thc very peacc offcrmgs Lhat had been sacnñ'ced
on the altar, so Chns't's own sacnñ'ce is d1rec'lly associatcd wíth what is
eatcn at thc commumbn scrvicc. It is notablc agam m' this contcxt that
worship is about receivm'g rathcr than givm'g.
The OT sacnñ'ccs of praíse and thanksgívmg providc further encourage-
ment for believers to go on praismg God for his covenant blcssmgs m'
Chn'st. If the Communion service ls' a rcmmder of the negative
achievements of thc cross m' removmg everythmg to do with sm', praise ís
a positive means of entenn'g m'to the m'exhaustíble bencñts of the new
covenanL For that reason, Hebrews cxhons Chrisuan's to otTcr a
conun'ual sacníi'ce of praise (Heb. 13: lS-16) and Peter stresses thc
advamages of offcnn'g spm"tual sacnñ'ces to God (l Pet. 2:S).
The covcnam narurc of worship also emphasizes Lhat Chrisúan Worship
must be at heart a corporate activity. Every worshipper belongs to a sm'gle
famüy, m' which all have the samc stams as chüdren of God and thc samc
privilcge of addrcssmg God as 'Abba, Fathcr'. No-one has a spccml'
advantagc and cvcry human d1$'un'ction ís m'clevam. The covenam
conncction also mcans that worshjp can ncver be a purcly pn'vatc or
m'dividual conccm, and evcn thosc who are forced to worship God on
theü own can draw strength from a scnse of widcr fellowship. It is
therefore no accident that the m'vitation m' the lctter to Lhc Hebrews to
Chn'st1an's to worship God advíses them not to neglect the habit of
meeting together (Heb. 10:19-25). Sacnñ'cíal worshíp encouragcs
believers to acknowledgc God's worth together rather than to do the1r'
own thm'g. It is meant to be hk°e a symphony orchestra producm'g rich and
melodious harmom'es rather than soloists indulging m thek own
m'divídual fantasies, or in biblical termm'ology, it emphasnz'es the muu"stry
of a whole body m' which every organ plays its proper role. Members need
not only to acknowledge the value of their own contribuúon but that of
others m' worship. In lhis way, worshjp attributes worth to one another
and to the church as a wholc as well as to God. Where worslúp is given its
proper role as the jewel m' thc church°s crown, other activitics and
priorities wül more easíly fall imo their m'tcnded placcs.

3. Worship as a way of life

Sm'cc the wholc of life belongs to the sphere of worship, worshíp is much
more a way of life Lhan a series of ritual or liturgical acts. Neither worship
162 Samñce' m' du Biblc

nor sacnñ'ce are rcgarded in Lhe Bible as uniqucly rclígious activitics,

exccpt m' thc scnse that thcy arc offered to God. On the contrary, anythmg
may bc ofícred to God, m'cludm'g physical and spm"tual thm°gs, the world
of Lhc secular as wcll as the spm"tual, imernal motives and extcmal acts.
Worship demands comprchcnsive comnu'uncnt, which cannot bc hnn"ted
to any particular day of thc week, or be concerncd with some k1n'ds of
activitics and not with others. The rangc of offcrmgs m' Isracl, for
cxamplc, strctched from ordm'ary kitchen m°grcdiems such as ñour, salt,
and olive oil to all Lhc producc of the ñeld. The prophets were cspecially
kcen to cmphasüe that the peoplc could not split theü lives m'to religious
and other compartments, ínsistmg that people's behaviour m' mattcrs
such as politics, ethics, busm'ess, and famüy hf'e were an m'tegral part of
theu' worship before God (cf. Is. l:13-l8). Thc NT ls' equally practicaL
mcludmg such van'ed Lhm'gs as moncy, acts of km'dncss, and physical
bodies as acceptable offerm'gs (c.g. Rom. 12:1,' 2 Cor. 8:5; Ph1l'. 4:18,'
Heb. 131 16). Indccd, this almost rouun'c approach to sacnñ'cc may bc one
rcason why many Christians sccm to mls's its sn'gn1ñ'cance m' the NT.
Whatcvcr Lhc rcason for our contemporary neglect, the fact is Lhat thc NT
increascs rathcr than reduces Lhe un'portance of sacrlñ'cml' worship m'
Chrístianity. Nothm'g, not cven hf'c itself, is to bc excluded, as is pcrfectly
cxpressed m' Franccs Rjdley HavergaPs hymn of consectatiom 'Takc my
hf'e, and let it bc consecrated, Lord, to Thce'.
This cmphasis is of specíal sigmñ'cance today, for at least two reasons.
In the ñrst placc, it dxr'cctly challengcs thc commonly hcld view that
Christjan sacnñ'cc 15' cssentially a spm“tual matter and that 'w0rship is the
m'tcrior acknowlcdgemcm of God'.s This view ls' bascd on a selective
m'terprctau'on of passagcs such as Ps. Sl'.16-l7 or Col. 3216, for although
Christians are not reqmr'ed to offer sacrmces as the Israelites did, “it is as
part of the world and wíLhín the world that Christian worship is offcrcd by
the Christ1'an'.6 It is also a dangerously rcducúonist position, sm'cc ít
tends to deny lhat 'lhe eanh is thc LORD's, and cvcrylhmg 1n' it' (Ps. 24: l).
On the contrary, God wants glf'ts of every km'd, whether we categonz'c
them as spíritual or not, íncluding our possessions and proñts, abüitícs
and amb1'u'ons, as wcll as praisc and prayer. Sccondly, worship that aríscs
out of the comext of a 11f'c offcrcd to God affirms the value of the g¡f'ts of
cvcry ChristiaxL God docs not put a specxal' premium on the offenn'gs of
thosc who arc supposcdly more spm"tually advanced or of a more
contemplative framc ofrm'nd. Ordinary thmgs offered to God by so~called
'ordinary' Christians arc cqually as acceptable as g1f'ts offcred by thosc
who are apparemly more mature. What matters most is that a person's
gms arc offercd m the n'ght spirit raLher than that the offerer uses the
right word or knows thc correct actions. Jesus' asscssmcm of thc worth to
God of thc widow's mitc is particularly relevant herc. Though others
dcspised hcr contributiom Jesus saw that 'shc . . . put m' all she had to live
on' (Lk. 21:4), and commcndcd her accordingly.
 Sacnlíc't for Chrünm Today 163

IL JESUS' SACRIFICE FOR TODAY

All thís shows how 1m'pomnt ít is for Chn'suan' worship thal zhe
sigmñcancc of what Jesus did on the cross is propcrly undcrstood. Thcrc
is a dircct conncction bctwccn thc sacnñ'cc of Jcsus and lhe sacrmccs
offered by Christians. Jcsus did not iust makc the outward form of thc OT
sacnfi°cial system obsolete (cf. ch. 8:l3; 9:9-10), he also laid down a
fresh pattem for sacnñ'cial Chñstian livm'g based on his own self-offcn'ng
(cf. l Pet. 2.'18-23). How then does Jesus' sacr1fi'ce affccl Chns'm'n
worship today?
Fus'tly and most imponantly, Jcsus reprcscms thc ulum'atc fulñlment
of God's revclation about sacnñ'cc. The cnnre' Israelite sacnñ'c1al' system
comes together m' h1m', m' such a way that he does not mercly fulfil
m'dividal sacnñ'ces hk'e the Passover or thc sin offenn'g, but reveals the
true meaning of sacrmce as something greater than thc sum of the pans.
Jesus actually persomñ'es not iust Ihc forms but lhe tme spüit of biblical
sacnñ'ce. Il xs' as though light shmm"g from lhe cross produccs an ímagc m'
Jcsus' likencss across thc wholc range of OT ceremomal'.
As a livmg sacrmce m' every sense of thc phrase, the wholc of Jcsus' hf'c
as well as his death must bc m'terpreted m' sacnñ'c12'l tcrms. Though his
dcath clcarly bnn'gs hís sacnfcc to a chmax', hc livcd his cntke lüc
according to the prm'ciplc, 'not my wüL but yours bc donc' (Lk. 23:42).
Thcrc can bc no greater 1ll'ustrau'on of thís than Jesus' fulñlment of the
Suffermg Servant prophecies of Isaiah (Is. 422 l-7,' 49: l-6,' 5024~9§ 52:l3-
53:12; cf. Zc. 12:10; 13:7-9). This mysterious, anonymous, ñgurc
represems thc highest form ofsacrxñ'ce in the OT through Lhe oíTcríng ofhis
hf'e accordíng IO God's will as a uníquc human offcrm'g for sm' (Is. 531 10;
Zc. 12210). This is lhc model which Lhe gospel writcrs cmploy most
frequently to charactcnz'e Jcsus' life and to m'terpret the meamn'g of hís
impcnding death (cf. Ml. 12:18-21; Mk. 10:45).7 The way in which Jesus
üves and dies as God's Suffermg Servam also servcs as Ihe pattem for
Christians, as other parts of the NT make abundamly clear (cf. Rom. 12: l;
1 PCL 2:18-23). As thc Servam par exccllencc, Jcsus' wholc hf'e is líved as
an obedicm sacnñ'cc, and his disciples are cxpccted to follow his
cxamplc.8
Secondly, Jcsus lived and died accordm'g lo a scheme of sacnñ'ce and
worship that did much more than demonstrate Lhe full meamn'g of the
chitical pauern. In the words of Driver, 'Hebrews does not prcsem an
atonm°g Christ who ís mercly an impmvcment on the sacrmcial system of
the old order. Thc work of Christ is a radical dcparturc from sacr1fi'ce as it
dcveloped m' Isracl and was perpetuated m' Judaism. lt was a radical
relum to Ihe original purpose of sacriñce.'° The most obvious feature of
this altemative pattern is the lm'k between Khe priesLhood of Jesus and
that of Melkiscdek rather than that of Aaron (ch. S:6-10; 6220-7:28).
Though the detaíls arc not always casy to follow, thc key disúnctíon ís that
Jcsus undertakes a pricstly ministry 'on lhc basis of the power of an
 164 Súuwc m' du Bíbh

