by sacrifice are thus two aspects of the same matter. The psychol- ogical law operates throughout, but the relation to the divine will brings in a certain element of arbitrariness. Yahweh loves pure souls, but if he smells the sweet savour of sacrifice, and if he receives large gifts, his will may be influenced; he is propitiated and extends forgiveness with all his power.
A couple of stories about David show clearly how these differ- ent points of view are linked together. Meeting Saul during his conflict with him, David said
:And let my lord, the king, hear the words of his servant: If Yahweh have stirred thee up against me, let him smell a sacrifice, but if they be men, they are cursed before Yahweh
. . .(1 Sam.
26,19).If men have not stirred up the hatred of Saul, then it has arisen from the bottom of his soul, and this means that it is Yahweh who has awakened it. In both instances healing is pos- sible :by cutting off the source of hatred. If they are men, they can be rendered harmless by that paralysis of the soul which is the result of the curse; but if Yahweh is the origin of the hatred, he can be propitiated by a sacrificial gift and its sweet savour.
Then the hatred will die of itself, Saul’s soul will be healed and made whole. This is the effect of the sacrifice on man and God.
The interaction here described may manifest itself in curious ways. Once David got the unusual idea of numbering bis people, an action which ought not to have taken place. When it had been done, David was smitten with remorse and acknowledged that he had sinned. The narrator says quite plainly that God was angry with Israel, hence he stirred up David to the sinful act which was bound to draw down disaster upon the people. Through the message of a prophet Yahweh allowed David himself to choose between three evils, and the result was a three days’ pestilence, preferred by David because it freed him from the humiliating cooperation of men. After three days Yahweh stopped the plague, and full harmony was restored when David consecrated the altar on the threshing-ground of Araunah and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings (2 Sam. 24).
Yahweh was angry with Israel, hence he made David sin, and for this David and the people had to take the full responsibility.
The covenant was restored by the sacrifice, it meant the final obliteration of the sin which Yahweh himself had evoked.
At the close of the book of Job we hear that Yahweh is angry with Job’s friends. Hence they are to offer burnt-offerings for themselves, and ask Job to intercede for them, then Yahweh will not harm them (Job 42,7 f.). We meet with the same idea in the words of the Israelites to Pharaoh: Let us go three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto Yahweh, our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword (Ex. 5,3). Sacrifice may both avert and put an end to disaster, because it is an act of sanctification and a strengthening of the covenant with God.
Atonement especially expresses the change that takes place in the soul when it is freed from all that inhibits it. It is difficult to
saywhat was the primary sense of the verb
kippzr,which we render by “appease” and “atone”. It has been conjectured to be cognate with verbs meaning “muffle” and with others meaning
‘wipe away”, and the word has implications which point in both directions. 1 Just as
tipher isused about a gift which makes an injured person give up his claim, thus
kippzrcan be used about inducing a person who has been wronged to forget his grievance and allow it to be wiped from his soul; he is appeased and harmony is restored. “Let me appease his face with the gift”
(Gen. 32,21), says Jacob about Esau, from whom he has taken the blessing; and to the Gibeonites who have been offended by Saul, David says: What shall I do to you, and wherewith shall I effect atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of Yahweh?
(2 Sam. 21,3).
It would correspond to this if we could speak in the same way of “appeasing” God. Such, however, is not the usus
loquendi.One may “appease the face of Yahweh”, but “to atone”
(kippzr)means to obliterate a psychic content which is of a negative, inhibitory kind. “The wrath of the king is the messenger of death, a wise man atoneth for it”, says the proverb (Prov. 16, 14)
;this word can be used even about the dissolution of a covenant with death (Isa. 28,18), or about averting a menacing doom
(Isa. 47,ll). The term appears in its proper context when it
denotes the obliteration of sin. When Isaiah in his ecstatic condi-
362 THE SACRIFICE AND ITS EFFECTS
tion felt that his lips were touched by a live coal from the altar, a voice was heard to say: Thine iniquity is taken away, thy sin obliterated (Pkhuppar Isa. 6,7). And normally this takes place precisely through sacrifice, as expressed in an utterance about the house of Eli: The sin of the house of Eli shall not be obliterated (yithkappzr) by sacrifice nor min@ forever (1 Sam. 3,14, cf. Isa.
