International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

S

Sabachthani — Sampsames

Sabachthani

Sabachthani - sat-bak'-tha-ne.

Sabaco; Sabakon

Sabaco; Sabakon - sab'-a-ko, sab'-a-kon.

See SO.

Sabaeans - sa-be'-anz (shebha'im (Joel 3:8 the King James Version), cebha'-im; Sabaeim, Sebaeim (Isaiah 45:14); read cabha'im, but rendered as though from cabha', "to imbibe," hence, "drunkards"; oinomenoi, "wine-drunken" (Ezekiel 23:42 the King James Version)):

1. Forms of the Word: "Sabaeans" is also the translation of the name of the country itself (shebha') in Job 1:15; 6:19. This last, which is the root of shebha'im, is regarded by Arabists as coming from that root with the meaning of "to take captive," though seba'a, "he raided" (compare Job 1:15), has also been suggested.

2. Two Different Races: As Sheba is said in Genesis 10:7, 28; and Genesis 25:3 respectively to have been (1) a son of Raamah, the 4th son of Cush; (2) the 10th son of Joktan, son of Eber; (3) the 1st son of Jokshan, 2nd son of Abraham and Keturah, at least two nationalities of this name are implied. The former were identified by Josephus (Ant., II, x, 2) with the tall people of Saba in Upper Egypt, described by him as a city of Ethiopia, which Moses, when in the service of the Egyptians, besieged and captured.

3. Semitic Sabeans and Their Commerce: It is the Semitic Sabeans, however, who are the best known, and the two genealogies attributed to them (Joktan-Eber and Jokshan-Abraham) seem to imply two settlements in the land regarded as that of their origin. As Ezekiel (27:23) mentions Haran (Hirran), Canneh (Kannah), and Eden (Aden) as being connected with Sheba, and these three places are known to have been in Southern Arabia, their Semitic parentage is undoubted. The Sabeans are described as being exporters of gold (Isaiah 60:6; Psalms 72:15), precious stones (Ezekiel 27:23), perfumes (Jeremiah 6:20; Isaiah and Ezekiel), and if the rendering "Sabaeans" for Joel 3:1-21 (4):8 be correct, the Sebaim, "a nation far off," dealt in slaves.

See SEBA; SHEBA; TABLE OF NATIONS.

T. G. Pinches

Sabanneus

Sabanneus - sab-a-ne'-us (Codex Vaticanus Sabannaious; Codex Alexandrinus Bannaious; the King James Version Bannaia, following the Aldine): One of the sons of Asom who had married strange wives (1 Esdras 9:33) = "Zabad" in Ezra 10:33.

Sabannus

Sabannus - sa-ban'-nus (Sabannos; the King James Version Sabban): The father of Moeth, one of the Levites to whom the silver and gold were delivered (1 Esdras 8:63). "Moeth the son of Sabannus" stands in the position of "Noadiah the son of Binnui," in Ezra 8:33.

Sabaoth

Sabaoth - sab'-a-oth, sa-ba'-oth.

See GOD, NAMES OF,III , 8; LORD OF HOSTS.

Sabat

Sabat - sa'-bat: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SAPHAT, (2) (which see).

Sabateus

Sabateus - sab-a-te'-us (Codex Alexandrinus Sabbataias; Codex Vaticanus Abtaios; the King James Version Sabateas): One of the Levites who "taught the law of the Lord" to the multitude (1 Esdras 9:48) = "Shabbethai" in Nehemiah 8:7.

Sabathus

Sabathus - sab'-a-thus (Sabathos; the King James Version Sabatus): An Israelite who put away his "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:28) = "Zabad" in Ezra 10:27.

Sabatus

Sabatus - sab'-a-tus: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SABATHUS (which see).

Sabban

Sabban - sab'-an: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SABANNUS (which see).

Sabbateus

Sabbateus - sab-a-te'-us (Sabbataios; the King James Version Sabbatheus): One of the three (or rather two, for "Levis" = Levite) "assessors" in the investigation held concerning "foreign wives" (1 Esdras 9:14) = "Shabbethai the Levite" in Ezra 10:15. He is probably the "Sabateus," one of the Levites who expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:48), and so = the "Shabbethai" in Nehemiah 8:7.

Sabbath

Sabbath - sab'-ath (shabbath, shabbathon; sabbaton, ta sabbata; the root shabhath in Hebrew means "to desist," "cease," "rest"):

I. ORIGIN OF THE SABBATH

1. The Biblical Account

2. Critical Theories

II. HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AFTER MOSES

1. In the Old Testament

2. In the Inter-Testamental Period

3. Jesus and the Sabbath

4. Paul and the Sabbath

LITERATURE

The Sabbath was the day on which man was to leave off his secular labors and keep a day holy to Yahweh.

I. Origin of the Sabbath. 1. The Biblical Account: The sketch of creation in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3 closes with an impressive account of the hallowing of the Genesis 7:11-24th day, because on it God rested from all the work which He had made creatively. The word "Sabbath" does not occur in the story; but it is recognized by critics of every school that the author (P) means to describe the Sabbath as primeval. In Exodus 20:8-11 (ascribed to JE) the reason assigned for keeping the 7th day as a holy Sabbath is the fact that Yahweh rested after the six days of creative activity. Exodus 31:17 employs a bold figure, and describes Yahweh as refreshing Himself ("catching His breath") after six days of work. The statement that God set apart the 7th day for holy purposes in honor of His own rest after six days of creative activity is boldly challenged by many modern scholars as merely the pious figment of a priestly imagination of the exile. There are so few hints of a weekly Sabbath before Moses, who is comparatively a modern character, that argumentation is almost excluded, and each student will approach the question with the bias of his whole intellectual and spiritual history. There is no distinct mention of the Sabbath in Gen, though a 7-day period is referred to several times (Genesis 7:4, 10; 10, 12; 29:27 f). The first express mention of the Sabbath is found in Exodus 16:21-30, in connection with the giving of the manna. Yahweh taught the people in the wilderness to observe the 7th day as a Sabbath of rest by sending no manna on that day, a double supply being given on the 6th day of the week. Here we have to do with a weekly Sabbath as a day of rest from ordinary secular labor. A little later the Ten Words (Commands) were spoken by Yahweh from Sinai in the hearing of all the people, and were afterward written on the two tables of stone (Exodus 20:1-17; Exodus 34:1-5, 27 f). The Fourth Commandment enjoins upon Israel the observance of the 7th day of the week as a holy day on which no work shall be done by man or beast. Children and servants are to desist from all work, and even the stranger within the gates is required to keep the day holy. The reason assigned is that Yahweh rested on the 7th day and blessed it and hallowed it. There is no hint that the restrictions were meant to guard against the wrath of a jealous and angry deity. The Sabbath was meant to be a blessing to man and not a burden. After the sin in connection with the golden call Yahweh rehearses the chief duties required of Israel, and again announces the law of the Sabbath (Exodus 34:21, ascribed to J). In the Levitical legislation there is frequent mention of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:13-16; 35:2 f; Leviticus 19:3, 10; 3, 18). A willful Sabbath-breaker was put to death (Numbers 15:32-36). In the Deuteronomic legislation there is equal recognition of the importance and value of the Sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:12-15). Here the reason assigned for the observance of the Sabbath philanthropic and humanitarian: "that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou." It is thus manifest that all the Pentateuchal codes, whether proceeding from Moses alone or from many hands in widely different centuries, equally recognize the Sabbath as one of the characteristic institutions of Israel's religious and social life. If we cannot point to any observance of the weekly Sabbath prior to Moses, we can at least be sure that this was one of the institutions which he gave to Israel. From the days of Moses until now the holy Sabbath has been kept by devout Israelites.

2. Critical Theories: "The older theories of the origin of the Jewish Sabbath (connecting it with Egypt, with the day of Saturn, or in general with the seven planets) have now been almost entirely abandoned (see ASTRONOMY, sec. I, 5). The disposition at present is to regard the day as originally a lunar festival, similar to a Bablonian custom (Schrader, Stud. u. Krit., 1874), the rather as the cuneiform documents appear to contain a term sabattu or sabattum, identical in form and meaning with the Hebrew word sabbathon." Thus wrote Professor C. H. Toy in 1899 (JBL, XVIII, 190). In a syllabary (II R, 32, 16a, b) sabattum is said to be equivalent to um nuh libbi, the natural translation of which seemed to be "day of rest of the heart." Schrader, Sayce and others so understood the phrase, and naturally looked upon sabattum as equivalent to the Hebrew Sabbath. But Jensen and others have shown that the phrase should be rendered "day of the appeasement of the mind" (of an offended deity). The reference is to a day of atonement or pacification rather than a day of rest, a day in which one must be careful not to arouse the anger of the god who was supposed to preside over that particular day. Now the term sabattum has been found only 5 or 6 times in the Babylonian inscriptions and in none of them is it connected with the 7th day of a week. There was, however, a sort of institution among the superstitious Babylonians that has been compared with the Hebrew Sabbath. In certain months of the year (Elul, Marcheshvan) the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st and 28th days were set down as favorable days, or unfavorable days, that is, as days in which the king, the priest and the physician must be careful not to stir up the anger of the deity. On these days the king was not to eat food prepared by fire, not to put on royal dress, not to ride in his chariot, etc. As to the 19th day, it is thought that it was included among the unlucky days because it was the 49th (7 times 7) from the 1st of the preceding month. As there were 30 days in the month, it is evident that we are not dealing with a recurring 7th day in the week, as is the case with the Hebrew Sabbath. Moreover, no proof has been adduced that the term sabattum was ever applied to these dies nefasti or unlucky days. Hence, the assertions of some Assyriologists with regard to the Babylonian origin of the Sabbath must be taken with several grams of salt. Notice must be taken of an ingenious and able paper by Professor M. Jastrow, which was read before the Eleventh International Congress of Orientalists in Paris in 1897, in which the learned author attempts to show that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally a day of propitiation like the Babylonian sabattum (AJT, II, 312-52). He argues that the restrictive measures in the Hebrew laws for the observance of the Sabbath arose from the original conception of the Sabbath as an unfavorable day, a day in which the anger of Yahweh might flash forth against men. Although Jastrow has supported his thesis with many arguments that are cogent, yet the reverent student of the Scriptures will find it difficult to resist the impression that the Old Testament writers without exception thought of the Sabbath not as an unfavorable or unlucky day but rather as a day set apart for the benefit of man. Whatever may have been the attitude of the early Hebrews toward the day which was to become a characteristic institution of Judaism in all ages and in all lands, the organs of revelation throughout the Old Testament enforce the observance of the Sabbath by arguments which lay emphasis upon its beneficent and humanitarian aspects.

We must call attention to Meinhold's ingenious hypothesis as to the origin of the Sabbath. In 1894 Theophilus G. Pinches discovered a tablet in which the term shapattu is applied to the 15th day of the month. Meinhold argues that shabattu in Babylonian denotes the day of the full moon. Dr. Skinner thus describes Meinhold's theory: "He points to the close association of new-moon and Sabbath in nearly all the pre-exilic references (Amos 8:5; Hosea 2:11; Isaiah 1:13; 2 Kings 4:23 f); and concludes that in early Israel, as in Babylonia, the Sabbath was the full-moon festival and nothing else. The institution of the weekly Sabbath he traces to a desire to compensate for the loss of the old lunar festivals, when these were abrogated by the Deuteronomic reformation. This innovation he attributes to Ezekiel; but steps toward it are found in the introduction of a weekly day of rest during harvest only (on the ground of Deuteronomy 16:8 f; compare Exodus 34:21), and in the establishment of the sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:1-55), which he considers to be older than the weekly Sabbath" (ICC on Gen, p. 39). Dr. Skinner well says that Meinhold's theory involves great improbabilities. It is not certain that the Babylonians applied the term sabattu to the 15th day of the month because it was the day of the full moon; and it is by no means certain that the early prophets in Israel identified Sabbath with the festival of the full moon.

The wealth of learning and ingenuity expended in the search for the origin of the Sabbath has up to the present yielded small returns.

II. History of the Sabbath after Moses. 1. In the Old Testament: The early prophets and historians occasionally make mention of the Sabbath. It is sometimes named in connection with the festival of the new moon (2 Kings 4:23; Amos 8:5; Hosea 2:11; Isaiah 1:13; Ezekiel 46:3). The prophets found fault with the worship on the Sabbath, because it was not spiritual nor prompted by love and gratitude. The Sabbath is exalted by the great prophets who faced the crisis of the Babylonian exile as one of the most valuable institutions in Israel's life. Great promises are attached to faithful observance of the holy day, and confession is made of Israel's unfaithfulness in profaning the Sabbath (Jeremiah 17:21-27; Isaiah 56:2, 4; 58:13; Ezekiel 20:12-24). In the Persian period Nehemiah struggled earnestly to make the people of Jerusalem observe the law of the Sabbath (Nehemiah 10:31; Nehemiah 13:15-22).

2. In the Inter-Testamental Period: With the development of the synagogue the Sabbath became a day of worship and of study of the Law, as well as a day of cessation from all secular employment. That the pious in Israel carefully observed the Sabbath is clear from the conduct of the Maccabees and their followers, who at first declined to resist the onslaught made by their enemies on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:29-38); but necessity drove the faithful to defend themselves against hostile attack on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:39-41). It was during the period between Ezra and the Christian era that the spirit of Jewish legalism flourished. Innumerable restrictions and rules were formulated for the conduct of life under the Law. Great principles were lost to sight in the mass of petty details. Two entire treatises of the Mishna, Shabbath and `Erubhin, are devoted to the details of Sabbath observance. The subject is touched upon in other parts of the Mishna; and in the Gemara there are extended discussions, with citations of the often divergent opinions of the rabbis. In the Mishna (Shahbath, vii.2) there are 39 classes of prohibited actions with regard to the Sabbath, and there is much hair-splitting in working out the details. The beginnings of this elaborate definition of actions permitted and actions forbidden are to be found in the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. The movement was at flood tide during our Lord's earthly ministry and continued for centuries afterward, in spite of His frequent and vigorous protests.

3. Jesus and the Sabbath: Apart from His claim to be the Messiah, there is no subject on which our Lord came into such sharp conflict with the religious leaders of the Jews as in the matter of Sabbath observance. He set Himself squarely against the current rabbinic restrictions as contrary to the spirit of the original law of the Sabbath. The rabbis seemed to think that the Sabbath was an end in itself, an institution to which the pious Israelite must subject all his personal interests; in other words, that man was made for the Sabbath: man might suffer hardship, but the institution must be preserved inviolate. Jesus, on the contrary, taught that the Sabbath was made for man's benefit. If there should arise a conflict between man's needs and the letter of the Law, man's higher interests and needs must take precedence over the law of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14; Mark 2:23 through Mark 3:6; Luke 6:1-11; also John 5:1-18; Luke 13:10-17; Luke 14:1-6). There is no reason to think that Jesus meant to discredit the Sabbath as an institution. It was His custom to attend worship in the synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16). The humane element in the rest day at the end of every week must have appealed to His sympathetic nature. It was the one precept of the Decalogue that was predominantly ceremonial, though it had distinct sociological and moral value. As an institution for the benefit of toiling men and animals, Jesus held the Sabbath in high regard. As the Messiah, He was not subject to its restrictions; He could at any moment assert His lordship over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). The institution was not on a par with the great moral precepts, which are unchangeable. It is worthy of note that, while Jesus pushed the moral precepts of the Decalogue into the inner realm of thought and desire, thus making the requirement more difficult and the law more exacting, He fought for a more liberal and lenient interpretation of the law of the Sabbath. Rigorous sabbatarians must look elsewhere for a champion of their views.

4. Paul and the Sabbath: The early Christians kept the 7th day as a Sabbath, much after the fashion of other Jews. Gradually the 1st day of the week came to be recognized as the day on which the followers of Jesus would meet for worship. The resurrection of our Lord on that day made it for Christians the most joyous day of all the week. When Gentiles were admitted into the church, the question at once arose whether they should be required to keep the Law of Moses. It is the glory of Paul that he fought for and won freedom for his Gentile fellow-Christians. It is significant of the attitude of the apostles that the decrees of the Council at Jerusalem made no mention of Sabbath observance in the requirements laid upon Gentile Christians (Acts 15:28 f). Paul boldly contended that believers in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, were set free from the burdens of the Mosaic Law. Even circumcision counted for nothing, now that men were saved by believing in Jesus (Galatians 5:6). Christian liberty as proclaimed by Paul included all days and seasons. A man could observe special days or not, just as his own judgment and conscience might dictate (Romans 14:5 f); but in all such matters one ought to be careful not to put a stumblingblock in a brother's way (Romans 14:13 ff). That Paul contended for personal freedom in respect of the Sabbath is made quite clear in Colossians 2:16 f, where he groups together dietary laws, feast days, new moons and sabbaths. The early Christians brought over into their mode of observing the Lord's Day the best elements of the Jewish Sabbath, without its onerous restrictions.)

See further LORD'S DAY; ETHICS OF JESUS, I, 3, (1).

LITERATURE.

J. A. Hessey, Sunday, Its Origin, History, and Present Obligation (Bampton Lectures for 1860); Zahn, Geschichte des Sonntags, 1878; Davis, Genesis and Semitic Tradition, 1894, 23-35; Jastrow, "The Original Character of the Heb Sabbath," AJT, II, 1898, 312-52; Toy, "The Earliest Form of the Sabbath," JBL, XVIII. 1899, 190-94; W. Lotz, Questionum de historia Sabbati libri duo, 1883; Nowack, Hebr. Arch., II, 1894, 140 ff; Driver, HDB, IV, 1902, 317-23; ICC, on "Gen," 1911, 35-39; Dillmann, Ex u. Leviticus 3, 1897, 212-16; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, 1883, 51-62, 777-87; Broadus, Commentary on Mt, 256-61; EB, IV, 1903, 4173-80; Gunkel, Genesis 3, 1910, 114-16; Meinhold, Sabbat u. Woche im Altes Testament, 1905; Beer, Schabbath, 1908.

John Richard Samphey

III. SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST POSITION

The views entertained by Seventh-Day Adventists concerning the nature and obligation of the Sabbath may conveniently be presented under three general divisions: (1) what the Bible says concerning the Sabbath; (2) what history says concerning the Sabbath; (3) the significance of the Sabbath.

1. What the Bible Says concerning the Sabbath: (1) Old Testament Teaching. In their views concerning the institution and primal obligation of the Sabbath, Seventh-Day Adventists are in harmony with the views held by the early representatives of nearly all the evangelical denominations. The Sabbath is coeval with the finishing of creation, and the main facts connected with establishing it are recorded in Genesis 2:2-3. The blessing here placed upon the seventh day distinguishes it from the other days of the week, and the day thus blessed was "sanctified" (King James Version, Revised Version "hallowed") and set apart for man.

That the Sabbath thus instituted was well known throughout the Patriarchal age is clearly established both by direct evidence and by necessary inference.

"If we had no other passage than this of Genesis 2:3, there would be no difficulty in deducing from it a precept for the universal observance of a Sabbath, or seventh day, to be devoted to God as holy time by all of that race for whom the earth and all things therein were specially prepared. The first men must have known it. The words, `He hallowed it,' can have no meaning otherwise. They would be a blank unless in reference to some who were required to keep it holy" (Lange's Commentary on Genesis 2:3, I, 197).

"And the day arrived when Moses went to Goshen to see his brethren, that he saw the children of Israel in their burdens and hard labor, and Moses was grieved on their account. And Moses returned to Egypt and came to the house of Pharaoh, and came before the king, and Moses bowed down before the king. And Moses said unto Pharaoh, I pray thee, my lord, I have come to seek a small request from thee, turn not away my face empty; and Pharaoh said unto him, Speak. And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Let there be given unto thy servants the children of Israel who are in Goshen, one day to rest therein from their labor. And the king answered Moses and said, Behold I have lifted up thy face in this thing to grant thy request. And Pharaoh ordered a proclamation to be issued throughout Egypt and Goshen, saying, To you, all the children of Israel, thus says the king, for six days you shall do your work and labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest, and shall not perform any work; thus shall you do in all the days, as the king and Moses the son of Bathia have commanded. And Moses rejoiced at this thing which the king had granted to him, and all the children of Israel did as Moses ordered them. For this thing was from the Lord to the children of Israel, for the Lord had begun to remember the children of Israel to save them for the sake of their fathers. And the Lord was with Moses, and his fame went throughout Egypt. And Moses became great in the eyes of all the Egyptians, and in the eyes of all the children of Israel, seeking good for his people Israel, and speaking words of peace regarding them to the king" (Book of Jashar 70 41-51, published by Noah and Gould, New York, 1840).

"Hence, you can see that the Sabbath was before the Law of Moses came, and has existed from the beginning of the world. Especially have the devout, who have preserved the true faith, met together and called upon God on this day" (Luther's Works, XXXV, p. 330).

"Why should God begin two thousand years after (the creation of the world) to give men a Sabbath upon the reason of His rest from the creation of it, if He had never called man to that commemoration before? And it is certain that the Sabbath was observed at the falling of the manna before the giving of the Law; and let any considering Christian judge .... (1) whether the not falling of manna, or the rest of God after the creation, was like to be the original reason of the Sabbath; (2) and whether, if it had been the first, it would not have been said, Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day; for on six days the manna fell, and not on the seventh; rather than for in six days God created heaven and earth, etc., and rested the seventh day.' And it is casually added, `Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.' Nay, consider whether this annexed reason intimates not that the day on this ground being hallowed before, therefore it was that God sent not down the manna on that day, and that He prhibited the people from seeking it" (Richard Baxter, Practical Works, III, 774, edition 1707).

That the Sabbath was known to those who came out of Egypt, even before the giving of the Law at Sinai, is shown from the experience with the manna, as recorded in Exodus 16:22-30. The double portion on the sixth day, and its preservation, was the constantly recurring miracle which reminded the people of their obligation to observe the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath was a definite day, the seventh day. To the people, first wondering at this remarkable occurrence, Moses said, "This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord" (Exodus 16:23, King James Version). And to some who went out to gather manna on the seventh day, the Lord administered this rebuke: "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" (Exodus 16:28). All this shows that the Sabbath law was well understood, and that the failure to observe it rendered the people justly subject to Divine reproof.

At Sinai, the Sabbath which was instituted at creation, and had been observed during the intervening centuries, was embodied in that formal statement of man's duties usually designated as the "Ten Commandments." It is treated as an institution already well known and the command is, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8). In the 4th commandment the basis of the Sabbath is revealed. It is a memorial of the Creator's rest at the close of those six days in which He made "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." For this reason "Yahweh blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." This blessing was not placed upon the day at Sinai, but in the beginning, when "God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it" (Genesis 2:3).

From the very nature of the basis of the Sabbath, as set forth in this commandment, both the institution itself and the definite day of the Sabbath are of a permanent nature. So long as it is true that God created heaven and earth, and all things therein, so long will the Sabbath remain as a memorial of that work; and so long as it is true that this creative work was completed in six days, and that God Himself rested on the seventh day, and was refreshed in the enjoyment of His completed work, so long will it be true that the memorial of that work can properly be celebrated only upon the seventh day of the week.

During all the period from the deliverance out of Egypt to the captivity in Babylon, the people of God were distinguished from the nations about them by the worship of the only true God, and the observance of His holy day. The proper observance of the true Sabbath would preserve them from idolatry, being a constant reminder of the one God, the Creator of all things. Even when Jerusalem was suffering from the attacks of the Babylonians, God assured His people, through the prophet Jeremiah, that if they would hallow the Sabbath day, great should be their prosperity, and the city should remain forever (Jeremiah 17:18). This shows that the spiritual observance of the Sabbath was the supreme test of their right relation to God. In those prophecies of Isaiah, which deal primarily with the restoration from Babylon, remarkable promises were made to those who would observe the Sabbath, as recorded in Isaiah 56:1-7.

(2) New Testament Teaching. From the record found in the four Gospels, it is plain that the Jews during all the previous centuries had preserved a knowledge both of the Sabbath institution and of the definite day.

It is equally plain that they had made the Sabbath burdensome by their own rigorous exactions concerning it. And Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, both by example and by precept, brushed aside these traditions of men that He might reveal the Sabbath of the commandment as God gave it--a blessing and not a burden. A careful reading of the testimony of the evangelists will show that Christ taught the observance of the commandments of God, rather than the traditions of men, and that the charge of Sabbath-breaking was brought against Him for no other reason than that He refused to allow the requirements of man to change the Sabbath, blessed of God, into a merely human institution, grievous in its nature, and enforced upon the people with many and troublesome restrictions.

All are agreed that Christ and His disciples observed the seventh-day Sabbath previous to the crucifixion. That His followers had received no intimation of any proposed change at His death, is evident from the recorded fact that on the day when He was in the tomb they rested, "on the sabbath .... according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56); and that they treated the following day, the first day of the week, the same as of old, is further evident, as upon that day they came unto the sepulcher for the purpose of anointing the body of Jesus. In the Book of Acts, which gives a brief history of the work of the disciples in proclaiming the gospel of a risen Saviour, no other Sabbath is recognized than the seventh day, and this is mentioned in the most natural way as the proper designation of a well-known institution (Acts 13:14, 27, 42; 16:13; 18:4).

In our Lord's great prophecy, in which He foretold the experience of the church between the first and the second advent, He recognized the seventh-day Sabbath as an existing institution at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD), when He instructed His disciples, "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a sabbath" (Matthew 24:20). Such instruction given in these words, and at that time, would have been confusing in the extreme, had there been any such thing contemplated as the overthrow of the Sabbath law at the crucifixion, and the substitution of another day upon an entirely different basis.

That the original Sabbath is to be observed, not only during the present order of things, but also after the restoration when, according to the vision of the revelator, a new heaven and a new earth will take the place of the heaven and the earth that now are, is clearly intimated in the words of the Lord through the prophet Isaiah: "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith Yahweh, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith Yahweh" (Isaiah 66:22-23).

Seventh-Day Adventists regard the effort to establish the observance of another day than the seventh by using such texts as John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; Revelation 1:10 as being merely an afterthought, an effort to find warrant for an observance established upon other than Biblical authority. During the last two or three centuries there has been a movement for the restoration of the original seventh-day Sabbath, not as a Jewish, but as a Christian, institution. This work, commenced and carried forward by the Seventh-Day Baptists, has been taken up and pushed with renewed vigor by the Seventh-Day Adventists during the present generation, and the Bible teaching concerning the true Sabbath is now being presented in nearly every country, both civilized and uncivilized, on the face of the earth.

2. What History Says about the Sabbath: (1) Josephus. This summary of history must necessarily be brief, and it will be impossible, for lack of space, to quote authorities. From the testimony of Josephus it is clear that the Jews, as a nation, continued to observe the seventh-day Sabbath until their overthrow, when Jerusalem was captured by Titus, 70 AD. As colonies, and individuals, scattered over the face of the earth, the Jews have preserved a knowledge of the original Sabbath, and the definite day, until the present time. They constitute a living testimony for the benefit of all who desire to know the truth of this matter.

(2) Church History. According to church history, the seventh-day Sabbath was observed by the early church, and no other day was observed as a Sabbath during the first two or three centuries (see HDB ,IV , 322 b).

In the oft-repeated letter of Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia, to the emperor Trajan, written about 112 AD, there occurs the expression, "a certain stated day," which is usually assumed to mean Sunday. With reference to this matter W.B. Taylor, in Historical Commentaries, chapter i, section 47, makes the following statement: "As the Sabbath day appears to have been quite as commonly observed at this date as the sun's day (if not even more so), it is just as probable that this `stated day' referred to by Pliny was the 7th day as that it was the 1st day; though the latter is generally taken for granted." "Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy by the circumstances that men did not fast upon it, and that they prayed standing up and not kneeling, as Christ had now been raised from the dead. The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the 2nd century, a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin" (Tertullian De Orat., c. 23). This quotation is taken from Rose's Neander, London, 1831, I, 33 f, and is the correct translation from Neander's first German edition, Hamburg, 1826, I, pt. 2, p. 339. Neander has in his 2nd edition, 1842, omitted the second sentence, in which he expressly stated that Sunday was only a human ordinance, but he has added nothing to the contrary. "The Christians in the ancient church very soon distinguished the first day of the week, Sunday; however, not as a Sabbath, but as an assembly day of the church, to study the Word of God together and to celebrate the ordinances one with another: without a shadow of doubt this took place as early as the first part of the 2nd century" (Geschichte des Sonntags, 60).

Gradually, however, the first day of the week came into prominence as an added day, but finally by civil and ecclesiastical authority as a required observance. The first legislation on this subject was the famous law of Constantine, enacted 321 AD. The acts of various councils during the 4th and 5th centuries established the observance of the first day of the week by ecclesiastical authority, and in the great apostasy which followed, the rival day obtained the ascendancy. During the centuries which followed, however, there were always witnesses for the true Sabbath, although under great persecution. And thus in various lands, the knowledge of the true Sabbath has been preserved.

3. The Significance of the Sabbath: In the creation of the heavens and the earth the foundation of the gospel was laid. At the close of His created work, "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). The Sabbath was both the sign and the memorial of that creative power which is able to make all things good. But man, made in the image of God, lost that image through sin. In the gospel, provision is made for the restoration of the image of God in the soul of man. The Creator is the Redeemer and redemption is the new creation. Since the Sabbath was the sign of that creative power which worked in Christ, the Word, in the making of the heaven and the earth and all things therein, so it is the sign of that same creative power working through the same eternal Word for the restoration of all things. "Wherefore if any man is in Christ, there is a new creation: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17 margin). "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Galatians 6:15 margin). "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

A concrete illustration of this gospel meaning of the Sabbath is found in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. The same creative power which wrought in the beginning was exercised in the signs and miracles which preceded their deliverance, and in those miracles, such as the opening of the Red Sea, the giving of the manna, and the water from the rock, which attended the journeyings of the Israelites. In consequence of these manifestations of creative power in their behalf, the children of Israel were instructed to remember in their observance of the Sabbath that they were bondsmen in the land of Egypt. Israel's deliverance from Egypt is the type of every man's deliverance from sin; and the instruction to Israel concerning the Sabbath shows its true significance in the gospel of salvation from sin, and the new creation in the image of God.

