« AnteriorContinuar »
§ 380. or sin offenings. 481
§ 380. OF SIN-OFFERings.
We have already, in section 252, spoken of the distinction between sins and trespasses, and the sacrifices, which were appropriate to each, as far as the subject was connected with the civil laws. We shall, therefore, be concise, and merely state a few things more, which have reference to the ceremonies on such occasions. The victims, selected for the sin-offerings, (which, it may be remarked here, are expressed in Hebrew by the words, which usually signify sins, viz, noston, nNtoro) were different according to the different situation and circumstances of the person, who made the sacrifice. A bullock, -p: ]: -g, was immolated for the high priest, and also for the people, and a goat for the civil magistrate. With a part of the blood, the priest besmeared the horns of the altar of burnt offerings, but the remainder was poured down at its side, Lev. 4: 22–26. Persons in a private station presented for a sin-offering a kid or a lamb, but the ceremonies were the same, as just mentioned, Lev 4: 27–35. Other particulars are stated in section 378. Sin-offerings were required; I. Of mothers at child birth. If the child were a son, it was forty, if a daughter, eighty days, before the completion of the time of her purification. She then presented, as her sin-offering, a turtle dove and a young pigeon, also a lamb for a burnt-offering; and in case of poverty, another dove and pigeon, as a burnt-offering instead of the lamb, Lev. 12: 6, 8. comp. Luke 2: 24. II. They were required of lepers, when healed, who generally offered a goat, but in case of poverty a dove or young pigeon, Lev. 14: 13, 19, 22, 30, 31. III. Likewise of Nazarites unexpectedly contaminated, viz, a dove or young pigeon, Num. 6: 10, 11.
482 § 381, of TRESPAss of FERINGs.
§ 381. Of TREspass OFFERings.
Trespass offerings, nono, Don, were not required of the people, as a body. They were to be offered by individuals, who, through ignorance, mistake, or want of reflection, had neglected some of the Ceremonial precepts of Moses, or some of those natural Laws, which had been introduced into his code, and sanctioned with the penalty of death; and who were, subsequently, conscious of their errour. In Leviticus 5: 17, where the contrary is asserted, [i. e. where trespasses are represented as errours of commission instead of omission, which is understood to be the most probable distinction in the Mosaic Laws between sins and trespasses,) there is no doubt, that the negative particle N: is transposed, and that the reading should be, Hoyon ngs on nix” on nois rinus Nol. The trespasses, which could be expiated by sacrifices, are enumerated in Leviticus 4: 1–16. 5: 1–19. I. The person, who, being sworn as a witness, concealed the truth, by keeping silent; the man, who, having become contaminated without knowing it, had omitted purification, but had afterwards become acquainted with the fact; the person, who had rashly sworn to do a thing, and had not done it; all these delinquents offered a lamb or kid, or, in case of poverty, two doves or young pigeons, the one for a trespass, the other for a sin-offering. In case the person was unusually poor, he was required to offer merely the tenth part of an Epha of fine meal without oil or frankincense, Lev. 3: 1–16. II. Whoever appropriated to himself any thing consecrated, or any thing that was promised, or found, or stolen, or deposited in his possession for keeping; whoever swore falsely, or omitted to restore the goods, that belonged to another, or injured him in any other way, presented for his trespass a ram, which had been submitted to the estimation of the priest, and not only made restitution, but allowed an additional amount of a fifth part, by way of indemnification. - + III. He, who had committed fornication with a betrothed bondmaid, previously to her being redeemed from servitude, offered a ram for the trespass, Lev 19:20–22.
§ 383. of covenant sacrifices. 483
IV. NAzARITEs, who had been unexpectedly rendered unclean, presented a lamb of a year old, Num. 6: 11.
V. Finally, lepers, when restored to health, and purified, sacrificed a ram, Lev. 14: 10–14. The ceremonies were the same, as in the sin-offerings.
Sometimes we find these offerings, in addition to the terms at the head of this section, expressed by the word boro merely, Lev. 17: 8. Num. 15: 3. Bullocks, heifers, goats, rams, and sheep were the only animals sacrificed on these occasicns, as already stated in § 378, Levit. 3: 1–17. 7: 23–27. These sacrifices, which were offered, nons, as an indication of gratitude, were accompanied with unleavened cakes, nox, nor, covered with oil by pouring it upon them; with thin cakes or wafers, likewise unleavened, n\zo "Pop", and besmeared with oil; also with another kind of cakes, made of fine meal and kneaded with oil, in Hebrew, no rob noso. The priest, who sprinkled the blood, presented one of each of these kinds of cakes, as an offering, Lev. 7: 11–14, 28–35.
