(4.) There can be no doubt that the representation of expiatory substitution by sacrifices was prominent among other ancienl nations i Herod, ii, 39; < Ssesar, /;-//. Gal.vi, L6; Ovid, FasUy'i, L60; Porphyr. .!//.-/;». i v. 15). The remark ofDeWette, Tholuck, and Schol) that the remnants of the Bin-offerings wen- accounted unclean seems to have no great weight, since the eating of pieces of flesh from most of sin-offerings might be urged for the contrary view: and certainly that idea did not ap- pear in the case of the trespass-offerings (see LSahr. op. cit. p. 393 sq.).
On the offering of men for propitiation, in case of public misfortune ( •_' Kings iii. 37) among the Creeks.
their beasts of sacrifice; that is, whether they wished merely to offer a gift to the offended Deity (Welker, p.
288 . or (a- Michaelis, Mn<. ltit.y. 64,urges) it was con- sidered as a municipal penally, a kind of line ; or. I'mal- ly,as a substitute for the sinners presenting ii. who had i hem-iives properly deserved death. The last is the view of many rabbins (see < (utram, /'■ Sacrific. p. 251 s.).) ami Church fathers (Theodor. Queest. 61 ad I Euseb. /''in. /'.'c. i. 111. etc. i. and lat.lv of ! Saner ( Theol. ,l. N. /. iv, 124 sq.), De Wette (Bibl Theol. p. 98 sq.; comp. Opusc. p. 23 Bq.), Gesenius (/." Is. ii. 189), lb ng- Btenberg (Christol i. 265), Scholl (in Klaiher's Stud. etc. V. ii. 1 l;S Bq.), and Tholuck (2. Beit. :. Brief, n. 'I. Heir. p. 7s sq.; comp. Colln's Bibl Theol. i. 270*sq., for many others). This meaning of the sin-offerings seems at first view the most natural, significant, and most ac- cordant with ancient testimonies. Yet Klaiber i [Stndien der Wurtemb. GeistlYlH, ii. I<> sq.) has recently com- bated it with acuteness, and Bahr {Symbol, ii. 277 sq.) has offered several objections to it. -Many other inter- pretations, some very monstrous, but offered with phil- osophical pretension, arc referred to by Scholl (op. cit. p. 133 Bq.). Early opposition to the usual view is found in Sykes ( Vers. iib. die Opfer, p. 128 sip) and Steudel (Glaubenslehre, p. 256 sq.). Certainly some of the grounds on which it is often based are of no weight. The formula in Lev. iv, 20, "And the priest shall make
an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them," ! comp. Schol in Aristoph. Plut. 454 ; Wachsmuth, //»//.
repeated in xxvi, 5, 10, or that in Lev. v, 13, ''And the Alterth. ii. 550 sq. The self-offerings of the Romans
prie-t shall make an atonement for him as touching his belong here too. Kindred is the illegal hanging of the
sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be children of Saul (2 Sam. xxi, G sq. , comp. Lassaulx,
forgiven him," or the similar words in the 18th verse, Dii SUhnopfer der Griechen und Rdmer [Wilrzburg,
do not make it certain that a substitution is to be 1841]).
thought of in the case of the sin-offering. The laying (5.) Lastly, a circumstance which speaks strongly for of the hand on the animal, too. though on the day of the common explanation of these sin-offerings is that atonement (Lev. xvi, 21) it certainly implies the laying all other.- which have been suggested are fat less nat- of guilt upon il, does not in general determine this ural. simple, and appropriate. We need not refer e — point, since ii was also customary in other sacrifices, pecially to the homely interpretation of Michaelis. The Further, thai the sin-offering was considered unclean, idea that blood passed tor the principle of sensuality, which would only be possible in case the uncleanness and hence of sin. and that thus the shedding of blood of sin were considered to have passed over to it. is not became the symbol of the putting-away of sins, does not to be inferred from Kxod. xxix, 14; Lev. xvi. 28, etc. appear in the Old Test., nor, indeed, in the New. Men- fas Klaiber has well shown), but would seem to contra- del's supposition is that the gracious acceptance by God did Lev. iv. 12: vi. 27 ( see below). ( »n the other hand, of the offering of reconciliation was the essential ele- i 1. I Lev. xvii. 11, unless it be interpreted in a very ment. and that the various forms of sacrifice were only forced manner, can scarcely be understood to mean any- intended to impress on the mind the abominable nature thing else than that the life of the sacrifice, which is in of sin and to lead to a true repentance : but this view is
strangely barren. Klaiber supposes thai clean animals without blemish were to awaken in the worshipper the sense of i he law's requirement from him and of his im- perfection. ISut this leaves out ofsighl all the peculiar forms appropriated to the Bin-offering, and dwells on a le circumstance which was common to all the other
the bl 1. and is poured out with the blood, was offered
instead of the life of him who presented it. It is not necessary to lay stress upon the rendering of ~£~ i kip- per, to expiate, to atone); but the parallelism between the nephesh or •■ life of the flesh" and the nephesh or soul