27,9), even though this obliteration or atonement may also occur without sacrifice (Prov. 16,6).
What happens is that the evil poison in the soul, which threatens to spread and corrupt it, is taken away. The object of the offering is to “take away the sins of the congregation by making atonement for them” (Lev. 10,17). It may also be expressed by saying that atonement is effected “for” the sin (‘al Lev. 5,13.18.26;
Jer. 18,23; Ps. 79,9; &+‘a& Ex. 32,30, Zc Num. 35,33; Ez. 16,63) or obliteration “of” it (min Lev. 4,26; 5,6.10; 14,19; 15,30;
16,16, Num. 6,11). And what is from a psychological point of view an obliteration of sin, is forgiveness from a divine point of view; the sin which has been is no longer considered to exist. These are two aspects of the same matter (Lev. 4,20.26.3 1.35; 5,lO;
Num. 15,25). Hence it can be said that it is God who effects the atonement (Ez. 16,63), or that it is the priest, as is mostly the case in the sacrificial laws; or it may be another person who occupies the position of an intermediary (Ex. 32,30).
The sacrifice, therefore, is the culmination of the whole pro- cess of purification undergone by the worshipper. He purifies himself in order to approach what is holy, and with the sacrifice his purification is completed by an act of sanctification. The priest effects atonement “for” the Israelite (‘a2 Lev. 1,4; 8,34;
16,lO; 17,ll; Num. 8,12.19; 28,22.30 etc. or b%dh Lev. 16,ll.
17) obliteration “of” his sin (Lev. 4,26; Num. 6,ll) or “of” his unclean condition (Lev. 14,19; 15,15.30), making him clean (Lev. 14,20.53).
Atonement being a thorough purification, it affects everything connected with the sanctuary. When the sanctuary is freed from the unclean condition, atonement is effected “for” it as for man ((al Ex. 29,36; 30,lO; Lev. 8,15; 16,16.18 et al.); but it can also be said to be “expiated” (object Lev. 16,20; Ez. 43,20.26; 45,20)
ATONEMENT A PURIFICATION 363
a usage not found about men. In this term “expiate” has become the equivalent of “purify”.
The taking away of sin and the evils connected with sin need not take place by sacrifice. When an Israelite committed fornica- tion with a Midianite woman and thus caused a pestilence to befall the people, Phinehas put to death the sinful couple, and the pestilence immediately ceased (Num. 25,6 ff.). Phinehas was rewarded for his act, and it is said that he “effected atonement for the Israelites” (v. 13). Atonement is here effected by extirpating the root of the evil in the same way as a murder is expiated by putting to death the perpetrator. Atonement by fine, which we know from the sphere of blood revenge, may also be employed when an offence against Yahweh is to be expiated. Sacrifice is here regarded from another point of view, which finds its characteristic expression in the trespass offering of the Priestly Code (‘dshdm). The Philistines sent a trespass-offering (‘&ham) to Yahweh, when they had offended him by appropriating the Ark (1 Sam. 6,3 ff.).
Altogether the idea of expiation by sacrifice had many shades of meaning. When a person was found slain and the murderer was unknown, the distance to the nearest town was measured;
from this town the elders were enjoined to take a heifer that had never been under the yoke and lead it to an ever-flowing stream in an uncultivated valley. Here they broke its neck and washed their hands over it, saying: Our hands have not shed this blood, and our eyes have not seen it. Make atonement for thy people Israel whom thou hast redeemed, Yahweh. And lay not innocent blood unto the charge of thy people Israel, but let the blood be expiated for them. And the text goes on to say: Thou shalt take away innocent blood from among you, doing what is right in the sight of Yahweh (Deut. 21,1-9).