The remainder of the animal substance and of the cakes was converted by the person, who made the offering, into an entertainment, to which, widows, orphans, the poor, slaves, and Levites were invited. What was not eaten on the day of the offering might be reserved, till the succeeding, but that, which remained till the third was to be burnt, (a regulation, which was made, in order to prevent the omission or putting off of this season of benevolence and joy,) Lev. 7:15–21. Deut. 12:18. This feast could be celebrated beyond the limits of the Tabernacle or Temple, but not beyond the city.
THE SACRIFICEs, by means of which Covenants were confirmed, were not a separate class of offerings, but belonged rather to the peace or thank-offerings. The custom of confirming Covenants in this way, (which is the ground of our giving the subject a separate consideration,) was derived from a practice among the 484 § 383. or covenant sacrifices.
Chaldeans. The practice, to which we allude, was this. Those, who were about to confirm an agreement, slew and divided the victims, and placed the parts opposite to each other. They then passed through the parts thus divided, saying at the same time, “Let it not thus be done to us,” Ephraem Syrus, T.I. p. 161. Such a confirmation of his Covenant, God afforded in a vision to Abraham, by causing a flame and a smoke to pass between the parts of the victims, Gen. 15: 8, 9, 17, 18. And by this ceremony, the Hebrews not only confirmed their Covenant with God, (Deut. 29: 11,) but also with king Zedekiah, Jer. 34: 18, 19. There can hardly be a doubt, therefore, that other Covenants on other occasions were confirmed in like manner, Exod. 24: 4–8. Jos. 24; 25. 1 Sam. 11:15. 1 Kgs. 1:9 et seq. 2 Chron. 29; 10. 34: 31, 32. Ps. 50: 5. This hypothesis, viz. its being a customary thing to confirm agreements, &c. by sacrifices, accounts for it, that, in 2 Chron. 6: 22, mention is made of the oath before the altar, i.e. before the victims, slain upon it. And it may be observed, furthermore, that this was the practice not only in Judea, but likewise in almost all the other nations of antiquity, of which we have a proof in the words and phrases, used on such subjects. For instance, nonz, a Covenant, is from Holz to dissect or cut up, and literally means dissection or cutting up, viz. of the victims, that were sacrificed, when the Covenant was confirmed. The Latin FoEDUs, covenant, in like manner, according to the etymology given by Servius, (Aeneid VIII. 641.) is derived, (A FoEDIs vulnessibus sacrificii,) from the epithet, which was used to express the appearance of the wounds of the victims then slain. This statement of Servius accounts for certain expressions, which were in common use among the Romans, such as the following, FoEDUs ICERE, PERCUTIRE, FERIRE, SANCIRE. The Greeks had a corresponding phrase, viz. 60xw, tsuvstv; the Hebrews likewise, viz. no n^-): to cut, (i.e. to confirm) a covenant or oath. The Hebrew word so to swear means originally to swear by seven, i.e. by seven victims. Comp. Gen. 21:24. These victims were symbols of the punishment, which was to fall upon the violator of the Covenant, and which those, who passed through the victims, imprecated on their own heads, in case of such violation.
§ 384, or THE MEANING or sACRIFICEs. 485
In that great Covenant, which God made with the Hebrews, (Exod. 24:3—8.) it is added, that Moses sprinkled with the blood of the victims the altar, the book of the Covenant, and the whole people, saying, “This is the blood of the Covenant, which Jehovah makes with you, that you may observe all His commands.” This signified to the Hebrews, that, if they did not keep his commands, they would be accounted worthy to have their blood, scattered in the same manner.
§ 384. OF THE MEANING of SACRIFICEs.
From what has been said, it is sufficiently clear, what significancy or meaning we ought to attach to Sacrifices. For, if it were the case, that the Hebrews, subsequently to the time of Abraham, were accustomed to indicate in an emblematick manner the punishment due to the violators of a Covenant by the sacrifices of said Covenant, there can be no doubt, that they likewise attached a symbolical or emblematick meaning to Sacrifices on other occasions. For instance, such a symbolick meaning was conveyed by the whole burnt-offerings or holocausts, which were understood both by Noah and Abraham, from what God himself had communicated to them, (Gen. 8:20. 15:9–18.) to be a confirmation, on the part of God, of his promises. In regard to holocausts, it may be remarked, that an additional significancy was attached to them by Moses, who introduced the ceremony of imposition of hands, which was a symbolical indication, that punishment was due to the person, who offered the sacrifice, in case he failed in the fulfilment of his promises.
The circumstance, that holocausts were symbols in confirmation of divine promises, was the reason, that they were burnt whole, and that they were held in such particular estimation, in as much as promises were at the foundation of the whole Jewish polity. The reason also, that sacrifices of this kind might be offered by Gentiles, who had so far left their old systems, as to acknowledge the true God, was the fact, that, in offering such sacrifices, they were understood to make correspondent promises, of which the sacrifices were a confirmation. They possessed likewise an expiatory significancy, because they indicated that God would be