indcstmcúblc |1f'e' KHeh 72161 Aamn's pricslhood, on thc other hand, is

ñmlly inñictrd with thc vcry human wcakncsscs for whích it trics to
itonc Wherc LhCR arc two kinds of priesthood, thcrc arc also two
pnttcms of scnñdt Jcsus. for example. was not laid on an altar ín the
Jcmsalcm tcmple as mng°ht have becn expected accordíng to the levítical
patrcm. but naüed KO a cmss in a cemet_erv CGolgotha' means 'the place of
a skull'; Laanj is a Lauh vm'ant). Slm1"larly, his suitability as a sacnñ'cial
lunb did not conform With Lhc levítical laws rcqukmg Lhc lack of any
physxcnl' mark or blcmish. His perfcctíon was of a d1ff'ercm kmd
dtogcthcn m' that it was spüitual and moral rather than physicaL As
Isauh^.s pmphctic words cxplam', he had done “no violencc' nor was Lhere
'an_v dcccif m' hís mouth, evcn though 'his appearance was so disñgured
bcyond thal of any rnan' (Is. 52:l4; 53:9).
Thcsc considcnztions makc it plam that far fmm abolishmg sacnñ'cml'
vmrship, Jcsus miscd it to a much h1g'her plane. Though the cross showed
that the Icvitical systcm had outlívcd its usefulncss, this was so only that ít
Imgh't be replaocd by an mñm"telv_ supenbr panem already present Ln' OT
umcs,' but wtuch' Jcsus had raxscd' to new promm'ence and whích he had
mfuscd' with ncw meanmg'. What is more, Hebrcws encoumgcs
Qmsuans" to adopt dns' ncw pattern for thcmsclvcs cmhusnas'u'cally. The
m'v¡'¡2u'on ro every Christian to *draw near' to God (ch. 10:21), which is
thc propcr tcchnical tenn for pn'cstly activity (cf. Ezk. 4S:4), clearly
1m'phcs' Lhat cvary behe'ver has a priestly mm1"stry to fulñL Indeed,
ansuan" priesthood and ofíenng' takes on a greater sigmñ'cance than m'
the old lcvítical schcme sm'ce Lhcy are to be cxcrcised not beforc any
ezrthly ahnr but m' God's heavcnly sancmary.
Thudlv_', the atomng' qualities of Jesus' dcath are of uníque sigmñ'cance
as far as Chns'uan' woxship is concerncd. Though Christíans may brm'g
nnous' kmds of oñenngs' to God, they can add absolutely nothm'g to the
atonuncm won by Jcsus. Hc dicd as a sm' offenn'g to cnd all sm' offerm'gs
fRonL 8:3,' 2 Cor. 5:21,' Is. 53210), thc lamb ofGod who finally removed
thc world's sm' Un. l:29, 36,' l Cor. 5:7). The writcr to thc chrcws could
nol have put it morc suocmctlyz 'there is no longer any sacnñ°ce for sm"
'H\cb. 10.'18). Jesus died for evcry km'd of sm', past, presem, and future.
Hc not only fulñlled the two mam' Israclite oñermgs for sín, the guüt or
repannm offenng' and the sm' or punñcatjon offerm'g, but also dícd for
sms' wknch' were not cleaxly oovened by thc earlier ccremonics, especxall'y
ddíbetatc sms' (cf. Lv. 4:l-S'.13; Nu. lS:30-3l). Hc far excccdcd thc
hm1"wd scopc of thc 0'r offenn'gs, defeaun'g sm' decisivcly and comprchen-
m"dy.
ln fact, the Bible makes íl plam that Jcsus did away with sin and cvü m'
all íB forms. He camc not only to provídc forgívcncss for m'dívidual
Chnstuns", but 'to dcstroy Lhc devsz work, (l ]n. 3:8). That thls' m'cludcd
much morc than persoml atoncmcnt is already suggested by the OT
punña'uon' oífenhgs Lhrough whích the 1m'pur¡u'es of various physical
ulmcn'ts and cven plaoes such as thc Holy of Hohe's wcre punñ'ed (cf. Lv.
 Sacnhe for Chm'nans' Today 165

12-16). But with thc dcath of Chns't, thc old order of things has
completely passed away and the new has come (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). Jesus'
sacnñ'cc inaugurates a ncw cosmos as wcll as a ncw covenam (cf. Rom.
8:18-25; Phil. 2:S-ll,' CoL l:13-20). Thc Lamb is now upon the thmnc,
and w1ll' ñnally sweep away death and all its acccssories such as mournm'g,
crying and pam (cf. Rev. 21:4).'°
Thc conscqucnccs of Lhis are breathtakm'g. Bccause Jcsus' sacnfi'ce has
ensured the ulnm'atc dcfeat and destruction of cv11', Chns'uans' can be
absolutcly conñdent of one day bnn'g1n'g the1r' gnft's to God facc to face.
Chns'uan' sacnñ'cc thcrcfore has as much an eschatological d1m'cnsion as
an hxs°torical onc, sm'cc it looks forward to Jesus' oompletion of what h13'
death has set decisively m' motion. To gathcr for worshjp Sunday by
Sunday is not iust about apprechtmg Lhc beneñts of the cross. It ís also to
anticipatc bcm'g a part of heavenly worshipz “When I stnnd m' glory, I vnll'
see his faoc, And Lherc I'll scrve my ng' for cvcr, m' that Holy Plnce.'" It
is also to iom' now with the worship described m' the book of Revelation,
for Chns'uan's today almady have acccss to God's very presence. What,
then, should be the chief charactens'u'cs of Lhc gxfts' thcy bnn'g to h1m'?

IIL SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP TODAY

1. Bnnang" pfts' m' worship

The basic fcature of Chn°stmn' worship should be that every behnv'er

bnn'gs sacnñc'es to God. Thc sacnñ'cnl' vocabulnry and ideas which axc
widcly scattcmd through Lhc NT makc it quitc clcar lhat all Chrisuan's arc
to takc over and mnsform IsracPs pricstly m1ms"try (I Pet. 2:S, 9,' cf. Ex.
l9:6; Rev. l:6). The church w1ll' thercforc havc many morc pricsts than
did ancicm Isracl, nnd oblíterate the dns'un'cu'on bctwecn pricsthood and
laity. Bccausc all Lhe laity or pcople (Gk. laos) have become pricsts, thc
two groups can no longer bc dMerentiatcd in pn'estly terms. Chñstian
worship should thcrcforc bc charactenzed' by cnioym'g the priestly
pn'v11'cge of du'ect acccss to God and usm°g thc pncs'tly opportunity of
bnn'gm'g an oñcrmg d1r'cctly to thc Lord. Believcrs need no leadcr or
num"stcr to rcprcscnt thcm to God, and ncither does the congrcgation
nccd to watch fmm the pcws whüe thcü leader worships on thek behalf.
All this 1s' m' lm'e with thc biblical pnn'ciple that 'No-one should appear
bcforc thc LORD cmpty-hnndcd' (Dt. 16:16), and ís conñrmcd by Paul's
obscrvation Lhat cvcryonc can brm°g something to Chrisuan' worhip,
whethcr it is a hymn, a word of m'struction, a rcvclatiom a mcssage m' an
unknown language or an m'terpretau'on (l Cor. l4:26).
It must be admitted that by no means all Christms (hmk' of worshíp
as an opportum°ty for cach pcrson to conuibute. Pm of thc reason for
thxs' must be put down to n misunderstandm of thc church's hcritngc
írom the Rcformation. Many people, for cxample, m'sun'ctivcly m°tcrprct
166 Sacnh m' lhc Bülg

Toplady's lmc', 'Nothmg' m' my hnnd I bnng', sun'ply to thy cross I clm'g',
wmnththhnsmns"canoñ'ernodnng'acocpublctoGodbecauseme
croa ha brought an cnd to all samíicc'. Nonconformxs't and cvangelical
c1rc'la havc zko reacuad agmm anythmg usochtcd wiLh sacnfice' and
saczrdmahm m' fzvour of a pnesth'ood of alJ bchcv'ers whkh has bccn
vmly m'tcrpreted m' tcrms of fmodom of acocss to lhc Scripturcs or
dcmocnlk forma of church govemman Thc pricsthood of all believers,
howcvcr, surely means much more than thaL These km°ds of reducu'om'st
vncws' hzve deprived Chnstmns" of a víull form of mm'¡s'try and senbusly
wczkzned the church's worship. Ashby has rcccnlly commenledz 'ít lm
becn a scnbus fauk ín both pamm"c and comcmporary, twcnnclh'
cznrury, thcology, that cithcr sacnfcc hzs becn lxm'ítcd to one hour a
weck m' a consccrawd buüdmg and to a wafcr and a drop offomñed wm'c,
or else Calvary has becn applicd to thc contemporary sccnc as a sct of
ethncal' precepts and advicc for socxal' action.'lz
A morc balanoed and biblical víew of worship has to recogmzc' that
Jesus camc Io fulfil the law ofsacnñ'cc mthcr than abolish ít (Mat. 5:l7).
This mcans that ahhough Jcsus brought thc sacnñ'ccs of atoncmcnt to an
cnd, hc mmformcd and rcncwcd othcr typcs of sacnñ'cc (cf. Rom. 12:1;
l Pet. 2:S; Heb. 13: lS-16). Jesus also rcncwcd the profound relationship
that cxms betwecn worship, sacnñ'cc, and sonship. It ls' above all through
gifts of sacnñ'cml' love that Chn'suan's may exprcss to theu' heavenly
Falhcr what it means to bc sons and daughtcrs of God (cf. Jn. 15:13).