Furthermore, the seventh-day Sabbath is the sign of both the divinity and the deity of Christ. God only can create. He through whom this work is wrought must be one with God. To this the Scriptures testify: "In the beginning was the Word, .... and the Word was God. .... All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made." But this same Word which was with God, and was God, "became flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:1, 3, 14). This is the eternal Son, "in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" (Ephesians 1:7). To the Christian the Sabbath, which was the sign and memorial of that divine power which wrought through the eternal Word in the creation of the heaven and the earth, becomes the sign of the same power working through the same eternal Son to accomplish the new creation, and is thus the sign of both the divinity and the deity of Christ.

Inasmuch as the redemptive work finds its chiefest expression in the cross of Christ, the Sabbath, which is the sign of that redemptive work, becomes the sign of the cross.

Seventh-Day Adventists teach and practice the observance of the Sabbath, not because they believe in salvation through man's effort to keep the law of God, but because they believe in that salvation which alone can be accomplished by the creative power of God working through the eternal Son to create believers anew in Christ Jesus.

Seventh-Day Adventists believe, and teach, that the observance of any other day than the seventh as the Sabbath is the sign of that predicted apostasy in which the man of sin would be revealed who would exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.

Seventh-Day Adventists believe, and teach, that the observance of the true Sabbath in this generation is a part of that gospel work which is to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

W. W. Prescott

Sabbath Day's Journey

Sabbath Day's Journey - jur'-ni (sabbatou hodos): Used only in Acts 1:12, where it designates the distance from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives, to which Jesus led His disciples on the day of His ascension. The expression comes from rabbinical usage to indicate the distance a Jew might travel on the Sabbath without transgressing the Law, the command against working on that day being interpreted as including travel (see Exodus 16:27-30). The limit set by the rabbis to the Sabbath day's journey was 2,000 cubits from one's house or domicile, which was derived from the statement found in Joshua 3:4 that this was the distance between the ark and the people on their march, this being assumed to be the distance between the tents of the people and the tabernacle during the sojourn in the wilderness. Hence, it must have been allowable to travel thus far to attend the worship of the tabernacle. We do not know when this assumption in regard to the Sabbath day's journey was made, but it seems to have been in force in the time of Christ. The distance of the Mount of Olives from Jerusalem is stated in Josephus (Ant., XX, viii, 6) to have been five stadia or furlongs and in BJ, V, ii, 3, six stadia, the discrepancy being explained by supposing a different point of departure. This would make the distance of the Sabbath day's journey from 1,000 to 1,200 yards, the first agreeing very closely with the 2,000 cubits. The rabbis, however, invented a way of increasing this distance without technically infringing the Law, by depositing some food at the 2,000-cubit limit, before the Sabbath, and declaring that spot a temporary domicile. They might then proceed 2,000 cubits from this point without transgressing the Law.

And in some cases even this intricacy of preparation was unnecessary. If, for instance, the approach of the Sabbath found one on his journey, the traveler might select some tree or some stone wall at a distance of 2,000 paces and mentally declare this to be his residence for the Sabbath, in which case he was permitted to go the 2,000 paces to the selected tree or wall and also 2,000 paces beyond, but in such a case he must do the work thoroughly and must say: "Let my Sabbath residence be at the trunk of that tree," for if he merely said: "Let my Sabbath residence be under that tree," this would not be sufficient, because the, expression would be too general and indefinite (Tractate `Erubhin 4:7).

Other schemes for extending the distance have been devised, such as regarding the quarter of the town in which one dwells, or the whole town itself, as the domicile, thus allowing one to proceed from any part of the town to a point 2,000 cubits beyond its utmost limits. This was most probably the case with walled towns, at least, and boundary stones have been found in the vicinity of Gaza with inscriptions supposed to mark these limits. The 2,000-cubit limits around the Levitical cities (Numbers 35:5) may have suggested the limit of the Sabbath day's journey also. The term came to be used as a designation of distance which must have been more or less definite.

H. Porter

Sabbath, Court of The

Sabbath, Court of The - See COVERED WAY.

Sabbath, Day Before The

Sabbath, Day Before The - See DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH.

Sabbath, Morrow After The

Sabbath, Morrow After The - See MORROW AFTER THE SABBATH.

Sabbath, Second After the First

Sabbath, Second After the First - (sabbaton deuteroproton (Luke 6:1), literally, "the second-first sabbath," of the Revised Version margin): We will mention only a few of the explanations elicited by this expression. (1) It was the first Sabbath in the second year of a 7-year cycle comprising the period from one Sabbatic year to the other; (2) the first Sabbath after the second day of Passover, i.e. the first of the seven Sabbaths the Hebrews were to "count unto" themselves from "the morrow after the sabbath" (the day after Easter) until Pentecost (Leviticus 23:15); (3) the first Sabbath in the Jewish ecclesiastical year (about the middle of March), the first Sabbath in the civil year (about the middle of September) being counted as the "first-first" Sabbath; (4) the term deuteroprotos, is a monstrous combination of the words deuteros, "second," and protos, "first," attributable to unskillful attempts at textual emendation on the part of copyists. This supposition would, of course, render unnecessary all other efforts to unravel the knotty problem, and, as a matter of fact, deuteroprotos is omitted by many manuscripts (including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). To those not feeling inclined to accept this solution we would suggest the first of the above-named explanations as the most natural and probable one.

William Baur

Sabbath-breaking

Sabbath-breaking - sab'-bath-brak'-ing.

See CRIMES ; PUNISHMENTS.

Sabbatheus

Sabbatheus - sab-a-the'-us: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SABBATEUS (which see).

Sabbaths, of Years

Sabbaths, of Years - sab'-aths, (shabbethoth shanim; anapauseis eton (Leviticus 25:8)): The seven sabbatic years preceding the Year of Jubilee.

See SABBATICAL YEAR; JUBILEE YEAR; ASTRONOMY, sec. I, 5.

Sabbatical Year

Sabbatical Year - sa-bat'-ik-al, shenath shabbathon; eniautos anapauseos, "a year of solemn rest"; or shabbath shabbathon; sabbata anapausis, "a sabbath of solemn rest" (Leviticus 25:4); or shehath ha-shemittah; etos tes apheseos, "the year of release" (Deuteronomy 15:9; 31:10)):

1. Primary Intention: We find the first rudiments of this institution in the so-called Covenant Book (Exodus 21:1-36-Exodus 23:1-33). Its connection with the day of rest (Sabbath) is obvious, although it strikes us as somewhat remarkable that in Exodus 23:10-12 the regulation regarding the Exodus 7:11-25th year should precede the statute respecting the Exodus 7:11-25th day. Still it seems natural that after the allusion in verse 9, "Ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt," the Covenant Book should put in a good word for the poor in Israel (verse 11: "Let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat"). Even the beasts of the field are remembered (compare Jonah 4:11).

We must, therefore, conclude that in this early period of the history of Israel the regulation regarding the 7th year was primarily intended for the relief of the poor and for the awakening of a sense of responsibility in the hearts of those better provided with the means of subsistence. It would be wrong, however, to deny its Sabbatic character, for the text says expressly, "But in the 7th year thou shalt let it rest" (literally, "thou shalt release it"), implying that the land was entitled to a rest because it needed it; it must be released for a time in order to gain fresh strength and insure its future fertility. Two motives, then, present themselves most clearly, one of a social, the other of an economic character, and both are rooted in God's dealings with Israel (compare Exodus 21:1).

2. Mosaic Legislation Humane: Another evidence of the humane spirit pervading the Mosaic Law may be found in Exodus 21:2-6 where, in the case of a Hebrew slave, the length of his servitude is limited to six years. The connection with the idea of the Sabbath is evident, but we fail to detect here any reference to the Sabbatical year. It is clear that the 7th year in which a slave might be set free need not necessarily coincide with the Sabbatical year, though it might, of course, The same is true of Deuteronomy 15:12-18; it has nothing to do with the Sabbatical year. On the other hand it is reasonable to assume that the "release" mentioned in Deuteronomy 15:1-3 took place in the Sabbatical year; in other words, its scope had been enlarged in later years so as to include the release from pecuniary obligation, i.e. the remission of debts or, at least, their temporary suspension. This means that the children of Israel were now developing from a purely agricultural people to a commercial nation. Still the same spirit of compassion for the poor and those struggling for a living asserts itself as in the earlier period, and it goes without saying that the old regulation concerning the release of the land in the 7th year was still in force (compare 15:2: "because Yahweh's release hath been proclaimed").

According to Deuteronomy 15:1, this proclamation occurred at the end of every 7 years, or, rather, during the Deuteronomy 7:11-26th year; for we must be careful not to strain the expression "at the end" (compare Deuteronomy 15:9, where the Deuteronomy 7:11-26th year is called "the year of release"; it is quite natural to identify this Deuteronomy 7:11-26th year with the Sabbatical year).

Moreover, we are now almost compelled to assert the Sabbatical year by this time had become an institution observed simultaneously all over the country. From the wording of the regulation regarding the 7th year in the Covenant Book we are not certain about this in those early times. But now it is different. "Yahweh's release hath been proclaimed."

3. General Observance: It was a solemn and general proclamation, the date of which was very likely the day of atonement in the 7th month (the Sabbatical month). The celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (booths) began five days later and it lasted from the 15th day to the 21st of the 7th month (Tisri). In the Sabbatical year, at that time, the Law was read "before all Israel in their hearing," a fact which tends to prove that the Sabbatical year had become a matter of general and simultaneous observance (compare Deuteronomy 31:10-13). Another lesson may be deduced from this passage: it gives us a hint respecting the use to which the people may have put their leisure time during the 12 months of Sabbatical rest; it may have been a period of religious and probably other instruction.

In Leviticus 25:1-7 the central idea of the Sabbatical year is unfolded. Although it has been said we should be careful not to look for too much of the ideal and dogmatic in the institutions of the children of Israel, yet we must never lose sight of the religious and educational character even of their ancient legislation.

4. Central Idea: One central thought is brought home to them, namely, God is the owner of the soil, and through His grace only the chosen people have come into its possession. Their time, i.e. they themselves, belong to Him: this is the deepest meaning of the day of rest; their land, i.e. their means of subsistence, belong to Him: this reveals to us the innermost significance of the year of rest. It was Yahweh's pleasure to call the children of Israel into life, and if they live and work and prosper, they are indebted to His unmerited loving-kindness. They should, therefore, put their absolute trust in Him, never doubt His word or His power, always obey Him and so always receive His unbounded blessings.

If we thus put all the emphasis on the religious character of the Sabbatical year, we are in keeping with the idea permeating the Old Testament, namely that the children of Israel are the chosen people of Yahweh. All their agricultural, social, commercial and political relations were to be built upon their divine calling and shaped according to God's sovereign will.

But did they live up to it? Or, to limit the question to our subject: Did they really observe the Sabbatical year? There are those who hold that the law regarding the Sabbatical year was not observed before the captivity. In order to prove this assertion they point to Leviticus 26:34 f,43; also to 2 Chronicles 36:21. But all we can gather from these passages is the palpable conclusion that the law regarding the Sabbatical year had not been strictly obeyed, a deficiency which may mar the effect of any law.

The possibility of observing the precept respecting the Sabbatical year is demonstrated by the post-exilic history of the Jewish people. Nehemiah registers the solemn fact that the reestablished nation entered into a covenant to keep the law and to maintain the temple worship (Nehemiah 9:38; 10:32 ff). In 10:31 of the last-named chapter he alludes to the 7th year, "that we would forego the 7th year, and the exaction of every debt." We are not sure of the exact meaning of this short allusion; it may refer to the Sabbatical rest of the land and the suspension of debts.

For a certainty we know that the Sabbatical year was observed by the Jews at the time of Alexander the Great. When he was petitioned by the Samaritans "that he would remit the tribute of the 7th year to them, because they did not sow therein, he asked who they were that made such a petition"; he was told they were Hebrews, etc. (Josephus, Ant, XI, viii, 6).

During Maccabean and Asmonean times the law regarding the Sabbatical year was strictly observed, although it frequently weakened the cause of the Jews (1 Maccabees 6:49, 53; Josephus, Ant, XIII, viii, 1; compare Josephus, Jewish Wars, I, ii, 4; Ant,XIV , x, 6;XV , i, 2). Again we may find references to the Sabbatical year in Josephus, Ant, XIV, xvi, 2, etc.; Tac. Hist. v.4, etc., all of which testifies to the observance of the Sabbatical year in the Herodian era. The words of Tacitus show the proud Roman's estimate of the Jewish character and customs: "For the 7th day they are said to have prescribed rest because this day ended their labors; then, in addition, being allured by their lack of energy, they also spend the 7th year in laziness."

See also ASTRONOMY, sec. I, 5, (3), (4); JUBILEE YEAR.

William Baur

Sabbeus

Sabbeus - sa-be'-us (Sabbaias): In 1 Esdras 9:32, the same as "Shemaiah" in Ezra 10:31.

Sabi

Sabi - sa'-bi:

(1) Codex Alexandrinus Sabei; Codex Vaticanus Tobeis, Fritzache; the King James Version, Sami): Eponym of a family of porters who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:28) = "Shobai" in Ezra 2:42; Nehemiah 7:45.

(2) The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SABIE (which see).

Sabias

Sabias - sa-bi'-as (Sabias, Fritzsche, Asabias; the King James Version Assabias): One of the six "captains over thousands" who supplied the Levites with much cattle for Josiah's Passover (1 Esdras 1:9) = "Hashabiah" in 2 Chronicles 35:9.

Sabie

Sabie - sa'-bi-e (Sabeie, or Sabie; the King James Version Sabi): In 1 Esdras 5:34 both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), following Codex Alexandrinus, read "the sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabie" (the King James Version "Sabi") for the "Pochereth-hazzebaim" of Ezra 2:57; Nehemiah 7:59. Codex Vaticanus reads correctly as one proper name: "Phacareth Sabie."

SABTA or SABTAH

sab'-ta (cabhta', cabhtah): Third son of Cush (Genesis 10:7 = 1 Chronicles 1:9). A place Sabta is probably to be looked for in South Arabia. Arab geographers give no exact equivalent of the name. Al Bekri (i.65) quotes a line of early poetry in which Dhu 'l Sabta is mentioned, and the context might indicate a situation in Yemamah; but the word is possibly not a proper name. It is usually identified with Saubatha (Ptol., vi.7, 38) or with the Sabota of Pliny (vi.32; xii.32), an old mercantile city in South Arabia celebrated for its trade in frankincense and, according to Ptolemy, possessing 60 temples. It is said also to have been the territory of a king Elisarus, whose name presents a striking resemblance to Dhu 'l-Adhar, one of the "Tubbas" or Himyarite kings of Yemen. Another conjecture is the Saphtha of Ptolemy (vi.7, 30) near the Arabian shore of the Persian Gulf.

A. S. Fulton

Sabteca

Sabteca - sab'te-ka (cabhtekha'; Sabakatha, Sebethacha; the King James Version Sabtechah): The 5th named of the sons of Cush in the genealogy of Genesis 10:5-7. In 1 Chronicles 1:8, 9 the King James Version reads "Sabtecha," the Revised Version (British and American) "Sabteca." Many conjectures have been made as to the place here indicated. Recently Glazer (Skizze, II, 252) has revived the suggestion of Bochart that it is to be identified with Samydake in Carmania on the East of the Persian Gulf. This seems to rest on nothing more than superficial resemblance of the names; but the phonetic changes involved are difficult. Others have thought of various places in Arabia, toward the Persian Gulf; but the data necessary for any satisfactory decision are not now available.

W. Ewing

Sacar

Sacar - sa'-kar (sakhar):

(1) Father of Ahiam, a follower of David (1 Chronicles 11:35, Codex Vaticanus Achar; Codex Alexandrinus Sachar = "Sharar" of 2 Samuel 23:33; Sharar is favored as the original reading).

(2) Eponym of a family of gatekeepers (1 Chronicles 26:4).

Sackbut

Sackbut - sak'-but.

See MUSIC,III , 1, (f).

Sackcloth

Sackcloth - sak'-kloth.

See BURIAL.

Sacraments

Sacraments - sak'-ra-ments:

1. The Term: The word "sacrament" comes from the Latin sacramentum, which in the classical period of the language was used in two chief senses: (1) as a legal term to denote the sum of money deposited by two parties to a suit which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to sacred uses; (2) as a military term to designate the oath of obedience taken by newly enlisted soldiers. Whether referring to an oath of obedience or to something set apart for a sacred purpose, it is evident that sacramentum would readily lend itself to describe such ordinances as Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the Greek New Testament, however, there is no word nor even any general idea corresponding to "sacrament," nor does the earliest history of Christianity afford any trace of the application of the term to certain rites of the church. Pliny (circa 112 AD) describes the Christians of Bithynia as "binding themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime" (Epistles x.97), but scholars are now pretty generally agreed that Pliny here uses the word in its old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation, so that its occurrence in this passage is nothing more than an interesting coincidence.

It is in the writings of Tertullian (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century) that we find the first evidence of the adoption of the word as a technical term to designate Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and other rites of the Christian church. This Christian adoption of sacramentum may have been partly occasioned by the evident analogies which the word suggests with Baptism and the Lord's Supper; but what appears to have chiefly determined its history in this direction was the fact that in the Old Latin versions (as afterward in the Vulgate) it had been employed to translate the Greek musterion, "a mystery" (e.g. Ephesians 5:32; 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:20; 17:7)--an association of ideas which was greatly fostered in the early church by the rapidly growing tendency to an assimilation of Christian worship with the mystery-practices of the Greek-Roman world.

2. Nature and Number: Though especially employed to denote Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the name "sacraments" was for long used so loosely and vaguely that it was applied to facts and doctrines of Christianity as well as to its symbolic rites. Augustine's definition of a sacrament as "the visible form of an invisible grace" so far limited its application. But we see how widely even a definition like this might be stretched when we find Hugo of Victor (12th century) enumerating as many as 30 sacraments that had been recognized in the church. The Council of Trent was more exact when it declared that visible forms are sacraments only when they represent an invisible grace and become its channels, and when it sought further to delimit the sacramental area by reenacting (1547) a decision of the Council of Florence (1439), in which for the first time the authority of the church was given to a suggestion of Peter Lombard (12th century) and other schoolmen that the number of the sacraments should be fixed at seven, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony--a suggestion which was supported by certain fanciful analogies designed to show that seven was a sacred number.

The divergence of the Protestant churches from this definition and scheme was based on the fact that these proceeded on no settled principles. The notion that there are seven sacraments has no New Testament authority, and must be described as purely arbitrary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. It is perfectly arbitrary, for example, to place Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ as ordinances of the church, in the same category with marriage, which rests not on His appointment but on a natural relationship between the sexes that is as old as the human race. While, therefore, the Reformers retained the term "sacrament" as a convenient one to express the general idea that has to be drawn from the characteristics of the rites classed together under this name, they found the distinguishing marks of sacraments (1) in their institution by Christ, (2) in their being enjoined by Him upon His followers, (3) in their being bound up with His word and revelation in such a way that they become "the expressions of divine thoughts, the visible symbols of divine acts." And, since Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only two rites for which such marks can be claimed, it follows that there are only two New Testament sacraments. Their unique place in the original revelation justifies us in separating them from all other rites and ceremonies that may have arisen in the history of the church, since it raises them to the dignity of forming an integral part of the historical gospel. A justification for their being classed together under a common name may be found, again, in the way in which they are associated in the New Testament (Acts 2:41-42; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4) and also in the analogy which Paul traces between Baptism and the Lord's Supper on the one hand, and Circumcision and the Passover--the two most distinctive rites of the Old Covenant--on the other (Colossians 2:11; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 11:26).

3. Institution by Christ: The assumption made above, that both Baptism and the Lord's Supper owe their origin as sacraments of the church to their definite appointment by Christ Himself, has been strongly challenged by some modern critics.

(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mark 16:15 f occurs in a passage (Mark 16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Matthew 28:19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula "foreign to the mouth of Jesus" (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Acts 2:38, 41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (compare Romans 6:3 ff; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle's earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.

(2) In the case of the Lord's Supper the challenge of its institution by Christ rests mainly upon the fact that the saying, "This do in remembrance of me," is absent from the Mark-Matthew text, and is found only in the Supper-narratives of Paul (1 Corinthians 11:24-25) and his disciple Luke (Luke 22:19). Upon this circumstance large structures of critical hypothesis have been reared. It has been affirmed that in the upper room Jesus was only holding a farewell supper with His disciples, and that it never occurred to Him to institute a feast of commemoration. It has further been maintained that the views of Jesus regarding the speedy consummation of His kingdom make it impossible that He should have dreamed of instituting a sacrament to commemorate His death. The significance of the feast was eschatological merely; it was a pledge of a glorious future hour in the perfected kingdom of God (see Matthew 26:29 and parallels). And theory has even been advanced that the institution of this sacrament as an ordinance of the church designed to commemorate Christ's death was due to the initiative of Paul, who is supposed to have been influenced in this direction by what he had seen in Corinth and elsewhere of the mystery-practices of the Greek world.

All these hypothetical fabrics fall, of course, to the ground if the underlying assumption that Jesus never said, "This do in remembrance of me," is shown to be unwarrantable. And it is unwarrantable to assume that a saying of Jesus which is vouched for by Paul and Luke cannot be authentic because it does not occur in the corresponding narratives of Matthew and Mark. In these narratives, which are highly compressed in any case, the first two evangelists would seem to have confined themselves to setting down those sayings which formed the essential moments of the Supper and gave its symbolic contents. The command of its repetition they may have regarded as sufficiently embodied and expressed in the universal practice of the church from the earliest days. For as to that practice there is no question (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:26), and just as little that it rested upon the belief that Christ had enjoined it. "Every assumption of its having originated in the church from the recollection of intercourse with Jesus at table, and the necessity felt for recalling His death, is precluded" (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, II, 279). That the simple historical supper of Jesus with His disciples in the upper room was converted by Paul into an institution for the Gentile and Jewish churches alike is altogether inconceivable. The primitive church had its bitter controversies, but there is no trace of any controversy as to the origin and institutional character of the Lord's Supper.

4. Efficacy: In the New Testament the sacraments are presented as means of grace. Forgiveness (Acts 2:38), cleansing (Ephesians 5:25 f), spiritual quickening (Colossians 2:12) are associated with Baptism; the Lord's Supper is declared to be a participation in the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). So far all Christians are agreed; but wide divergence shows itself thereafter. According to the doctrine of the Roman church, sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato, i.e. in virtue of a power inherent in themselves as outward acts whereby they communicate saving benefits to those who receive them without opposing any obstacle. The Reformed doctrine, on the other hand, teaches that their efficacy lies not in themselves as outward acts, but in the blessing of Christ and the operation of His Spirit, and that it is conditioned by faith in the recipient. The traditional Lutheran doctrine agrees with the Reformed in affirming that faith is necessary as the condition of saving benefits in the use of the sacraments, but resembles the Roman teaching in ascribing the efficacy of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, not to the attendant working of the Holy Spirit, but to a real inherent and objective virtue resident in them--a virtue, however, which does not lie (as the Roman church says) in the mere elements and actions of the sacraments, but in the power of the divine word which they embody.

See BAPTISM; LORD'S SUPPER.

LITERATURE.

Candlish, The Christian Sacraments; Lambert, The Sacraments in the New Testament; Bartlet, Apostolic Age, 495 ff; Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, chapter xx.

J. C. Lambert

Sacrifice, Human

Sacrifice, Human - hu'-man: As an expression of religious devotion, human sacrifice has been widespread at certain stages of the race's development. The tribes of Western Asia were deeply affected by the practice, probably prior to the settlement of the Hebrews in Palestine, and it continued at least down to the 5th century BC. At times of great calamity, anxiety and danger, parents sacrificed their children as the greatest and most costly offering which they could make to propitiate the anger of the gods and thus secure their favor and help. There is no intimation in the Bible that enemies or captives were sacrificed; only the offering of children by their parents is mentioned. The belief that this offering possessed supreme value is seen in Micah 6:6 f, where the sacrifice of the firstborn is the climax of a series of offerings which, in a rising scale of values, are suggested as a means of propitiating the angry Yahweh. A striking example of the rite as actually practiced is seen in 2 Kings 3:27, where Mesha the king of Moab (made famous by the Moabite Stone), under the stress of a terrible siege, offered his eldest son, the heir-apparent to the throne, as a burnt offering upon the wall of Kir-hareseth. As a matter of fact this horrid act seems to have had the effect of driving off the allies.

Human sacrifice was ordinarily resorted to, no doubt, only in times of great distress, but it seems to have been practiced among the old Canaanitish tribes with some frequency (Deuteronomy 12:31). The Israelites are said to have borrowed it from their Canaanite neighbors (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3), and as a matter of fact human sacrifices were never offered to Yahweh, but only to various gods of the land. The god who was most frequently worshipped in this way was Moloch or Molech, the god of the Ammonites (2 Kings 23:10; Leviticus 18:21; 20:2), but from Jeremiah we learn that the Phoenician god Baal was, at least in the later period of the history, also associated with Molech in receiving this worship (Jeremiah 19:5; 31:35).

As in the case of the Canaanites, the only specific cases of human sacrifice mentioned among the Israelites are those of the royal princes, sons of Ahaz and Manasseh, the two kings of Judah who were most deeply affected by the surrounding heathen practices and who, at the same time, fell into great national distress (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chronicles 33:6). But it is clear from many general statements that the custom was widespread among the masses of the people as well. It is forbidden in the Mosaic legislation (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 18:10); it is said in 2 Kings 17:17 that the sacrifice of sons and daughters was one of the causes of the captivity of the ten tribes. Jeremiah charges the people of the Southern Kingdom with doing the same thing (Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 31:35); with these general statements agree Isaiah 57:5; Ezekiel 16:2 f; Ezekiel 20:31; 23:37; Psalms 106:37 f. A study of these passages makes it certain that in the period immediately before the captivity of Judah, human sacrifice was by no means confined to the royal family, but was rather common among the people. Daughters as well as sons were sacrificed. It is mentioned only once in connection with the Northern Kingdom, and then only in the summary of the causes of their captivity (2 Kings 17:17), but the Southern Kingdom in its later years was evidently deeply affected. There were various places where the bloody rite was celebrated (Jeremiah 19:5), but the special high place, apparently built for the purpose, was in the Valley of Tophet or Hinnom (ge-hinnom, Gehenna) near Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6). This great high place, built for the special purpose of human sacrifice (Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35), was defiled by the good king Josiah in the hope of eradicating the cruel practice (2 Kings 23:10).

The Biblical writers without exception look upon the practice with horror as the supreme point of national and religious apostasy, and a chief cause of national disaster. They usually term the rite "passing through fire," probably being unwilling to use the sacred term "sacrifice" in reference to such a revolting custom. There is no evidence of a continuance of the practice in captivity nor after the return. It is said, however, that the heathen Sepharvites, settled by the Assyrian kings in the depopulated territory of the Northern Kingdom, "burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim" (2 Kings 17:31). The practice is not heard of again, and probably rapidly died out. The restored Israelites were not affected by it.

Compare SACRIFICE (Old Testament),VI , 10.

William Joseph McGlothlin

Sacrifice, in the New Testament, 1

Sacrifice, in the New Testament, 1 - IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

I. TERMS OF SACRIFICE EPITOMIZED

II. ATTITUDE OF JESUS AND NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM

1. Jesus' Attitude

2. Paul's Attitude

3. Attitude of the Author of Hebrews

III. THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. Teaching of John the Baptist

2. Teaching of Jesus

3. Teaching of Peter

4. Paul's Teaching

5. Teaching of Hebrews

6. Johannine Teaching

IV. RELATION OF CHRIST'S SACRIFICE TO MAN'S SALVATION

1. Redemption or Deliverance from Curse of Sin

2. Reconciliation

3. Remission of Sins

4. The Cancellation of Guilt

5. Justification or Right Standing with God

6. Cleansing or Sanctification

7. Sonship

V. HOW CHRIST'S SACRIFICE PROCURES SALVATION

1. Jesus' Teaching

2. Paul's Teaching

3. Teaching of Hebrews

4. Petrine and Johannine Teaching

VI. RATIONALE OF THE EFFICACY OF CHRIST'S SACRIFICE

1. Jesus' Teaching

2. Paul's Teaching

3. The Teaching in Hebrews

VII. THE HUMAN CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION

1. Universal in Objective Potentiality

2. Efficacious When Subjectively Applied

VIII. THE CHRISTIAN'S LIFE THE LIFE OF SACRIFICE

1. Consequence of Christ's Sacrifice

2. Christ's Death the Appeal for Christian's Sacrifice

3. Necessary to Fill Out Christ's Sacrifice

4. Content of the Christian's Sacrifice

5. The Supper as a Sacrifice

LITERATURE

I. Terms of Sacrifice Epitomized. The word "offering" (prosphora) describes the death of Christ, once in Paul (Ephesians 5:2); 5 times in Hebrews (Hebrews 10:5, 8, 10, 14, 18). The verb prosphero, "to offer," is also used, 15 times in Hebrews (Hebrews 5:1, 3; 3, 4; 7, 14, 25, 28; 1, 8, 11, 12; 11:4). The noun prosphora occurs 15 times in the Septuagint, usually as the translation of minchah, "sacrifice." This noun in the New Testament refers to Old Testament sacrifices in Acts 7:42; 21:26; to the offering of money in Acts 24:17; Romans 15:16. The verb anaphero, also occurs 3 times in Hebrews (Romans 7:25; 9:28; 13:14); also in 1 Peter 2:5.

The word "sacrifice" (thusia in the Septuagint translates 8 different Hebrew words for various kinds of sacrifice, occurring about 350 times) refers to Christ's death, once in Paul (Ephesians 5:2) 5 times in Heb (Ephesians 5:1; 23, 26; 12, 26). It refers several times to Old Testament sacrifice and 5 times to Christian living or giving (Philippians 2:17; 4:18; Hebrews 13:15-16; 1 Peter 2:5). The verb "to sacrifice" (thuo) is used once by Paul to describe Christ's death (1 Corinthians 5:7).

The blood (haima) of Christ is said to secure redemption or salvation, 6 times in Paul (Romans 3:25; 5:9; 1 Corinthians 10:16; Ephesians 1:7; 2:13; Colossians 1:20); 3 times in Hebrews (9:12,14; 10:19; compare also 10:29); 2 times in 1 Peter (Colossians 1:2, 19) and 5 times in the Johannine writings (1 John 1:7; 21, 8; Revelation 1:5). Unmistakably this figure of the blood refers to Christ's sacrificial death. "In any case the phrase (en to autou haimati, `in his blood,' Romans 3:25) carries with it the idea of sacrificial blood-shedding" (Sanday, Commentary on Epistle to Romans, 91).

