V, The Phoi'Iiets as Refokmers of Sacri- ficial Worship. — The sacrificial system of ancient Israel was the result of a long and com- plex format ive process. A remote heathen past supplied the rudimentary forms, and these had under^'one modifi(-ation under the influence of a progressive civilizjil ion, and of the early stages of a gradual revelation. The system of ordinances thus historically given was now to be subjected to a testing ordeal. The knowledge of God and of His will, which had been conveyed through ilis dealings with Israel, and which had been under- stood in essence by Moses, attained to great clear- ness and consistency in the consciousness of the 8th century propliots ; and, possessed as they were by this knowledge, they were comp'llcd to examine in its light the past and the future of the
Seople, and to sit in juagment on all the present oingB of the house OI Israel. In particular, they eould not hut ask whether the sacrificial cult, which to popular thinking was all but coextensive with religion, was needed and justilied in view of the better knowledge of (iod. As a fact this was a subject which bulked largely in their teaching ; it lupplied the occasion of much of their strongest Invective ; and so unqualified was their denuncia- tion that it is a debatable question whether tliey proposed the abolition of all sacrificial worsliip, or only its reform.
That the religious ideal of the prophets involved the abolitioa of sacrifice, as attirnK-d by various mo<lern writers, is a thesis which rests on a partial view of the evidence. 'Their opposi- tion to sacrifice,* says Kayser, 'was founded on principle, and the real significance of their language is: "No offermg, but love and right knowledge of God"^ {Altteet. Theol.^ p. hMS). This, it is held, is the natural sense of a group r)( passages which represent God as declining offerings, as sated with ihem, and even loathing them. 'To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. Bring no more vain oblations' (Is lUff., cf. Am .')2i 25^ Hqs 6-*-*', Mic ti^ff.). Hut such expressions may as naturally be understood of a conditional as of an absolute rejection of sacrifice. The people addressed was a sinful nation, persisting in ita sins, and the repudiation of offerings at its hand by no means implied that sacrifice would be equally uiiucce}»table at the hand of a penitent and regenerate people (cf. Suiend, Altleat. Theol. p. 168). And the view that the rei>udiation is merely conditional is borne out by hints that accompany the more extensive prophetic prospects. Thus, Hoi^ea looks forward to the cessation of sacrifice as a national punislnnent or calamity (349111.); Isaiah predicts that the E^'yptians will bring sacrifice and oblation to Jehovah (11)-'). while Jeremiah very emphati- cally includes sacrifices in the purified worship of the future (;i3if* 172C). In short, those who regard the prophets as aboli- tionists make a mistake which is common in studying polemics —viz. of misconceiving an attack on abuses as an attack on the institution which they have infected.
A second argument adduced is that the prophets lay great stress on the fact that in the Mosaic period sacrifice was neither rendered nor ordained (Am 5^5, Jer T^i-*'"), whereby they are supposed to claim for a policy of abolition the sanc- tion of a sacred period of antiquity. These remarkable pas- sages are of great weiglit in the controversy as to the Mosaic contribution to sacrificial legislation, but in the present con- nexion they are not convincmg. That Israel did not sacrifice during its wanderings (Am 525) ^as not necessarily an argument for cessation, but might equally have in view to win tlie people to a doctrine which certainly was included in the prophetic programme— viz. that the place of sacrifice in worship was not the all-important, or even pre-eminent, one that was commonly supposed.
The prophetic progrnmme of reform in this field embraced both sacrihcial practice and sacri- hcial theory. (1) Among the practical reforms the foremost place belonged to (a) the prohihi- Hon of hcathf.n sacrifices — i.e. those ottered to other gods, to idols (Hos ll^, Jer IP*), to the dead (Ps 106^), and to sacred animals (Ezk 8^"). In connexion with these the practice of kissing the idol is noticed (Hos 13-*). To the class of heathen sacrifices we maj' also refer those mystic rites in which the victim was an unclean or re- pulsive creature (the swine Is 65"*, the mouse 61)"), and which ma}' have been an underground survival from a very early cult (7t'.V- p. 357 tl. ). (6) The prohibition of certain Iritnis of sacrifice is also enforced — notably human sacriiicea (Ezk 20*^). It is, moreover, dilticult to resist the impression, in view of the disparaging references to the number and costliness of the ollerings (Is 1", Mic iV, Am 4^ Ezk 2(i^). tliat the school preferred fewer kinds and greater simplicity. In particular, antagonism to the Sacrihcial Peast is strongly sug- gested by (r) condemrnytion of the excesses which connected themselves with the sacrificial cult. The sacritices of this type naturally gave occasion for revelry, and even for drunken and licentious orgies {Hos 4'^ Am 2^), and thus an institution conceived to honour God became a main instrument in pro- moting a national corruption, which called down the vengeance of Heaven. While, therefore, w<^ cannot regard the prophets as against sacrilice in principle, it is at least a probable view, in con- sideration of the organic connexion of tlie sacri- ficial meal with the indulgence of tleshly lusts, that they meant to discountenance the Peace- otl'ering as the mjiin source of evil, and laboured to enhnnce the credit of those other varieties which pre<*lnded its characteristic temptations.