2. Spm"tnal sacrüces

What kmd' of 'spm"tual sacnfi'ces' (1 PcL 2:5) or 'spm"tual worship” (Rom.

12:2) should Chn'suans' offch Such sacnñces arc certamly not to bc
reduccd to mcrc spm"mal thoughts or pietistic words. PauPs appeal 1n' the
samc contcxt for Chn'suan's to offcr thcü bodies ís a clear m'dicau'on that
pbysical and mateml' gifts are iust as un'porta.nt to God as praíse and
praycr. A probable solution is suggested by the referencc to a sp1r'itual
housc and a holy pn'esthood m' l PeL 2:5. According to l Peter, spm"tual
sacnñ'ccs may be offercd by anyone who belongs Io this house and
priesthood, that 1s', to Lhc church. Sm'cc thís m'cludcs all belíevers and
does not refer to any prívüeged élite, any Chns'uan' on this basis may offer
spm"tual sacnñ'ces. What makes the sacnñ'ces spm"tual is that they arc
offcrcd by pcople who have becomc spiritual because of theu' faith in
Christ and that they offer them by the Holy Spm"t who makcs thek gifts
'acccptablc to God through Jesus Chrisf (l PeL 2:5). Though the form
and contcnt of one pcrson's g1f'ts wül vary considcrably from the g1f'ts of
others, the critical factor ís the presence of an active spüitual relatíonship
bctwcen God and those who worship h1m'. This understandíng of sp1r'ítual
sacnñc'es is of course suml'43r to lhat of the spm"tual giñs whose use Paul
cncouraged m' worship (cf. l Cor. l4). In theu' casc too, the spu'1'tuah'ty of
thc ngts comes from thcir bcm'g offcrcd to God m' thc Spm"t as well as
 Saa1jíc'c for Chm'nam' Today 167

havmg bccn givcn to thc believcr by the Spln"t. (Ihrm'txa'n worahip

thcrcforc ought to bc charactenzcd' by ordma'ry Chrísum bnn'g1n'g thcir
gxf'ts and sacnñ'cca to God, and domlg so m' total dcpcndencc on thc Holy
SpiriL
Thc most obvious of thesc gífts and sacnñc'ea ate thosc which arc found
m' lhc contcxl of publíc worahip, such as przuse' and thanksgíving (Col.
3.'16-l7,' ch. 13.'15-16), praycr and imctccssion (ch. 4216; Rcv. 5:8;
8:3), and occasiona for communion and cclebraüon (l Cor. S:7-8; l Pct.
2:9). Each of thcsc activitics is describcd m' sacnñ'cu¡l' tenm m' thc NL In
the light of this, ordlmry church xcrvíccs should really be regarded as
sacnñ'cml' occasions, not because grcat cost is nccessarüy m'volved, bul
bccause thcy are occasions whcn gifls arc offcred to God. thn on thc
othet hand, church services are treatcd as a mcre routinc, the vilal God-
givcn minístry of bnn“gm'g sacnñ'c¡al° prmsc' and worship w111' bc ncglccted,
with scrious conscquenccs for God, for Chm'ua'ns, and for thc world. In
such cu'cumstances, God ls' deprived of his duc, Christians bccomc guüty
of despisíng thc love whích took Jesus to the cross and of fauhn"g Io enter
the open door m'to God's presence, and the world loses an opponunity to
hear about what God has donc.
Evangchs'tic tcsum'ony ís m' fact oftcn sm'gled out as an 1m'pomm
featurc m' Lhe worship of Bible nm'cs, as when the psalmms callcd
worshippexs m' thc templc to 'declare his glory among thc nau'ons' (Ps.
96:3), or when Peter dcscribed Lhe callmg of Chrisúan pn'ests as bcmg
able to 'declare the praises of h1m' who called them out of darkness m'to his
wonderful líght' (cf. l PcL 2:9). The practice of Lhc ñrst Christians m'
proclaxnun"g thc good ncws to outsidcrs through thck worship m' the
tcmplc (cf. Acts 2:46-47; 5:42) ought to encourage unbelievers today to
expect Christian worship to communicate to thcm m' ways thcy can
understand.
Sacrmcial worship is not to be conñned to mecnhgs or serviccs,
however, since the Biblc also understands varíous forms of social conccm
m° a sacnñ'c¡al' way. By doing good to others and by shann'g Lhcu'
possesions, Christians may offer thcmsclvcs to God and to one another m'
Iesus' name (Heb. l3:16; cf. 10:24). Specnñ°c cxamplcs of tlús from thc NT
m'clude givmg ñnancxal' support to Chrisüan workers (Ph11'. 4:18) or
offcrmg oncsclf m' Chrisuan' num"stry so that others may comc to faith
(Rom. lS:16; 2 T1m'. 4:6). It is s1'gn1íi'cant that thcse activities cnioy the
same valuc and status as praise and worship, sincc no distm'cu'on 1s' made
m' biblical thought bctween worship oífered dmctly to God and scrvicc
offcrcd to others. Both arc cqually 1m'portam, and neither is supcríor to
the oLheL Chrístian sacr11i'ce is neither to be detached from its moorm'gs in
formal worship nor seen as pr1mar'1l'y concemed with issucs of practical
Christian liv1n'g.'3 The challcngc to Chrisuan' worshippers today is Lhc
need to intcgratc what happens m'side and outside church bull°dm'gs,
durm'g church services and apart from them. Faüure to makc a pmpcr
connection wxll' rcsult m' an unnatural and unbiblical un'balance.
168 SamM m' thc Bible

3.lnSpm"tandln'truth
Finally, it ns' un'portant to clanf'y God'a priority for Chn'suan' worship,
which I.s' about maimaimhg a proper pcrspectivc bctwccn thc form and thc
spm"t of worship. It ia as casy today as m' biblical um'es IO fall undcr thc
)'om't condemnation of Isanh' and Jesus by becomm'g preoccupied with
maucrs of form and ordcrz 'Thcsc pcople honour me with Lhcu' lips but
theü hcart ís far from mc' (Is. 29:13; Mk. 7:6). To una'gm'c that real
worahip can be attamed through debates ovcr such mattcra as orders of
scrvicc, thc am'ging of hymns and songa, prefercnccs m' musical stylc, or
drcss and vcatmems, is to bc in danget of míssmg Lhc poím altogcther,
cvcn if onc wins an argument on such contcmious ¡'ssuca. For Lhe motivc
wiLh which worship is offered ís always of greater valuc to God than thc
manner in which lhc gift is givcn (cf. cvg. thc attitudc of both chcluah'
and God in 2 Ch. 30:18-20). Worshíp bascd on Lhe príncíples of biblical
sacnñce is aboul obcdiencc and lovc for God above everythmg clsc, as
Jcsus' own life and tcaching dcmonstra(c.' 'Grcatcr love has no-one than
this thal hc lay down his life for his fn'cnds' (Jn. 15:13,' Ptul 2:8).
What Chmtmn worshíp and sacrmcc are rcally about thereforc is
nothing lcss than the offcring of one's self to God. Paul's appeal to
Chrislians 'to offcr your bodics as lívm'g sacnñ'ccs' (Rom. 12: l) eloquendy
sums up the Bíble's teachmg on thc subjecL God looks in worship not iust
for g¡f'ts of praxsc', moncy, or sclñess generosity, but for lives made wholly
avanla'blc to hím. Worship calls not just for admu'an'on nor evcn adoratíon,
but for action bascd on thc example of thc cross. Jusl as Jcsus was not only
God's High Priest but madc himsclf thc uluma'te Sacrnñ'ce, so God looks
lo cvery Chrisuan' both to cxcrcisc a pricstly m1m"stry and to offcr lhck
vcry selves on his altan Only m' thls' way can onc bcgm' to cxprcss the
worthmess or “worthship' of the God who gave cverythm'g in lhc pcrson of
his only Son. lIf Jesus Chríst be God and dicd for me, no sacr1ñ'cc can be
too grcat for mc to makc for h1m'.'