(lutron, "ransom," the price paid for redeeming, occurring in Septuagint 19 times, meaning the price paid for redeeming the servant (Leviticus 25:51-52); ransom for first-born (Numbers 3:46); ransom for the life of the owner of the goring ox (Exodus 21:30, etc.)) occurs in the New Testament only twice (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). This word is used by Jesus to signify the culmination of His sacrificial life in His sacrificial death.

(antilutron, "ransom," a word not found in Septuagint, stronger in meaning than the preceding word) occurs only once in the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:6).

(apolutrosis, "redemption," in Exodus 21:8, meaning the ransom paid by a father to redeem his daughter from a cruel master) signifies (1) deliverance from sin by Christ's death, 5 times in Paul (Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 1:7, 14; Colossians 1:14); once in Hebrews (9:15); (2) general deliverance, twice (Luke 21:28; Hebrews 11:35); (3) the Christian's final deliverance, physical and spiritual (Romans 8:23; Ephesians 4:30). The simple word (lutrosis, "redemption," 10 times in Septuagint as the translation of 5 Hebrew words) occurs once for spiritual deliverance (Hebrews 9:12).

(exagorazo, "redeem," only once in Septuagint, Daniel 2:8) in the New Testament means (1) to deliver from the curse of the law, twice by Paul (Galatians 3:13; 4:5); (2) to use time wisely, twice by Paul (Ephesians 5:16; Colossians 4:5). The simple verb (agorazo, meaning in Leviticus 27:19 to redeem land) occurs twice in Paul (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23) and means "to redeem" (in a spiritual sense). katallage, "reconciliation," only twice in the Septuagint) means the relation to God into which men are brought by Christ's death, 4 times by Paul (Romans 5:11; 11:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19).

(katallassein, "to reconcile," 4 times in Septuagint (3 times in 2 Maccabees)) means to bring men into the state of reconciliation with God, 5 times in Paul (Romans 5:10 twice; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, 20).

The words with the propitiatory idea occur as follows: (hilaskomai, "to propitiate," 12 times in the Septuagint, translated "to forgive") occurs twice (Luke 18:13; Hebrews 2:17); (hilasmos, 9 times in Septuagint, Numbers 5:8; Psalms 129:1-8 (130):4, etc.; "atonement," "forgiveness") occurs twice in 1 Jn (2:2; 4:10); (hilasterion, 24 times in the Septuagint, translates "mercy-seat," where God was gracious and spake to man) translates in the New Testament "propitiation" (Romans 3:25), "mercy-seat" (Hebrews 9:5).

Christ is called "the Lamb," amnos, twice by the Baptist (John 1:29, 36); once by Philip applied to Christ from Isaiah 53:7 (Acts 8:32); and once by Peter (1 Peter 1:19); arnion, 28 times in Rev (5:6,8,12,13; 6:1,16; 7:9,10,14; 19:7,9; 21:9,14,22,23,27; 22:1,3).

The cross (stauros) is used by Paul 10 times to describe the sacrificial death of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:17-18; Galatians 5:11; 12, 14; Ephesians 2:16; Philippians 2:8; 3:18; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:14) and once by the author of Hebrews (1 Corinthians 12:2). Jesus also 5 times used the figure of the cross to define the life of sacrifice demanded of His disciples and to make His own cross the symbol of sacrifice (Matthew 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 14:27, with contexts; compare John 3:14; 12:32, etc.).

Though it is not our province in this article to discuss the origin and history of sacrifice in the ethnic religions, it must be noted that sacrifice has been a chief element in almost every religion (Jainism and Buddhism being the principal exceptions). The bloody sacrifice, where the idea of propitiation is prominent, is well-nigh universal in the ethnic religions, being found among even the most enlightened peoples like the Greeks and Romans (see article "Expiation and Atonement" in ERE). Whether or not the system of animal sacrifices would have ceased not only in Judaism but also in all the ethnic religions, had not Jesus lived and taught and died, is a question of pure speculation. It must be conceded that the sect of the Jews (Essenes) attaining to the highest ethical standard and living the most unselfish lives of brotherhood and benevolence did not believe in animal sacrifices. But they exerted small influence over the Jewish nation as compared with the Pharisees. It is also to be noted that the prophets Amos, Hosea, Micah and Isaiah exalted the ethical far above the ceremonial; even denounced the sacrifice of animals if not accompanied by personal devotion to righteousness (Amos 5:21 ff; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6 ff; Isaiah 1:11 ff). The Stoic and Platonic philosophers also attacked the system of animal sacrifices. But these exceptions only accentuate the historical fact that man's sense of the necessity of sacrifice to Deity is well-nigh universal. Only the sacrifice of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem caused a cessation of the daily, weekly, monthly and annual sacrifices among the Jews, and only the knowledge of Christ's sacrifice of Himself will finally destroy the last vestige of animal sacrifice.

II. Attitude of Jesus and New Testament Writers to the Old Testament Sacrificial System.

1. Jesus' Attitude: Jesus never attacks the sacrificial system. He even takes for granted that the Jews should offer sacrifices (Matthew 5:24). More than that, He accepted the whole sacrificial system, a part of the Old Testament scheme, as of divine origin, and so He commanded the cleansed leper to offer the sacrifice prescribed in the Mosaic code (Matthew 8:4). There is no record that Jesus Himself ever worshipped by offering the regular sacrifices. But He worshipped in the temple, never attacking the sacrificial system as He did the oral law (Mark 7:6 ff). On the other hand, Jesus undermined the sacrificial system by teaching that the ethical transcends the ceremonial, not only as a general principle, but also in the act of worship (Matthew 5:23-24). He endorses Hosea's fine ethical epigram, `God will have mercy and not sacrifice' (Matthew 9:13; 12:7). He also commends as near the kingdom the scribe who put love to God and man above sacrifice (Mark 12:33). But Jesus teaches not merely the inferiority of sacrifice to the moral law, but also the discontinuance of sacrifice as a system, when He said, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mark 14:24; Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20). Not only is the ethical superior to the ceremonial, but His sacrifice of Himself is as superior to the sacrifices of the old system as the new covenant is superior to the old.

2. Paul's Attitude: Paul's estimate of the Jewish sacrifices is easily seen, although he does not often refer to them. Once only (Acts 21:26) after his conversion does he offer the Jewish sacrifice, and then as a matter of expediency for winning the Judaistic wing of Christianity to his universal gospel of grace. He regarded the sacrifices of the Old Testament as types of the true sacrifice which Christ made (1 Corinthians 5:7).

3. Attitude of the Author of Hebrews: The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews discusses the Old Testament sacrifices more fully than other New Testament writers. He regards the bloody sacrifices as superior to the unbloody and the yearly sacririce on the Day of Atonement by the high priest as the climax of the Old Testament system. The high priest under the old covenant was the type of Christ under the new. The sacrifices of the old covenant could not take away sin, or produce moral transformation, because of the frailties of men (10:1-11), shown by the necessity of repeating the offerings (5:2), and because God had appointed another high priest, His Son, to supplant those of the old covenant (5:5; 7:1-28). The heart of this author's teaching is that animal sacrifices cannot possibly atone for sin or produce moral transformation, since they are divinely-appointed only as a type or shadow of the one great sacrifice by Christ (8:7; 10:1).

To sum up, the New Testament writers, as well as Jesus, regarded the Old Testament sacrificial system as of divine origin and so obligatory in its day, but imperfect and only a type of Christ's sacrifice, and so to be supplanted by His perfect sacrifice.

III. The Sacrificial Idea in the New Testament. The one central idea of New Testament writers is that the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross is the final perfect sacrifice for the atonement of sin and the salvation of men, a sacrifice typified in the various sacrifices of the Old Testament, which are in turn abrogated by the operation of the final sacrifice. Only James and Jude among New Testament writers are silent as to the sacrifice of Christ, and they write for practical purposes only.

1. Teaching of John the Baptist: The Baptist, it is true, presents Jesus as the coming Judge in the Synoptic Gospels, but in John 1:29, 36 he refers to Him as "the Lamb of God," in the former passage adding "that taketh away the sin of the world." Westcott (Commentary on John, 20) says: "The title as applied to Christ .... conveys the ideas of vicarious suffering, of patient submission, of sacrifice, of redemption, etc." There is scarcely any doubt that the Baptist looked upon the Christ as the one who came to make the great sacrifice for man's sins. Professor Burton (Biblical Ideas of Atonement, Burton, Smith and Smith, 107) says that John sees Christ "suffering under the load of human sin."

2. Teaching of Jesus: There are recorded in the Synoptic Gospels two unmistakable references by Jesus to His death as a sacrifice (Mark 10:45 parallel Matthew 20:28; Mark 14:24 parallel Matthew 26:28 parallel Luke 22:20; compare 1 Corinthians 11:25). In the former He declares He came to give His "life a ransom." Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) says this word means "the price paid for redeeming." Hence, the idea in ransom must be of sacrificial significance. But if there could be any doubt as to the sacrificial import of this passage, there is a clear case of the sacrificial idea in Mark 14:24. Practically all writers of the New Testament theology, Wendt, Weiss, Stevens, Sheldon and others, hold that Jesus considered the death as the ratification sacrifice of the new covenant, just as the sacrifice offered at Sinai ratified the old covenant (Exodus 24:3-8). Ritschl and Beyschlag deny that this passage is sacrificial. But according to most exegetes, Jesus in this reference regarded His death as a sacrifice. The nature of the sacrifice, as Jesus estimated it, is in doubt and is to be discussed later. What we are pressing here is the fact that Jesus regarded His death as a sacrifice. We have to concede the meagerness of material on the sacrificial idea of His death as taught by Jesus. Yet these two references are unquestioned by literary and historical critics. They both occur in Mark, the primitive Gospel (the oldest Gospel record of Jesus' teachings). The first occurs in two of the Synoptists, the second in all three of them. Luke omits the first for reasons peculiar to his purpose. According to Luke 24:25, Jesus regarded His sufferings and death as the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures.

3. Teaching of Peter: Though the head apostle does not in the early chapters of Acts refer to Christ as the sacrifice for sin, he does imply as much in 2:36 (He is Lord and Christ in spite of His crucifixion); 3:18,19 (He fulfilled the prophecies by suffering, and by means of repentance sins are to be blotted out); 4:10-12 (only in His name is salvation) and in 5:30,31 (through whose death Israel received remission of sins). In his First Epistle (1 Peter 1:18-19) he expressly declares that we are redeemed by the blood of the spotless Christ, thus giving the sacrificial significance to His death. The same is implied in 1 Peter 1:2; 3:18.

4. Paul's Teaching: Paul ascribes saving efficacy to the blood of Christ in Romans 3:25; 5:9; 1 Corinthians 10:16; Ephesians 1:7; 2:13; Colossians 1:20. He identifies Christ with a sin offering in Romans 8:3, and perhaps also in 2 Corinthians 5:21, and with the paschal lamb in 1 Corinthians 5:7. In other passages he implies that the death of Christ secured redemption, forgiveness of sins, justification and adoption (Romans 3:24-26; Romans 5:10-11; 15, 17, etc.).

5. Teaching of Hebrews: The argument of the author of Hebrews to prove the finality of Christianity is that Christ is superior to the Aaronic high priest, being a royal, eternal high priest, after the order of Melchizedek, and offering Himself as the final sacrifice for sin, and for the moral transformation of men (4:14; 10:18).

6. Johannine Teaching: In the First Epistle of John (1 John 1:7; 2:2; 6, 8) propitiation for sin and cleansing from sin are ascribed to the blood of Christ. In Revelation 1:5 John ascribes deliverance (not washing or cleansing, according to best manuscripts) from sin, to the blood of Christ. Several times he calls Christ the Lamb, making the sacrificial idea prominent. Once he speaks of Him as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).

To sum up, all the New Testament writers, except James and Jude, refer to Christ's death as the great sacrifice for sin. Jesus Himself regarded His death as such. In the various types of New Testament teaching Christ's death is presented (1) as the covenant sacrifice (Mark 14:24 parallel Matthew 26:28 parallel Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:15-22); (2) as the sin offering (Romans 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 13:11; 1 Peter 3:18); (3) as the offering of the paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7); (4) as the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (Hebrews 2:17; 9:12 ff).

IV. Relation of Christ's Sacrifice to Man's Salvation.

The saving benefits specified in the New Testament as resulting from the sacrificial death of Christ are as follows:

1. Redemption or Deliverance from Curse of Sin: Redemption or deliverance from the curse of sin: This must be the implication in Jesus' words, "The Son of man also came .... to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45 parallel Matthew 20:28). Man is a captive in sin, the Father sends His Son to pay the ransom price for the deliverance of the captive, and the Son's death is the price paid. Paul also uses the words "redeemed" and "redemption" in the same sense. In the great letters he asserts that we are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation .... in his blood" (Romans 3:24-25). Here the apostle traces justification back to redemption as the means for securing it, and redemption back to the "blood" (Christ's death) as the cause of its procurement. That is, Christ's death secures redemption and redemption procures justification. In Galatians (Romans 3:13), he speaks of being redeemed "from the curse of the law." The law involved man in a curse because he could not keep it. This curse is the penalty of the broken law which the transgressor must bear, unless deliverance from said penalty is somehow secured. Paul represents Christ by His death as securing for sinners deliverance from this curse of the broken law (compare Galatians 4:5 for the same thought, though the word "curse" is not used). Paul also emphasizes the same teaching in the Captivity Epistles: "In whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Ephesians 1:7; compare Colossians 1:14). In the pastoral letters (1 Timothy 2:6) he teaches that Christ gave "himself a ransom for all." This is the only New Testament passage in which occurs the strong word antilutron for "ransom." In his old age the apostle feels more positively than ever before that Christ's death is the ransom price of man's deliverance from sin.

The author of Hebrews asserts that Christ by the sacrifice of Himself "obtained eternal redemption" for man (9:12). John says that Christ "loosed (luo) us from our sins by his blood" (Revelation 1:5). This idea in John is akin to that of redemption or deliverance by ransom. Peter teaches the same truth in 1 Peter 1:19. So, we see, Jesus and all the New Testament writers regard Christ's sacrifice as the procuring cause of human redemption.

2. Reconciliation: The idea of reconciliation involves a personal difference between two parties. There is estrangement between God and man. Reconciliation is the restoration of favor between the two parties. Jesus does not utter any direct message on reconciliation, but implies God's repugnance at man's sin and strained relations between God and the unrepentant sinner (see Luke 18:13). He puts into the mouth of the praying tax-gatherer the words, `God be propitious to me' (see Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, hilaskomai), but Jesus nowhere asserts that His death secures the reconciliation of God to the sinner. Paul, however, does. "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son," etc. (Romans 5:10). There can be no doubt from this passage that Paul thought of the death of Christ as the procuring cause of reconciliation. In Ephesians 2:13-14, 18 Paul makes the cross of Christ the means of reconciliation between the hostile races of men. Paul reaches the climax in his conception of the reconciliation wrought by the cross of Christ when he asserts the unifying results of Christ's death to be cosmic in extent (Ephesians 1:10).

The author of Hebrews also implies that Christ's death secures reconciliation when he regards this death as the ratification of the "better covenant" (8:6 ff), and when he plays on the double meaning of the word (diatheke, 9:15 ff), now "covenant" and now "will," "testament." The death of Christ is necessary to secure the ratification of the new covenant which brings God and man into new relations (8:12). In 2:17 the author uses a word implying propitiation as wrought by the death of Christ. So the doctrine of reconciliation is also in the Epistle to the Hebrews. John teaches reconciliation with God through Christ our Advocate, but does not expressly connect it with His death as the procuring cause (1 John 2:1-2). Peter is likewise silent on this point.

3. Remission of Sins: Reconciliation implies that God can forgive; yea, has forgiven. Jesus and the New Testament writers declare the death of Christ to be the basis of God's forgiveness. Jesus in instituting the memorial supper said, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). It is true Mark and Luke do not record this last phrase, "unto remission of sins." But there is no intimation that this phrase is the result of Matthew's theologizing on the purpose of Christ's death (see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus,II , 239 ff, who claims this phrase is not from Jesus; also Allen in "Mt,"ICC , in the place cited.). But Paul leaves no doubt as to the connection between man's forgiveness by God and Christ's sacrifice for him. This idea is rooted in the great passage on justification (Romans 3:21 through Romans 5:21; see especially Romans 4:7); is positively declared in Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14. The author of Heb teaches that the shedding of Christ's blood under the new covenant is as necessary to secure forgiveness as the shedding of animal's blood under the old. John also implies that forgiveness is based on the blood (1 John 1:7-9).

4. The Cancellation of Guilt: True reconciliation and forgiveness include the canceling of the offender's guilt. Jesus has no direct word on the cancellation of guilt. Paul closes his argument for the universality of human sin by asserting that "all the world may be brought under the judgment of God" (the King James Version "guilty before God," Romans 3:19). Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon, in the place cited.) says this word "guilty" means "owing satisfaction to God" (liable to punishment by God). But in Romans 8:1, 3 Paul exclaims, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus .... God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin" (the English Revised Version and the American Revised Version margin "as an offering for sin"). The guilt, or exposure of the sinner to God's wrath and so to punishment, is removed by the sin offering which Christ made. This idea is implied by the author of Hebrews (Romans 2:15), but is not expressed in Peter and John.

5. Justification or Right Standing with God: Right standing with God is also implied in the preceding idea. Forgiving sin and canceling guilt are the negative, bringing into right standing with God the positive, aspects of the same transaction. "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin (i.e. the sin offering; so Augustine and other Fathers, Ewald, Ritschl; see Meyer, Commentary, in loc., who denies this meaning) on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). In this passage Paul makes justification the divine purpose of the sacrificial death of Christ. This thought is elaborated by the apostle in Galatians and Romans, but is not expressed by Jesus, or in Hebrews, in Peter or in John.

6. Cleansing or Sanctification: Jesus does not connect our cleansing or sanctification with His death, but with His word (John 17:17). The substantive "cleansing" (katharismos) is not used by Paul, and the verb "to cleanse" (katharizo) occurs only twice in his later letters (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 2:14). He does use the idea of sanctification, and in Romans 6:1-23 through 8 teaches that sanctification is a logical consequence of justification which is secured by Christ's sacrificial death. In Philippians 3:10-11, he views Christ's death and resurrection as the dynamic of transformation in the new life. The author of Hebrews (Philippians 1:3; 14, 22, 23; 10:2), following his Old Testament figures, uses the idea of cleansing for the whole process of putting away sin, from atonement to sanctification (see Westcott, Commentary, in the place cited.). He makes Christ's death the procuring cause of the cleansing. John does the same (1 John 1:7; Revelation 7:14).

7. Sonship: Divine sonship of the believer is also traced by Paul to the sacrificial death of Christ (Romans 8:17), though this thought is not found in other New Testament writers.

So, we sum up, the whole process of salvation, from reconciliation with God to the adoption of the saved sinner into heaven's household, is ascribed, to some extent by Jesus, largely by Paul theologian of the New Testament, and, in varying degrees, by other New Testament writers, to the sacrificial death of Christ. Even Holtzmann (Neutest. Theol., II, 111) admits "It is upon the moment of death that the grounding of salvation is exclusively concentrated."

V. How Christ's Sacrifice Procures Salvation. It must be conceded that the New Testament writers, much less Jesus, did not discuss this subject from the philosophical point of view. Jesus never philosophizes except incidentally. Paul, the author of He, and John had a philosophy underlying their theology, the first and second dealing most with the sacrificial work of Christ, the last with His person. But Paul and the author of Heb did not write their letters to produce a philosophical system explaining how Christ's sacrificial death can and does procure man's salvation.

1. Jesus' Teaching: By some it is claimed that the word "ransom" (Mark 10:45) gives us the key to the philosophy of the atonement as presented by Jesus Himself. But the rules of exegesis are against this supposition. Jesus in the context is teaching His disciples that sacrificial service is greatness. To illustrate the truth He refers to His own example of coming to "minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." That is, Jesus is enforcing a practical principle and not elaborating a theoretical truth. Moreover, the word "ransom" is used metaphorically, and the laws of exegesis forbid us to press the literal meaning of a figure. The figure suggests captivity in sin and deliverance by payment of a price (the death of Christ). But Jesus does not tell us how His sacrificial death can and does pay the price for man's redemption from sin. The word "ransom" does give the clue to the development of the vicarious sacrifice elaborated later by Paul. Ritschl (Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, II, 85) does not do the word "ransom" justice when he claims that it merely reproduces the meaning of the Hebrew kopher, "covering as a protection," and that Christ's death, like a covering, delivers us by stimulating us to lead the life of sacrificial service as Christ did. Wendt (Lehre Jesu, II, 237; Teaching of Jesus, II, 226 f) admits the "ransom"-idea in the word, but says Christ delivers us from bondage to suffering and death, not by His death, but by His teaching which is illustrated by His sacrificial death. Beyschlag (Neutest. Theol., I, 153) thinks Christ's death delivers us from worldly ambitions and such sins by showing us the example of Jesus in sacrifice. Weiss (Biblical Theology of the New Testament, I, 101-3) thinks Christ's "surrender of His life .... avails as a ransom which He gives instead of the many" who were not able to pay the price themselves. He also adds, "The saying regarding the ransom lays emphasis upon the God-pleasing performance of Jesus which secures the salvation," etc.

Nor does Jesus' saying at the Last Supper, "This is my blood of the covenant" (Mark 14:24) give us unmistakable evidence of how His death saves men. It does teach that sinners on entering the kingdom come into a new covenant relation with God which implies forgiveness of sin and fellowship with God, and that, as the covenant sacrifices at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 24:3-8) ratified the legal covenant between God and His people, so the death of Christ as a covenant sacrifice ratifies the covenant of grace between God and lost sinners, by virtue of which covenant God on His part forgives the penitent sinner, and the surrendering sinner on his part presents himself to God for the life of sacrifice. But this statement fails to tell us how God can forgive sin on the basis of a covenant thus ratified by Christ's death. Does it mean substitution, that as the animal whose blood ratified the covenant was slain instead of the people, so Christ was slain in the place of sinners? Or does it suggest the immutability of the covenant on the basis of the animal's (and so Christ's) representing both God and man, and killing signifying loss of life or will to change the covenant (so Westcott, Commentary on Hebrews, 301)? It could scarcely mean that Christ's sacrifice was the offering of a perfect, acceptable life to God (Wendt, op. cit., II, 237), or that Christ's death is viewed merely as the common meal sacrifice, that God and His people thus enter into a kind of union and communion (so some evolutionists in the study of comparative religion; see Menzies. Hist of Religion, 416 ff).

2. Paul's Teaching: Ritschl and many modern scholars are disposed to reject all philosophy in religion. They say, "Back to Christ." Paul was only a human interpreter of Jesus. But he was a divinely-guided interpreter, and we need his first-hand interpretations of Jesus. What has he to say as to how Christ's death saves men?

(1) The Words Expressing the Idea of Redemption. See above on the terms of sacrifice. The classical passage containing the idea of redemption is Romans 3:24-26: "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus." A fair interpretation of this passage gives us the following propositions: (a) The believer obtains right standing with God by means of, through the channel of (see Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, dia, A,III , 2), redemption which is in Christ. (b) This redemption in Christ involves, or is based upon, the divinely-purposed propitiation which Christ made in His death. (c) The design of God in making such a propitiation was the exhibition of His righteousness; i.e., the vindication of that side of His character which demands the punishment of sin, which had not been shown in former generations when His forbearance passed over men's sins. See Sanday, Commentary on Romans, in the place cited. The classical passage containing the other word to redeem (exagorazo) is Galatians 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us," etc. Professor E. D. Burton (AJT, October, 1907) thinks: (a) Law here means "law legalistically understood." (b) The "curse" was the verdict of the law of pure legalism, "a disclosure to man of his actual status before God on a basis of merit." (c) The redemption meant is that Christ "brought to an end the regime of law .... rather than deliverance of individuals through release from penalty." He bases this argument largely on the use of hemas, "us," meaning Jews in antithesis with ethne, the Gentiles (Galatians 3:14). Everett (The Gospel of Paul) thinks that Christ was cursed in that He was "crucified" (the manner not the fact of His death being the curse); that is, as Everett sees it, Christ became ceremonially unclean, and so free from the law. So does His follower by being crucified with Christ become ceremonially unclean and so free from the law. The passage seems to give us the following propositions: (a) Man under law (whether the revealed law of the Old Testament or the moral law) is under a "curse," that is, liable to the penalty which the broken law demands. (b) Christ by His death on the cross became a "curse for us." (c) By means of Christ thus becoming a "curse for us" He delivered us, "not the Jews as a nation, but all of us, Jews and Gentiles, who believed," from the curse incurred by the breaking of the law. Professor Burton admits that the participle genomenos, "becoming," may be a "participle of means" (the article cited above, 643), and so we have "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." The passage at least suggests, if it does not declare, that Christ saves us by vicariously enduring the penalty to which we were exposed.

(2) The Idea of Reconciliation. Paul uses the phrase "wrath of God" (Romans 1:18, etc.) to express the attitude of God toward sin, an attitude of displeasure and of grief, of revulsion of holy character which demands the punishment of sin. On the other hand, God loves the sinner; love is the prompting cause of redemption through Christ (Romans 5:8; 8:32). That is, wrath is love grieving and righteousness revolting because of sin, and both phases may act simultaneously (Simon, Redemption of Man, 216, to the contrary). So Paul says, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses" (2 Corinthians 5:19). Now this word "reconcile" (katallassein) means in the active, "to receive into favor," in the passive, "to be restored to favor" (Thayer). See also Revelation and The Expositor, October, 1909, 600 ff, where Professor Estes shows, from Sophocles, Xenophon, Josephus, Septuagint and passages in the New Testament like Matthew 5:24, that the word must mean a change in the attitude of God toward men and not merely a change of men toward God. Practically the same is taught by Meyer (Commentary on 2 Corinthians); Lipsius (Handcomm. zum New Testament); Sanday (Commentary on Romans); Denney (Exegetical Greek Testament on Romans); Lietzmann (Handbuch zum New Testament); Holtzmann (Neutest. Theol.); Weiss (Religion of the New Testament); Pfleiderer (Paulinism); Stevens (Christian Doctrine of Salvation), and in nearly all the great commentaries on Romans and 2 Corinthians, and by all the writers on New Testament theology except Beyschlag.

Sacrifice, in the New Testament, 2

Sacrifice, in the New Testament, 2 - Continued from SACRIFICE, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, 1.

VI. Rationale of the Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice.

1. Jesus' Teaching: Jesus emphasizes His voluntary spirit in making the sacrifice. "The Son of man also came .... to give his life a ransom." The sacrifice was voluntary, not compulsory. God did not force Him to lay down His life; He chose to do so (compare John 10:11). But Jesus gives us no philosophy on this or any other element in His sacrifice as being the ground of its efficacy.

2. Paul's Teaching: Paul also emphasizes the voluntary gift of Christ (Galatians 2:20), but he urges rather the dignity of Him who makes the sacrifice as a ground of its efficacy. It is the sacrifice of God's Son, shown to be such in His resurrection (Romans 1:4; 4:25 b). It was no ordinary man but the sinless Son who gave "himself" (Galatians 2:20). It was not merely a dying Christ but the Son who rose again "in power" (Romans 1:4), who secures our "justification" (Romans 44:2Ro 5:1-21b; 1 Corinthians 15:3-44,11Co 7:1-40b). Paul also emphasizes the sinless life and character of Jesus as a ground of efficacy in Christ's sacrifice, "who knew no sin" in His life experience (2 Corinthians 55:22Co 1:1-24a).

3. The Teaching in Hebrews: The author of Hebrews, most of all New Testament writers, elaborates the grounds of efficacy in Christ's sacrifice. (1) It was a personal not an animal sacrifice (9:12-14; 9:26, "sacrifice of himself"; 10:4). (2) It was the sacrifice of the Son of God (3:5). (3) It was a royal person who made the sacrifice (6:20b; 7:1, "after the order of Melchizedek .... king of Salem"). (4) It was a sinless person (7:26,27; 9:14; 10:10,12). Westcott, Commentary on Hebrews, 298, well says, "It becomes necessary, therefore, in order to gain a complete view of the Sacrifice of Christ, to combine with the crowning act upon the Cross His fulfillment of the will of God from first to last, the Sacrifice of Life with the Sacrifice of Death." (5) It was an eternal person (6:20, "for ever"; 7:16, "after the power of an endless (margin "indissoluble") life"). The author of Hebrews reaches the climax of his argument for the superior efficacy of Christ's sacrifice when he represents Him as entering the holy of holies in the very presence of God to complete the offering for man's sin (8:1,2; 9:11,12,24).

Peter and John do not discuss the ground of efficacy, and so add nothing to our conclusions above. The efficacy of the sacrifice is suggested by describing the glory of the person (1 Peter 1:19; 1 Peter 2:22-23; 1 John 1:110:7 b; 1 John 2:2).

To sum up our conclusion as to the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice: Jesus and the leading New Testament writers intimate that the efficacy of His sacrifice centers in His personality. Jesus, Peter and John do not discuss the subject directly. Paul, though discussing it more extensively, does not do so fully, but the author of Heb centers and culminates his argument for the finality of Christianity, in the superior efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, which is grounded in His personality, divine, royal, sinless, eternal (see Menegoz, Theol. de l'Ep. aux Hebreux). It is easy to see, from the position taken by the author of He, how Anselm in Cur Deus Homo developed his theory of satisfaction, according to which the Divinity in Christ gave His atoning sacrifice its priceless worth in God's eyes.

VII. The Human Conditions of Application. 1. Universal in Objective Potentiality: The sacrificial death of Christ is universal in its objective potentiality, according to Jesus (Luke 24:47, "unto all the nations"); according to Paul (Romans 1:5; 5:18; 11:32; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Galatians 3:14); according to the author of Hebrews (Galatians 2:9, "taste of death for every man"); according to John (1 John 2:2, "propitiation .... for the whole world").

2. Efficacious When Subjectively Applied: But the objective redemption to be efficacious must be subjectively applied. The blood of Christ is the universally efficacious remedy for the sin-sick souls of men, but each man must make the subjective application. How is the application made? And the threefold answer is, by repentance, by faith, and by obedience.

