Imágenes de páginas

granted to servants born in the house of a priest or purchased with his money, but not to hired servants or sojourners.* It may also be observed, though it does not in reality belong to the present subject, that every Israelite who slew any animal of the flock or herd, whether bullock, sheep, or goat, for food for bis family, was commanded to give to the priests the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw.t For as a portion of every mass of dough prepared for the table was to be sent to the priests as servants in God's household, so likewise of every animal of these species that was slain for common food. And this portion being taken from the mouth, shoulder, and stomach, is supposed to have been a mystical emblem

signifying that words, actions, and appetites, ought 'to be consecrated to God.' This explanation has been offered by Abarbinel, and adopted by Grotius.||

V. As the priests had the right shoulder and breast from the peace offerings of individuals, and from the ram of the Nazarite the other shoulder also, and that sodden; so the rest of the flesh was allotted to the offerers. This might be eaten by any Israelite, male or female, in any part of Jerusalem: as might also the tithe cattle, which belonged wholly to the offerers; and the paschal victims, whether lambs or kids, of which not a bone was to be broken, but which were to be roasted with fire, and all eaten by various companies the same night, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. **

The feasting of the offerers on the flesh of the peace offerings was a token of mutual friendship between them and God. For as a common table generally indicates mutual concord between men, whence it became customary for persons who formed mutual covenants to eat and drink together; a ceremony which we find to have been employed in the covenants between Isaac and Abimelech, Jacob and Laban, the Israelites and Gibeonites :*_So those who fed on the sacrifices were considered as partaking of the altar, and using one and the same table with God. Hence the altar is called “the table of the Lord, and the “ fruit thereof his meat;t" implying that those whom God made partakers of his altar, were connected with him by the ties of friendship. For the same reason, those who ate things that had been sacrificed to demons, which was the custom of the heathens, were considered as having fellowship with demons. I

* Levit. xxii, 10, 11. + Deut. xviii. 3.

Num. xv.

. 211, 21. & Ad Deut. xviii. 3. # Ad Levit. iii. 9. Deut. xii 6,7. ** Exod. xii. 3-10

VI. As the allotment of the sacrifices to the of ferers was a sign of federal friendship between them and God, it was provided that no person should eat of any

animal which he offered as an expiatory victim; because in this kind of sacrifice he was considered as guilty before God, and therefore not qualified for sacred communion with him. Hence it was that the peace offering was always preceded by the piacular victim, whenever any person offered both these kinds of sacrifices on the same day.Ş The design of this order was, that being purged by the piacular victim, and having again found favour with God, he might be admitted to a sacred feast on the peace offering. Besides, for persons who had been guilty of transgressions, and offered sacrifices in order to obtain their forgiveness, the most becoming state of mind would be repentance; and with repentance would

# Gen. xxvi. 28-30. xxxi. 46. Josh. ix. 14, 15. * I Corinth. x. 20. & Exod. xxix. 14, 22.

Mal. i. 12. Num, vi. 14. 16; 17.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

comport sorrow for sin and abstinence from all feasts, especially from those which were furnished by their own expiatory sacrifices. The same observation has been made by Grotius, who, speaking of the peace offerings, says:* ' On these, after the pouring out of

the blood, the individuals who had offered them, and * their wives and children, were permitted to feast, in 'token of friendship with God. This was not allowed ' in the meat offering, because that was among the priveleges of the priests; nor in the sin offerings or trespass offerings, lest there should be a rejoicing in guilt.

VII. Having seen what victims were to be eaten, and by what persons and in what places; let us now inquire what space of time was allowed for eating them. This was not the same in all cases. The votive and voluntary sacrifices might be eaten on the same day on which they were offered, and on the next day.† The same time has been fixed by the rabbies for the consumption of the tithe cattle and the firstlings. But they are of opinion that the paschal victim,ĝ the ram of the Nazarite, and eucharistic sacrifices,|| with the sin , offerings and peace offerings of the whole congregation, were to be eaten only on the day on which they were slain, or at least before the following morning: and they consider the remains of the meat offerings as having been subject to the same regulation. Here I apply the term eucharistic only to those victims, which were the spontaneous oblations of individuals on account of prosperity enjoyed, and which are designated in the law as sacrifices of thanksgiving.* Į make this observation,

• In Levit. iii. + Levit. vii, 16. Maimon. in Maase Korban. c. 10. $ Exud xii. 8.10. | Levit. vii, 15. Maimop. ubi supra.. ** Levit, vii. 42.


because the paschal victims, the firstlings, and the

tithes, with peace offerings which used to be immolated at the solemn feasts, may in some sense be · numbered among the eucharistic sacrifices, as we . have already remarked.

VIII. The short space of time within which the victims might be eaten, seems to have been designed to prevent any corruption of the sacrifices, and to guard against covetousness in any of the offerers or priests. This is the opinion of Philo :* Only two

days are allowed for eating the peace offerings; no - part of them is to be left to the third day, and that

for several reasons. One is, that every thing ought to be laid on the sacred table in season, and care • should be taken that nothing is spoiled by length of

time; for the nature of animal food, even though ‘it has been seasoned, is liable to putrefaction. Another is, that the sacrifices are not to be hoarded up, and afterwards dispensed to those who need 'them: for they belong not to the offerer, but to him ' to whom they have been offered; who, being bene'ficent and bountiful, admits the offerers of the 'sacrifice to a participation of the altar and a feast * with him at one common table, which he forbids them to call theirs : for they are ministers, and not founders, of the banquet. He is the founder of the feast, 'to whom the provision belongs, and whose bounty it ' is unjust to conceal by a preference of vile and sor

did covetousness to the noble virtue of humanity.' Whatever remained of the sacrifices after the time appointed was to be wholly consumed by fire.t

IX. But short as was the time allowed for eating the votive or voluntary sacrifices, the time allotted for


* De Victimis.

+ Levit, vii, 17.

the eucharistic victims was still less. These, being offered for good already received, were on that account to be used with more liberality, and to be prepared for immediate banquets for the offerers and their pious friends. This was the reason why the eucharistic sacrifices were to be accompanied by bread of every sort ;* that being one of the requisites for a feast. Philo says :f “The law commands this victim 'to be all eaten, not as the former peace offering in ' two days, but in one; that those who have enjoyed speedy and timely benefits, may readily and without

delay impart to others. The same opinion is given on this subject by Abarbinel. I • Levit. vii. 12, 13. * De Victimis.

Ad Levit. vii.


« AnteriorContinuar »