riests perform a multitude of services for the
benefit of the community; but the chief of these is sacrificing, and it is at the altar that they appear most conepiounmly as mediators between
God and man. The old custom of private sacrific- ing by individuals is now entirely abandoned, and all sacrifices must be presented by the priests. The first act, indeed, still rests with the lay worshipper. It is he who procures the victim, brings it up to the temple, and in some cases kills it. Then it is taken over by the priests and their officers. In the case of the zebah (AV ‘peace- offering,’ RVm ‘thank-offering’), the priests lay part, chiefly the fat, on the altar, and the rest is eaten, partly by the offerers, partly by the priests, so that the idea of communion is still preserved. The ‘olah (‘ burnt-offering’) being wholly consumed on the altar, and representing complete surrender to God, though not directly aimed at effecting an atonement, points in that way more effectually. The rite would express any intense feeling, as of gratitude, devotion, or the craving for propitiation (Ly 1"). The hattath (‘sin-offering,’ Lv 4. 5. 6, Nu 15”) and the ‘dsham (AV ‘trespass-offering,’ RV ‘guilt-offering,’ Lv 5-7. 14. 19) were directly aimed at the removal of uncleanness and atone- ment for breaches of Divine commands. In the ease of the sin-offering, while the offerer brought the victim, the priests were to kill it, sprinkle part of the blood before the veil, and pour out the rest at the base of the altar of burnt-offering. The fat was to be burnt on that altar and the rest burnt ‘ without the camp, in a clean place, where the ashes were poured out.’ There was this differ- ence in the case of the trespass-oflering, that the rest of the flesh was to be eaten by the priests in a sacred place (Lv 7°).
In the daily service of the temple two lambs were offered as burnt-offerings—one in the morning, the other in the evening. The sin- and trespass- offerings were more occasional, as offences called
MEDIATOR, MEDIATION
for them, and of a more private character. It is in relation to these offerings that the priest stands more especially as a mediator between the offender and Jehovah, whose wrath he has occasioned, in whose eye he is unclean, though Sigs owing to some unintentional or ignorant act. ut on the great Day of Atonement the daily sacrifice was supplemented with other burnt-offerings, and also a sin-offering, which in this ease was of a public character, for the faults of the people generally. In these matters the priest mediates in the God- ward action, presenting the people’s sacrifices, and seeking the Divine grace; but at times he also acts as mediator from God to the people, when he pronounces people clean, as in the cure of eae See, further, arts. PRIESTS AND LEVITES, and Sac- RIFICE.
The high priest appears still more specifically as the mediator between the whole nation and Jehovah. This is suggested by the fact that when clothed with the ephod he bears the names of the twelve tribes on his heart and shoulders as their representative before God. On the Day of Atone- ment he enters the most sacred place and sprinkles blood on the mercy-seat, thus bringing the vital part of the sacrifice into the Divine Presence to make atonement for the sins of the nation. Whether the idea embodied in this ceremony was that expressed by the primary meaning of kipper, as a covering over of sin, or a covering of the offender from the wrath of God (Cave, Schultz) ; or whether, neglecting the primary signification, it was suggestive of a ransom or an atoning payment (Bennett, Smend),—in either case the action that secured pardon was performed by the high priest on behalf of the people. (For details of the laws and processes here referred to, see ATONEMENT (Day OF)).
3. Prophetic mediation.—Side by side with the differentiation of the priest from the rest of the community grows up the corresponding differen- tiation of the prophet, who also has assigned to him specific mediatorial functions. While the priest comes between God and man chiefly at the altar, and for the offering of sacrifice, i.e. in ascending mediation, the prophet represents the descending mediation, speaking for God, and revealing the Divine will. This specific prophetic function has been acknowledged in other nations besides Israel. Thus among the Greeks from the earliest times prophecy was hereditary in many families—among the Jannide, the Clytiade, the Telliade, ete. In later ages there were two classes of soothsayers, —in one the enlightenment not being acquired b art or study (ἄτεχνον καὶ ἀδίδακτον γένος), the so being either illuminated awake or thrown into a trance or ecstasy; in the other, the faculty being obtained by study, as an art (τὸ τεχνικὸν yévos). See Schémann, Griechisches Alterthum*, vol. i. Plato distinguishes between the μάντις, who has direct communication with God, and the προφήτης, who merely interprets (Timeus, 71 ff.). In Israel nec- romancy was sharply distinguished from prophecy, and considered wicked, as inconsistent with faith in God. Soothsayers are not to be sought after (Dt 18*-), nevertheless they are credited with real power. The witch of Endor summons the shade of Samuel, and thus obtains information for Saul (1S 28*-_a late narrative, but so lifelike as to point to a historical tradition), Then the true prophets are marked off from lying prophets, who, however, might be inspired by an evil spirit from Jehovah (e.g. 1 K 225%), The prophets who ery, ‘Peace, peace,’ to flatter the people, are mere tricksters. Still, in early times, the higher prophets were not above doing in their Divine power what soothsayera aimed at by sorcery (e.g. 1 8. 915. 10"), But it 1s in the loftier functions of prophecy that its media-