(1) By Repentance. The Baptist and Jesus emphasized repentance (change of mind first of all, then change of relation and of life) as the condition of entrance into the kingdom and of enjoyment of the Messianic salvation (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:15). Peter preached repentance at Pentecost and immediately after as a means of obtaining forgiveness (Acts 2:38; 3:19, etc.). Paul, although emphasizing faith, also stressed repentance as an element in the human condition of salvation (Acts 20:21; Romans 2:4, etc.). John (Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22, passim) emphasizes repentance, though not stressing it as a means of receiving the benefits of redemption.

(2) By Faith. Jesus connected faith with repentance (Mark 1:15) as the condition of receiving the Messianic salvation. Paul makes faith the all-inclusive means of applying the work of Christ. The gospel is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16); "whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith" (Romans 3:25); "faith (not works) is reckoned for righteousness" (Romans 4:5); "justified by faith" (Romans 5:1). In Galatians, the letters to the Corinthians, in the Captivity and the Pastoral Epistles he emphasizes faith as the sole condition of receiving salvation. But what kind of faith is it that appropriates the saving benefit of Christ's death? Not historical or intellectual but "heart" faith (Romans 10:10). To Paul "heart" meant the seat or essence of the whole personality, and so faith which applies the redemption Christ is the personal commitment of one's self to Christ as Saviour and Lord (2 Corinthians 5:15). See Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, pisteuo, 1, b, gamma, for a particular discussion of the meaning of faith in this sense. The author of Heb discusses especially faith as a conquering power, but also implies that it is the condition of entrance upon the life of spiritual rest and fellowship (chapters 3 and 4, passim). Peter (1 Peter 1:9) and John (1 John 3:23; 4:16; 1, 5, etc.) also regard faith as a means of applying the saving benefits of Christ's death.

(3) By Obedience in Sacrificial Service. Jesus said, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 8:34). Here He lays down two elements in the conditions of discipleship, denying one's self and taking up his cross. The former means the renunciation of self as the center of thought, faith, hope and life. The latter means the life of sacrifice. Jesus was stressing this truth when He uttered that incomparable saying, "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45 parallel Matthew 20:28). Paul also emphasizes this phase of the human condition of salvation when he shows how sanctification grows spontaneously out of justification (Romans 6:8) and when he says that what "avails" is "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6). The author of Hebrews says, "He became unto all them that obey him the author (Greek aitios, "cause") of eternal salvation" (Galatians 5:9). Peter and John, the latter especially, emphasize the keeping of His commandments, the life of service, as the means of appropriating to the fullest the saving benefits of Christ's death. The theologians in classrooms and preachers in the pulpits have failed to emphasize this aspect of "saving faith" as did Jesus, Paul, the author of He, and John. in the New Testament salvation is a process as well as an instantaneous act on the part of God, and the process is carried on by means of obedience, the life of service, which appropriates by faith the dynamic of Christ's sacrifice.

VIII. The Christian's Life the Life of Sacrifice. This discussion of the faith that "obeys" leads to the consideration of that climactic thought of New Testament writers, namely, that the Christian's life is sacrificial living based on Christ's sacrifice for him. We note in outline the following:

The Christian's life of sacrifice is the logical consequence of Christ's sacrificial death. The Christ who sacrificed Himself for the believer is now continuing the sacrifice in the believer's life (Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:21).

1. Consequence of Christ's Sacrifice: Paul was crucified when Christ was crucified (in a bold mystic figure), and the life of Christ which sacrificed itself on the cross and perpetuates itself in resurrection power now operates as a mighty dynamic for the apostle's moral and spiritual transformation (Philippians 3:10-11). It is to be noted, Jesus also emphasized this kind of living, though not so expressly connecting the believer's sacrificial life with His sacrificial death (see Mark 8:34 f).

2. Christ's Death the Appeal for a Christian's Sacrifice:

Christ's sacrificial death becomes the persuasive appeal for the Christian's sacrificial life, "Because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again" (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). Because He died for us we should live for Him. But what is the appeal which Christ's sacrificial death makes to the saved sinner? "The love of Christ constraineth us" (2 Corinthians 5:14). Christ's death on the cross exhibits His love, unspeakable, unthinkable love, for it was love for His "enemies" (Romans 5:10), and that matchless love kindles love in the forgiven sinner's heart. He is willing to do anything, even to die, for his Saviour who died for him (Acts 21:13; Philippians 1:29-30). It is a greater privilege for the saved sinner to suffer for Christ than it is to believe on Him. Peter (1 Peter 3:17-18), the author of Hebrews (12; 13:13) and John (1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:16-19) emphasize this truth.

3. Necessary to Fill Out Christ's Sacrifice: The Christian's sacrifice is necessary to fill out Christ's sacrifice. "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church" (Colossians 1:24). Roman Catholic exegetes have made the apostle teach that the sufferings of the saints, along with Christ's sufferings, have atoning efficacy. But Paul nowhere intimates that his sufferings avail for putting away sins. We may hold with Weiss (Comm. on the New Testament) that Paul longed to experience in his life the perfect sacrificial spirit as Christ did; or with Alford (in loc.) that he wished to suffer his part of Christ's sufferings to be endured by him through His church; or, as it seems to us, he longed to make effective by his ministry of sacrificial service to as many others as possible the sacrificial death of Christ. Christ's sacrifice avails in saving men only when Christians sacrifice their lives in making known this sacrifice of Christ.

4. Content of the Christian's Sacrifice: (1) The Christian is to present his personality (Romans 15:16). Paul commends the Macedonians for "first" giving "their own selves to the Lord" (2 Corinthians 8:5). (2) Christians must present their "bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God" (Romans 12:1). In the old system of sacrifices the animals were offered as dead; Christians are to offer their bodies, all their members with their powers, to God a "living sacrifice," i.e. a sacrifice which operates in lives of holiness and service (see also Romans 6:13, 19). (3) Christians must offer their money or earthly possessions to God. Paul speaks of the gift from the church at Philippi as "a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God" (Philippians 4:18). This gift was to the apostle a beautiful expression of the sacrificial spirit imparted to them because they had the "mind" of Christ who "emptied himself, .... becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:5-8). The author of Hebrews (13:16) exhorts his readers, "But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." (4) The general exercise of all our gifts and graces is viewed by Peter as sacrificial living (1 Peter 2:5): "Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices" etc. All Christians are priests and daily offer up their burnt offerings acceptable to God, if they `suffer as Christians' (1 Peter 2:20; 3:18) in the exercise of their graces and powers.

But how do these sacrifices of the Christian affect him and God? The New Testament writers never hint that our sacrifices propitiate God, or so win His favor that He will or can on account of our sacrifices forgive our sins. They are "well-pleasing" to Him a "sweet odor"; that is, they win His approval of our lives thus lived according to the standard which Christ gives us. Their influence on us is the increase of our spiritual efficiency and power and finally a greater capacity for enjoying spiritual blessings in heaven (1 Corinthians 3:14).

5. The Supper as a Sacrifice: Some scholars (Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, etc.) regard the memorial supper as a kind of sacrifice which the Christian offers in worship. Neither Jesus, Paul, the author of Hebrews, Peter, or John, ever hints that in eating the bread and drinking the wine the Christian offers a sacrifice to God in Christ. Paul teaches that in partaking of the Supper we "proclaim the Lord's death till he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). That is, instead of offering a sacrifice ourselves to God, in partaking of the Supper we proclaim the offering of Christ's sacrifice for us. Milligan argues that as Christ in heaven perpetually offers Himself for us, so we on earth, in the Supper, offer ourselves to Him (Heavenly Priesthood, 266). Even Cave (Spiritual Doctrine of Sacrifice, 439) maintains, "In a certain loose sense the Lord's Supper may be called a sacrifice." See the above books for the argument supporting this position.

To sum up our conclusions on sacrifice in the New Testament:

(1) Jesus and New Testament writers regard the Old Testament sacrificial system as from God, but imperfect, the various sacrifices serving only as types of the one great sacrifice which Christ made.

(2) All the writers, except James and Jude, with Jesus, emphasize the sacrificial idea, Jesus less, giving only two hints of His sacrificial death (in the Synoptic Gospels), the author of Heb putting the climactic emphasis on Christ's sacrifice as the sacrifice of atonement.

(3) As to the relation of Christ's sacrifice to man's salvation, the latter is the achievement of the former, so expressed only twice by Jesus, but emphatically so declared by Paul, the author of Heb, Peter, and John (Paul and Heb laying most emphasis on this point).

(4) As to how Christ's sacrifice saves men, Jesus, the author of He, Peter and John suggest the idea of propitiation, while Paul emphatically teaches that man is under a curse, exposed to the displeasure of God, and that Christ's sacrifice secured the reconciliation of God by vindicating His righteousness in punishing sin and His love in saving sinners. Jesus and the leading New Testament writers agree that Christ saves men through His vicarious suffering.

(5) As to the rational basis of efficacy in Christ's sacrifice, there is no direct discussion in the New Testament except by the author of Hebrews who grounds its final, eternal efficacy in Christ's personality, divine, royal, sinless and eternal.

(6) As to the conditions of applying Christ's sacrifice, repentance and faith, which lives and fruits in obedience and sacrificial living, are recognized by Jesus and all the leading New Testament writers as the means of appropriating the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.

(7) By Jesus, Paul, the author of He, Peter and John the Christian life is viewed as the life of sacrifice. Christ's death is at once the cause, motive, measure, and the dynamic of the Christian's sacrificial life.

LITERATURE.

In addition to the great comms.--ICC, Allen on "Mt," Gould on "Mk," Sanday-Headlam on "Rom"; Westcott on the Gospel and Epistles of John, and on the Hebrews; Davidson, Delitzsch and Meyer on Hebrews; Meyer on 2 Corinthians; Lightfoot and Abbott on Colossians; and the standard authors of the Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Weiss, Beyschlag, Bovon, Stevens, Sheldon--see the following special works: Cave, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, Edinburgh, 1890; Simon, Redemption of Man, 1886; G. Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Edinburgh, 1899; Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord, London, 1908; W.P. Du Bose, High-Priesthood and Sacrifice; Everett, The Gospel of Paul, Boston, 1893; Burton, Smith, and Smith, Biblical Ideas of Atonement, Chicago, 1909; Denney, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament, London, 1902; Denney, The Atonement and the Modern Mind, London, 1903; Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Versohnung (Justification and Reconciliation), Bonn, 1895-1902, English translations of the Bible, 1900; Menegoz, Theol. del'Ep. aux Hebreux; article "Blood," Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, by H. Wheeler Robinson; article "Communion with Deity," ibid., by Nathan Soderblom; article "Communion with Deity" (Christian), ibid., by Darwell Stone and D. C. Simpson; article "Expiation and Atonement," ibid., by W. A. Brown (Christian viewpoint), S. R. Driver (Hebrew), H. Loewe (Jewish); article "Redemption from the Curse of the Law," in AJT, October, 1907, by Professor E. D. Burton; article "Some Thoughts as to the Effects of the Death of Christ," in Revelation and The Expositor, October, 1909.

C. B. Williams

Continued in SACRIFICE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 1.

Sacrifice, in the Old Testament, 1

Sacrifice, in the Old Testament, 1 - Continued from SACRIFICE, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, 2.

sak'-ri-fis, sak'-ri-fiz:

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

I. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

II. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF SACRIFICES

1. Theory of a Divine Revelation

2. Theories of a Human Origin

(1) The Gift-Theory

(2) The Magic Theory

(3) The Table-Bond Theory

(4) The Sacramental Communion Theory

(5) The Homage Theory

(6) The Piacular Theory

(7) Originating Religious Instincts

III. CLASSIFICATION OF SACRIFICES

1. Maimonides

2. W.R. Smith and Others

3. Oehler

4. Paterson and Others

5. H.M. Wiener

IV. SACRIFICES IN THE PRE-MOSAIC AGE

1. In Egypt

2. In Babylonia

3. Nomads and Tribes of Arabia and Syria

4. The Offerings of Cain and Abel

5. Of Noah

6. Of Abraham

7. Of Job

8. Of Isaac

9. Of Jacob

10. Of Israel in Egypt

11. Of Jethro

12. Summary and Conclusions

V. THE MOSAIC SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM

1. The Covenant Sacrifice

2. The Common Altars

3. The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons

4. Sacrifices before the Golden Calf

5. The Law of the Burnt Offering (`Olah)

(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 1:3-17)

(2) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 1:3-17)

(3) General Laws for the Priest

(4) Laws in Deuteronomy 12:6, 13, 14, 27; 27:6

6. The Law of the Meal Offering (Minchah)

(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 2:1-16)

(2) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 2:1-16)

(3) General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:14-18 (Hebrew 7-11), etc.)

7. The Law of the Peace Offering

(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 3:1-17)

(2) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 3:1-17)

(3) General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:12 (Hebrews 5); 7:1 ff)

8. The Law of the Sin Offering

(1) At the Consecration of Aaron and His Sons (Exodus 29:10 ff)

(2) The Law of the Sin Offering (Leviticus 4:1-35; 24:1 27:1, etc.)

(a) The Occasion and Meaning

(b) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 4:1-5, 13, etc.)

(d) General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:24-30)

(e) Special Uses of the Sin Offering

(i) Consecration of Aaron and His Sons

(ii) Purifications from Uncleanness

(iii) On the Day of Atonement

(iv) Other Special Instances

9. The Guilt Offering

(1) The Ritual (Leviticus 5:14 through 6:7)

(2) Special Laws: Leper, Nazirite, etc.

10. The Wave Offering

11. The Heave Offering

12. Drink Offerings

13. Primitive Nature of the Cult

VI. SACRIFICES IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL

1. The Situation at Moses' Death

2. In the Time of Joshua

3. The Period of the Judges

4. Times of Samuel and Saul

5. Days of David and Solomon

6. In the Northern Kingdom

7. In the Southern Kingdom to the Exile

8. In the Exilic and Post-exilic Periods

9. A Temple and Sacrifices at Elephantine

10. Human Sacrifices in Israel's History

11. Certain Heathen Sacrifices

VII. THE PROPHETS AND SACRIFICES

VIII. SACRIFICE IN THE "WRITINGS"

1. Proverbs

2. The Psalms

IX. THE IDEA AND EFFICACY OF SACRIFICES

1. A Gift of Food to the Deity

2. Expression of Adoration and Devotion, etc.

3. Means of Purification from Uncleanness

4. Means of Consecration to Divine Service

5. Means of Establishing a Community of Life between Worshipper and God

6. View of Ritschl

7. The Sacramental View

8. Symbol or Expression of Prayer

9. View of Kautzsch

10. Vicarious Expiation Theory; Objections

11. Typology of Sacrifice

LITERATURE

I. Terms and Definitions. zebhach, "sacrifice"; `olah, "burnt offering"; chata'ah, chatta'th, "sin offering"; 'asham, "guilt" or "trespass offering": shelem, shelamim, "peace offerings"; minchah, "offering," "present"; zebhach shelamim, "sacrifice of peace offerings"; zebhach ha-todhah, "thank offerings"; zebhach nedhabhah, "free-will offerings"; zebhach nedher, "votive offerings"; tenuphah, "wave offering"; terumah, "heave offering"; qorban, "oblation," "gift"; 'ishsheh, "fire offering"; necekh, "drink offering"; kalil, "whole burnt offering"; chagh, "feast"; lebhonah, "frankincense"; qetorah, qetoreth, "odor," "incense"; melach, "salt"; shemen, "oil":

Zebhach: a "slaughtered animal," a "sacrifice," general term for animals used in sacrifice, including burnt offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings, and all sacrifices offered to the Deity and eaten at the festivals. More particularly it refers to the flesh eaten by the worshippers after the fat parts had been burned on the altar and the priest had received his portion.

`Olah: a "burnt offering," sometimes whole burnt offering. Derived from the verb `alah, "to go up." It may mean "that which goes up to the altar" (Knobel, Wellhausen, Nowack, etc.), or "that which goes up in smoke to the sky" (Bahr, Delitzsch, Dillmann, etc.); sometimes used synonymously with kalil (which see). The term applies to beast or fowl when entirely consumed upon the altar, the hide of the beast being taken by the priest. This was perhaps the most solemn of the sacrifices, and symbolized worship in the full sense, i.e. adoration, devotion, dedication, supplication, and at times expiation.

Chota'ah, chatta'th: a "sin offering," a special kind, first mentioned in the Mosaic legislation. It is essentially expiatory, intended to restore covenant relations with the Deity. The special features were: (1) the blood must be sprinkled before the sanctuary, put upon the horns of the altar of incense and poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering; (2) the flesh was holy, not to be touched by worshipper, but eaten by the priest only. The special ritual of the Day of Atonement centers around the sin offering.

'Asham: "guilt offering," "trespass offering" (King James Version; in Isaiah 53:10, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "an offering for sin," the American Revised Version margin "trespass offering"). A special kind of sin offering introduced in the Mosaic Law and concerned with offenses against God and man that could be estimated by a money value and thus covered by compensation or restitution accompanying the offering. A ram of different degrees of value, and worth at least two shekels, was the usual victim, and it must be accompanied by full restitution with an additional fifth of the value of the damage. The leper and Nazirite could offer he-lambs. The guilt toward God was expiated by the blood poured out, and the guilt toward men by the restitution and fine. The calling of the Servant an 'asham (Isaiah 53:10) shows the value attached to this offering.

Shelem, shelamim: "peace offering," generally used the plural, shelamim, only once shelem (Amos 5:22). These were sacrifices of friendship expressing or promoting peaceful relations with the Deity, and almost invariably accompanied by a meal or feast, an occasion of great joy. They are sometimes called zebhachim, sometimes zebhach shelamim, and were of different kinds, such as zebhach ha-todhah, "thank offerings," which expressed the gratitude of the giver because of some blessings, zebhach nedhabhah, "free-will offerings," bestowed on the Deity out of a full heart, and zebhach nedher, "votive offerings," which were offered in fulfillment of a vow.

Minchah: "meal offering" (the Revised Version), "meat offering" (the King James Version), a gift or presentation, at first applied to both bloody and unbloody offerings (Genesis 4:5), but in Moses' time confined to cereals, whether raw or roast, ground to flour or baked and mixed with oil and frankincense. These cereals were the produce of man's labor with the soil, not fruits, etc., and thus represented the necessities and results of life, if not life itself. They were the invariable accompaniment of animal sacrifices, and in one instance could be substituted for them (see SIN OFFERING). The term minchah describes a gift or token of friendship (Isaiah 39:1), an act of homage (1 Samuel 10:27; 1 Kings 10:25), tribute (Judges 3:15, 17 f), propitiation to a friend wronged (Genesis 32:13, 18 (Hebrews 14:19)), to procure favor or assistance (Genesis 43:11 ff; Hosea 10:6).

Tenuphah: "wave offering," usually the breast, the priest's share of the peace offerings, which was waved before the altar by both offerer and priest together (the exact motion is not certain), symbolic of its presentation to Deity and given back by Him to the offerer to be used in the priests' service.

Terumah: "heave offering," something lifted up, or, properly, separated from the rest and given to the service of the Deity. Usually the right shoulder or thigh was thus separated for the priest. The term is applied to products of the soil, or portion of land separated unto the divine service, etc.

Qorban: "an oblation," or "offering"; another generic term for all kinds of offerings, animal, vegetable, or even gold and silver. Derived from the verb qarabh, "to draw near," it signifies what is drawn or brought near and given to God.

'Ishsheh: "fire offering," applied to offerings made by fire and usually bloody offerings, but at times to the minchah, the sacred bread and frankincense placed on the tables as a memorial, part of which was burned with the frankincense, the bulk, however, going to the priest. The gift was thus presented through fire to the Deity as a sort of etherealized food.

Necekh: "drink offering," or "libation," a liquid offering of wine, rarely water, sometimes of oil, and usually accompanying the `olah, but often with the peace offerings.

Kalil: "whole burnt offering," the entire animal being burned upon the altar. Sometimes used synonymously with `olah. A technical term among the Carthaginians.

Chagh: a "feast," used metaphorically for a sacrificial feast because the meat of the sacrifices constituted the material of the feast.

Lebhonah: "frankincense," "incense," used in combination with the meal offerings and burnt offerings and burned also upon the altar in the holy place.

See INCENSE.

Qetorah, qetoreth: "smoke," "odor of sacrifice," or incense ascending as a sweet savor and supposed to be pleasing and acceptable to God.

Melach: "salt," used in all sacrifices because of its purifying and preserving qualities.

Shemen: "oil," generally olive oil, used with the meal offerings of cakes and wafers, etc.

Sacrifice is thus a complex and comprehensive term. In its simplest form it may be defined as "a gift to God." It is a presentation to Deity of some material object, the possession of the offerer, as an act of worship. It may be to attain, restore, maintain or to celebrate friendly relations with the Deity. It is religion in action--in early times, almost the whole of religion--an inseparable accompaniment to all religious exercises. Few or many motives may actuate it. It may be wholly piacular and expiatory, or an Offering of food as a gift to God; it may be practically a bribe, or a prayer, an expression of dependence, obligation and thanksgiving. It may express repentance, faith, adoration, or all of these combined. It was the one and only way of approach to God. Theophrastus defines it as expressing homage, gratitude and need. Hubert and Mauss define it as "a religious act which by the consecration of the victim modifies the moral state of the sacrificer, or of certain material objects which he has in view, i.e., either confers sanctity or removes it and its analogue, impiety."

II. Origin and Nature of Sacrifices. The beginnings of sacrifice are hidden in the mysteries of prehistoric life. The earliest narrative in Genesis records the fact, but gives no account of the origin and primary idea. The custom is sanctioned by the sacred writings, and later on the long-established custom was adopted and systematized in the Mosaic Law. The practice was almost universal. The Vedas have their elaborate rituals. Some Semitic peoples, Greeks, Romans, Africans, and Indians of Mexico offered human sacrifices. It is unknown in Australia, but even there something akin to it exists, for some natives offer a portion of a kind of honey, others offer a pebble or a spear to their god. For this practically universal habit of the race, several solutions are offered.

1. Theory of a Divine Revelation: One view maintains that God Himself initiated the rite by divine order at the beginnings of human history. Such a theory implies a monotheistic faith on the part of primitive man. This theory was strongly held by many of the Reformed theologians, and was based mainly on the narrative in Genesis 4:4 f. Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice, and, according to Hebrews 11:4, this was because of his faith. Faber makes a strong plea as follows: Since faith was what made the sacrifice acceptable to God, this faith must have been based upon a positive enactment of God in the past. Without this divine positive enactment to guarantee its truthfulness, faith, in Abel, would have been superstition. In other words, faith, in order to be truly based and properly directed, must have a revelation from God, a positive expression of the divine will. Fairbairn, in his Typology, goes further and holds that the skins wherewith Adam and Eve were clothed were from animals which had been slain in sacrifices. This is entirely without support in the narrative. The theory of a divine order cannot be maintained on the basis of the Biblical narrative. Moreover, it involves certain assumptions regarding the nature of faith and revelation which are not generally held in this age. A revelation is not necessarily a positive divine command, an external thing, and faith may be just as real and true without such a revelation as with it. That there may have been such a revelation cannot be denied, but it is not a necessary or probable explanation.

2. Theories of a Human Origin: (1) The Gift-Theory. By this it is held that sacrifices were originally presents to the deity which the offerer took for granted would be received with pleasure and even gratitude. Good relations would thus be established with the god and favors would be secured. Such motives, while certainly true among many heathen people, were obviously based upon low conceptions of the deity. They were either. Nature-spirits, ancestral ghosts or fetishes which needed what was given, and of course the god was placed under obligations and his favor obtained. Or, the god may have been conceived of as a ruler, a king or chief, as was the custom in the East.

Cicero vouches for such a view when he says: "Let not the impious dare to appease the gods with gifts. Let them hearken to Plato, who warns them that there can be no doubt what God's disposition to them will be, since even a good man will refuse to accept presents from the wicked" (HDB, IV, 331a). This view of sacrifice prevails in classical literature. Spencer therefore thinks it is self-evident that this was the idea of primitive man. Tylor and Herbert Spencer also find the origin of sacrifices in the idea of a gift, whether to the deity or to dead ancestors, food being placed for them, and this afterward comes to be regarded as a sacrifice. Such a view gives no account of the peculiar value attached to the blood, or to the burnt offerings. It may account for some heathen systems of sacrifice, but can help in no degree in understanding the Biblical sacrifices.

(2) The Magic Theory. There are two slightly variant forms of this: (a) that of R.C. Thompson (Semitic Magic, Its Origins and Developments, 175-218), who holds that a sacrificial animal serves as a substitute victim offered to a demon whose activity has brought the offerer into trouble; the aim of the priest is to entice or drive the malignant spirit out of the sick or sinful man into the sacrificial victim where it can be isolated or destroyed; (b) that of L. Marillier, who holds that sacrifice in its origin is essentially a magical rite. The liberation of a magical force by the effusion of the victim's blood will bend the god to the will of the man. From this arose under the "cult of the dead" the gift-theory of sacrifice. Men sought to ally themselves with the god in particular by purifying a victim and effecting communion with the god by the application of the blood to the altar, or by the sacrifice of the animal and the contact of the sacrificer with its blood. Such theories give no account of the burnt offerings, meal offerings and sin offerings, disconnect them entirely from any sense of sin or estrangement from God, and divest them of all piacular value. They may account for certain depraved and heathen systems, but not for the Biblical.

(3) The Table-Bond Theory. Ably advocated by Wellhausen and W.R. Smith, this view holds that sacrifices were meals which the worshippers and the god shared, partaking of the same food and thus establishing a firmer bond of fellowship between them. Sykes (Nature of Sacrifices, 75) first advocated this, holding that the efficacy of sacrifices "is the fact that eating and drinking were the known and ordinary symbols of friendship and were the usual rites in engaging in covenants and leagues." Thus sacrifices are more than gifts; they are deeds of hospitality which knit god and worshipper together. W.R. Smith has expounded the idea into the notion that the common meal unites physically those who partake of it. Though this view may contain an element of truth in regard to certain Arabian customs, it does not help much to account for Bible sacrifices. As A.B. Davidson says, "It fails utterly to account for the burnt offering, which was one of the earliest, most solemn and at times the most important of all the sacrifices."

(4) The Sacramental Communion Theory. This is a modification of the table-bond theory. The basis of it is the totemistic idea of reverencing an animal which is believed to share with man the divine nature. On certain solemn occasions this animal would be sacrificed to furnish a feast. At this meal, according to men's savage notions, they literally "ate the god," and thus incorporated into themselves the physical, the intellectual and the moral qualities which characterized the animal. If the divine life dwelt in certain animals, then a part of that precious life would be distributed among all the people (RS2, 313). In some cases the blood is drunk by the worshippers, thus imbibing the life. Sometimes, as in the case of the sacred camel, they devoured the quivering flesh before the animal was really dead, and the entire carcass was eaten up before morning.

The brilliant work of W. R. Smith has not been universally accepted. L. Marillier has criticized it along several lines. It is by no means certain that totemism prevailed so largely among Semites and there is no evidence of its existence in Israel. Also, if an original bond of friendship existed between the god and the kin, there is no need to maintain it by such sacrificial rites. There is no clear instance of this having been done. If on the other hand there was no common bond between the god and the people but that of a common meal, it does not appear that the god is a totem god. There is no reason why the animal should have been a totem. In any case, this idea of sacrifice could hardly have been anything but a slow growth, and consequently not the origin of sacrifice. Hubert and Mauss also point out that W. R. Smith is far from having established the historical or the logical connection between the common meal and the other kinds of sacrifices. Under piacula he confuses purification, propitiation and expiations. His attempts to show that purifications of magical character are late and not sacrificial do not succeed. Smith's theory is mainly the sacramental, though he does recognize the honorific and piacular element. The theory may be applicable to some of the heathen or savage feasts of the Arabs, but not to the practices of the Hebrews (see Encyclopedia Brit,XXIII , 981).

(5) The Homage Theory. This has been advocated by Warburton and F. D. Maurice. The idea is that sacrifices were originally an expression of homage and dependence. Man naturally felt impelled to seek closer communion with God, not so much from a sense of guilt as from a sense of dependence and a desire to show homage and obedience. In giving expression to this, primitive man had recourse to acts rather than words and thoughts. Thus sacrifice was an acted prayer, rather than a prayer in words. It was an expression of his longings and aspirations, his reverence and submission. There is much truth in this view; the elements of prayer--dependence and submission--enter into some sacrifices, the burnt offerings in particular; but it does not account for all kinds of offerings.

(6) The Piacular Theory. This holds that sacrifices are fundamentally expiatory or atoning, and the death of the beast is a vicarious expiation of the sins of the offerer. Hubert and Mauss admit that in all sacrifices there are some ideas of purchase or substitution, though these may not have issued from some primitive form. The unifying principle in all sacrifices is that the divine is put in communication with the profane by the intermediary--the victim--which may be piacular or honorific. It is thus a messenger, a means of divination, a means of alimenting the eternal life of the species, a source of magical energy which the rite diffuses over objects in its neighborhood. Westermarck (Origin of Moral Ideas) makes the original idea in sacrifice a piaculum, a substitute for the offerer.

This view is the most simple, the most natural, and the only one that can explain certain sacrifices. Man felt himself under liability to punishment or death. The animal was his, it had life, it was of value, and perchance the god would accept that life in place of his. He felt that it would be accepted, and thus the animal was sacrificed. The offerer in a sense gives up part of himself. The beast must be his own; no sacrifice can be made of another person's property (2 Samuel 244:22Sa 4:1-12a). The true spirit of sacrifice appears in a willingness to acknowledge God's right to what is best and dearest (Genesis 12:1-20).

Objection is raised to this by A. B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology), Paterson (HDB, IV, 331) and others, on the ground that such an origin represents too advanced a stage of ethical thought and reflection for primitive man. We question seriously whether this be an advanced stage of moral reflection. On the contrary, it represents a very simple and primitive stage. The feeling that sin of some kind is never absent from human life, and that its true penalty is death, has been inseparable from the human heart's sense of sin. What could be more simple and natural than to take an innocent animal and offer it in place of himself, hoping that the Deity would accept it instead? Nor is there much force in Professor Paterson's objection that sacrifices were preponderantly joyous in character and therefore could not be offered as an expiation. This joyous character belongs to such sacrifices as peace offerings and thank offerings, but does not belong to the `olah and others. In most cases the joyous feast followed the killing of the animal by which the expiation was accomplished, and the feast was joyous because atonement had been made. In fact, many sacrifices were of the most solemn character and represented the deepest and most serious emotions of the heart.