“Blood” here, as so often, means the guilt involved. in the shedding of blood, and the “innocent blood” is probably that which would have been shed if vengeance had been taken on an innocent town. The expiation, then, consists in the dissolution and disappearance of the menacing guilt, and this is brought about by the above-mentioned solemn declaration over the slain heifer.
364 THE SACRIFICE AND ITS EFFECTS THE TEMPLE A PLACE OF PURIFICATION 365 It is a peculiar fact that this act, which must doubtless have
been a common custom in the cities of the monarchical period, is not performed in a sanctuary. But the place where it is performed is not under cultivation, the life of nature unfolds itself freely;
there is no human intervention. And even though the killing of the heifer is not a sacrifice of the ordinary kind, the custom doubtless contains elements of the sacrifice; since the animal, which has not yet been under human control, must return its life to its origin. When life is thus given back, a communion with the God is brought about as in the sacrifices proper, and the words spoken acquire a special significance.
The story testifies to the importance of the idea of expiation in Israelitish popular life. This idea attained its full development in the evolution of the cult in the temple at Jerusalem. Everything in any way connected with sacrifice acquired an expiatory power, as seen from the story of Korah’s revolt. The incense carried to the altar by the wrong hands involved disaster, and the people who joined the rebels perished in great numbers. But when Aaron came with his tenser on which he had laid a live coal from the altar with some incense, he at once effected atonement, and the punitive pestilence ceased (Num. 17,l l-l 3).
The desire for purification pervaded the people, and the priests had to provide means of purification, not only in the temple. They were ordered to kill a red heifer without blemish, which had not been under the yoke; the priest was to kill it outside the camp and sprinkle its blood in the direction of the sanctuary. Then it was to be burnt, body and bones, with cedar wood, hyssop, and scar- let. Then the priest and his assistants were to purify themselves, but the ashes were to be gathered together in a clean place out- side the camp. There people could fetch it and put it into water, and this water could be used to take away sin (Num. 19,l ff.).
There is nothing remarkable in the idea of the expiatory effect of sacrifice arising in Israel, for it developed quite organically from the nature of the sacrifice. But the remarkable thing is that it grew to be the most important aspect of sacrifice. This was
because it satisfied an ever-increasing desire. Political uncertainty and social disintegration allowed little peace among the people.
The more the blessing failed the community and the individual, the greater were the efforts to acquire it. But is was only obtained by righteousness, and in order to gain righteousness it was in the first place necessary to keep free from sin. As their fear grew, the negative aspect became more and more prominent, and the Is- raelite was constantly harassed by the thought of how to avoid the fatal effect of sin and of the curse on his soul.
This desire was satisfied through the temple. And simultane- ously with the growth of the craving for expiation, the temple tended more and more to become a closed domain of holiness, a place apart, which possessed special powers capable of consuming sin and all the essence of the curse. The temple developed into a powerful institution for the healing of the soul, a place from which all healing emanated, and to which the individual could turn for purification and renewal of his soul.
Through the centuries sacrifice occupied the most important place in the temple cult. It is a matter of course that there were already at the early temples fixed rules for the preparation of a sacrifice. This is illustrated by the story of Eli’s sons, which also shows, however, that the rules might give rise to conflicts. The event marks the boundary between a time when it was the family who performed the sacrificial rites themselves in a sanctuary like that of Shiloh, while the priest rendered assistance and received a share in return, and a time when the priesthood took the lead in the ceremonies, while the worshipper was a guest. At the great temple of Jerusalem this development ran its full course. The ritual for the treatment of each kind of sacrifice became fixed in the process of time and the more the sacrifice was cut off from nature and acquired a value of its own, the greater was the weight attached to the correct performance of the rites, though in this respect there was only a shade of difference between earlier and later times. Even when a person offered a sacrifice of his own accord, the duty of performing the ceremony devolved exclusively on the priest, but the rites establish that the worship- per will nevertheless gain blessedness from his offering.
