The distinction of the Sin-ollering and the Cuilt- offering has been felt to be a matter of some diffi-
338
iSACRIFICE
SACRIFICE
culty, aggravated by the fact that the latter was wron;^Iy suppo.setl to be in view in Lv o^*^^. The principal views which have been held are — (1) that the Sin-otfering was for sins of omission, the Guilt- olfering for sins of coinmb^sion ; (2) that the former operated objectively by averting punishment, the latter subjectively by appeasing the conscience ; (3) that the former was offered because of open, tlie latter because of secret sins. Unmistakamy, however, the specific feature of the Ouilt-oflering is the preliminary act of restitution ; and its occasion would thus seem to be those cases where the sin which had been committed allowed of an act of reparation. The Sin-ottering was re- quired in cases where the liarm done could not be undone or measured. The designation of the Buttering Servant as a Guilt-ottering (Is 53^^ not * ottering for sin') indicates that the highest degree of efficacy was ascribed to this form of ottering.
In the ritual of the Day of Atonement the bloody sacrittces were combined in an impressive way, and invested with peculiar features.
(d) The Peace-offering (-S?-, D'pS^f' nji, LXX unu»r. [Bviria], rtn-Y.flio*) is brought under fixed regulationg. In Lv 7nff- three varieties are distinguished — (1) thank-offerings (nypin n^i), (2) votive offerings {^nj njT), and (3) free-vnll offerings (njl njTi). The view of Henystenberg, that the thank-offering is an alternative generic name, equivalent to peace-offering, and that the votive offering and the free-^nll offering are the speciea, is inconsistent with the fact that a different treatment of the sacrificial flesh is prescribed for (I) as compared with (2) and (3). As to the distinction of the three varieties, the most satisfactory explanation is that which interprets the thank-offering as a resjionse to experienced acts of Divine goodness, while the voti\e offering and the free-will offering are conmrcted with expectation of benefit and supplicatory' prayer. The first, in short, was contemplated only after blessmgs received, while the last two were decided on when some special blessing was still awaited at the hand of God. The supplicatory pair, again, were distinguished in this way, that the free-will offering was presented in support of the prayer, while the votive offering was promised as conditional on the granting of the boon. ' The latter did not need to be pre- 8ent«d if the prayer was not granted, the former had already been presented, even if the request continued imfulfilled' (Kurtz, Sac. it'orship, Eng. tr. p. 262). — (a) The iHciimsa.Te the samtaAS in the holocaust — oxen, sheep, and goats, but not pigeons. It was accompanied by a cereal offering mingled with oil (Lv 71-). In view of the less solemn character of this offering, the regula- tions as to quality are relaxed : the female animal is allowed as well as the more valuable male (Lv 3^), and for the free-will offering the principle of the unblemished character is not rigidly insisted on (2223). (b) The ritual corresponded in its first stages with that of the Bunit-offering and the Guilt- offering. The imposition of hands, the killing of the victim, and the sprinkling of blood upon the altar are common to it with the holocausts, (c) The distribution of the sacrifice includes God's portion — consisting of fat pieces (33"), the priest's portion — consisting of the breast (njn) and the right fore-1^ (PP'C p'^P 730.32)^ while the worshipper received the residue. The parts assigned to the priest were handled in a peculiar way, on account of which they are described as the breast of the wave-offering, and the thigh of the heave-offering (Kx 2927). The ceremony of the wave -offering (hd^jpi, ^jn) consisted in moving the portion backwards and forwards in the line of the altar, with a motion somewhat similar to that of a saw (Is 1015). 'The swinging in a forward direction,' says Oehler, ' was a declaration in action that it properly belonged to Him ; whilst the movement back again denoted that God on His part returned the gift, and assigned it as His own present to the priest' (I.e. ii. 6). The handling of the heave-ofTering (n"nn) is interpreted in a similar way by Kurtz, following the Jewish tradition, as a s^-mbolical act, whereby the offering was presented to God by being lifted njiward (I.e. p. 269 ff.); but according to most moderns heaving wa^ not an act of worship, but only the preliminary act of detac-hing a portion from the rest of the carnase for consecration (see Offer, $ 5). In any case it is certain that the mode of viewing the waving must soon have extended to the heading, and marie it equally a religious ceremony and a vehicle of ideas of consecration. The breast which was waved fell to Aaron and Ills sons (Lv 7^^), the heave- Bhoulder to the officiating priest (733). (,/) The portion of the tcitrghippers waa enjoyed at a sacrificial meal. In the case of the thank-offering the whole had to be consumed on the day of the sacrifice (Lv "i^^), while the feast furnished by the two other varieties might be extended over the second day" (v. 16). At the end of the fixed time the remnants were burned with fire without the camp. (e)The effect of the Peace-offering is only referred to in a general way: it is a 'savour of rest-giving' unto the Lord, 1.0. acceptable to God (Lv 3^