(7) Originating in Religious Instincts. Neither theory of an objective divine revelation, nor of a human origin will account for the universality and variety of sacrifices. The truth lies in a proper combination of the two. The notion of offering a gift to the Deity arose out of the religious instincts of the human heart, which in an early period had a consciousness of something wrong between itself and God, and that this something would mean death sooner or later. Added to these true instincts was the Omnipresent Spirit to guide men in giving expression. What could be more simple and primitive than to offer something possessing life? Of course the notion originated in simple and childlike ideas of God, and its real motive was not to gratify God by sharing a meal with Him, or to gain His favor by a bribe, but to present Him with something that represented a part of the offerer which might be accepted in his stead. Thus sacrifices became the leading features of the religious life of primitive man. Naturally other ideas would be added, such as a gift of food by fire to the Deity, the peace offerings, etc., to celebrate the friendly relations with God, the thank offerings, the sin offerings, etc., all of which naturally and logically developed from the primitive idea. It might be expected that there would be many corruptions and abuses, that the sense of sin would be obscured or lost among some peoples, and the idea of sacrifice correspondingly degraded. Such has been the case, and as well might we try to understand man at his best by studying the aboriginal tribes of Africa and Australia, or the inmates of asylums and penitentiaries, as to attempt to understand the Bible ideas in sacrifices by studying the cults of those heathen and savage tribes of Semites, etc.

III. Classification of Sacrifices. 1. Maimonides: Maimonides was among the first to classify them, and he divided them into two kinds:

(1) Those on behalf of the whole congregation, fixed by statute, time, number and ritual being specified. This would include burnt, meal and peace offerings with their accompaniments. (2) Those on behalf of the individual, whether by virtue of his connection with the community or as a private person. These would be burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings with their accompaniments.

2. W. R. Smith and Others: Others, such as W. R. Smith, classify them as: (1) honorific, or designed to render homage, devotion, or adoration, such as burnt, meal and peace offerings; (2) piacular, designed to expiate or make atonement for the errors of the people, i.e. burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings; (3) communistic, intended to establish the bond between the god and the worshipper, such as peace offerings.

3. Oehler: Oehler divides them into two classes, namely: (1) those which assume that the covenant relation is undisturbed, such as peace offerings; (2) those intended to do away with any disturbance in the relation and to set it right, such as burnt, sin and guilt offerings.

4. Paterson and Others: Professor Paterson and others divide them into three: (1) animal sacrifices, burnt offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings; (2) vegetable sacrifices, meal offerings, shewbread, etc.; (3) liquid and incense offerings; wine, oil, water, etc.

5. H. M. Wiener: H. M. Wiener offers a more suggestive and scientific division (Essays on Pentateuchal Criticism, 200 f): (1) customary lay offerings, such as had from time immemorial been offered on rude altars of earth or stone, without priest, used and regulated by Moses and in more or less general use until the exile, namely, burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings; (2) statutory individual offerings, introduced by Moses, offered by laymen with priestly assistance and at the religious capital, i.e. burnt offerings, peace offerings, meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings; (3) statutory national offerings introduced by Moses and offered by the priest at the religious capital, namely, burnt, meal, peace and sin offerings.

IV. Sacrifices in the Pre-Mosaic Age. Out of the obscure period of origins emerged the dimly lighted period of ancient history. Everywhere sacrifices existed and sometimes abounded as an essential part of religion. The spade of the archaeologist, and the researches of scholars help us understand the pre-Mosaic period.

1. In Egypt: In Egypt--probably from the beginning of the 4th millennium BC--there were sacrifices and sacrificial systems. Temples at Abydos, Thebes, On, etc., were great priestly centers with high priests, lower priests, rituals and sacrifices in abundance. Burnt, meal and peace offerings predominated. Oxen, wild goats, pigs, geese were the chief animals offered. Besides these, wine, oil, beer, milk, cakes, grain, ointment, flowers, fruit, vegetables were offered, but not human beings. In these offerings there were many resemblances to the Hebrew gifts, and many significant exceptions. Moses would be somewhat familiar with these practices though not with the details of the ritual. He would appreciate the unifying power of a national religious center. It is inconceivable that in such an age a national leader and organizer like Moses would not take special care to institute such a system.

2. In Babylonia: In Babylonia, from the year 3000 BC or thereabouts, according to E. Meyer (Geschichte des Alterthums), there were many centers of worship such as Eridu, Nippur, Agade, Erech, Ur, Nisin, Larsa, Sippar, etc. These and others continued for centuries with elaborate systems of worship, sacrifices, temples, priesthoods, etc. Considerably over 100 temples and sanctuaries are mentioned on inscriptions, and several hundreds in the literature and tablets, so that Babylonia was studded with temples and edifices for the gods. At all these, sacrifices were constantly offered--animal and vegetable. A long list of the offerings of King Gudea includes oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (i.e. eagles and doves), dates, milk, greens (Jastrow, in HDB, V, 580 f, under the word). The sacrifices provided an income for the priests, as did the Mosaic system at a later time. It had long passed the stage when it was supposed to furnish a meal for the god. A sacrifice always accompanied a consultation with a priest, and was really an assessment for the services rendered. It was not a voluntary offering or ritualistic observance. The priests on their own behalf offered a daily sacrifice, as in the Mosaic Law, and likewise on special occasions, to insure the good will of the gods they served. It seems certain that in some of the larger centers of worship animals were offered up twice a day, morning and evening. At these sacrifices certain portions were consumed on the altar, the rest belonging to the priest. The similarity of much of this to the Mosaic institutions is obvious. That the culture and civilization of Babylon was known to Egypt and Israel with other nations is shown clearly by the Tell el-Amarna Letters. Special sacrifices on special occasions were offered in Babylonia as in Israel. As Jastrow says, "In the Hebrew codes, both as regards the purely legal portions and those sections dealing with religious ritual, Babylonian methods of legal procedure and of ritual developed in Babylonian temples must be taken into consideration as determining factors." We do not doubt that Moses made use of many elements found in the Egyptian and Babylonian systems, and added to or subtracted from or purified as occasion required. As sacrificial systems and ritual had been in use more than a millennium before Moses, there is absolutely no need to suppose that Israel's ritual was a thousand years in developing, and was completed after the exile. To do so is to turn history upside down.

3. Nomads and Tribes of Arabia and Syria: Among the nomads and tribes of Arabia and Syria, sacrifices had been common for millenniums before Moses. The researches of Wellhausen and W. R. Smith are valuable here, whatever one may think of their theories. The offerings were usually from the flocks and herds, sometimes from the spoils taken in war which had been appropriated as their own. The occasions were many and various, and the ritual was very simple. A rude altar of earth or stone, or one stone, a sacred spot, the offerer killing the victim and burning all, or perhaps certain parts and eating the remainder with the clan or family, constituted the customary details. Sometimes wild animals were offered. Babylonians, Phoenicians and Arabs offered gazelles, but the Hebrews did not. Arabs would sometimes sacrifice a captive youth, while the Carthaginians chose some of the fairest of the captives for offerings by night. Assyrian kings sometimes sacrificed captive kings. The Canaanites and others constantly sacrificed children, especially the firstborn.

4. The Offerings of Cain and Abel: The account of the offerings of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:4 f) shows that the ceremony dates from almost the beginnings of the human race. The custom of offering the firstlings and first-fruits had already begun. Arabian tribes later had a similar custom. Cain's offering was cereal and is called minchah, "a gift" or "presentation." The same term is applied to Abel's. There is no hint that the bloody sacrifice was in itself better than the unbloody one, but it is shown that sacrifice without a right attitude of heart is not acceptable to God. This same truth is emphasized by the prophets and others, and is needed in this day as much as then. In this case the altars would be of the common kind, and no priest was needed. The sacrifices were an act of worship, adoration, dependence, prayer, and possibly propitiation.

5. Of Noah: The sacrifices of Noah followed and celebrated the epochal and awe-inspiring event of leaving the ark and beginning life anew. He offered burnt offerings of all the clean animals (Genesis 8:20 ff). On such a solemn occasion only an `olah would suffice. The custom of using domestic animals had arisen at this time. The sacrifices expressed adoration, recognition of God's power and sovereignty, and a gift to please Him, for it is said He smelled a sweet savor and was pleased. It was an odor of satisfaction or restfulness. Whether or not the idea of expiation was included is difficult to prove.

6. Of Abraham: Abraham lived at a time when sacrifices and religion were virtually identical. No mention is made of his offering at Ur or Charan, but on his arrival at Shechem he erected an altar (Genesis 12:7). At Beth-el also (Genesis 12:8), and on his return from Egypt he worshipped there (Genesis 13:4). Such sacrifices expressed adoration and prayer and probably propitiation. They constituted worship, which is a complex exercise. At Hebron he built an altar (Genesis 13:18), officiating always as his own priest. In Genesis 15:4 ff he offers a "covenant" sacrifice, when the animals were slain, divided, the parts set opposite each other, and prepared for the appearance of the other party to the covenant. The exact idea in the killing of these animals may be difficult to find, but the effect is to give the occasion great solemnity and the highest religious sanction. What was done with the carcasses afterward is not told. That animals were slain for food with no thought of sacrifice is shown by the narrative in chapter 18, where Abraham had a calf slain for the meal. This is opposed to one of the chief tenets of the Wellhausen school, which maintains that all slaughtering of animals was sacrificial until the 7th century BC. In Genesis 22:1-24 Abraham attempts to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering, as was probably the custom of his neighbors. That he attempted it shows that the practice was not shocking to his ethical nature. It tested the strength of his devotion to God, shows the right spirit in sacrifices, and teaches for all time that God does not desire human sacrifice--a beast will do. What God does want is the obedient heart. Abraham continued his worship at Beer-sheba (Genesis 21:33).

7. Of Job: Whatever may be the date of the writing of the Book of Job, the saint himself is represented as living in the Patriarchal age. He constantly offered sacrifices on behalf of his children (1:5), "sanctifying" them. His purpose no doubt was to atone for possible sin. The sacrifices were mainly expiatory. This is true also of the sacrifices of his friends (42:7-9).

8. Of Isaac: Isaac seems to have had a permanent altar at Beer-sheba and to have regularly offered sacrifices. Adoration, expiation and supplication would constitute his chief motives (Genesis 26:25).

9. Of Jacob: Jacob's first recorded sacrifice was the pouring of the oil upon the stone at Beth-el (Genesis 28:18). This was consecration or dedication in recognition of the awe-inspiring presence of the Deity. After his covenant with Laban he offered sacrifices (zebhachim) and they ate bread (Genesis 31:54). At Shechem, Jacob erected an altar (Genesis 33:20). At Beth-el (Genesis 35:7) and at Beer-sheba he offered sacrifices to Isaac's God (Genesis 46:1).

10. Of Israel in Egypt: While the Israelites were in Egypt they would be accustomed to spring sacrifices and spring feasts, for these had been common among the Arabs and Syrians, etc., for centuries. Nabatean inscriptions testify to this. Egyptian sacrifices have been mentioned (see above). At these spring festivals it was probably customary to offer the firstlings of the flocks (compare Exodus 13:15). At the harvest festivals sacrificial feasts were celebrated. It was to some such feast Moses said Israel as a people wished to go in the wilderness (Exodus 3:18; 5:3 ff; Exodus 7:16). Pharaoh understood and asked who was to go (Exodus 10:8). Moses demanded flocks and herds for the feast (Exodus 10:9). Pharaoh would keep the flocks, etc. (Exodus 10:24), but Moses said they must offer sacrifices and burnt offerings (Exodus 10:25 f).

The sacrifice of the Passover soon occurs (Exodus 12:3-11). That the Hebrews had been accustomed to sacrifice their own firstborn at this season has no support and is altogether improbable (Frazer, Golden Bough(3), pt. III, 175 f). The whole ceremony is very primitive and has retained its primitiveness to the end. The choosing of the lamb or kid, the killing at a certain time, the family gathered in the home, the carcass roasted whole, eaten that night, and the remainder, if any, burned, while the feasters had staff in hand, etc., all this was continued. The blood in this case protected from the Deity, and the whole ceremony was "holy" and only for the circumcised. Frazer in his Golden Bough gives a very different interpretation.

11. Of Jethro: As a priest of Midian, Jethro was an expert in sacrificing. On meeting Moses and the people he offered both `olah and zebhachim and made a feast (Exodus 18:12).

12. Summary and Conclusions: From the above it is evident that sacrifices were almost the substance of religion in that ancient world. From hilltops and temples innumerable, the smoke of sacrifices was constantly rising heavenward. Burnt offerings and peace offerings were well known. Moses, in establishing a religion, must have a sacrificial system. He had abundance of materials to choose from, and under divine guidance would adopt such rules and regulations as the pedagogic plans and purposes of God would require in preparing for better things.

Continued in SACRIFICE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 2.

Sacrifice, in the Old Testament, 2

Sacrifice, in the Old Testament, 2 - Continued from SACRIFICE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 1.

V. The Mosaic Sacrificial System. 1. The Covenant Sacrifice: The fundamental function of Moses' work was to establish the covenant between Israel and God. This important transaction took place at Sinai and was accompanied by solemn sacrifices. The foundation principle was obedience, not sacrifices (Exodus 19:4-8). No mention is made of these at the time, as they were incidental--mere by-laws to the constitution. The center of gravity in Israel's religion is now shifted from sacrifices to obedience and loyalty to Yahweh. Sacrifices were helps to that end and without obedience were worthless. This is in exact accordance with Jeremiah 7:21 ff. God did not speak unto the fathers at this time about sacrifices; He did speak about obedience.

The covenant having been made, the terms and conditions are laid down by Moses and accepted by the people (Exodus 24:3). The Decalogue and Covenant Code are given, an altar is built, burnt offerings and peace offerings of oxen are slain by young men servants of Moses, not by priests, and blood is sprinkled on the altar (Exodus 24:4 ff). The blood would symbolize the community of life between Yahweh and Israel, and consecrated the altar. The Law was read, the pledge again given, and Moses sprinkled the representatives of the people, consecrating them also (Exodus 24:7 f). Ascending the mount, they had a vision of God, held a feast before Him, showing the joys and privileges of the new relationship. The striking feature of these ceremonies is the use of the blood. It is expiatory and consecrating, it is life offered to God, it consecrates the altar and the people: they are now acceptable to God and dare approach Him and feast with Him. There is no idea of God's drinking the blood. The entire ritual is far removed from the crass features of common Semitic worship.

2. The Common Altars: In the Covenant Code, which the people accepted, the customary altars are not abolished, but regulated (Exodus 20:24 ff). This law expressly applies to the time when they shall be settled in Canaan. `In the whole place where I cause my name to be remembered,' etc. (Exodus 20:24 margin). No need to change the reading to "in every place where I cause," etc., as the Wellhausen school does for obvious reasons. All the land was eligible. On such rude altars sacrifices were allowed. This same law is implied in Deuteronomy 16:21, a passage either ignored or explained away by the Wellhausen school (see Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, 200 f). Moses commanded Joshua in accordance with it (Deuteronomy 27:5 ff). Joshua, Gideon, Jephthah, Samuel, Saul, David, Elijah and many others used such altars. There were altars at Shechem (Joshua 24:1, 26), Mizpah in Gilead (Judges 11:11), Gilgal (1 Samuel 13:9). High places were chiefly used until the times of Hezekiah and Josiah, when they were abolished because of their corruptions, etc. All such altars were perfectly legitimate and in fact necessary, until there was a central capital and sanctuary in Jerusalem. The customary burnt offerings and peace offerings with the worshipper officiating were the chief factors. Heathen sacrifices and the use of heathen altars were strictly forbidden (Exodus 22:20 (Hebrews 19); 34:15)

3. The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons: The altar used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons was a "horned" or official altar, the central one. The offerings were a bullock, two rams, unleavened bread, etc. (Exodus 29:1-4), and were brought to the door of the sanctuary. The ritual consisted of Aaron laying his hand on the bullock's head, designating it as his substitute (Exodus 29:10), killing it before the tent of meeting (Exodus 29:11), smearing some blood on the horns of the altar, and pouring the rest at its base (Exodus 29:12). The blood consecrated the altar, the life was given as atonement for sins, the fat parts were burned upon the altar as food for God, and the flesh and remainder were burned without the camp (Exodus 29:13-14). This is a sin offering--chaTTa'th--the first time the term is used. Probably introduced by Moses, it was intended to be piacular and to "cover" possible sin. One ram was next slain, blood was sprinkled round about the altar, flesh was cut in pieces, washed and piled on the altar, then burned as an offering by fire ('ishsheh) unto God as a burnt offering, an odor of a sweet savor (Exodus 29:15-18). The naive and primitive nature of this idea is apparent. The other ram, the ram of consecration, is slain, blood is smeared on Aaron's right ear, thumb and great toe; in the case of his sons likewise. The blood is sprinkled on the altar round about; some upon the garments of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:19-21). Certain parts are waved before Yahweh along with the bread, and are then burned upon the altar (Exodus 29:22-25). The breast is offered as a wave offering (tenuphah), and the right thigh or shoulder as a heave offering (terumah). These portions here first mentioned were the priests' portion for all time to come, although this particular one went to Moses, since he officiated (Exodus 29:26-30). The flesh must be boiled in a holy place, and must be eaten by Aaron and his sons only, and at the sanctuary. What was left till morning must be burned (Exodus 29:31-34). Consecrated to a holy service it was dangerous for anyone else to touch it, or the divine wrath would flame forth. The same ceremony on each of the seven days atoned for, cleansed and consecrated the altar to the service of Yahweh, and it was most holy (Exodus 29:35-37). The altar of incense is ordered (Exodus 30:1), and Aaron is to put the blood of the sin offering once a year upon its horns to consecrate it.

4. Sacrifices before the Golden Calf: When the golden calf was made an altar was erected, burnt offerings and peace offerings were presented. From the latter a feast was made, the people followed the usual habits at such festivals, went to excess and joined in revelry. Moses' ear quickly detected the nature of the sounds. The covenant was now broken and no sacrifice was available for this sin. Vengeance was executed on 3,000 Israelites. Moses mightily interceded with God. A moral reaction was begun; new tables of the Law were made with more stringent laws against idols and idol worship (Exodus 32:1-35).

5. The Law of the Burnt Offering (`Olah): At the setting-up of the tabernacle burnt and meal offerings were sacrificed (Exodus 40:29). The law of the burnt offering is found in Leviticus 1:1-17. Common altars and customary burnt offerings needed no minute regulations, but this ritual was intended primarily for the priest, and was taught to the people as needed. They were for the statutory individual and national offering upon the "horned" altar before the sanctuary. Already the daily burnt offerings of the priests had been provided for (Exodus 29:38-42). The burnt offering is here called qorban, "oblation."

(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 1:3-17). This may have been from the herd or flock or fowls, brought to the tent of meeting; hands were laid (heavily) upon its head designating it as the offerer's substitute, it was killed, flayed and cut in pieces. If of the flock, it was to be killed on the north side of the altar; if a fowl, the priest must kill it.

(2) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 1:3-17). If a bullock or of the flock, the priest was to sprinkle the blood round about the altar, put on the fire, lay the wood and pieces of the carcass, wash the inwards, legs, etc., and burn it all as a sweet savor to God. If a fowl, he must wring the neck, drain out the blood on the side of the altar, cast the crop, filth, etc., among the ashes, rend the wings without dividing the bird and burn the carcass on the altar.

(3) General Laws for the Priest. The burnt offering must be continued every morning and every evening (Exodus 29:38 f; Numbers 28:3-8). At the fulfillment of his vow the Nazirite must present it before God and offer it upon the altar through the priest (Numbers 6:14, 16): on the Sabbath, two lambs (Numbers 28:9); on the first of the month, two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs (Numbers 28:11); on the day of first-fruits, the same (Numbers 28:27); on the 1st day of the 7th month, one bullock, one ram, seven lambs (Numbers 29:8); on the 15th day, 13 bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs, the number of bullocks diminishing daily until the 7th day, when seven bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs were offered (Numbers 29:12-34); on the 22nd day of this month one bullock, one ram and seven lambs were offered (Numbers 29:35-36). Non-Israelites were permitted to offer the `olah, but no other sacrifices (Leviticus 17:8; 18, 25).

(4) Laws in Deuteronomy 12:6, 13, 14, 27; 27:6. Anticipating a central sanctuary in the future, the lawgiver counsels the people to bring their offerings there (Deuteronomy 12:6, 11); they must be careful not to offer them in any place (Deuteronomy 12:13), but must patronize the central sanctuary (Deuteronomy 12:14). In the meantime common altars and customary sacrifices were allowable and generally necessary (Deuteronomy 16:21; 27:6).

6. The Law of the Meal Offering (Minchah): The term "meal offering" is here confined to offerings of flour or meal, etc. (the King James Version "meat-offering"), and was first used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:41). These must not be offered on the altar of incense (Exodus 30:9); were used at the completion of the tabernacle (Exodus 40:29); and always with the morning and evening burnt offerings.

(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 2:1-16). It must be of fine flour, with oil and frankincense added, and brought to the priest; if baked in the oven, unleavened cakes mingled with oil, or wafers and oil; if of the baking pan, fine flour mingled with oil parted into pieces and oil thereon; if of the frying pan, the same ingredients. Leaven and honey must never be used as they quickly become corrupt. Every offering must be seasoned with salt. If of the first-fruits (bikkurim), it should consist of grain in the ear, parched with oil and frankincense upon it.

(2) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 2:1-16). This required him to take out a handful with the oil and frankincense thereon and burn it as a memorial upon the altar. The remainder was holy and belonged to the priest. Of the cakes, after bringing them to the altar, he was to take a portion, burn it and appropriate the remainder; the same with the first-fruits.

(3) General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:14-18 (Hebrews 7:1-28-Hebrews 11:1-40), etc.).

He might eat his portion without leaven in the holy place. At his anointing Aaron offered his own oblation of fine flour--1/10 of an ephah, one-half in the morning and one-half in the evening. If baked, it must be with oil. This meal offering must all be burnt; none could be eaten. With the sin offerings and guilt offerings every meal offering baked in any way belongs to the priest (Leviticus 7:9-10; 10:12; Numbers 18:9). The meal offerings accompanied the other offerings on all important occasions, such as the consecration of Aaron (Leviticus 9:4, 17); cleansing of a leper (Leviticus 14:10, 20-21, 31); feast of first-fruits (Leviticus 23:13); Pentecost (Leviticus 23:16); set feasts (Leviticus 23:37). Special charge was given to Eleazar to care for the continual meal offerings (Numbers 4:16). The Nazirite must offer it (Numbers 6:15, 17). When the tribes presented their offerings, meal offerings were always included (Numbers 7:13, 19, etc.); when the Levites were set apart (Numbers 8:8); with vows of freewill offerings (Numbers 15:4, 6); with the sin offerings (Numbers 15:24); at all the several seasons (Numbers 28:5 through Numbers 29:39). A special form was the "showbread" (bread of memorial). Twelve loaves were to be placed in two rows or heaps of six each on a pure table in the holy place, with frankincense on each pile or row. These were to remain for one week and then to be eaten by the priests. They were an offering of food by fire, though probably only the frankincense was actually burned (Leviticus 24:5 f).

7. The Law of the Peace Offering: The peace offerings indicated right relations with God, expressing good-fellowship, gratitude and obligation. The common altars were fitted for their use (Exodus 20:24), as feasts had been thus celebrated from time immemorial. At the feast before God on the Mount, peace offerings provided the food (Exodus 24:5); also before the golden bull (Exodus 32:6). The wave offerings and heave offerings were portions of these.

(1) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 3:1-17). The offering might be a bullock, a lamb, or a goat, either male or female, latitude being allowed in this case. The ritual was the same as in the case of the burnt offering (see above).

(2) Ritual for the Priest (Leviticus 3:1-17). Blood must be sprinkled on the altar round about, the caul, the liver and the kidneys must be taken away and the fat parts burned on the altar; the fat tail of the lamb must also be burned. These portions were offerings of food by fire to the Deity. The ritual for a goat was the same as for a bullock.

(3) General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:12 (Hebrews 5:1-14); Hebrews 7:1 ff).

The fat was to be burned on the altar of burnt offering. If it was a thank offering (zebhach ha-todhah), it must have unleavened cakes with oil, cakes mingled with oil and fine flour soaked. Cakes of leavened bread might be offered, and one cake was to be a heave offering to the priest. The flesh was to be eaten that day, none was to be left till morning (Leviticus 22:30). If it was a votive offering (zebhach nedher) or a freewill offering (zebhach nedhabhah), it might be eaten on the first and second days, but not on the third day; it should then be an abomination (Leviticus 7:18 f). If eaten then by anyone, that person was to be cut off from the community. Of all peace offerings the wave-breast and heave-thigh belong to the priest (Leviticus 7:29-34), the remainder was to be eaten by the worshippers. At Aaron's consecration an ox and a ram were the peace offerings (Leviticus 9:4, 18, 22). The priest's portion was to be eaten in a clean place by the priest's family (Leviticus 10:14). When Israel should have a central sanctuary, all were to be brought there (Leviticus 17:4-5). When they had no central place, the common altars would suffice. All peace offerings must be made in an acceptable manner (Leviticus 19:5). Votive offerings must be perfect (Leviticus 22:18-22), but certain imperfections are allowable in freewill offerings (Leviticus 22:23). At Pentecost two he-lambs of the first year could be offered as peace offerings (Leviticus 23:19). The Nazirite at the end of his separation must offer one ram for a peace offering with unleavened bread (Numbers 6:14, 17), and the hair shaved from his head must be burned under the peace offerings (Numbers 6:18). This hair was regarded as a thing having life and offered as a sacrifice by other nations. The various tribes brought peace offerings (Numbers 7:1-89, passim), and at the feast of trumpets the people were to rejoice and blow trumpets over the peace offerings (Numbers 10:10). Some further regulations are given (Numbers 15:9 f).

8. The Law of the Sin Offering: The sin offering was a sacrifice of a special kind, doubtless peculiar to Israel and first mentioned at the consecration of Aaron and his sons. It is not then spoken of as an innovation. It was of special value as an expiatory sacrifice.

(1) At the Consecration of Aaron and His Sons (Exodus 29:10 ff).

A bullock was killed before the altar, some blood was put upon the horns of the altar by Moses, the rest was poured out at the base. The fat of the inwards was burned upon the altar, the flesh and skin were burned without the camp. Every day during the consecration this was done (Exodus 29:36).

(2) The Law of the Sin Offering (Leviticus 4:1-35; 24:1 25:1, etc.).

(a) The Occasion and Meaning: Specifically to atone for unwitting sins, sins of error (sheghaghah), mistakes or rash acts, unknown at the time, but afterward made known. There were gradations of these for several classes of offenders: the anointed priest (Leviticus 4:3-12), the whole congregation (Leviticus 4:13-21), a ruler (Leviticus 4:22-26), one of the common people (Leviticus 4:27-35), forswearing (Leviticus 5:1), touching an unclean thing (Leviticus 5:2) or the uncleanness of man (Leviticus 5:3), or rashly sweating in ignorance (Leviticus 5:4). For conscious and willful violations of the Law, no atonement was possible, with some exceptions, for which provision was made in the guilt offerings (see below).

(b) Ritual for the Offerer (Leviticus 4:1-5, 13, etc.):

The anointed priest must offer a bullock at the tent of meeting, lay his hands upon it and slay it before Yahweh. The congregation was also required to bring a young bullock before the tent of meeting, the elders were to lay hands upon it and slay it before Yahweh. The ruler must bring a he-goat and do the same. One of the common people might bring a she-goat or lamb and present it in the same manner. If too poor for these, two turtledoves or young pigeons, one for a sin offering and one for burnt offering, would suffice. If too poor for these, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour without oil or flankincense would suffice.

He must bring the bullock's blood to the tent of meeting, dip his finger into it and sprinkle blood 7 times before the veil of the sanctuary, and put some on the horns of the altar of incense, but most of the blood must be poured out at the base of the altar. The fat must be burned upon the altar, all the rest of the carcass must be carried to a clean place without the camp and burned. In the case of the whole congregation, the ritual is the same. In the case of a ruler, the blood is to be put upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, not the altar of incense. In the case of one of the common people, the ritual is similar to that of the ruler. In both the latter cases the carcass belonged to the priest. If a bird, the priest must wring off its head, sprinkle some blood on the side of the altar and pour the rest at the base. Nothing is said of the disposal of the carcass. If of fine flour, the priest must take out a handful and burn it upon the altar, keeping the remainder for himself. The use of fine flour for an expiatory sacrifice is evidently exceptional and intended to be so. Though life was not given, yet necessity of life--that which represented life--was offered.

(d) General Laws for the Priest (Leviticus 6:24-30):

The sin offering was to be slain in the same place as the burnt offering. It was most holy, and the priest alone might eat what was left of the ram, pigeon or flour, in the holy place. Whatever touched it was to be holy, any garment sprinkled with the blood must be washed in a holy place, earthen vessels used must be broken, and brazen vessels thoroughly scoured and rinsed.

(e) Special Uses of the Sin Offering: (i) Consecration of Aaron and His Sons: The consecration of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8:2, 14-15) was similar to that of Leviticus 4:11-12, only Moses was to kill the offering and put the blood on the horns of the altar. On the 8th day a bull-calf was offered (Leviticus 9:2), and the congregation offered a he-goat (Leviticus 9:3). In this case Aaron performed the ceremony, as in Leviticus 4:11-12. Moses complained that they had not eaten the flesh of the calf and goat in the sanctuary, since that was requisite when the blood was not brought into the sanctuary (Leviticus 10:16-20).

(ii) Purifications from Uncleannesses:

Purifications from uncleannesses required after childbirth a young pigeon or turtledove (Leviticus 12:6-8). The leper must bring a guilt offering (a special kind of sin offering), a he-lamb (Leviticus 14:12-14, 19); if too poor for a lamb, a turtledove or young pigeon (Leviticus 14:22, 31). Special use of the blood is required (Leviticus 14:25). In uncleanness from issues a sin offering of a turtledove or young pigeon must be offered by the priest (Leviticus 15:15, 30).