NOTES

l. K. Deannnn, *We brm'g xhc sacnñ°ce of prmse", Songs of Fellowshíp (Eastboum:

Km'gsway, 199l, 574; T. Ooelho, 'Fathcr, wc adom you', ibid., 99,' C. Wcsley, '0 Thou
who camcst fmm above',' G. Kendn'ck, 'From heavcn you came', Songs ofFellmship 120.
2. S.W. Sykcs, in S.W. Sykcs (ed.), Samht and redempuon': Durham essays m' tluology
(Cambn'dge: Cambnd'ge Univcrsity Ptess, l991) 287-292.
3. These studxb axe to be found m' the volume mentjoned m' the pevious note, 218-261.
4. ]. Dn'ver, Undemanding thc azonmm (Scondale: Herald, 1986) 14S.
5. S.W. Sykes, 'Sacnñ'ce and mdempu'on', 286.
6. J. Dunn, Romam 9-16 (WBC) (Dallns: Word, l988) 709.
7. Cf. chap.8 and R.T. France,]zsus and du Old Tmamnu (L0ndon: Tyndale, l971)
chap.4.
8. Abrahnm's ochnhg of Isaac Js' anothcr ¡m'porunt orr modcl for lhe sacnñ'oe of both
Jcsus nnd of See e.g. R.W.L. Moberly, 'Chnst' as thc kcy to Sctíptum Gencsm'
 Sacnfíce' for Chm'uans' Today 169

22 reoonsidered', m' R.S. Hm, etc. (cda.), Hc swon an oadu bibllc'al dumcs fmnl Gmak
lZ-50 (Cnmbridge: Tyndalc Housc, l993) l43~l73.
9. Dn'vcr. Undnswnding 142.
10. Sec funhcr, Drivcr, Undcmcndmj 213-24|.
H. M. Green, 'There Is' a Redcenwr', Songs odelowship S44.
12. G. Azhby, Samlíc'e (London: SCM, l988) 128-129.
13. For n diífcrml vne'w, cf. c.g. R.]. Ddy, Thc onkw of lkc Ckvúnh docum' af
ucnñc'¡ (Ph¡hde'¡phu': Foruess, l978) chap.4,' Dn'vcr, Undmtandiu 129-130.

FOR FURTHER READING

R.]. Dnly, Tlu ovuvw" ofúu Chm'uan' docmac' ofmaúc'c(Ph1hdc'lphu'z Foruess, l978).
]. Dn'ver, Undcmandw llu IIW (Sconclnle: Henld, l986).
R.W.L. Moberly, *Chn'st u lhe kcy lo Scripmrez Genesu' 22 ncomidered', m' R.S. Hcs,
etc. (ed1.), Hn swon cu oatlu bülüal Ilmm fmn Gamú IZ-50 (Cambnd'¡e: Tyndalc
House, l993) l43-l73.
D.l”G.2)Pmm, Engam miü God: A b1b'lua'l duvlqy of mhnp' (Luces'mr: Apolloa,
.
J.R.W. Stou. Tthmss afChIm'(Leiccste1-: lVP. l986).
S.W. Sykcs (ed.), SunlícJ md Ndcmpum" owan mays In' dleology (Cnmbnd;e':
Cnmbndge' Univenity Przss. l991).
F. Young, SamM md Ilu dmlc oj Cknn (London: SPCK, 197$), Pm IL

Allen L. C., 57f, 6$, 73
Andcnon A. A., 57
Andmon G. A., 40, 86, 103
Anlhmpology oÍ ucnâce'.
7srr
Ashby G., 33, 40. 60, 73L
102Í, 166, 169
Amky T.R4, s7
Ashmn ]., 127
atonancnt, l7. 28, 30, 34f,
lSl-S, le
Atonemenh Day of, 33-6,
108, 133f
Aulen G.,145, 154
Bnnuch B., 2|
Baldwm Jv G,, 69, 74, 143
Buren C. K. 124, 127f
Banh M., 129
Bayer H.F., 124
BenlcyMumy G. R., 128
Bcck B. E., 127
Beckwith R. T., 20, 109,
|28, lSl-3, 155
Beer G., 21
BeIIE.,HS,124
Bock D. L., 126
Boluer B. M. 23
Bos ]. W., SB
Bouxdülnn M. F. C., 40
Bnul' C. A., 57
Bmwn R. E., lZ7f
Brovm S., 103
Bmce F.F.,135, lSl, ISS
Budunan C4 0., l47, 153-$
Büchler A., llU
Büchscl F., 124
Bulumnn R., I20, l27
Burken Wq 110
Burm (whok) oífmna', 28L
82f
Bulkr T4 C,, 23
Genetal índex
Cadoux C. ]., 6l, 73 Drivet ]., 163, 168[
Caud' G. B., 153 Dñver s. R., 19, 21
Calvm' J., S7, l47, 154 Duhm B., 74
Clplice R., 102, 104 Dunn J. D. G., l$3, 168
quuot A., 103l'
Cmnkhael C. M., 23, BS Enou J. H., 57
ümll J. T., 127 Edcnhcím A., l07, no
Camn D. A.. 127Í Ehrman B. D., 126
Clnuto U., 21, 30, 86 Eiufeldr 0., 103
Chnrkswonh J. H., 85 Engncll I., 19
Onlds' B. S., 23 Euchnnsuc" ncnñce', l34f,
Clemenu R. E., 59f. 731 I4H
Chnes' D. ]. Aq 56 Exodus, 16-|8, ZO
Oommumon', 30f, SSL lâl
Conulnnnn H.. lZSf, 155 Falkamein .'Ll 101
Oooke B., 128 Fce G. D., lS4f
ümmnn ctwemm um“ñce, Feldmum Eq 85
70f, 84, ll4, lll, IZJL Flrnnge Eq 85
130f, 133, lwf Fimborn. l7. 20
Cmgnc" P. C., ZZ, sa Fímnyer j. A., 126, 153
Cnnñeld C. E. B., 139, 153 Fomtell _l. T., 127f
Cnnmzr T., l40 Frlnec R. T.. 124, lZl, 168
ankenn R., 102
Dnhood M., 22, 57f an J. G., IOZ
DIKM S., 58 Frymechnsky T., 40
Duyim E. R., 57
Ddy R. J., |z9.152r, 1ss, Gnllm K., 21
169 Gayfnm S. C., 135
Davidaon A. D., 73 Gcorge A., 126
Davscs' P. R.. 110 Gcrhudmn B., 125
D|m' W, D., 125, 127 Glbaon J. C4 l.,, Iozr
Dly J., 103Í cm D., 99, 103
Detrmln K., 168 Gimbeu H, L.. 74
Delilzsch F.. 57 Goppell L., 124
de Moor].C.,103Í Gormnn F. H., 40, 86
de Tnmgon J› M. 1o3r Gny G. D., Zf, 40
de Vnu R.,3,19-21, 24, Gny J., wz
31, 40, 73, 85f, 98, 103 Grcccc, sauiíice m', 105-107
DLllnun'n A., Zl Grecn A› R. W., l02f
Dlx' G., 154 Green E. M. D., |46, mr
Dodd C. H., 128 Gan.B.,12$,127,129
Douglu M., 39. 78, asr Grecn M.. 169
 Gemulmdcz' l7l