366 THE SACRIFICE AND ITS EFFECTS
The priestly laws of sacrifice codify the post-exilic practice at the temple. This was based on the custom of the monarchical period, but it is impossible to separate the later from the earlier elements. The sacrificial laws give no exhaustive account; thus there is no description of the rites for the daily burnt-offering. In the sacrificial laws we meet with the same kinds of offerings as in early times, and to these must be added the sin- and trespass- offerings. For all animal sacrifice it is still the rule that the animal is to be without blemish (Lev. 1,3.10; 3,1.6; 4,3 etc.) ; 1
only a normal animal can be sanctified and offered as a gift to God. The worshipper who wishes to sacrifice an animal must be the lawful owner of it, or he could not give it away. It is a sign of decay when Malachi complains that in his time people of- fered stolen or lame and sick animals (Mal. 1,13).
The laws for burnt-offerings and sh~liirrzi~ offerings show how the priest and the worshipper cooperate.
If a man wishes to offer a burnt-offering, the law demands a male animal, whether it be an ox, a goat, or a sheep. The wor- shipper must lead the animal to the entrance and lay his hand upon its head. By this act he establishes the fact that the animal is his property. It belongs to his sphere, and when it is sanctified, the sanctification primarily affects him. It is also the worshipper who kills the animal, near the altar, “before the face of Yahweh’?
The actual sanctification, on the other hand, was performed by the priests. They received the blood and sprinkled it round the altar. While the animal was skinned and cut up, they attended to the altar fire, they put the pieces on the altar after the entrails and bones had been washed, and the whole of it was then burnt (Lev. 1,1-l 3). The skin, however, was kept apart and given to the officiating priest (Lev. 7,s). The procedure is less elaborate in the case of birds (Lev. 1,14-17).
The rites prescribed by the laws for peace-offerings (shWnim) are not essentially different from those relating to burnt-offerings.
The animal may be male or female; the implication is, pre- sumably, that this offering was not so important as the burnt- offering. The worshipper lays his hand on the victim and kills it as in the burnt-offering, and the priests sprinkle the blood on
BURNT AND MEAL-OFFERINGS 367
the altar. But here it is only the fat from the entrails, the kidneys with the fat on them, and the lobe of the liver which are put into the altar fire by the priests, and in the instance of the sheep, the fat tail as well (Lev. 3). These are the parts which from the earliest times were withheld from man and committed entirely to sanctification.1
As always in the early days, a meal, regulated by fixed rules, was associated with the sh%imim offering. The temple contained special chambers designed for sacrificial meals. The rules for them varied somewhat according as the sacrifice was a thanksgiving-, a votive-, or a voluntary offering. Any one who was clean could partake of the meal; the participation of an unclean person was a breach of sanctity and entailed death (Lev. 7,20 f.). At the thanksgiving-offering the meal was to be finished on the day of sacrifice, at the other two the leavings could be eaten the next day. What was left after this was to be burnt, as well as what came into contact with the unclean. If nevertheless the worshippers partook of it, they would reap sin instead of happiness from the sacrifice (v. 15 ff.). At the thanks- giving-offering some cakes also were sanctified. They were the priest’s share (vv. 12.14). The text runs: Besides the leavened cakes he shall make his offering together with his thanksgiving-
shWnim offering (v. 13). The leavened cakes mentioned here must be something not belonging to the sacrifice; it shows that the worshippers brought leavened bread with them for the meal.2 From the history of Hannah we know that in earlier times wine belonged to the sacrificial meal. The fact that it is not mentioned in the sacrificial laws may be due to their incompleteness.
The participation of the priests in the sacrificial meal in no way resembled the eating of a meal by the worshippers. If it had been customary in early times for the priest to join in the meal as a guest, this custom, which already the sons of Eli re- pudiated, had long been discontinued. According to the law the priests received their fixed shares, but these were not only given to them as their due. The holiness of the priests had become so great that their taking over of the sacrificial meat became part of its sanctification.