(iii) On the Day of Atonement:

On the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1-28) Aaron must take a bullock for himself and house, two he-goats for the people, present the goats at the sanctuary, cast losts, one for Yahweh, as a sin offering, the other for Azazel, to be sent into the wilderness. The bullock was killed, sweet incense was burned within the rail, blood was sprinkled on the mercy-seat and before it 7 times. The one he-goat was killed and a similar ceremony was performed. Blood must be put on the horns of the altar and sprinkled 7 times about it. The other goat was presented, hands were laid on it, the sins of all confessed and put upon the goat, and it was sent into the wilderness. The carcass of the bullock and he-goat were burned without the camp. At the feast of first-fruits a he-goat was offered (Leviticus 23:19).

(iv) Other Special Instances:

Other special instances were: in the case of defilement, the Nazirite must offer a turtledove or young pigeon on the 8th day after contraction (Numbers 6:10 ff); when the days of the separation were fulfilled a ewe-lamb with the other offerings (Numbers 6:14) was to be offered; the twelve tribes included in each case a he-goat for sin offering (Numbers 7:16 ff); at the consecration of the Levites a young bullock (Numbers 8:8, 12). For unwitting sins of the congregation a he-goat was to be offered (Numbers 15:24-25). If one person erred, a she-goat was permitted (Numbers 15:27). A sin offering was required at the feast of the new moon (Numbers 28:15), at the Passover (Numbers 28:22), at Pentecost (Numbers 28:30), on the 1st day of the 7th month (Numbers 29:5), and on the 10th, 15th-22nd days (Numbers 29:10-38). The ceremony of the red heifer (Numbers 19:1-10, 17) was a special sin offering for purification purposes only. It was of ancient and primitive origin. The young cow was brought without the camp and was slain before the priest's face, blood was sprinkled 7 times before the sanctuary, the entire carcass with cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet was burned, the ashes gathered and laid without the camp in a clean place to be kept for the water of impurity. It was to purify after contact with the dead. In the case of the unknown homicide (Deuteronomy 21:1-9) a young unbroken heifer was brought to a running stream, its neck was broken, the elders washed their hands over the heifer in the presence of the priests, declaring their innocence. Thus the bloodshed was expiated. The action was a judicial one, but essentially vicarious and expiatory and had doubtless a primitive origin.

9. The Guilt Offering: The guilt offering (the King James Version "trespass offering") (Leviticus 5:14 through Leviticus 6:7) was a special kind of sin offering, always of a private character and accompanied by a fine. It expressed expiation and restitution. The classes of sin requiring a guilt offering with reparation in money are: (1) a trespass in the holy things done unwittingly; (2) anything which the Law forbade depriving God or the priest of their due; (3) dealing falsely, with a neighbor in a deposit, or pledge, or robbery, or oppression; (4) swearing falsely regarding anything lost; (5) seduction of a betrothed bondmaid (Leviticus 19:20-22). The first two of these are unwitting sins, the others cannot be. The clear statement is made in another place that sins done with a "high hand," i.e. in rebellion against the covenant and its provisions, can have no sacrifice (Numbers 15:30). Is this a contradiction, or a later development when it was found that the more stringent law would not work? (See J. M. P. Smith, et al., Atonement, 47 f.) Neither conclusion is probable. These conscious sins are of a kind that will admit of full reparation because against rights of property or in money matters. The sin offering makes atonement toward God, the restitution with the additional one-fifth makes full reparation to man. No such reparation can be made with such sins described as committed with a "high hand." In the case of seduction, rights of property are violated (compare Numbers 5:5-8; Deuteronomy 22:29).

(1) The Ritual (Leviticus 5:14 through 6:7). A ram proportionate in value to the offense and worth at least two shekels is required. The ritual is probably the same as that of the sin offering, though no mention is made of the laying on of hands, and the blood is not brought into the sanctuary, but sprinkled about the base of the altar, the fat and inside parts being burned, and the flesh eaten by the priests in a holy place.

(2) Special Laws: Leper, Nazirite, etc. The leper, when cleansed, on the 8th day must bring a guilt offering of two he-lambs and one ewe-lamb; the priest must wave one he-lamb before Yahweh, kill it, and smear blood on the right ear, thumb and toe of the leper. The guilt offering belongs to the priest (Leviticus 14:12-20). If the leper were too poor for two lambs, one sufficed, with a corresponding meal offering, or one turtle-dove and a young pigeon (Leviticus 14:21-22). The Nazirite, if defiled during his period of separation, must bring a he-lamb for a guilt offering (Numbers 6:12). All guilt offerings were the priests' and most holy (Numbers 18:9).

10. The Wave Offering: The wave offerings were parts of the peace offerings, and the custom was seemingly initiated at the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:24-27), when the breast and bread were waved before Yahweh. Leviticus 7:30, 34 fixes the law. It must be brought from the peace offerings of the offerer himself. At Aaron's consecration Moses put the breast, etc., on Aaron's hands and waved them before Yahweh (Leviticus 8:27). On the 8th day Aaron did the waving (Leviticus 9:21). The priests were to eat it in a clean place (Leviticus 10:14 f) . The leper's he-lamb was to be waved by the priest, before being offered (Leviticus 14:12); the lamb of the guilt offering also (Leviticus 14:24). At the feast of first-fruits the sheaf must be waved before Yahweh (Leviticus 23:10-11, 15); two loaves also (Leviticus 23:17, 20). Of the Nazirite the priest took the boiled shoulder, a cake and a wafer, put them on the Nazirite's hand and waved them before Yahweh (Numbers 6:19 f).

11. The Heave Offering: Heave offerings also are parts of the peace offerings, and refer particularly to what is lifted up, or separated unto the service of Yahweh. They are first mentioned at the consecration of Aaron (Exodus 29:27-28). The offering consisted of the right shoulder or thigh and was the fixed due of the priest (Leviticus 7:32, 34) One cake of the peace offering must be heaved (Leviticus 7:14). The offering must be eaten in a clean place (Leviticus 7:14) by the priest's family only (Leviticus 10:14-15). Of the Nazirite's offering the heave thigh also went to the priest (Numbers 6:20). When the Israelites should come into the promised land to eat bread, they must offer a heave offering of the dough, a cake (Numbers 15:19-20, 21). The law is repeated in Numbers 18:8, 11, 19, and the Levites are to receive a tithe of the heave offerings of the people (Numbers 18:24). They were in turn to offer up a tithe of this to the priests (Numbers 18:26-32). A portion of the spoil of Midian was a heave offering (Numbers 31:29, 41). Deuteronomy commands that all heave offerings be brought to the central sanctuary and eaten there (Numbers 12:6, 11).

12. Drink Offerings: Jacob poured oil on the stone he had set up (Genesis 28:18) in honor of the Deity and consecrated the spot. Jacob later (Genesis 35:14) set up a pillar where God had revealed Himself and poured drink offerings and oil upon it. Probably wine was used. Drink offerings accompanied many of the sacrifices (Exodus 29:40-41). None could be poured upon the altar of incense (Exodus 30:9). At all set feasts the Drink offerings must be presented (Leviticus 23:13, 18, 37). The Nazirite was not exempt (Numbers 6:15, 17). Wine and oil must accompany all votive and freewill offerings (Numbers 15:4-5, 7, 10, 24); the continual burnt offering (Numbers 28:7-8); sabbaths (Numbers 28:9-10) and all the other set feasts (Numbers 28:14-31; Numbers 29:6-39, passim). That drink offerings were common among the heathen is shown by Deuteronomy 32:38.

13. Primitive Nature of the Cultus: The cult is thoroughly in keeping with and adapted to the age, and yet an ideal system in many respects. The ethical side is in the background, the external has the emphasis. No sacrifices will avail for a breach of the covenant between God and the people. The people thoroughly believed in the efficacy of the blood. It secured atonement and forgiveness. Their religious life found expression in the sacrifices. God was fed and pleased by the offerings by fire. Many of the customs are ancient and crude, so that it is difficult to imagine how such a primitive system could have been arranged and accepted afterward by the people who had the lofty ethical teachings of the prophets in their hands.

VI. Sacrifices in the History of Israel. 1. The Situation at Moses' Death: The tribes were outwardly consolidated, and a religious system was provided. Some of it was for the rulers, much for the people and much for the priests alone. The various laws were given in portions and afterward compiled. No one expected them to be observed until the nation had a capital and central sanctuary. Even then not every detail was always possible. They were not observed to any extent in the wilderness (Amos 5:25), as it was impracticable. Even circumcision was neglected until the wanderers crossed the Jordan (Joshua 5:2). The body of the system was not in full practice for 300 or 400 years. The ritual, as far as it could be observed, served as an educational agency, producing in the minds of the worshippers proper conceptions of the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, and the proper spirit in approaching God.

2. In the Time of Joshua: Lay or common altars were in accordance With Exodus 20:24; Deuteronomy 16:21; 27:7. In the days of Joshua, the Passover was celebrated (Joshua 5:10 f). At Ebal an altar was erected, burnt and peace offerings were presented (Joshua 8:30-32). The tabernacle was set up at Shiloh with a horned altar doubtless (Joshua 18:1), and the cult was observed to some extent. Concerning the altar on the east side of the Jordan, see ALTAR.

3. The Period of the Judges: Canaanitish altars were abundant with their corrupt and licentious cults of the Nature-gods. Israelites with their common altars would naturally use the high places, when possible. The stationary altars of the Canaanites were of course unlawful. The inevitable tendency would be to imitate the worship of the Canaanites. They were rebuked and threatened for this, and, weeping, offered sacrifices at Bochim (Judges 2:1-5). Gideon rebuilt an altar of Yahweh and offered a bullock as a burnt offering (Judges 6:25-26). The kid prepared for the angel was not first a sacrifice, but its acceptance as a gift was indicated by its being burned (Judges 6:19 f). Jephthah offered up his daughter as a burnt offering, believing such a sacrifice well-pleasing to Yahweh (Judges 11:31, 39). Manoah and his wife prepared a kid for a burnt offering, a meal offering accompanying it (Judges 13:16 f). At the time of the civil war with Benjamin the ark and statutory altar seemed to be at Beth-el, where they offered burnt and peace offerings (Judges 20:26). The feasts at Shiloh imply at least peace offerings (Judges 21:19).

4. Times of Samuel and Saul: Common lay altars and customary sacrifices were still much in use. The official altar with the statutory individual and national offerings appears to be at Shiloh. El-kanah sacrifices and feasts there yearly (1 Samuel 1:3 f). Such feasts were joyous and tended to excesses, as drunkenness seemed common (1 Samuel 1:13 f). All Israel came thither (1 Samuel 2:14); the priests claimed their portion, seizing it in an unlawful manner before the fat had been burned, or the flesh had been boiled (1 Samuel 2:13-17). This shows that such ritual as was prescribed in Lev was practiced and considered by the people the only lawful custom. Was it in writing? Why not? Guilt offerings were made by the Philistines when smitten by tumors (1 Samuel 6:3, 1, 8, 17). There were five golden mice and five golden tumors. Crude as were their ideas of a guilt offering, their actions show familiarity with the concept. Burnt offerings were used on special occasions and in great crises, such as receiving the ark (1 Samuel 6:14 f), going to war (1 Samuel 7:9 f; 1 Samuel 13:9-12), victory (1 Samuel 11:15), etc. Saul met Samuel at a sacrificial feast in a small city (1 Samuel 9:12-13) on a high place. At Gilgal there were burnt and peace offerings (1 Samuel 10:8; 15, 21). Saul offered burnt offerings himself (1 Samuel 13:9-12), but his fault was not in offering them himself, but in his haste and disobedience toward Samuel. "To obey is better than sacrifice," etc., says Samuel (1 Samuel 15:22), recognizing the fundamental principle of the covenant and realizing that ceremonies are in themselves worthless without the right spirit. The same truth is reiterated by the prophets later. To prevent the eating of flesh with the blood Saul built a special altar (1 Samuel 14:32-35). Family and clan sacrifices and feasts were evidently common (1 Samuel 16:2-5).

5. Days of David and Solomon: The common altars and those on the high places were still in use. The central sanctuary at Shiloh had been removed, first apparently to Gilgal, then to Nob, and later to Gibeon. David's and Saul's families kept the feast of the new moon, when peace offerings would be sacrificed (1 Samuel 20:5, 24-29). The sanctuary at Nob had the shewbread upon the table (1 Samuel 21:4 ff) according to Exodus 25:30. When the ark was brought up to Jerusalem, burnt offerings and peace offerings were offered according to the Law (2 Samuel 6:17-18; 1 Chronicles 16:2, 40). Ahithophel offered private, sacrifices at Shiloh (2 Samuel 15:12). David offered up burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings when purchasing the threshing-floor of Araunah (1 Chronicles 21:23-26). The statutory horned altar at this time was at Gibeon (2 Chronicles 1:6; 1 Chronicles 21:29), but was soon removed to Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 22:1). In the organized sanctuary and ritual, Levites were appointed for attendance on the shewbread, meal offerings, burnt offerings, morning and evening sacrifices, sabbaths, new moons and set feasts (1 Chronicles 23:28-31), attempting to carry out the Levitical laws as far as possible. At the dedication of the temple, Solomon offered burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings in enormous quantities (1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chronicles 7:4-7); also burnt offerings and peace offerings with incense triennially (1 Kings 9:25). The ritual at the regular seasons, daily, sabbaths, new moons, set feasts, etc., was observed according to the Levitical Law (2 Chronicles 2:4; 8:13). Was it written?

6. In the Northern Kingdom: The golden calf worship was carried on at Dan and Beth-el, with priests, altars and ritual (1 Kings 12:27 f). The high places were in use, but very corrupt (1 Kings 13:2 ff). A common altar was in use on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18:30, 32). Many others were known as Yahweh's altars (1 Kings 19:10). The system was in full swing in Amos' time (Amos 4:4-5) at Beth-el and Gilgal and probably at Beer-sheba (Amos 5:5). Amos bitterly satirizes the hollow, insincere worship, but does not condemn the common altars and sacrifices, as these were legitimate. With Hosea the situation is worse, the cult has been "canonized," priests have been fed on the sin or sin offerings of the people, and the kingdom soon perished because of its corruption.

The high places were still in use and not denounced yet by the prophets (1 Kings 3:2; 2 Kings 14:4; 4, 35). Worship was not fully centralized, though tending in that direction. In the days of Abijah the temple cult was in full operation according to Moses' Law (2 Chronicles 13:10 f). Asa removed many strange altars and high places because of their corruption (2 Chronicles 14:3), but not all (2 Chronicles 15:17; 20:33).

7. In the Southern Kingdom to the Exile: In the days of Jehoiada priests and Levites were on duty according to Moses (2 Chronicles 23:18; 24:14 b; 2 Kings 12:4-16). Sin and guilt offerings were in sufficient numbers to be mentioned, but the money went to the priests. Kautzsch (HDB, V) and Paterson (HDB, IV), with others, think these offerings were only fines and altogether different from those of Leviticus 4:1-35; Leviticus 5:1-19. Such a statement is wholly gratuitous. The guilt offerings must be accompanied by fines, but not necessarily the sin offerings. The passage speaks of both as perfectly familiar and of long standing, but details are lacking and there can be no certainty in the matter, except that it proves nothing regarding a ritual of sin and guilt offerings existent or non-existent at that time. Kautzsch's and Paterson's motives are obvious. Having reversed the history and put the ritual law late, they must needs make adjustments in the records to have them agree. In the days of Ahaz, the regular offerings were observed for priests, kings and people (2 Kings 16:13-15). Hezekiah destroyed many high places (2 Kings 18:4). When repairing the temple, many sin offerings were presented to expiate the terrible sins of the previous reigns and the desecration of the temple (2 Chronicles 29:21-24); and so, also, burnt offerings (2 Chronicles 29:27 f), peace offerings and thank offerings, etc., in large number (2 Chronicles 29:31-35; compare Isaiah 1:10-17). The Passover was celebrated with peace offerings (2 Chronicles 30:1-2, 15, 22), oblations and tithes (2 Chronicles 31:12); courses of Levites were established (2 Chronicles 31:2), and the king's portion (2 Chronicles 31:3). All the common altars were abolished as far as possible, and worship centralized in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 32:12). Reversed by Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33:3 f), the high places were again used (2 Chronicles 33:17). Josiah purged Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 34:3), and on the discovery of the Book of the Law, with its rule regarding a central sanctuary, that law was rigidly enforced (2 Chronicles 35:6-14). The reformation under Josiah did not change the hearts of the people, and the rule followed in spite of all the efforts of Jeremiah and other prophets.

8. In the Exilic and Post-exilic Periods: That the cult was entirely suspended in Jerusalem from 586 to 536 BC seems certain. There is no support for G. F. Moore's statement (EB, IV) that an altar was soon rebuilt and sacrificing was carried on with scarcely a break. On the return of the exiles an altar was soon built and the continual burnt offerings began (Ezra 3:2 f), and likewise at the Feast of Tabernacles, new moons and set feasts (Ezra 3:4-7). Darius decreed that the Israelites should be given what was needed for the sacrifices (Ezra 6:9 f). The band under Ezra offered many sin offerings on their return (Ezra 8:35). At the dedication of the temple many burnt and sin offerings were made for all the tribes (Ezra 6:17). Those who had married foreign wives offered guilt offerings (Ezra 10:19). The firman of Artaxerxes provided money for bullocks, rams, lambs, with meal offerings and drink offerings (Ezra 7:17). Under Nehemiah and after the formal acceptance of the Law, a more complete effort was made to observe it. The shewbread, continual burnt and meal offerings, sabbaths, new moons, set feasts, sin offerings, first-fruits, firstlings, first-fruits of dough, heave offerings of all trees, wine and oil, etc., were carefully attended to (Nehemiah 10:33-37) and were in full force later (Nehemiah 13:5, 9). There is no hint of innovation, only a thoroughgoing attempt to observe laws that had been somewhat neglected.

9. A Temple and Sacrifices at Elephantine: At the time of Nehemiah and probably two or three centuries previous, there existed a temple on the island of Elephantine in the Nile. It was built by a Jewish military colony, and a system of sacrifices was observed. Just how far they copied the laws of Moses, and what were their ideas of a central sanctuary are uncertain.

Several Semitic tribes or nations practiced human sacrifices. It was common among the Canaanites, as is shown by the excavations at Gezer, Taanach, etc. They seemed to offer children in sacrifice at the laying of cornerstones of houses and other such occasions.

10. Human Sacrifices in Israel's History: Among the Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans human sacrifices were all too common. The custom was not unknown to the Israelites. Abraham felt called upon to offer up Isaac, but was stopped in the act, and a lesson was given for all time. The abominable practice is forbidden by Moses (Leviticus 18:21), where it is spoken of as a passing through the fire to Moloch, referring to Moabite and Ammonitish practices. Anyone practicing it was to be stoned (Leviticus 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). The rash vow of Jephthah resulted in the immolation of his daughter, but the incident is recorded as something extraordinary (Judges 11:31 f). The execution of Zebah and Zalmunna is a case of blood revenge, not sacrifice (Judges 8:18 ff). Nor is the slaughter of Agag in any sense a sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:32 f). The death of Saul's sons because of his breach of covenant with the Gibeonites was an expiatory sacrifice, to atone for the father's perfidy (2 Samuel 21:9). The Moabite king in desperation offered up his firstborn and heir to appease the anger of Chemosh, and the effect was startling to the Israelites (2 Kings 3:27). Ahaz practiced the abomination in times of trouble (2 Kings 16:3). Such sacrifices were intended to secure favor with the Deity or appease His wrath. Hiel's firstborn and youngest sons were probably sacrificed at the rebuilding or fortifying of Jericho (1 Kings 16:34; compare Joshua 6:26). Manasseh practiced the custom (2 Kings 21:6), but it was stopped by Josiah (2 Kings 23:10). Micah's words were probably applicable to those times of Ahaz or Manasseh, when they thought to obtain God's favor by costly gifts apart from ethical conditions (Micah 6:6-8). Isaiah refers to a heathen custom practiced by Israel of slaying the children in secret places (Isaiah 57:5), and Jeremiah represents it as practiced in his time (Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5). Ezekiel denounces the same practice (Ezekiel 16:20-21; 23:37).

11. Certain Heathen Sacrifices: Heathen sacrifices are hinted at in the later books, such as swine, a mouse, a horse, a dog (Isaiah 65:4; 3, 17; Ezekiel 8:10; 2 Kings 23:11). All such animals were unclean to the Hebrews, and the practice had its roots in some form of primitive totemism which survived in those heathen cults. They were little practiced among the Israelites.

See TOTEMISM.

VII. The Prophets and Sacrifices. The prophets were reformers, not innovators. Their emphasis was on the ethical, rather than the ritual. They based their teachings on the fundamentals of the covenant, not the incidentals. They accepted sacrifices as part of the religious life, but would give them their right place. They accepted the law regarding common altars, and Samuel, David and Elijah used these altars. They also endorsed the movement toward a central sanctuary, but it is the abuse of the cult that they condemned, rather than its use. They combated the heathenish idea that all God needed was gifts, lavish gifts, and would condone any sin if only they bestowed abundance of gifts. They demanded an inward religion, morality, justice, righteousness, in short, an ethical religion. They preached an ethical God, rather than the profane, debasing and almost blasphemous idea of God which prevailed in their times. They reminded the people of the covenant at Sinai, the foundation principle of which was obedience and loyalty to Yahweh. If Joel is early, the cult is in full practice, as he deplores the cutting-off of the meal offering, or minchah, and the netsekh or drink offering, through the devastation of the locusts. He does not mention the burnt offerings, etc., as these would not be cut off by the locusts (Joel 1:7, 13; 2:14). Joel emphasized the need for a genuine repentance, telling them to rend their hearts and not their garments (Joel 2:13).

Amos condemns the cult at Beth-el and Gilgal, and sarcastically bids them go on transgressing (4:4,5), mentions burnt offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings, and freewill offerings (4:4 f; 5:22), reminds them of the fact that they did not offer sacrifices in the wilderness (5:25), but demands rather righteousness and justice. There is nothing here against the Mosaic origin of the laws.

In Hosea's time the hollow externalism of the cult had become worse, while vice, falsehood, murder, oppression, etc., were rampant. He utters an epoch-making sentence when he says, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," etc. (Hosea 6:6). This is no sweeping renunciation of sacrifices, as such; it is only putting the emphasis in the right place. Such sacrifices as Hosea speaks of were worse than worthless. It is somewhat extravagant for Kautzsch to say, "It is perfectly futile to read out of Hosea 6:6 anything else than a categorical rejection of sacrifices." Hosea recognizes their place in religion, and deplores the loss during exile (Hosea 3:4). The corrupt cults he condemns (Hosea 4:13 f), for they are as bad as the Canaanitish cults (Hosea 4:9). Yahweh will spurn them (Hosea 8:13; 9:4). The defection of the nation began early (Hosea 11:2), and they have multiplied altars (Hosea 12:11; 13:2). He predicts the time when they shall render as bullocks the "calves" of their lips (Hosea 14:2 the King James Version).

Micah is as emphatic. The sacrifices were more costly in his day, in order the more surely to purchase the favor of the Deity. Human sacrifices were in vogue, but Micah says God requires them "to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (6:8). This does not in the least affect sacrifices of the right kind and with the right spirit.

Isaiah faces the same situation. There are multitudes of sacrifices, burnt offerings, blood of bullocks and goats, oblations, sweet incense, beasts, etc., but no justice, morality, love, truth or goodness. Thus their sacrifices, etc., are an abomination, though right in themselves (1:11-17; 61:8). The same is true of all pious performances today. It is probable that Isaiah worshipped in the temple (6:1,6). In his eschatological vision there is freedom to offer sacrifices in Egypt (19:19,21). The people are to worship in the holy mountain (27:13). Ariel must let the feasts come around (29:1).

Jeremiah maintains the same attitude. Your "frankincense from Sheba, and the sweet cane," burnt offerings and sacrifices are not pleasing to God (6:20; 14:12). They made the temple a den of robbers, in the streets they baked cakes to the Queen of heaven, etc. He speaks sarcastically, saying, "Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers .... concerning .... sacrifices: but .... commanded .... saying, Hearken unto my voice," etc. (7:21-23). This was literally true, as we have seen above; the covenant was not based on sacrifices but on obedience. Such a statement does not deny the institution of sacrifices for those within the covenant who are obedient. It is no "subterfuge," as Kautzsch calls it, "to say that the prophets never polemize against sacrifice per se, but only against offerings presented hypocritically, without repentance and a right disposition, with blood-stained hands; against the opera operata of the carnally-minded, half-heathen mass of the people." This is exactly what they do, and they are in perfect harmony with the covenant constitution and with their own ethical and spiritual functions. Kautzsch can make such an extravagant assertion only by ignoring the fact that Jeremiah himself in predicting the future age of righteousness and blessedness makes sacrifice an important factor (33:11,18). Picturing possible prosperity and glory, Jeremiah speaks of burnt offerings and meal offerings, frankincense, thank offerings, etc., being brought into the house of Yahweh (17:26). (We are aware of the harsh and arbitrary transference of this passage to a later time.)

Ezekiel is called by Kautzsch "the founder of the Levitical system." He is said to have preserved the fragment of the ritual that was broken up in the exile. But his references to the burnt offerings, sin offerings, and trespass offerings presuppose familiarity with them (40:38-42).

He assigns the north and south chambers for the meal, sin and trespass offerings (Ezekiel 42:13). The cleansing of the altar requires a bullock and he-goat for a sin offering, with burnt and peace offerings with a ritual similar to Leviticus 8:1 f (Ezekiel 43:18-27). The Levites are to be ministers and slay burnt offerings and sacrifice for the people (Ezekiel 44:11). The priest must offer his sin offering before he ministers in the sanctuary (Ezekiel 44:27). They are to eat the meal, sin, and trespass offerings as in Ezekiel 44:29. In Ezekiel 45:1-25, the people are to give the wheat, barley, oil and lambs for meal, burnt and peace offerings, while the prince shall give the meal, burnt and drink offerings for the feasts, the new moons, sabbaths and appointed feasts. He is to prepare them to make atonement (Ezekiel 45:13-17). In cleansing the sanctuary the Levitical ritual is followed with added details (Ezekiel 45:18-20). The Passover requires the burnt offerings, sin offerings, and meal offerings with an extra amount of cereal. The priests prepare the prince's burnt offerings and peace offerings (Ezekiel 46:2-4, 6, 9-12) for the sabbaths, new moons, etc. The daily burnt offerings (Ezekiel 46:13-15) must have a sixth instead of a tenth part of an ephah, as in Leviticus 1:1-17. The sin and guilt offerings are to be boiled in a certain place, and the meal offering baked (Leviticus 1:17, 17). Ezekiel varies from the Levitical Law in the quantity of the meal offering, picturing the ritual in a more ideal situation than Moses. The people are all righteous, with new hearts, the Spirit in them enabling them to keep the Law (36:26 f), and yet he institutes an elaborate ritual of purification for them. Does this seem to indicate that the prophets would abolish sacrifices entirely? It is strange reasoning which makes the prophets denounce the whole sacrificial system, when one of the greatest among them seeks to conserve an elaborate cult for the blessed age in the future.

In the second part of Isaiah, God declares that He has not been honored by the people with burnt offerings and meal offerings, etc., and that He has not burdened them with such offerings, but that He is wearied with their sins (43:23 f). Those foreigners who respect the covenant shall offer acceptable sacrifices (56:7) in the blessed age to come. The Servant of Yahweh is to be a guilt offering (53:10) to expiate the sins of Israel. Sacrifice is here for the first time lifted out of the animal to the human sphere, thus forging the link between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the glorious age to come there are to be priests and Levites, new moons, sabbaths and worship in Jerusalem (66:21,23).

Daniel speaks of the meal offering being caused to cease in the midst of the week (9:27).

Zechariah pictures the golden age to come when all nations shall go up to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles, which implies sacrifices. Pots are used, and all the worshippers shall use them in the ritual (14:16-21).

In Malachi's age the ritual was in practice, but grossly abused. They offered polluted bread (1:7), blind, lame and sick animals (1:13 f). Yahweh has the same attitude toward these as toward those in the times of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah (Malachi 1:10 f). The Gentiles offer better ones (Malachi 1:11). The Israelites covered the altar of Yahweh with tears by their hypocritical, non-ethical actions (Malachi 2:13). They robbed God in withholding tithes and heave offerings (Malachi 3:8). It is the abuse of the cult that is denounced here, as in all the other Prophets.

A special use of the term "sacrifice" is made by Zephaniah (1:7 f), applying it to the destruction of Israel by Yahweh. Bozrah and Edom are to be victims (Isaiah 34:6); also Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 39:17, 19).

In summing up the general attitude of the prophets toward sacrifices, even G. F. Moore in Encyclopedia Biblica admits: "It is not probable that the prophets distinctly entertained the idea of a religion without a cult, a purely spiritual worship. Sacrifice may well have seemed to them the natural expression of homage and gratitude." He might have added, "and of atonement for sin, and full fellowship with God."

Continued in SACRIFICE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 3.

Sacrifice, in the Old Testament, 3

Sacrifice, in the Old Testament, 3 - Continued from SACRIFICE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 2.

VIII. Sacrifice in the "Writings."

1. Proverbs: Dates are very uncertain here. The Psalms and Proverbs extend from David and Solomon into the Persian period. The sages take the same attitude as the prophets. They enjoin the sacrifice of first-fruits (Proverbs 3:9). A feast usually follows a sacrifice of peace offerings (Proverbs 7:14). The trespass offering (?) has no meaning to fools (Proverbs 14:9), and the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination to God (Proverbs 15:8; 21:27). Righteousness and justice are more acceptable to Yahweh than sacrifices (Proverbs 21:3), yet to them sacrifices are a regular part of worship. Qoheleth speaks of sacrifices as quite the custom, and deprecates the offerings of fools (Ecclesiastes 5:1; 9:2).