Gnu D. v. A., 147, 1$4r Kmn, H.~J., 20, S7f Oppgnhm A. L, 95. IOL
Guül ofrmnc'. Cp erm Knuc H.. 73 |04
olrmn Knnz J. H., Ió
Pncter ]. l., |35, ISJ
Gundry R. H.. 125 Kun W. S., lb
Pmovcn lfL ll4.ll7.l12f,
Gunkgl H.. $6f, ao, ló
IJN, l4$f
Gumm c., m, Iszr Laaue J., 102, 104
Pncc (shred)ofíe¡u'. JOL
Llíont D., loz
uL 97-9, l3l
Haenchcn E., lSS lAnhen W. G.I 102
Rter R.. 79, IS, 87
Hdbe J.. 4, l9, 12f Lale W. L., lllf
Pemson D.Gy,|53.156,
Hamon R. P. C., l$4f Laney Cn 73
169
Hmn M., S, l9-2|, 25. 40. Luch E. R., 79, l$-7
PÍQM R. H., $9. 73
llO Lae G. dcl 0., l02
Phrnaes', Snddueenand
Hanky J. E.. 40, 8$-7 Lcupold H. C., 57
Enencs. lO7-ll0
Hmtpl F. R.. 161 lznne' B. A,, 39, ts, t7,
Piw N., 146, I$4
Had P. M., uo I03
hnthood'. 26. 33Í. IML
Hum E. W., 64L 73 IM J. D., l$0. |$$f
Nm l4$-l$2. ISS
Hchen G.. l46, 154 Lndan' B., IZI
hvimhud J. I.. ISL 102
Heda' G. C., lost Lnu E. C_, 74
hnáannn"(nn')on'mnc'-
w M., |ü, IML lnf
29r. u, l3|-4
Hdben A. $.. 70. 74 McCoavilk ]. G., l9(, 214
Purity md denm 29Í.
anh' F. C. N.. IJS Macdoakl D. B.. OIL 73 73L |33
Hikkbnnd D. R_, 6l. 74 McEwln G. ]. P..102,l04
Ho~:.C.. l$0. ISS MtKanh H., S7f ancbemLJOS
Holhdzy W. L. 22. 63. 73 Mncksnne' ]. L. 74
Iadúi Y. T., |9f
Hdw H., Zl Mndnlnh E. C. B.. 73
Rniney ^. F.. 38
Hockcr M_ D., 125 Manhall l. H.. l26. lSl,
Ravcat D. A. S.. 126
Honka R.. lSO, ISS |SS. lSSÍ
mum H. C.. 101
Hanm T., lSlL ISS Mnen F. J.. l2$, m
Redemptwn'. w nlonawm
Haldu j. L.. ISN Mnyu A. D. H.. l$, 22
Exndun. huover
Houton '. J.. t$. l7 Mm ]. L. eo. 73
Rdlet E., 102, IOÓ
Hunnh A.. 10 Mceuar H. H.. IJS
W R.. 20, 39. l$-7
Mncr'G..102
chantm (Ire¡puc, guuo
Jnrqmt L.. 57 Maopnumu'. ncnlm' n',
M'). N
janmnti B.. $. ION l9-96
W E.. l26
Jelunn P. P.. 40. l$. 87 Mcuyn B. M.. lu
me H., 89. l04
Jcnmh J.. ||0. l24-6. l47. an Ju M. 6J. 7!,
Robenmn Smidl W.. 39f
lâlt &2. lS-7
Roqenon J. W.. 39
Jnhmnn B. S.. 124 Mobedy R. C.. l“. lH
Rome. ncnñce^ m'. l0$-lo7
johnnon L. T.. lSS Moheriy R. w. L. qu
Rou L.. |9. 9I, IOJ
Jencs D. R.. 70. 74, |24 Moo D. J.. l27
Rowlcy H. H.. 6l. 64. 73r
Morrà L.. IZIL ISS
llylnndnm ]. G.. 13
Khemnnn E., ll6. l20. 1261 Mocyu ]. A.. 73
Knufnunn Y.. 39 Moule C. F. D., 126. l37, Slbounh L., Sl
Kaurnch E., S9, 73 ISZ Sachn A.. IM
Keü C. F,. 1|f. 86 Mowinckei S.I $6-I, 74 Sandny W.. lll
Kdly ]. N. D., 153 Movvky H.. 60. 73f Sandcn E. P., IIO
Kcndnck G., lS7, m Slflll N. M., 19
Küpntrkk G. D., N4-6, Neubuuzr A.. llO Schenkcr A., 86
1sar, 156 Nth E. W., 62-73 Schmü R,. 86, 99, l03
anpbury J. D., lZS Nnchobon CL C., 127 5c'hnud'! D., IZ7
Kükpnlrkk A. F., 57 Nonh C. R.. 74 Schnxkenburg R›, 120. 117
Kiuchi N., 40, 79, 81. 86 Nolh M., Zl Schoer M . ISJ
Knae'nm' R., BSÍ Sepl J. Bq 12. zo, 114
le G. A. F.. 67. 72. 74 Oenlerky W. O. B., $7. 73. Senior D. P . IZS
Knobel A. W.. 81 154 Shcdd RAP.,ISI,156
172 Sacnhc in rlu Bible

Sin olfenn|'. cp Punñcuúon anü H., 49 Vos G., lJS

ochnhs Tnylor V.I 126 Vou P. G., 116, 126
Skmner ]., 59, 73, BOf, 36 Tetnple W., 159
Smdky S. S.. 128 Thnnhdvm'¡, 4l4, 158460 Wlmblcq B. N., l9, 21
Smilh S.. l02 Thompoon J. A., 22, 62 73 Wnu R. E., 124
Smith N. H.. 6l, 73 Thompnn R. C., 102 Wcü S.. 159
Sonrdl M. L., 126 Thompcon R. J. 57f Wuse'r A., 56-8
Soler J., as Thumu-D¡npn' F., l02, Welch A. c.. 73
Sp¡'n'tunhn'mn' of ncrlâ'oe. l04 Wellhnusen _I., lf, 18, 24
108. IJLHL 1664 TM J. M. R., l46, lSl, Wenhnm G. J., 1sr, 39f,
Slmdnhl K., lZS ISH RS-7
Stmn R. A.. 23 Toplldy A. M., 166 Weslcy c.. ls7, 168
Slon J. R. W., M., 154, Tmpus ole'ns, cp Wcslcon B. F., l47, 154
l$6. 169 chnnmnÀ ochrint Wcstennlnn C., 5643 67. 7o,
Slon W., l48, 154 Tn'l= A. A., 127 74, WL 86
Smck H. L.. 110 Tumcr M. M. B.. |27f Whybny R. N.. 20. 67, 72,
Smdd C. T., 159 Tum V. W., IS 74
Smhlmnchcr P., 124 Wúhnma" C. S. C.. ISS
Subnimtion. 79í. |22 Uarin acnñcc' In', 96-100 Wnllnnu" R., ISJ
Suffeting Snnnn 107, lo9, Unklvmed Btnd, lff deoa' M., 7$f, ur
|l4. H7, H9.124.163 Villson' M. R., 23
Sremnm ]., 154 nn Selml A.. 103 Wínk '., 123
Syka S. W., 124. 147, l$4. Vlll Selen J.. 3f, l9, 21, 24 Wolíf H. Vl., 60, 73
lósf Vnhoeí P. A.. 68f. 74 Vnüt D. P., 39f
Szmtnyi A.. 56 Verma G.. lü Vünllwein B.. 66, 73
Vme' C. F. |26
Tnfl R.. lSOf Von Rnd G., 59, 73. 80. 86 Yown F. M., 109, IZ9,
Tlle M. E., Sl von Sodcn G., 103f lSZf, 160
 Index of bíblical and other texts
(Referenca Ire m lhc Englü Bible)

Genaà 1228 9, |0
6:5 80, 80, ll 12'9. I, 13, li, |3
bzl ll lZz IO l. 9, IO
lzl ll 12:13 7, lll
l:20-Zl Zl |2:M-20 6
lz21 N, l0, 80, ll. l|. M 12: IS 9
9:6 lll |1:I6 |3. 23
1223 M |2:l7-20 9
12:16 22 12:ll 20
13:5 22 lZ.'Zl-27 $, |9. 20
l5:|3-14 16 lZ.-2|-23 b
20:14 22 |Z:2|-22 15
21227 22 l2:2) 7, ZL 22
22 30, 33, lm l2:22 7. 7, 7
22:|3 N 1223 7
24:3$ 22 l2:27 7, 115
26:l4 22 I2:28 2, |9
l2:29-39 4
Elndus 12:2$›30 19
2:23-24 l7 12:31-36 19
2:24 lõ |2'.37-39 l9
3:7-l0 lõ 12:37 19
317 l7. l7 |2:0-$l l9
3.'l7 lõ |2:41 19
3219 |7 12:43-49 2
4:31 17 lszHS l
6:l l7 1z:« l4
6'..'›-l 16 |2:46 7I I, I. 10, IZI
6:6 l7, 17 lZ:47 l
l:2$-JZ 37 lleB l
10:24-29 37 l2:4| M, 12
124 3 2. 4, $, 6. 6, 6. 7, 9. 21 13:l-2 2, 4, 19
12 l9, 130. l“. IM |3:2 20
12: l-|3:16 H, 20, 20. 20 13:3-16 4, 19
12:l-28 4, 20 l3:3-10 6
|2: l-20 2, 19 |3:3-$ lí
12:2-13 6 IJ:3 |7
1224 l 1326 23
lZ:5 ll. 20, 22, 111, lZI 13:7-l 149
12:6 13. 21 13:9 l7
12:7 7. 7 13:| l-16 20
|2:8-10 7. 31 13zll 16
174 Sacnñle in zhe Bíble

l3: 13 17 31-33
l3›'l#16 17 31:l-35
13214 l7 32:l-35
l3: 16 17 32: ll
lS:20-l7 73 54
13212 73 34z l-28
19-24 62 34:10-26 l, Zl
l9.4-6 u 342 lZ-26 73
Mõ 8,|8.Hl.165 34: 18-26 8.9. ll
20-23 72 34: ILZS 20
20:22-26 2| 34:18-22 2
20122 zl lel 20
D'.2#26 7 34120 Zl
21:I-23:33 9, 21 34:23 Zl
1|: l Zl MzZS S,$,l-9.9.9.zo,2|,21,125
le8 17 34226 Zl
Zl :30 zs, m
zzzzo 62 chilkul
12:29-30 2 l-|6 38
23 2 l-9 60
13'.l#l9 9, 9, u l-7 2$, 26, 27, 28, 33
23*.l4 21 l-$ 27
232|S-l¡ 20 l lõ
23.'l&l6 2 l:l-l7 16
13: lS zo, 21 l:3-4 28
23: l7 21 123 20, 128
23:18 9, 9, u. zo. 21, 21, 62 l:4 28. 29, 65. Bl
23: 19 21 l:5
14 130. 130, 133 l:9 28, 80,
24: l-l| 160 l:lO
24234 s7, az l.'l3
Z4:$-8 2: l-l6
24:7 8, 63 2:2
24z8 ll4, llL lll 3
24:9-ll 31 3: |~l7
Z41|| 3l 3:l 20,l
25~Nu.10 25
8