2. The Psalms: The Psalmist admonishes the faithful to offer the sacrifices of righteousness, i.e. sacrifices offered in the right spirit (Psalms 4:5). The drink offerings of idolaters are well known (Psalms 16:4). Prayer is made for the acceptance of sacrifices (Psalms 20:3). It is a coveted privilege to offer them (Psalms 27:6; Psalms 84:1-4). The true relation between sacrifice and obedience is expressed in Psalms 40:6-8. As in Jeremiah 7:21 f, the emphasis is laid on obedience, without which sacrifices are worthless and repugnant to God. They are not the important thing in Israel's religion, for that religion could exist without them as in the wilderness and exile. The teaching corresponds exactly with that of the prophets and is probably late. Psalms 50:1-23 is even more emphatic. The Psalmist knows that sacrifices are in the covenant regulations (Psalms 50:5), but repudiates the idea of giving anything to God or of feeding Him (Psalms 50:12-13). Everything belongs to Him, He is not hungry, He would scorn the idea of drinking the blood of goats, etc. The idea of the cult being of any real value to God is scouted. Yet in the next verse the reader is admonished to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving and pay vows (Psalms 50:14). The sacrifices that express worship, penitence, prayer, thanksgiving and faith are acceptable. The penitent Psalmist speaks in similar terms. Sacrifices as such are no delight to God, the real sacrifice is a broken heart (Psalms 51:16 f). When the heart is right, then, as an expression of true-heartedness, devotion, repentance and faith, burnt offerings are highly acceptable (Psalms 51:19). Another Psalmist promises a freewill offering to God (Psalms 54:6; 13, 15). Sacrifices of thanksgiving are advised (Psalms 96:8; 107:22; 118:27) and promised (Psalms 116:17). Prayer is likened to the evening sacrifice (Psalms 141:2).

IX. The Idea and Efficacy of Sacrifices. That the Hebrews thoroughly believed in the efficacy of sacrifices is without doubt. What ideas they entertained regarding them is not so clear. No single theory can account for all the facts. The unbloody sacrifices were regarded as food for the Deity, or a pleasant odor, in one instance, taking the place of a bloody offering (see above). The bloody offerings present some difficulties, and hence, many different views.

1. A Gift of Food to the Deity: Included under the head of gifts of food to the Deity would be the meal and peace offerings, in so far as they were consumed by fire, the burnt offerings and the shewbread, etc. They were fire-food, the fire-distilled essence or etherealized food for God which gave Him pleasure and disposed Him favorably toward the offerer. They were intended either to appease wrath, to win favor, or to express thanks and gratitude for favors experienced. The earlier and more naive idea was probably to win the favor of the Deity by a gift. Later, other ideas were expressed in the offerings.

2. Expression of Adoration and Devotion, etc.:

The burnt offering best gave expression to the sentiments of adoration and devotion, though they may not be excluded from the meal and peace offerings. In other words, sacrifice meant worship, which is a complex exercise of the soul. Such was Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac. The daily burnt offerings were intended to represent an unbroken course of adoration and devotion, to keep the right relations with the Deity. On particular occasions, special offerings were made to insure this relation which was specially needed at that time.

3. Means of Purification from Uncleanness: The burnt and sin offerings were the principal kinds used for the purpose of purification; water being used in case of uncleanness from contact with the dead. There were three classes of uncleanness: (1) those inseparable from the sex functions of men and women; (2) those resulting from contact with a corpse; (3) the case of recovery from leprosy. Purification ceremonies were the condition of such persons enjoying the social and religious life of the community. Why they should require a sin offering when most of them occurred in the regular course of nature and could not be guarded against, can be understood only as we consider that these offenses were the effects of sin, or the weaknesses of the fleshly nature, due to sin. Such uncleannesses made the subject unfit for society, and that unfitness was an offense to God and required a piacular offering.

4. Means of Consecration to Divine Service: Consecration was of men and things. The ceremonies at the sealing of the covenant and the consecration of the Levites and of Aaron and his sons have been mentioned. The altar and furniture of the tabernacle were consecrated by the blood of the sin offering. This blood being the means of expiation, it cleansed from all defilement caused by human hands, etc. The sprinkling and smearing of the blood consecrated them to the service of God. The blood being holy, it sanctified all it touched (compare Ezekiel 45:19 f).

5. Means of Establishing a Community of Life between Worshipper and God:

In other words, it is a kind of sacral communion. The blood is the sacred cement between man and God. This is possible only because it contains the life and is appropriated by God as a symbol of the communion into which He enters with the offerer. This blood "covers" all sin and defilement in man, permits him to enter God's presence and attests the communion with Him. This is the view of Schultz, and partly that of Kautzsch, in regard to earlier ideas of sacrifice. Such a view may have been held by certain peoples in primitive times, but it does not do justice to the Levitical system.

6. View of Ritschl: The view of Ritschl is that sacrifices served as a form of self-protection from God whose presence meant destruction to a weak creature. Thus, sacrifices have no moral value and no relation to sin and defilement. They have relation only to man's creaturely weakness which is in danger of destruction as it approaches the presence of God. God's presence necessarily meant death to the creature without reference to his holiness, etc. Such a view banishes all real sense of sin, all ethical values, and furnishes no proper motives. It gives a false idea of the character of God, and is entirely out of accord with the sacred record.

7. The Sacramental View: That sacrifices were really a sacrament has been advocated by many. According to some theologians, the sacrifices were signs of spiritual realities, not only representing but sealing and applying spiritual blessings, and their efficacy was proportionate to the faith of the offerer. By some Roman Catholic theologians it is held that the Passover was especially of a sacramental character, corresponding to the Lord's Supper. The purificatory rites corresponded to penance and the consecrating sacrifices to the sacrament of ordination. Bahr says that the acceptance of the sacrifice by Yahweh and His gift of sanctification to the worshippers give to the sacrifice the character of a sacramental act. Cave also speaks of them as having a sacramental significance, while refuting the position of Bahr. Though there may be a slight element of truth in some of these ideas, it is not the idea expressed in the cult, and seems to read into the ritual theology of theologians themselves. This view is closely allied to a phase of the following view (see Paterson,HDB ,IV ).

8. Symbol or Expression of Prayer: That it is a symbol or expression of prayer is held by Maurice and to some extent by Schultz. Thus, the sacrifices are supposed to be symbols of the religious sentiment, which are the conditions of acceptance with God. The victim serves as an index of what is in the worshipper's heart, and its virtue is exhausted when it is presented to God. Thus, it may express spiritual aspiration or supplication, hatred of sin and surrender to God with confession and supplication. Bahr holds that a valuable and unblemished victim is selected as symbolical of the excellence and purity to which the offerer aspires, the death is necessary to procure life which may be offered to God, and the sprinkling of the blood is the presentation to God of the life still resident in the blood. Schultz thinks that the sin offering was distinctively purifying. "Hence, the real ground of purification is that God accepts the sacrifice and thereby enters into communion with the sinner, granting him actual pardon, and that man in this offering enjoined by God as the embodied prayer of a penitent expresses his confession, his regrets and his petition for forgiveness." While there is an element of truth in this, and it is particularly applicable to the burnt offering, it does not embrace all the facts. It represents the views of the prophets and psalmists more than that of the Levitical code.

9. View of Kautzsch: Kautzsch holds that the efficacy of sacrifices consists in this: "God has connected the accomplishment of atonement with the obedient discharge of the sacrificial prescriptions; whoever fulfils these and gets the priest to perform the atoning usages, is forgiven. The ritual, especially the presenting of the blood, is the indispensable condition of atonement, but it is not synonymous. Forgiveness of sin flows from the grace of God as taught by the prophets, only with them it is unnecessary, but with the Priestly Code it is necessary." Thus Kautzsch teaches a fundamental contradiction between the prophets and the Law, which is utterly wrong and is made necessary by first turning the history upside down and making the Priestly Code a hideous anachronism. He says, "That the process of atonement is connected with the presenting of blood, explains itself naturally as a powerful after-influence of primitive sacrificial usages, in which the presenting of blood had a different meaning. It is a symbolic (not real) satisfaction, as through the animal's life symbolic expression is given to the fact that the sinner's life is forfeited to God. But the main idea is that God has commanded it" (HDB, V, 721a). The half-truths in these statements will be obvious to most readers.

10. Vicarious Expiation Theory; Objections: The theory that sacrifices were a vicarious expiation of sin and defilement, by a victim whose life is forfeited instead of the sinner's, is the only one that will complete the Levitical idea of sacrifices. This of course applies especially to the sin offering. While there is an element of truth in the gift-theory, the prayer and sacramental theories and others, including that of Kautzsch, the idea of a vicarious suffering is necessary to complete the conception. Oehler recognizes the force of the prayer-theory, but advances to the idea that in sacrifices man places the life of a pure, innocent, sacrificial animal between himself and God, because he is unable to approach God on account of his sinfulness and impurity. Thus it becomes a kopher for him, to cover his sin. This is not a punishment inflicted on the animal, although in the case of uncertain homicide it is (Deuteronomy 21:1-9). The law does not lay the emphasis upon the slaughter, but on the shedding of the blood and the sprinkling of it on certain articles. The slaughter is of course presupposed. The altar is not regarded as a place of execution, it is the means for "covering" the sins of the covenant people, a gracious ordinance of God and well-pleasing to Him. But the gift can please God only as the gift of one who has given himself up to Him; therefore the ritual must represent this self-surrender, the life of the clean and guiltless animal in place of the impure and sinful soul of the offerer, and this pure soul, coming in between the offerer and the Holy God, lets Him see at the altar a pure life by which the impure life is covered. In the same way the pure element serves to cover the pollutions of the sanctuary and the altar, etc. Its meaning is specific, it is the self-sacrifice of the offerer vicariously accomplished. This self-sacrifice necessarily involves suffering and punishment, which is inflicted on the beast to which the guilt and sin are imputed, not imparted (see Oehler, Old Testament Theology, 278 f).

Objections have been raised by Dillmann, Kautzsch, and others on the ground that it could not have been vicarious because sacrifices were not allowed for sins which merited death, but only for venial transgressions (Numbers 15:30). Certainly, but the entire sacrificial system was for those who were in the covenant, who did not commit sins that merited death, and was never intended as a penal substitute, because the sins of those in the covenant were not of a penal nature. The sacrifices were "to cover" the sin and defilement of the offerer, not the deserved death-penalty of one who broke the covenant. Again, they object, a cereal offering may atone, and this excludes a penal substitute. But sacrifices were not strictly penal, and the cereal was distinctly an exception in case of the very poor, and the exception proves the rule. In any case it represented the self-sacrifice of the offerer, and that was the important thing. Further, the victim was slain by the offerer and not by the priest, whereas it should have been put to death by God's representative. This carries no weight whatever, as the essential thing was a sacrifice, and priests were not necessary for that. A more serious objection is that in the case of penal substitution, by which the sin and guilt are transferred to the animal, the flesh of that animal is regarded as most holy and to be eaten by the priests only, whereas it would necessarily be regarded as laden with guilt and curse, and hence, polluted and unfit for use. This is a pure assumption. In the first place, the substitution was not strictly penal, and, secondly, there is no hint that actual pollution is conveyed to the flesh of the animal or to the blood. Even if it were so, the shedding of the blood would expiate the sin and guilt, wipe out the pollution, and the flesh would be in no way affected. On the contrary, the flesh, having been the vehicle for the blood which has accomplished such a sacred and meritorious service, would necessarily be regarded as most holy. All the animal would be holy, rather than polluted, since it had performed such a holy service. Kautzsch's objection thus appears puerile. The ritual of the Day of Atonement presents all these features. It is distinctly stated that the high priest confesses the iniquities of the children of Israel over the scapegoat, and that the goat carries this guilt away to the desert. Its blood is not shed, it is wholly unclean, and the man leading it away is unclean. This is undeniably a vicarious act. In the case of the other goat, a sin offering, the sin and guilt are imputed to it, but the life is taken and thus the expiation is made and the flesh of the victim used in such a holy service is most holy.

That this view of a vicarious expiation was generally accepted is evident on every hand. There was no need of a theoretical explanation in the cult; it was self-evident; as Holtzmann says, "the most external indeed, but also the simplest and most generally intelligible and the readiest answer to the nature of expiation" (New Testament Theology, I, 68). This view is amply corroborated by the researches of S. I. Curtiss in his Primitive Semitic Religion of Today. By searching questions he found that the fundamental idea of bloody sacrifices was that the victim took the place of the man, redeemed him, or atoned for him as a substitute. The "bursting forth of the blood" was the essential thing (see pp. 218 f).

11. Typology of Sacrifice: The typology of sacrifice has been much discussed. There can be no question that, from the standpoint of the New Testament, many of the sacrifices were typical. They pre-figured, and designedly so, the great sacrifice of Christ. Thus they could not really take away sin; they were in that sense unreal. But the question is, were they typical to the people of Israel? Did Moses and the priests and prophets and people understand that they were merely figures, adumbrations of the true Sacrifice to come, which alone could take away sin? Did they understand that their Messiah was to be sacrificed, His blood shed, to make an atonement for them, and render their divinely-given means of atonement all unreal? The answer must be an emphatic "No." There is no hint that their minds were directed to think of the Coming One as their sacrifice, foreshadowed by their offerings. That was the one thing the nation could not and would not understand, and to this day the cross is their chief stumblingblock. The statement that the Servant is to be a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10) is the nearest approach to it, but this is far from saying that the whole sacrificial system was understood as foreshadowing that event. The great prophets all speak of a sacrificial system in full vogue in the Messianic age.

We prefer to regard the sacrificial system as great religious educational system, adapted to the capacity of the people at that age, intended to develop right conceptions of sin, proper appreciation of the holiness of God, correct ideas of how to approach God, a familiarity with the idea of sacrifice as the fundamental thing in redemption, life, and service to God and man.

LITERATURE.

Only a Selection Is Attempted:

Articles in Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition; Encyclopedia Biblica (G. F. Moore); HDB (Paterson); RE and Sch-Herz (Orelli); Jewish Encyclopedia; McClintock and Strong, etc.; Murray's Bible Dict.; Standard BD, etc. Kautzsch, Jastrow and Wiedermann in HDB; article on "Comparative Religion" in Sch-Herz; Old Testament Theologies of Oehler, Dillmann, Smend, Schultz, Davidson, Koenig, etc.

On Sacrifices in General:

Wellhausen, Reste des arabischen Heidenthums; W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites; J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, II, III; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture; E. Westermarck, Origin of Moral Ideas; H. Hubert et Mauss, Annee sociologique, II; L. Marillier, Revue de l'histoire des religions, XXXVI, 208; S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion of Today.

Biblical Sacrifices:

F. Bahr, Symbolik des Mosdischen Kultus; J. H. Kurtz, Der alttestamentliche Opfercultus; A. Stewart, The Mosaic Sacrifices; J. G. Murphy, Sacrifice as Set Forth in Scripture; A. Cave, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice; F. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice; J. M. P. Smith, Biblical Doctrine of Atonement. See also: Schultz,AJT , 1900, 257 ff; Smoller, Studien und Kritiken, 1891; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism; Pentateuchal Studies; Driver, ERE,VI .

J. J. Reeve

Sacrilege

Sacrilege - sak'-ri-lej: For "commit sacrilege" in Romans 2:22 (the King James Version and the English Revised Version margin), the Revised Version (British and American) has "rob temples," which more exactly expresses the meaning of the verb (hierosuleo; compare Acts 19:37, "robbers of temples" (which see)). The noun occurs in 2 Maccabees 4:39 (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) for the corresponding form hierosulema.

Sadamias

Sadamias - sad-a-mi'-as: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SALEMAS (which see).

Sadas

Sadas - sa'-das: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) ASTAD (which see).

Saddeus

Saddeus - sa-de'-us: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) LODDEUS (which see).

Saddle

Saddle - sad'-'-l: As noun (merkabh, "a riding seat") the word occurs in Leviticus 15:9 (margin "carriage"); ordinarily it is used as a verb (chabhash, literally, to "bind up" or "gird about"), to saddle an ass (Genesis 22:3; Numbers 22:21; Judges 19:10, etc.).

Sadducees

Sadducees - sad'-u-sez (tsadduqim; Saddoukaioi):

I. INTRODUCTORY

1. Name: Rival Etymologies. Probably from Zadok the High Priest

2. Authorities: New Testament, Josephus, Talmud (primary), Church Fathers (secondary)

II. ORIGIN AND HISTORY

1. Early Notices in Josephus: Alleged Relation to Differences between Prophets and Priests

2. Tendencies of Sadducees toward Hellenism as Causing Rise of Chacidhim

3. Favored by Alexander Janneus: Put in the Background by Alexandra Salome

4. From a Political Party, but also Became a Religious Party

5. Fear Roman Interference if Jesus' Messianic Claims Are Recognized

6. Sadducees Antagonistic to the Apostles: Pharisees More Favorable

7. Fall of Sadducean Party at Outbreak of Jewish War

III. DOCTRINES OF THE SADDUCEES

1. Laid Stress on Ceremonial Exactness

2. Disbelief in the Spiritual World, in a Resurrection, and in Providence: Their Materialism

3. Alleged Belief in Canonicity of the Pentateuch Alone

4. Relation to Epicureanism

IV. CHARACTER OF SADDUCEES

1. Characterized as Rough and Boorish

2. Talmudic Account of the Sadducees

3. Relation to Temple and Worship was a Heathenish One

4. Sadducean Literature

V. RELATION OF SADDUCEES TO JESUS

1. Less Denounced by Jesus than the Pharisees

2. Attitude of Sadducees to Jesus

This prominent Jewish sect, though not so numerous as their opponents, the Pharisees, by their wealth and the priestly descent of many of them had an influence which fully balanced that of their more popular rivals. They were a political party, of priestly and aristocratic tendency, as against the more religious and democratic Pharisees.

I. Introductory. 1. Name: Rival Etymologies. Probably from Zadok the High Priest:

The Talmud form suggests derivation from the name of their founder, but the form in New Testament and Josephus would imply connection with the verb "to be righteous." The probability is, that the name is derived from some person named "Zadok." The most prominent Zadok in history was the Davidic high priest (2 Samuel 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kings 1:35), from whom all succeeding high priests claimed to descend. It is in harmony with this, that in the New Testament the Sadducees are the party to whom the high priests belonged. On the authority of 'Abhoth de-Rabbi Nathan (circa 1000 AD) another Zadok is asserted to be he from whom the Sadducees received their name. He was a disciple of Antigonus of Socho (circa 250 BC) who taught that love to God should be absolutely disinterested (Pirqe 'Abhoth, i.3). 'Abhoth de-Rabbi Nathan's account of the derivation of the Sadduceanism from this teaching is purely an imaginary deduction (Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers(2), 112). The majority of authoritative writers prefer to derive the name from Zadok, the colleague of Abiathar, the contemporary of David.

2. Authorities: New Testament, Josephus, Talmud (primary), Church Fathers (secondary):

Our main authorities for the teaching of the Sadducees are the New Testament and Josephus. According to the former, the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body, and did not believe in angels or spirits (Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8). More can be learned from Josephus, but his evidence is to be received with caution, as he was a Pharisee and, moreover, had the idea that the Sadducees were to be paralleled with the Epicureans. The Talmud is late. Before even the Mishna was committed to writing (circa 200 AD) the Sadducees had ceased to exist; before the Gemara was completed (circa 700 AD) every valid tradition of their opinions must have vanished. Further, the Talmud is Pharisaic. The Fathers, Origen, Hippolytus, Epiphanius and Jerome, have derived their information from late Pharisaic sources.

II. Origin and History. 1. Early Notices in Josephus: Alleged Relation to Differences between Prophets and Priests:

Josephus describes the Sadducees along with the contemporary sects, the Pharisees and the Essenes (Josephus, Ant, XIII, v, 9; X, vi 2; XVIII, i, 4, 5; BJ, II, viii, 14). His earliest notice of them is after his account of the treaties of Jonathan with the Romans and the Lacedemonians. He indicates his belief that the parties were ancient; but if so, they must have formerly had other names. It has been suggested that the earlier form of the conflict between the Sadducees and Pharisees was opposition between the priests and the prophets. This, however, is not tenable; in the Southern Kingdom there was no such opposition; whatever the state of matters in the Northern Kingdom, it could have had no influence on opinion in Judea and Galilee in the time of our Lord. By others the rivalry is supposed to be inherited from that between the scribes and the priests, but Ezra, the earliest scribe, in the later sense of the term, was a priest with strong sacerdotal sympathies.

2. Tendencies of Sadducees toward Hellenism as Causing Rise of Chacidhim:

Probably the priestly party only gradually crystallized into the sect of the Sadducees. After the return from the exile, the high priest drew to himself all powers, civil and religious. To the Persian authorities he was as the king of the Jews. The high priest and those about him were the persons who had to do with the heathen supreme government and the heathen nationalities around; this association would tend to lessen their religious fervor, and, by reaction, this roused the zeal of a section of the people for the law. With the Greek domination the power of the high priests at home was increased, but they became still more subservient to their heathen masters, and were the leaders in the Hellenizing movement. They took no part in the Maccabean struggle, which was mainly supported by their opponents the chacidhim, as they were called (the Hasideans of 1 Maccabees 2:42, etc.). When the chacidhim, having lost sympathy with the Maccabeans, sought to reconcile themselves to the priestly party, Alcimus, the legitimate high priest, by his treachery and cruelty soon renewed the breach. The Hasmoneans then were confirmed in the high-priesthood, but were only lukewarmly supported by the chacidhim.

3. Favored by Janneus: Put in the Background by Alexandra Salome:

The division between the Hasmoneans and the chacidhim, or, as they were now called, Pharisees, culminated in the insult offered by Eleazar to John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest (Josephus, Ant, XIII, x, 5). Alexander Janneus, the son of Hyrcanus, became a violent partisan of the Sadducees, and crucified large numbers of the Pharisees. Toward the end of his life he fell out of sympathy with the Sadducees, and on his deathbed recommended his wife Alexandra Salome, who as guardian to his sons succeeded him, to favor the Pharisees, which she did. In the conflict between her two sons, John Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, the Sadducees took the side of Aristobulus, the younger and abler brother. So long as the contest was between Jews, the Sadducean candidate prevailed. When the Romans were called in, they gave the advantage to Hyrcanus.

4. From a Political, Become Also a Religious Party:

Thrown into the background by the overthrow of their candidate for the high-priesthood, they soon regained their influence. They allied themselves with the Herodiana who had supported Hyrcanus, but were subservient to Rome. Though they were not theological at first, they became so, to defend their policy against the attacks of the Pharisees. A historic parallel may be found in the Cavaliers of the reign of Charles I, as over against the Puritans.

5. Fear Roman Interference if Jesus' Messianic Claims Are Recognized:

The Sadducees at first regarded the struggle between our Lord and the Pharisees as a matter with which they had no concern. It was not until our Lord claimed to be the Messiah, and the excitement of the people consequent on this proved likely to draw the attention of the Roman authorities, that they intervened. Should Tiberius learn that there was widespread among the Jews the belief in the coming of a Jewish king who was to rule the world, and that one had appeared who claimed to be this Messiah, very soon would the quasi-independence enjoyed by the Jews be taken from them, and with this the influence of the Sadducees would depart. An oligarchy is proverbially sensitive to anything that threatens its stability; a priesthood is unmeasured in its vindictiveness; and the Sadducees were a priestly oligarchy. Hence, it is not wonderful that only the death of Jesus would satisfy them.

6. Sadducees Antagonistic to the Apostles: Pharisees More Favorable:

After the resurrection, the Pharisees became less hostile to the followers of Christ; but the Sadducees maintained their attitude of suspicion and hatred (Acts 4:1). Although a Pharisee, it was as agent of the Sadducean high priest that Paul persecuted the believers. The Sadducees gained complete ascendancy in the Sanhedrin, and later, under the leadership of Annas, or as he is sometimes called by Josephus, Ananus, the high priest, they put James the brother of our Lord to death (Josephus, Ant, XX, ix, 1) with many others, presumably Christians. The Pharisees were against these proceedings; and even sent messengers to meet Albinus who was coming to succeed Festus as governor to entreat him to remove Annas from the highpriesthood.

7. The Fall of Sadducean Party at Outbreak of Jewish War:

With the outbreak of the Jewish war, the Sadducees with their allies the Herodians were driven into the background by the Zealots, John of Gischala and Simon ben Gioras. Annas and Joshua, also called high priest by Josephus, were both put to death by the Zealots and their Idumean allies (Josephus, BJ, IV, v, 2). With the destruction of the temple and the fall of the Jewish state the Sadducean party disappeared.

III. Doctrines of the Sadducees. 1. Laid Stress on Ceremonial Exactness: As the sacerdotal party, the Sadducees laid great stress on the ceremonial of sacrifice, and rejected the changes introduced by their opponents unless these found support in the words of the Law.

2. Disbelief in the Spiritual World, in a Resurrection, and in Providence: Their Materialism:

The most prominent doctrine of the Sadducees was the denial of the immortality of the soul and of the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees believed that Moses had delivered these doctrines to the elders, and that they had in turn handed them on to their successors. The Sadducees rejected all these traditions. From Acts (23:8) we learn that they believed in neither "angel or spirit." As appearances of angels are mentioned in the Law, it is difficult to harmonize their reverence for the Law with this denial. They may have regarded these angelophanies as theophanies. Josephus distinctly asserts (Ant., XVIII, i, 4) that the Sadducees believe that the soul dies with the body. They deny, he says, divine providence (BJ, II, viii, 14). Their theology might be called "religion within the limits of mere sensation."

3. Alleged Belief in Canonicity of the Pentateuch Alone:

The Fathers, Hippolytus, Origen and Jerome, credit the Sadducees with regarding the Pentateuch as alone canonical (Hipp., Haer., ix.24; Orig., Contra Celsum, i.49; on Matthew 22:24-31; Jerome on Matthew 22:31-32). This idea may be due to a false identification of the views of the Sadducees with those of the Samaritans. Had they rejected all the rest of Scripture, it is hardly possible that Josephus would have failed to notice this. The Talmud does not mention this among their errors. It is certain that they gave more importance to the Pentateuch than to any other of the books of Scripture. Hence, our Lord, in the passage commented on by Origen and Jerome, appeals to the Law rather than to the Prophets or the Psalms. It follows from the little value they put upon the Prophets that they had no sympathy with the Messianic hopes of the Pharisees.

4. Relation to Epicureanism: It need hardly be said that there was no real connection between Sadduceanism and the doctrines of Epicurus. There was a superficial resemblance which was purely accidental. Their favor for Hellenism would give a color to this identification.

IV. Character of Sadducees. 1. Characterized as Rough and Boorish: Josephus says that while the Pharisees have amiable manners and cultivate concord among all, the Sadducees are "very boorish" (BJ, II, viii, 14). This want of manners is not a characteristic usually associated with an aristocracy, or with supple diplomats, yet it suits what we find in the New Testament. The cruel horseplay indulged in when our Lord was tried before the irregular meeting of the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:67-68), the shout of Ananias at the trial of Paul before the same tribunal to "smite him on the mouth," show them to be rough and overbearing. What Josephus relates of the conduct of Annas (or Ananus) in regard to James, above referred to, agrees with this. Josephus, however, does not always speak in such condemnatory terms of Ananus--in Josephus, Jewish Wars (IV, v, 2) he calls him "a man venerable and most just." Only the violence which, as Josephus relates in the chapter immediately preceding that from which we have quoted, Ananus resorted to against the Zealots better suits the earlier verdict of Josephus than the later. As to their general character Josephus mentions that when the Sadducees became magistrates they conformed their judgments to Pharisaic opinion, otherwise they would not have been tolerated (Ant., XVIII, i, 4).

2. Talmudic Account of the Sadducees: As noted above, the Talmud account is untrustworthy, late and Pharisaic. The Gemara from which most of the references are taken was not committed to writing till 7 centuries after Christ--when the traditions concerning the Sadducees, such as had survived, had filtered through 20 generations of Pharisaism. Despite this lengthened time and suspicious medium, there may be some truth in the representations of the Talmudic rabbin. In Pesachim 57a it is said, "Woe's me on account of the house of Boothus, woe's me on account of their spears; woe's me on account of the house of Hanun (Annas), woe's me on account of their serpent brood; woe's me on account of the house of Kathros, woe's me on account of their pen; woe's me on account of the house of Ishmael ben Phabi; woe's me on account of their fists. They are high priests and their sons are treasurers of the temple, and their sons-in-law, assistant treasurers; and their servants beat the people with sticks." As these are Sadducean names, this passage exhibits Pharisaic tradition as to the habits of the Sadducees.

3. Relation to Temple and Worship a Heathenish One:

The Sadducean high priests made Hophni and Phinehas too much their models. Annas and his sons had booths in the courts of the temple for the sale of sacrificial requisites, tables for money-changers, as ordinary coins had to be changed into the shekels of the sanctuary. From all these the priests of the high-priestly caste derived profit at the expense of desecrating the temple (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, I, 371 ff). They did not, as did the Pharisees, pay spiritual religion the homage of hypocrisy; they were frankly irreligious. While officials of religion, they were devoid of its spirit. This, however, represents their last stage.

4. Sadducean Literature: The favor for the memory of John Hyrcanus shown by the writer of 1 Maccabees (16:23,14) renders probable Geiger's opinion that the author was a Sadducee. He shows the party in its best form: his outlook on life is eminently sane, and his history is trustworthy. He has sympathy with the patriotism of the Hasideans, but none with the religious scruples which led them to desert Judas Maccabeus. That the writer of Ecclesiasticus from his silence as to the national expectation of a Messiah and the hope of a future life was also a Sadducee, is almost certain.

V. Relation of Sadducees to Jesus. 1. Less Denounced by Jesus than the Pharisees: As the doctrines and practices of the Sadducees were quite alien from the teaching of our Lord and the conduct He enjoined, it is a problem why He did not denounce them more frequently than He did. Indeed He never denounces the Sadducees except along with their opponents the Pharisees; whereas He frequently denounces the Pharisees alone. As His position, both doctrinal and practical, was much nearer that of the Pharisees, it was necessary that He should clearly mark Himself off from them. There was not the same danger of His position being confused with that of the Sadducees. Josephus informs us that the Sadducees had influence with the rich; Jesus drew His adherents chiefly from the poor, from whom also the Pharisees drew. The latter opposed Him all the more that He was sapping their source of strength; hence, He had to defend Himself against them. Further, the Gospels mainly recount our Lord's ministry in Galilee, whereas the Sadducees were chiefly to be found in Jerusalem and its neighborhood; hence, there may have been severe denunciations of the Sadducees that have not come down to us.