3:5 z
25:8-27:l9 25 3:6-7
BÍÉRS RÍSIR

2528 7 3: ll a|, 103

25.'8 29 3:16 84, los
25.~w Sl 4 z7. 29, 32-z:, 32, 33, 86
28 34 4: l-5:13 lu
29 8, l8, lu 4:l-35 26
29'.l 20 4:l-12 36
29:20-21 411 30
29223 4:3-12 33
29.'32 4:3 19, 33, lza
noeoun

29:33-34 4:7 l26

N*.33 21, 82 4:13-21 33
29z36 4213 39
Z9,'37 82 4314 29
D.'3M 128 4220 81, 82
30: l-6 139 4.'22-26 33
M'.10 4:22 39
30:12 28, 124 4:27-31 33
 Indcx of btb'lica1 mld olhn uxts 175

4227 39 |4:49 11
4231 80, M 14251 Zl
4:32~35 33 l4:52 21
4:32 128 l5:15 29
5:l-l3 Z7 l$:30 29
5:Z-3 30 lSle 30
S:2-5 39 16 33-36. 36. 36, 40, 133
Sz6 39 16:1 32, 34
5:7 131 1624 34
5:9-10 28 1625 34
S:ll-13 38 16:6 34
5:ll 131 16:8 34
5:14-ó:7 26 16210 35, 35
5'.H›-26 30, 39 16:14-15 33, 34
52H-16 30 16:16 34, 34, 3$. 35, 35, 35, 40
Szlõ ll 16218-l9
3$. 35, 35. 40. 79

or
$:l7-l9 39 16:21
6:l-7 30 l6:24 Z9.
6:l-13 26 16:29
6:l4-23 26 l7:7
26

3232
6:24-30 1718
7:l-ID 26 l7:ll
7:ll-36 26 18:Zl
7:H-13 53, 139 l9:20
7:lZ-l$ 21 l9:26
7:12 27 20:2-5
7'.13 1126 3l, 103
7:16 2|: 17 103, 153
8-9 2l:21 103, |53
8 21122 l03
8:l-9:24 2223 l53
8:22-29 12:12 |$3
8:23-24 22:X7IT. 73
8:30 22:l7-l9 2|
8:31 22:23-27 65
8:32 12:29-30 Zl
9.'2 23 |l, 1|, Il
9:3 23:l-44 9, 10
927 23:2 9
9:|$-22 2324 9
I0:l7 23154 2
ll 23:.'›-6 20, 20
lZ-16 165 23:5 5, $10,13, 21, 22
12 23:6-8 9
12:6-8 23:7 IJ
1216 B:l 13
12:7 23:ll 107
llzB 29. 82 23:13 27
14:4 21 23:l$-11 153
Mzñ 21 23zl$ 107
l4:12-l4 Z3:19-20 73
Hzl9 29 23:27-32 36
Uz20 82 23z36 23
l4:22 29 23237 73
l4:3| 19 2529 IZI
176 Sacnjíc'e m' Ihe Bible

ZS:24 l 24 22-24 144

25226 124 23: l-7 144
ZS:Sl 124 24z4 13, 21
26 84 2428 ¡3, 21
26'.40-45 84 23-29 10, 22, 28, 85
27z3l 124 18: l-Z9:40 Io
28 21
Numben 28z2 10, 10, 103
3:lZ 124 28:16-25 2
3146 124 28:16-l7 20
3148 124 28.'16 s, lo_n, n, 22
3:49 124 28:17-25 u
3251 124 ZB: l7-22 16
5:l-3 28225 13, 23
S:$-|0 30 29 36
SzB I 28 29:7 36
5: l l-3l 77 29211 36
5:lS 27 33t3 u, zo. 2o
6:9-12 35z31-32 zs
6:11 29 35:3I 124
6:H 32, 128 35132 124
6:16-l7 27
7.-mr. 10 Dcutcronomy
9 12 S.'12-15 23
9:l-l4 2, 10 lZz ll 73
911 20 12217 22
9:2-l4 20 lZ:2| 22
9:3 10 lZz3| 103
9:7 10, 125 14 78
9.'9-l4 l4 14223 22
9:10 lS. 22 l4:26 22
9:ll 10, 10 15.- l9 22
9212 lO, 128 16 4, $, 22
9:13 10, 125 16: l-l7 2, ll
9114 22 162 l-l6 20
lOzll 10 162 l-8 2, ll-l4, ll, 20, 21
l0:33 10 16: l-7 22
lS.'llY. 73 16: l-4 ll, IS, ZZ
lS:1-|6 28 16:|-2 12
l$:l-l2 27 lõzl 20, 21, 22
l$:3-l0 140 |6:1 ll,¡2,12.12,11, 2|, 22
1523 28, 82 |6:3 12,12.13,13, 20, 2|, 22, lll
lS'.22-31 26 16:4›-7 ZZ, 22
l$:30-Jl 30, IM 1624 2|. 22
16 144 l625 l2. 22
lõ.'3$-36 IM 1626 ll,12, l3, 20, Zl, 22, 22
ll:$-lo 27 l6.'7 ll,13, 13, 13, 22
llzlS l24 l6:8 13, 13, 2|, 21
l9 133 16.' ll 22
l9:l-22 29 16215 21
l9z2 128 lóz 16 Zl, 22, l6$
l9:6 Zl 22:20-ZS 144
|9:|3 25:$-lO 77
l9zl8 21 2716 82
19220 28 84
 Index of l›1b'lzca'l tmd ozher tzxts 177

30:l-lO 84 l Chmniclu
32:10 61, 61 28220 128
32214 22 29zl4 160
33.'8-IO Ml
33219 57
2 Chmniclu
7:l-10 23
Joshna
7:l )S7
4:l9 14
7'.9 23
5:4-7 14
7:12 S7
5:10-H 14
11214 139
Szll l4, 22
26 144
5212 14
29:l7 14
22:26-28 73 29:20-36 I4
30 IS
Judscs 30:l-27 l4-l$, Zl
18:3-6 141
30:l-ll 20
30zl 22
l Samuel
30z3 14
l:2| 31 3025 14, 22
2:27 61 30:l$ lS, 22, 22
7:7-9 57 30tló IS
13:9-12 57 30117 l$, |5, 15
l4:3(›42 Hl
30:18-20 lS, 168
15:22-23
30:18 22
lSzZZ 73 30:21 15
30:23 l4, 15
2 Samuel 30:24 23
7:4-7 70 30225 15
l9: 20 57 30z26 l4, 15
35 16
l Km'gs
35:1-l9 lS, 20
8227-30 70 35.'l 22, 22, 22
8:63 83 3516 lS, 22, 22
8.'6S-66 23 35:7-9 12, 15, 23
8:65 23 35:7 lZ
16234
352|l l$, 22, 22
18:38-39 83 35:12 lS
35^.13 l$, 22, 23
2 ngs 35117 15
3 144 35218 23
3:27
52 l7 73
10224 Ezn
73
16:3 3:6 57
103
l7:3] 3:8-4:3
103
2l:6 6:10 101
103
22:8-l3 57 6:|7 57
22:8 lS 6:l9-22 16, 20
22:ll 15 6220 16, 22, 22
2322 lS 6:22 16
23210 103 7223 101
23:21-23 IS, ZO
23221 lS, 22 Nchcmilh
23222 21
lS 10'.35
23:24 21
103 13z31
178 SaaWt m' the Biblc

105 $1:12 51
le 28, 81 Sl:13-l7 Sl
4223 81 $|:l>l$ Sl
51:13 Sl, 51
Psahns 5121647 51, 51, SZ, 54,162
4 47, 53 Sl:l7 Sl, 139
4:4 47 51:18-l9 Sl, 52
425 47, 47, 53 54 42
523 44 5416 41
ll26 m 56 42, 53, 56
15 66 56212 43
16 47 60:l3-lS 82
16:4 47, 53 61 42, $3. 56
lórS 113 6|:S 42
20 u, 53, sa 6l:8 42
20:2-4 44 62:I S7, 57
22 42, ss, 56, us 65 45, 46, 53, 54
ZZzZ 57 6S:l-3 54
22:2$-26 43 6521 45
22:26 53 66 43, 53, 56, 57
22:29 4s, 53 66'.13›-15 43. 57
23:5 113 66'.13 53
24 66 6621$20 43, 56
25 ss 69 43, 43, 49-50, 56
25:8-9 ss 69:30-3| 50, SZ, 139
26 54 69:30 50
26:6 46, 55 75.'8 124
27 42, 56 76 45, 46, 53
27:6 42, 42 76:lO-ll 55
32 ss 76:ll 45
322$9 ss 96 45, 46, 53
34:20 128 9613 167
39:2 57 9628 45, 46, 52
40 43, 48, so, 56, 132. 132, 135 96z9 45
40.' l-10 so 99:6 134
402643 37, 52, 132 103 SS
40:6 so, so, 54 106 47, 47
40:7-8 so 106:28 47, 47, 53
40212 57 106'.36 47
4243 4ó, 54 106:37-38 47
43:4 46 107 43. $6, 57
50 47, 48, 4a-49, 53, 57, 82 lO7:8 43
50:5 48, 48, 53 107:ll 54
$0:7-l5 103 lO7.'15 43
SO.'8-13 47, ss 107zl7 54
5029 48 107:21 43
SO: lO-ll 43 lO7-.22 43, 56, 139
$0'.12-13 48 107:31 43
SOt 13 48 l1024 38
501 l4-lS 47, 4349 llS 56
50114 47, 52, 160 116 4J, $3, 57
502 16-Zl 49 116'.12 43
50:23 47, 49, 49, sz. 160 ll6:l7 43
51 39. 43. 4a, 51-52, s4, 55, 56 118 M
51:7 21. 54 118127 46. 46
 Index ofbühwandolhauxts 179
ll9:108 45 53:12 |l4,ll7.118,118,|l9,ll9,
129:4 128 122, 124
130 SS 56 69
141 “› 48, 49, 53. 53 56z7 73
14112 49, SZ, SS 59:3 73
59:7 llã
vaerbo 59116 79
6:35 124 61:6 141
13: 18 124 65.' l-7 70
66z l-4 70
lunh' 66: l-2 70, 70, 70
l:10-17 64-65 66:3-4 70, 70, 70
l:l3-18 162 66:3 70
l:l5 65
l.'26 72 Jutmm
2:2-4 69 2:2-3 6l, 61
527 72 6:l9-20 63
$:26 72 7:l-l$ 70
6 39 7:9 63
6:l-7 137 7:2|-23 60, 60, 61-63, 63, 63. 63
|l:2 121 7:2| 61, 63
l9zl9 69 7222 67
29.'13 168 7:3l 103
40-55 66 25:2$ 124
42:l-7 163 2$:Z7-29 124
42:1 lZl, 127 3l 131
43.'22-28 67 3|:31-34 37, ll9, ll$. lSl
43z22-24 67, 72 3|:3l 118
43'.2Z-23 67, 67 31:33-34 IIU
43z22 67 31:34 lll, 125
43:23 67, 67 32:7 llS
43z24~28 67, 67 32235 lOã
43z24 67 49le 124
44z28 67 $l:7 124
45:13 124
49:l-6 163 Lunenmm
49z6 ll7 4:2l 124
50:4›~9 163
$l:17-22 113 Elckiel
52: l l-12 67 B-|l
52:13-$3:12 163 8210
52113 74 8:l7
52214 164 9:9
53 72. lO7, 109, 109. ll4. ll4, ll:12
ll4.ll9. |2|,lll›124.132 lo
53:4-6 109, IZS ll:l*31
SJ:7-9 107 |8:|0
33:7_8 ll7 20:28
53z7 lZll ll7 13
5328 l07 23;Jllf.
53z9 109. lM 11-H
SJth |2 IIS 24:2
53zl0 72. 72. IO7. ||4. ll4.161.|M 30:6
H:|l |17. |l1 |6:14 ll
Slzll ll IH. IN 16:¡6 17
180 Sacnhe m' du Bible

37:l-l4 lZS Zcphannh'

37'.26-27 71 2:ll 69, 69
4048 37
40:|-48:35 15 Hluni
40243 2| l
44:7 103 l:2

sa
44z27 128 l:8
45:4 139, 164 lz9
45.'13-46.'IS 16 2:10-|9
45z17 16 2214
45.'21-24 lS-ló, 16
45:21 23 Zechnmh'
45z22 16 7-8
8:20-23
Danicl ll:¡2 llS
3228 106 12:2 124
9 109 lZle 163, l63
9:9 |28 )3:7-9 163
ll:3$ 74 13:7 124
lZ.'2-3 74 14116 69

Howu Mllldli
2 71 l:7 68
22 l9 72 l'.10 68
J:4 ss l.'ll 69, l43, 143
4:l-2 72 2:l-9 72
4:6 72 2:6-7 l4|
626 64, 64, 73 2:10-12 69
l: l3 64 2.'13›-lõ 68
9:10 6l, sl
l l : |-9 7| Mmhtw
l-2 llS
Joel l:l llS
2.'l7 134, 139 l:|-l7 lZS
lle |2$
l:20 125
Z:9-1 l 7l l:2l llS
3:2 7| 1223 lZS
5219 79 2:l-H 125
5:2¡-24 62 2 llS
$:24 72 2:l$ IZS
5225 60, 60, 6l, 6l-62, 62, 63, 67 422 125
8214 128 4:6 IZS
4:l7 125
Mnh' S:l7 166
3:l 72 5.'24
6: l-S 65 6:9-13 158
6:3 65 7:28 125
6:6-8 65 8:16-l7 llS
626 65 928 l 15
627 6$, 65 lOz32 153
6:8 65, 72, 72 ll:l 125
lZ.'l7-Zl llS
l2:lB-2| 163
2:|$-16 124, 124 l3:53 lZS
 lndex of btb'ltc'al and other lexls 181

16216 HS 8:34-47 HZ
lá'.Zl-28:20 llS 9212 |l2
16'.21-22 HS. 115 930 ll2
16121 124. lZS 9'.31 112,112,ll3
l7:22-23 HS 9t3L34 lll
1921 125 9'.3$-37 llZ
20'.18-|9 IlS 10:1 lll
20223 llS, lll. 126 10:33›34 112,112.113
26:l lZS 10:33 lll
2622 llS, 116 |0:3$-45 lll
26:$ 116 10.'35-41 HZ
26:18 126 10:4Z-4$ lll
26:28 |l$, llS, 126, llS 10245 113, llâ, ll4, ll4, l|7, lll,
2623l l24 l26, |63
26:39 |26, 158 l l :27-11:40 lll
26:42 126, lSl Hz |2 lu
26:$0 126 14221 lll
26'.52-54 l|6, 126 H.'21-2$ ll4
26:$4 ll$, 124 IMZÓ |14, 126. |3$. 145
26:$6 124 N:27 124
26:6l 126 NzSS lll
26:68 llõ ltu lll
27:3-|0 116 l4:65 llZ
27°9-.l0 llS l$:l lll
27'.|7 llá 1529 ll4
27:l9 116 |$: lo lll
27'.21 llñ |$.'12 ll4
27240 125 |$: l$-20 lll
27:43 ll$, 126 l$: l7 125
27:$0 ll$. 116 |S:20-39 lll
27:$l-53 llõ, 125 l$.'21›-31 lll
27:5l 158 l$:34 ll3
Iizl 125 lSc39 llZ. ll4
2¡: 16-20 llS l5:“ lll
le 19 125 16:l-l 112
28:20 125
Luh
Mark
2:3¡ 127
|:27 lll 213445 126
2: l-3:6 112 4:16-30 126
2:7 lll 4:24 126
Z:20 lll $: l-H |l9
Jzõ 112 6: ll |26
4:4l lll 9222 ll7, |24, 116
6.'2 lll 9:3| llT
7:l-23 IJJ 9z44 ll7, 126
7:6 168 9:51 ll7
8: 17 ll2 9.$2-19:27 ll7
8:21 lll 10 ll9
8223 HZ ll:50 lll
l:17-10'.45 l|2 13:6-9 ll9
8:27 l|2, llZ, 113 lJz22 ll7
l.'31-32 lll 13:33 117I IZO
8:3| l12,112,lll,113,l|3,124 14226 63
8:32-33 lll 17:H ll7
182 Samjic'z ín du Bible

l7:2$ n7, 124, 126 lel l27

llle-34 n7, 126 3zl4 120
ll.'32-32 124 3.'22-4:3 lZI
1|:Jl m, 119 3:26 127
1835 117 3230 128
1921 117 3:32-33 l27
19111 117 4:6-1$ lZl
leQ 162 4z20-Zl 12l
21 1¡7, l 19 4:2| IZO
22:7 117 4223 120
22z l4-22 n7 5:l-9 IZl
22: lS m $:l7-Z7 lZl
22:17 117 5:3)-47 128
22: 19 117, 117, 126 S:31-40 127
22:20 n7, Il7,1|7,126, 1w 6 IZI
22:22 124 6235 121
ZZ'.24-27 n7, ns 6'.48-7l 145
22:37 117. ns, 1¡9, ns, 119 6:48 IZI
22:43-44 126. 126 6:5l 120, 122
23 127 6254 145
23z9 127 7:Z 121
23z22-25 117 7:10 lZl
23128 n9 7114 lZl
23234 119, 126 7:30 120, 120
23:35 127 7:37 121, lZI
23242 163 7.'39 lZl
23243 119 lel lZl
23246 119, 158 8:l3-l4 127
23151 127 lle |27
2427 124 8:20 120, l20, 121
24125-27 126 8:28 120
24.'26-Z7 n9, 124 8:$9 121, lZl
24:44ff. 124 9.'1-ll 121
2424447 lZó 915 121
24246 119 9:22 153
24:Ô7 lló lOzll IZO, 122
24z$l-52 126 lO:lS |20, 122
10217 122
John lOtlB 122
l:l-18 lZl 10:22-39 lZl
l:l 120 10:25 127
1:(›-8 128 lO:36 121
l:7-8 lZ7 10:40-42 123
le lZO ll.'50-52 120
lzlS 127, 128 lleO 112
l:l9-Sl lZl 12:23-24 120
ltIMZ 128 12123 120, 120
lzl9 127 12:24 127
l:29 12|, 128,128, 164 12227 120
l:32-34 127 ll:32-34 l20
1132 lZl 12:38 |21
1236 lZl,128,128,164 12142 153
l:Sl lZl l3:l 120, 120, 122
224 120 15:13 106, lZO, 122, 166, 168
2:ll 120 15:26 127
 Index of biblu'al and otha uxu 183

16:32 l20, 120 lSz36 ISS

l7:l 120, 120 16:l7 lSS
18le 120 l7'.3 lSS
18:l4 120, 121 l7:13 lSS
IB:27 120 l7:23 15
18128 122 20:7-15 lSl
18:37 |27 2m12 152
18139 122 20:28 lló, ll7, lll
l9zl4 lZO, 122, 122 26:ll 116
l9:30 120 26223 lSS
l9:3l |20. |22, 122 27:3$ lSl
19135 l20l 127
19236 20, 112, 122
Rmmnn
19'.42 122 l.'l 155
20'.26-28 120
3225 134
20:28 120
$:7 106
20:3l 120
l:3 l31. 132. 132. 164
21124 127 lc9~l7 140
8218~2$ 165
Am 8z23 140
lzl lló l:26-Z7 140
2:22-23 l27 834 147, 147
2.'23›~24 llõ lZ:l l40, 149, 157, 162, 163. 166, 168
2:24-28 llõ 1222 166
2:31-32 116 lS'.16 139, l67
2236 llõ, 127
2:38 116
2:46-47 l Corm'thnnl'
167
221 ISS
2146 lSl
S:H IJI
3:12-l3 127
S'.7-8 167
3:13›-l$ |16, lló
$:7 l, l64
3: 13 ll7
9214 155
3: 18 llõ
10-ll lSl
3:24 XSS
10 l$2
3:26 116. ll7
422 10*.14-22 131
155
lO-.16 l$l, 152
4: lO lló, 116. 127
tZS 10:l7 l49
117
ll lSZ
4127 H7
4230 ll:20 149
ll7
ll:24-25 148
5:30 116, ll6. 127
ll:2$ 130, l45, 147
5:31 116
S:42 11226 148
167
ll.'27-34 144
7:52 116
ll:27~29 lSl
8z32 l|7
H:29 HS
8:32-33 121. 128
10 79 11230 144
10:39 lló. 127 11333 149
14 166
10:43 lló
l3:2 133 N:26 165
13:S 155
l3:27-28 127 2 Gonmhhns
13:28-29 116 3 131
13'.38-39 116 5:l7 165
l3238 llõ. 15 Szll 164
184 Sacnhe m' 1he Bible
133 7:25 139, l47, l48
6:l4-7:l
162 7:26-28 l48
825
153 7:27 36, l34, 137
9:12
8:1-S 134
8:3 134
Gzhuns
126 825 38
l:4
8:7-13 37
8:13 163
Ephcsxm
9 38, 133, 133
2:ll-22 l43, l43, 149
135 9:l-IZ 133, 133
5:2
9:1-5 38
Phüippm 9:7 134
155 9:9-|0 163
1217
1:18 155 9:ll-15 142
2:S-ll 165 9:ll-12 134
2:8 l68 9:ll 38
2'.l7 139, 139, 140 9:12-)4 38
2:25 139, 139, 142 9:12 38
4:18 139, 139, 162, 167 9:13-l4 133, l35
9214 38, 135
Colowm 9:lS-28 160
1:13-20 165 9:lS-25 38
1.'18 155 9.'15 133, 134
3:l(›-|7 167 9:!S-l7 134
3:16 162 9218 133
3:17 160 9:l9-22 135
9:19 21
l Tnm'olhy 9.'21-26 134
2:6 l26 9.'22 134
9223-10:4 133
2 Tmmh'y 9:23-28 134
4:6 140, lS7, 167 9:24 38, l34, 147, 148
9:25-28 l34, 134
Timx 9:2$-26 37
2:l4 126 10:l-18 37
10:l-lO 135
Hebmws 10:l-2 134
l:3 38, 134 |0:3 134
2'.9 134 10:4 132, 133, 13S, 137
2:l4 134 10'.10-l4 134
2:l7 134 10'.ll-14 38
4114-16 142 lO'. l 1-12 132
4214 38 10:14 38, 137
4216 139, 167 10:18 l34, 164
S:S«6 38 10'.19-25 133, 134, 142, 161
$:6-10 163 10:l9-22 137, 158
S'.7-8 158 10:l9-20 137
S:7 132 lOz19 137
6:13-20 160 lO:21-22 137
6:l9-20 158 10'.21 164
6220~7:28 163 10:22 139, 139
7:l-28 38 10124 167
7:16 163 llz4 134
7:23-28 137, 142 1|:6 139
7:24›-25 134, 137 ll: l7-l9 108
 Index of biblical and olher um 185

11228 134 Apoaypha

ll:39-40 134 Simch
12:18-24 3s, 139 4:28 l06
12:24 134 1523 lZl
13:8 148 18:20 128
13:10-16 142 24: l9-23 121
l3:lO-13 133 32:3 128
13212 134 35z l-3 lOl
13:lS-16 1sa, lól, l66, 167
l3:l$ 133, 138, l4l, 153 l Maccabecs
13316 139, 162, 167
2:50-5| l06
|3:20 134
2250 126
2:64 106
l Petcr 6244 106, 126
l-2 23 10:62 125
l:2 l30, 135
l-.lS-16 23
2 Mmbees
l: 19 121, 128, 128, 130, 130, 135
3:33 128
l:2| 149
13:l4 lm
2:4-10 142
2.'5 23, l33, 138, l40, l4l, 161, 165,
166, 166, 166, 166 szàh íau
22$10 23 Aqednh 108, lIO
2:9 23, 138, 139, l40, l4l, l4l, 165, 2 Bamch
l67, 167 29.8 127
2.'18-23 163, 163 EdL Enoch (l Enoch) llO
3:l$ 153 lO.20-22 l25
90.38 121
l John 120 Exodus Rnbba
123. 130 lS.SSa, b IZS
1:7
l:9 130 Joncphus. Annqumu"'
222 123, 134 2.3l2 125
3'.S 121 3.248 125
3:8 164 ll.256›-7 lZS
4:10 123 14.107 l 13
S:6-12 127 Joccphul, War
4.137 l24
6.423 lZS
lem
Jublkes' llO
l:S-6 142
Letter oí Anu'eu
l:6 l4l, l4l, l42, |6$
|44Íl 79, 85
S:6-lO 130
4 Mncabees 108
528 139, 167
l:lo-ll |l9
Szklo 142
6:2l-29 107, ll9
5210 lól, Ml, l42, NZ
140 l7:20-22 ll9
629
lZl l7:22 107
7217
8:3 139. 167 Mnnyniom of lnuh'
130 5:l3 l24
13:8
l4:lo 124 Mekhün
124 E¡. 12:S 22
16219
121 Ex. 16:25 |27
l7:l4
le6 124 Ex. 23le 21
20:6 l4l, l4l, 142 Ecclemmcs Rnbbc 127
21:4 165 Ec. 129 127
186 Sacnjíc'e m' the Bible

Pcsnhim Orhn ancinu uxn

1026 (Mnhn'ah) l47, 154 ANET
631(Tnlmud) 21 343-34$
Phüo, Congn Chrysotmm Homly
89 l28 ch. 1328 l48. l$4
Phüo. PlanL 1 Clemenr
61 128 7.4 l26
Phúo'. Rcr. Dn'. Ha. CT XV
179 178 Pl.4$-.8 9l
Phx'lo, Som CTA l4 (Kem)
2.183 108 n":62-79 102
Ph1|'o, Vu'. Mo.|. m'"1130-l 102
U.224 lZS u1”":l$6-iv: l7| 102
Psnlms of Solomnn CTA 19 (Aqlm)
8:l4-l$ 124 ¡v:184-6, l9l-2 102
l7.28-29 IZS 103
CTA 32
l7.4l l2$ Cypmn', Epmlu
lQpHnb 3 ISS
¡i.10-|5 124
4 ISS
lQS lSS
43
B, 9 108
59 lSS
llQMelch
63 lSS
2.6-8 IZS
Dldache'
Shebuol (Mnh'mh)
142 l-2 HS
116
1421 154
Siphrc
22 Dlo' Coccequu
DL 16.'2
4.71 IZS
S|. Enoch (2 Enoch)
64.S 125 Dlodo'rul Skulul
Sukhh (Ml'dlm.h) l.73.6 l24
4.9-10 127 lpnúum Eph.
5›1-3 127 20.2 145
Tugum Ezekkl Jusun', Ava
36225 125 |, 6725 154
Tugum lm Jusl'm, Dnal'.
$3:4 125 4l l43. IS4, 154
53'.6-7 125 KTU
Tlryum Onkclos l.ll2 96
DL 1622 22 McEwIn, Pnat'
Tanple Scmll 110 92-93:10-H 91
Temmem of Joaeph Huumh, Galba
1928 lZl 2L3 124
Tesumzm of Leví (Anm.) 110 Rnwunsom lm'pnom'
Tesumenl of chi (Gk.) V:6l:48ÍT.
3:6 108 Thvmpoom Dníb
ll:9 lZS üzY 9l-92