2. Attitude of Sadducees to Jesus: The Sadducees probably regarded Jesus as harmless fanatic who by His denunciations was weakening the influence of the Pharisees. Only when His claim to be the Messiah brought Him within the sphere of practical politics did they desire to intervene. When they did determine to come into conflict with Jesus, they promptly decreed His arrest and death; only the arrest was to be secret, "lest a tumult arise among the people" (Matthew 26:5). In their direct encounter with our Lord in regard to the resurrection (Matthew 22:25 ff; Mark 12:20 ff; Luke 20:29 ff), there is an element of contempt implied in the illustration which they bring, as if till almost the end they failed to take Him seriously. For Literature see PHARISEES.

J. E. H. Thomson

Sadduk

Sadduk - sad'-uk (Codex Alexandrinus (Fritzsche), Saddoukos; Codex Vaticanus Saddouloukos; the King James Version Sadduc): The high priest, an ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdras 8:2) = "Zadok" in Ezra 7:2 = "Sadoc" in 2 Esdras 1:1.

Sadoc

Sadoc - sa'-dok:

(1) (Latin Sadoch): An ancestor of Ezra (2 Esdras 1:1) = "Zadok" in Ezra 7:2 = "Sadduk" in 1 Esdras 8:2.

(2) (Sadok): A descendant of Zerubbabel and ancestor of Jesus (Matthew 1:14).

Saffron

Saffron - saf'-run (karkom; krokos): Identical with the Arabic kurqum, the same as za`faran, "saffron." The source of the true saffron is Crocus sativus (Natural Order, Indaceae), a plant cultivated in Palestine; there are 8 wild varieties in all of which, as in the cultivated species, the orange-colored styles and stigmas yield the yellow dye, saffron. Song of Solomon 4:14 probably refers to the C. sativus. There is a kind of bastard saffron plant, the Carthamus tinctorius (Natural Order, Compositae), of which the orange-colored flowers yield a dye like saffron.

E. W. G. Masterman

Sail; Sailor

Sail; Sailor - sal, sal'-er.

See SHIPS AND BOATS,II , 2, (3);III , 2.

Saints

Saints - sants: In the King James Version 3 words are thus rendered: (1) qadhosh (in Dan the same root occurs several times in its Aramaic form, qaddish); (2) chacidh, and (3) hagioi. Of these words (2) has in general the meaning of righteousness or goodness, while (1) and (3) have the meaning of consecration and divine claim and ownership. They are not primarily words of character, like chacidh, but express a relation to God as being set apart for His own. Wherever qadhosh refers to angels, the rendering "holy one" or "holy ones" has been substituted in the Revised Version (British and American) for the King James Version "saint" or "saints," which is the case also in Psalms 106:16 margin (compare Psalms 34:9), and in 1 Samuel 2:9, as the translation of chacidh.

While hagioi occurs more frequently in the New Testament than does qadhosh in the Old Testament, yet both are applied with practical uniformity to the company of God's people rather than to any individual. Perhaps the rendering "saints" cannot be improved, but it is necessary for the ordinary reader constantly to guard against the idea that New Testament saintship was in any way a result of personal character, and consequently that it implied approval of moral attainment already made. Such a rendering as "consecrate ones," for example, would bring out more clearly the relation to God which is involved, but, besides the fact that it is not a happy translation, it might lead to other errors, for it is not easy to remember that consecration--the setting apart of the individual as one of the company whom God has in a peculiar way as His own--springs not from man, but from God Himself, and that consequently it is in no way something optional, and admits of no degrees of progress, but, on the contrary, is from the beginning absolute duty. It should also be noted that while, as has been said, to be a saint is not directly and primarily to be good but to be set apart by God as His own, yet the godly and holy character ought inevitably and immediately to result. When God consecrates and claims moral beings for Himself and His service, He demands that they should go on to be fit for and worthy of the relation in which He has placed them, and so we read of certain actions as performed "worthily of the saints" (Romans 16:2) and as such "as becometh saints" (Ephesians 5:3). The thought of the holy character of the "saints," which is now so common as almost completely to obscure the real thought of the New Testament writers, already lay in their thinking very close to their conception of saintship as consecration by God to be His own.

David Foster Estes

Sala, Salah

Sala, Salah - sa'-la (shelach, "a missile," "petition"; Sala): A son of Arpachshad (the King James Version Genesis 10:24; 11:13 ff; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24). Luke 3:35-36 follows the Septuagint of Genesis 10:24; 11:12 = SHELAH (which see).

Salamiel

Salamiel - sa-la'-mi-el (Codex Vaticanus Salamiel; Codex Alexandrinus Samamiel): An ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1) = the King James Version "Samuel" = "Shelumiel."

Salamis

Salamis - sal'-a-mis (Salamis):

1. Site: A town on the east coast of Cyprus, situated some 3 miles to the North of the medieval and modern Famagusta. It lay near the river Pediaeus, at the eastern extremity of the great plain of the Mesorea, which runs far into the interior of the island toward Nicosia (Lefkosia), the present capital. It possessed a good harbor and was the most populous and flourishing town of Cyprus in the Hellenic and Roman periods, carrying on a vigorous trade with the ports of Cilicia and Syria. Its population was mixed, consisting of Greek and Phoenician elements. The former, however, gave its tone and color to the city, and the chief cult and temple were those of Salaminian Zeus.

2. Early History: Tradition represented Salamis as rounded soon after the fall of Troy by Teucer, the prince of Greek archers according to the narrative of the Iliad, who named it after his home, the island of Salamis off the Attic coast. In the 6th century BC it figures as an important Hellenic city, ruled by a line of kings reputed to be descended from Teucer and strengthened by an alliance with Cyrene (Herodotus iv.162). Gorgus, who was on the throne in 498 BC, refused to join the Ionic revolt against Persia, but the townsmen, led by his brother Onesilus, took up arms in the struggle for freedom. A crushing defeat, however, inflicted udder the walls of Salamis, restored the island to its Persian overlords, who reinstated Gorgus as a vassal prince (Herodotus v.103 ff). In 449 a Greek fleet under Athenian leadership defeated the Phoenician navy, which was in the service of Persia, off Salamis; but the Athenian withdrawal which followed the battle led to a decided anti-Hellenic reaction, until the able and vigorous rule of the Salaminian prince Euagoras, who was a warm friend of the Athenians (Isocrates, Euag.) and a successful champion of Hellenism. In 306 a second great naval battle was fought off Salamis, in which Demetrius Poliorcetes defeated the forces of Ptolemy I (Soter), king of Egypt. But 11 years later the town came into Ptolemy's hands and, with the rest of the island, remained an appanage of the Egyptian kingdom until the incorporation of Cyprus in the Roman Empire (58 BC).

3. Visit of the Apostles: When Barnabas and Paul, accompanied by John Mark, set out on their 1st missionary journey, they sailed from Seleucia, the seaport of Antioch, and landed at Salamis, about 130 miles distant, as the harbor nearest to the Syrian coast. There they preached the gospel in the "synagogues of the Jews" (Acts 13:5); the phrase is worth noting as pointing to the existence of several synagogues and thus of a large Jewish community in Salamis. Of work among the Gentiles we hear nothing, nor is any indication given either of the duration of the apostles' visit or of the success of their mission; but it would seem that after a short stay they proceeded "through the whole island" (Acts 13:6 the Revised Version (British and American)) to Paphos. The words seem to imply that they visited all, or at least most, of the towns in which there were Jewish communities. Paul did not return to Salamis, but Barnabas doubtless went there on his 2nd missionary journey (Acts 15:39), and tradition states that he was martyred there in Nero's reign, on the site marked by the monastery named after him.

4. Later History: In 116 AD the Jews in Cyprus rose in revolt and massacred 240,000 Greeks and Romans. The rising was crushed with the utmost severity by Hadrian. Salamis was almost depopulated, and its destruction was afterward consummated by earthquakes in 332 and 342 AD. It was rebuilt, though on a much smaller scale, by the emperor Constantius II (337-61 AD) under the name Constantia, and became the metropolitan see of the island. The most famous of its bishops was Epiphanius, the staunch opponent of heresy, who held the see from 367 to 403. In 647 the city was finally destroyed by the Saracens. Considerable remains of ancient buildings still remain on the site; an account of the excavations carried on there in 1890 by Messrs. J. A.R. Munro and H.A. Tubbs under the auspices of the Cyprus Exploration Fund will be found in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, XII, 59-198.

M. N. Tod

Salasadai

Salasadai - sal-a-sad'-a-i (Codex Alexandrinus Salasadai; Codex Vaticanus Sarasadai, Sarisadai): An ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1).

Salathiel

Salathiel - sa-la'-thi-el:

(1) (Salathiel): the King James Version; Greek form of "Shealtiel" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)). The father of Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:5, 48, 56; 6:2; Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

(2) Revised Version: Another name of Esdras (2 Esdras 3:1, "Salathiel").

Sale

Sale - sal (mimkar): The word is used: (1) in the sense of the transaction (Leviticus 25:50); (2) in the sense of the limit of time involved in the transaction (Leviticus 25:27); (3) in the sense of the price paid in the transaction (Deuteronomy 18:8), though it may be the same as (1) above.

Salecah; Salcah, Salchah

Salecah; Salcah, Salchah - sal'-e-ka, sal'-ka (calekhah; Codex Vaticanus Sekchai, Acha, Sela Codex Alexandrinus Elcha, Aselcha, Selcha): This place first appears in Deuteronomy 3:10 as marking the eastern boundary of Bashan. It is named as one of the cities in which Og, king of Bashan, ruled (Joshua 12:5). It must certainly have been included in the portion given to the half-tribe of Manasseh, "all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan," although it is not named among the cities that fell to him (Joshua 13:29 ff). At a later time we are told that Gad dwelt over against the Reubenites in the land of Bashan unto Salecah (1 Chronicles 5:11). The boundaries of the tribes probably changed from time to time.

The ancient city is represented by the modern Qalkhad, a city in a high and strong position at the southern end of Jebel ed-Druze (the Mountain of Bashan). On a volcanic hill rising some 300 ft. above the town, in what must have been the crater, stands the castle. The view from the battlements, as the present writer can testify, is one of the finest East of the Jordan, including the rich hollow of the Chauran, Mt. Hermon, and all the intervening country to the mountains of Samaria, with vast reaches of the desert to the South and to the East. The old Roman roads are still clearly seen running without curve or deviation across the country to Bozrah and Der'ah, away to the Southeast over the desert to Kal`at el-`Azraq, and eastward to the Persian Gulf. The castle was probably built by the Romans. Restored by the Arabs, it was a place of strength in Crusading times. It has now fallen on evil days. The modern town, containing many ancient houses, lies mainly on the slopes Southeast of the castle. The inhabitants are Druzes, somewhat noted for turbulence.

In the recent rising of the Druzes (1911) the place suffered heavily from bombardment by the Turks. For water-supply it is entirely dependent on cisterns filled during the rainy season.

W. Ewing

Salem (1)

Salem (1) - sa'-lem (shalem; Salem): The name of the city of which Melchizedek was king (Genesis 14:18; Hebrews 7:1-2; compare Psalms 76:2).

1. Identification and Meaning: To all appearance it lay near "the Vale of Shaveh," described as "the King's Vale." The general opinion among the Jews was that Salem was the same as Jerusalem, as stated by Josephus (Ant., I, x, 2), who adds (VII, iii, 2) that it was known as Solyma (Saluma, variants, according to Whiston, Salem and Hierosolyma) in the time of Abraham. It was also reported that the city and its temple were called Solyma by Homer, and he adds that the name in Hebrew means "security." This identification with Jerusalem was accepted by Onkelos and all the Targums, as well as by the early Christians. The Samaritans have always identified Salem with Salim, East of Nablus, but Jewish and Christian tradition is more likely to be correct, supported, as it is, by Psalms 76:2.

2. Testimony of Tell el-Amarna Tablets: The testimony of the Tell el-Amarna Letters is apparently negative. Knudtzon's number 287 mentions "the land" and "the lands of Urusalim," twice with the prefix for "city"; number 289 likewise has this prefix twice; and number 290 refers to "the city" or "a city of the land Urusalim called Bit-Ninip" Tablets (Beth-Anusat (?)). As there is no prefix of any kind before the element salim, it is not probable that this is the name of either a man (the city's founder) or a god (like the Assyrian Sulmanu). The form in Sennacherib's inscriptions (compare Taylor Cylinder,III , 50), Ursalimmu, gives the whole as a single word in the nominative, the double "m" implying that the "i" was long. As the Assyrians pronounced "s" as "sh", it is likely that the Urusalimites did the same, hence, the Hebrew yerushalaim, with "sh".

See JERUSALEM.

T. G. Pinches

Salem (2)

Salem (2) - (Salamos; the King James Version Salum): An ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdras 8:1) = "Shallum" in Ezra 7:2 = "Salemas" in 2 Esdras 1:1.

Salemas

Salemas - sal'-e-mas, sa-le'-mas (Latin Salame; the King James Version Sadamias): An ancestor of Ezra (2 Esdras 1:1) = "Shallum" in Ezra 7:2; called also "Salem" in 1 Esdras 8:1.

Salim

Salim - sa'-lim (Saleim): A place evidently well known, since the position of Aenon, the springs where John was baptizing, was defined by reference to it: they were "near to Salim" (John 3:23). It must be sought on the West of the Jordan, as will be seen from comparison of John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40. Many identifications have been proposed: e.g. that of Alford with Shilhim and Ain in the South of Judah; that of Busching with `Ain Karim, and that of Barclay, who would place Salim in Wady Suleim near `Anata, making Aenon the springs in Wady Far`ah. These are all ruled out by their distance from the district where John is known to have been at work. If there were no other objection to that suggested by Conder (Tent Work, 49 f) following Robinson (BR, III, 333) with Salim in the plain East of Nablus, Aenon being `Ainun in Wady Far`ah, it would be sufficient to say that this is in the very heart of Samaria, and therefore impossible. In any case the position of Aenon, 6 miles distant, with a high ridge intervening, would hardly be defined by the village of Salim, with the important city of Shechem quite as near, and more easily accessible.

Onomasticon places Aenon 8 Roman miles South of Scythopolis (Beisan), near Salumias (Salim) and the Jordan. This points to Tell Ridhghah, on the northern side of which is a shrine known locally as Sheikh Selim. Not far off, by the ruins of Umm el-`Amdan, there are seven copious fountains which might well be called Aenon, "place of springs."

There is reason to believe that this district did not belong to Samaria, but was included in the lands of Scythopolis, which was an important member of the league of ten cities.

W. Ewing

Salimoth

Salimoth - sal'-i-moth (Codex Vaticanus Saleimoth; Codex Alexandrinus 'Assalimoth; the latter is due to a wrong division of syllables; the King James Version Assailmoth): The same as "Shelomith" (Ezra 8:10). Salimoth, the son of Josaphias, of the family of Banias, and with him 130 men went up to Jerusalem with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:36).

Sallai

Sallai - sal'-a-i, sal'-i (callay; Salom; Codex Alexandrinus Salo, with variants):

(1) Eponym of a Benjamite family which settled at Jerusalem after the return, descendants of "Sallu" (1 Chronicles 9:7; Nehemiah 11:7-8); the pedigrees of Sallu differ decidedly in the two passages. Curtis (ICC) suggests that "son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah" (Chronicles) is a corruption or derivation of "Judah the son of Hassenuah" (Nehemiah).

(2) Name of a priestly family (Nehemiah 12:20), called "Sallu" in Nehemiah 12:7.

Sallu

Sallu - sal'-u.

See SALLAI.

Sallumus

Sallumus - sa-lu'-mus, sal'-u-mus Salloumos): One of the porters who had taken "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:25) = "Shallum" in Ezra 10:24; called also "Salum" in 1 Esdras 5:28.

Salma

Salma - sal'-ma.

See SALMON.

Salmai

Salmai - sal'-mi, sal'-ma-i (salmay; the King James Version, Shalmai (the King James Version in Nehemiah 7:48 is "Shalmai" = Ezra 2:46); the Revised Version (British and American) "Salmai"): The eponym of a family of Nethinim, called "Shamlai" in Ezra 2:46 (Qere, shamlay, Kethibh, shalmay, followed by the King James Version text, "Shalmai"; Codex Vaticanus Samaan; Codex Alexandrinus Selami; Nehemiah 7:48, Codex Vaticanus Salemei; Codex Alexandrinus Selmei; Codex Sinaiticus Samaei). The name suggests a foreign reign. In 1 Esdras 5:30 the corresponding name is "Subai."

Salmanasar

Salmanasar - sal-ma-na'-sar (2 Esdras 13:40) = SHALMANESER (which see).

Salmon; Salma

Salmon; Salma - sal'-mon, (salmon, "investiture" (Ruth 4:21), salmah, "clothing" (Ruth 4:20), salma' (1 Chronicles 2:11, 51, 54); Salmon):

(1) The father of Boaz, the husband of Ruth, and thus the grandfather of Jesse, David's father (Ruth 4:20-21). He is mentioned in both the genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1:4-5; Luke 3:32). From Matthew 1:5 we learn that he married Rahab, by whom he begat Boaz.

(2) In 1 Chronicles 2:51 ff, we read of a Salma, "the father of Beth-lehem," a son of Caleb, the son of Hur. He is also said to be the father of "the Netophathites, Atroth-beth-joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites," and several "families of scribes."

Salmone

Salmone - sal-mo'-ne (Salmone): Acts 27:7.

See PHOENIX.

Saloas

Saloas - sal'-o-as (Saloas; the King James Version, Talsus after Lot Thalsas): In 1 Esdras 9:22, for "Elasah" of Ezra 10:22.

Salom

Salom - sa'-lom (Salom):

(1) The father of Helkias (Baruch 1:7). Greek form of "Shallum."

(2) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Salu" (1 Maccabees 2:26).

Salome

Salome - sa-lo'-me (Salome):

(1) One of the holy women who companied with Jesus in Galilee, and ministered to Him (Mark 15:40-41). She was present at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40), and was among those who came to the tomb of Jesus on the resurrection morning (Mark 16:1-2). Comparison with Matthew 27:56 clearly identifies her with the wife of Zebedee. It is she, therefore, whose ambitious request for her sons James and John is recorded in Matthew 20:20-24; Mark 10:35-40. From John 19:25 many infer that she was a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (thus Meyer, Luthardt, Alford); others (as Godet) dispute the inference.

(2) Salome was the name of the daughter of Herodias who danced before Herod, and obtained as reward the head of John the Baptist (Matthew 14:3-11; Mark 6:17-28; compare Josephus, Ant,XVIII , v, Mark 4:1-41). She is not named in the Gospels.

James Orr

Salt

Salt - solt (melach; halas, hals): Common salt is considered by most authorities as an essential ingredient of our food. Most people intentionally season their cooking with more or less salt for the sake of palatability. Others depend upon the small quantities which naturally exist in water and many foods to furnish the necessary amount of salt for the body. Either too much salt or the lack of it creates undesirable disturbance in the animal system. Men and animals alike instinctively seek for this substance to supplement or improve their regular diet. The ancients appreciated the value of salt for seasoning food (Job 6:6). So necessary was it that they dignified it by making it a requisite part of sacrifices (Leviticus 2:13; Ezra 6:9; 7:22; Ezekiel 43:24; Mark 9:49). In Numbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5, a "covenant of salt" is mentioned (compare Mark 9:49). This custom of pledging friendship or confirming a compact by eating food containing salt is still retained among Arabic-speaking people. The Arabic word for "salt" and for a "compact" or "treaty" is the same. Doughty in his travels in Arabia appealed more than once to the superstitious belief of the Arabs in the "salt covenant," to save his life. Once an Arab has received in his tent even his worst enemy and has eaten salt (food) with him, he is bound to protect his guest as long as he remains.

See COVENANT OF SALT.

The chief source of salt in Palestine is from the extensive deposits near the "sea of salt" (see DEAD SEA), where there are literally mountains and valleys of salt (2 Samuel 8:13; 2 Kings 14:7; 1 Chronicles 18:12; 2 Chronicles 25:11). On the seacoast the inhabitants frequently gather the sea salt. They fill the rock crevices with sea water and leave it for the hot summer sun to evaporate. After evaporation the salt crystals can be collected. As salt-gathering is a government monopoly in Turkey, the government sends men to pollute the salt which is being surreptitiously crystallized, so as to make it unfit for eating. Another extensive supply comes from the salt lakes in the Syrian desert East of Damascus and toward Palmyra. All native salt is more or less bitter, due to the presence of other salts such as magnesium sulphate.

Salt was used not only as a food, but as an antiseptic in medicine. Newborn babes were bathed and salted (Ezekiel 16:4), a custom still prevailing. The Arabs of the desert consider it so necessary, that in the absence of salt they batheir infants in camels' urine. Elisha is said to have healed the waters of Jericho by casting a cruse of salt into the spring (2 Kings 2:20 f). Abimelech sowed the ruins of Shechem with salt to prevent a new city from arising in its place (Judges 9:45). Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26).

Figurative:

Salt is emblematic of loyalty and friendship (see above). A person who has once joined in a "salt covenant" with God and then breaks it is fit only to be cast out (compare Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50). Saltness typified barrenness (Deuteronomy 29:23; Jeremiah 17:6). James compares the absurdity of the same mouth giving forth blessings and cursings to the impossibility of a fountain yielding both sweet and salt water (James 3:11 f).

James A. Patch

Salt Sea

Salt Sea - See DEAD SEA.

Salt, City of

Salt, City of - (`ir ha-melach; Codex Alexandrinus hai pol(e)is halon): One of the six cities in the wilderness of Judah mentioned between Nibshan and Engedi (Joshua 15:62). The site is very uncertain. The large and important Tell el-Milch (i.e. "the salt hill"), on the route from Hebron to Akaba, is possible.

Salt, Covenant of

Salt, Covenant of - See COVENANT OF SALT.

Salt, Pillar of

Salt, Pillar of - See LOT; SALT; SIDDIM; SLIME.

Salt, Valley of

Salt, Valley of - (ge' ha-melach): The scene of battles, firstly, between David or his lieutenant Abishai and the Edomites (2 Samuel 8:13; 1 Chronicles 18:12; Psalms 60:1-12, title), and later between Amaziah and these same foes (2 Kings 14:7; 2 Chronicles 25:11). It is tempting to connect this "Valley of Salt" with es Sebkhah, the marshy, salt-impregnated plain which extends from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the foot of the cliffs, but in its present condition it is an almost impossible place for a battle of any sort. The ground is so soft and spongy that a wide detour around the edges has to be made by those wishing to get from one side to the other. It is, too, highly probable that in earlier times the whole of this low-lying area was covered by the waters of the Dead Sea. It is far more natural to identify ge' ha-melach with the Wady el-Milch ("Valley of Salt"), one of the three valleys which unite at Beersheba to form the Wady ec-Ceba`. These valleys, el-Milch and ec-Ceba, together make a natural frontier to Canaan.

E. W. G. Masterman

Salt-wort

Salt-wort - solt'-wurt (malluach, a word connected with melach, "salt," translated halimos; the King James Version, mallows): The halimos of the Greeks is the sea orache, Atriplex halimus, a silvery whitish shrub which flourishes upon the shores of the Dead Sea alongside the rutm (see JUNIPER). Its leaves are oval and somewhat like those of an olive. They have a sour flavor and would never be eaten when better food was obtainable (Job 30:4). The translation "mallows" is due to the apparent similarity of the Hebrew malluach to the Greek malache, which is the Latin malva and English "mallow." Certain species of malva known in Arabic, as khubbazeh, are very commonly eaten by the poor of Palestine.

E. W. G. Masterman

Salu

Salu - sa'-lu (calu'; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Salmon; Codex Alexandrinus Salo; the King James Version has "Salom" in 1 Maccabees 2:26): A prince and the head of a house of the tribe of Simeon and the father of Zimri who was slain by Phinehas along with the Midianite woman whom he had brought to the camp of Israel (Numbers 25:14; 1 Maccabees 2:26).

Salum

Salum - sa'-lum (Saloum):

(1) The head of one of the families of porters (1 Esdras 5:28; omitted in Codex Vaticanus) = "Shallum" in Ezra 2:42; 10:24; Nehemiah 7:45 = "Sallumus" in 1 Esdras 9:25.

(2) 1 Esdras 8:1 King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Salem."

Salutation

Salutation - sal-u-ta'-shun (aspasmos): A greeting which might be given in person, orally (Luke 1:29, 41, 44), or in writing, usually at the close of a letter (1 Corinthians 16:21; Colossians 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; compare use of chairein, "greeting," "joy" in James 1:1). The Pharisaic Jews loved salutations in public places (Matthew 23:7; Mark 12:38, the King James Version "greeting," the Revised Version (British and American) "salutation"; Luke 11:43; 20:46). Often these salutations were very elaborate, involving much time in prostrations, embracings, etc. When Jesus therefore sent out the Seventy, He forbade salutation by the way (Luke 10:4), though He ordinarily encouraged proper civilities of this sort (Matthew 5:47; 10:12).

Edward Bagby Pollard

Salvation

Salvation - sal-va'-shun:

I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

1. General

2. Individualism

3. Faith

4. Moral Law

5. Sacrifices

6. Ritual Law

II. INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE

1. General

2. The Law

III. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST

1. The Baptist

2. Kingdom of God

3. Present and Future

4. Individualism

5. Moral Progress

6. Forgiveness

7. Person of Christ

8. Notes

IV. PAUL

1. General

2. Moral Progress

3. The Spirit

4. Mystical Union

5. Forgiveness

6. Atonement

7. Summary

8. Notes

V. THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: SUMMARY

1. John

2. Hebrews

3. Peter

4. Summary

LITERATURE

In English Versions of the Bible the words "salvation" "save," are not technical theological terms, but denote simply "deliverance," in almost any sense the latter word can have. In systematic theology, however, "salvation" denotes the whole process by which man is delivered from all that would prevent his attaining to the highest good that God has prepared for him. Or, by a transferred sense, "salvation" denotes the actual enjoyment of that good. So, while these technical senses are often associated with the Greek or Hebrew words translated "save," etc., yet they are still more often used in connection with other words or represented only by the general sense of a passage. And so a collection of the original terms for "save," etc., is of value only for the student doing minute detailed work, while it is the purpose of the present article to present a general view of the Biblical doctrine of salvation.

I. In the Old Testament

1. General: (1) As long as revelation had not raised the veil that separates this life from the next, the Israelite thought of his highest good as long life in a prosperous Palestine, as described most typically in Deuteronomy 28:1-14. But a definite religious idea was present also, for the "land of milk and honey," even under angelic protection, was worthless without access to God (Exodus 33:1-4), to know whom gives happiness (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14; Jeremiah 31:34). Such a concept is normal for most of the Old Testament, but there are several significant enlargements of it. That Israel should receive God's characteristic of righteousness is a part of the ideal (Isaiah 1:26; Isaiah 4:3-4; Isaiah 32:1-8; 33:24; Jeremiah 31:33-34; Ezekiel 36:25-26; Zechariah 8:1-23; Daniel 9:24; Psalms 51:10-12). Good was found in the extension of Israel's good to the surrounding nations (Micah 4:1-4; Isaiah 2:2-4; Isaiah 45:5-6; Zechariah 2:11; Zechariah 8:22-23; Isaiah 60:1-22; Isaiah 66:19-21; Zechariah 14:16-17, etc.), even to the extension of the legitimate sacrificial worship to the soil of Egypt (Isaiah 19:19-22). Palestine was insufficient for the enjoyment of God's gifts, and a new heaven and a new earth were to be received (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22), and a share in the glories was not to be denied even to the dead (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2). And, among the people so glorified, God would dwell in person (Isaiah 60:19-20; Zechariah 2:10-12). (2) Salvation, then, means deliverance from all that interferes with the enjoyment of these blessings. So it takes countless forms--deliverance from natural plagues, from internal dissensions, from external enemies, or from the subjugation of conquerors (the exile, particularly). As far as enemies constitute the threatening danger, the prayer for deliverance is often based on their evil character (Psalms 101:1-8, etc.). But for the individual all these evils are summed up in the word "death," which was thought to terminate all relation to God and all possibility of enjoying His blessings (Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18, etc.). And so "death" became established as the antinomy to "salvation," and in this sense the word has persisted, although the equation "loss of salvation = physical death" has long been transcended. But death and its attendant evils are worked by God's wrath, and so it is from this wrath that salvation is sought (Joshua 7:26, etc.). And thus, naturally, salvation is from everything that raises that wrath, above all from sin (Ezekiel 36:25-26, etc.).

2. Individualism: (1) At first the "unit of salvation" was the nation (less prominently the family), i.e. a man though righteous could lose salvation through the faults of others. A father could bring a curse on his children (2 Samuel 21:1-14), a king on his subjects (2 Samuel 24:1-25), or an unknown sinner could bring guilt on an entire community (Deuteronomy 21:1-9). (On the other hand, ten righteous would have saved Sodom (Genesis 18:32).) And the principle of personal responsibility was grasped but slowly. It is enunciated partly in Deuteronomy 24:16 (compare Jeremiah 31:29-30), definitely in Ezekiel 14:12-20; Ezekiel 18:1-32; Ezekiel 33:1-20, and fairly consistently in the Psalms. But even Ezekiel still held that five-and-twenty could defile the whole nation (Ezekiel 8:16), and he had not the premises for resolving the problem--that temporal disasters need not mean the loss of salvation. (2) But even when it was realized that a man lost salvation through his own fault, the converse did not follow. Salvation came, not by the man's mere merit, but because the man belonged to a nation peculiarly chosen by God. God had made a covenant with Israel and His fidelity insured salvation: the salvation comes from God because of His promise or (in other words) because of His name. Indeed, the great failing of the people was to trust too blindly to this promise, an attitude denounced continually by the prophets throughout (from, say, Amos 3:2 to Matthew 3:9). And yet even the prophets admit a real truth in the attitude, for, despite Israel's sins, eventual salvation is certain. Ezekiel 20:1-49 states this baldly: there has been nothing good in Israel and there is nothing good in her at the prophet's own day, but, notwithstanding, God will give her restoration (compare Isaiah 8:17-18; Jeremiah 32:6-15, etc.).

3. Faith: Hence, of the human conditions, whole-hearted trust in God is the most important. (Belief in God is, of course, never argued in the Bible.) Inconsistent with such trust are, for instance, seeking aid from other nations (Isaiah 30:1-5), putting reliance in human skill (2 Chronicles 16:12), or forsaking Palestine through fear (Jeremiah 42:1-22). In Isaiah 26:20 entire passivity is demanded, and in 2 Kings 13:19 lukewarmness in executing an apparently meaningless command is rebuked.

4. Moral Law: (1) Next in importance is the attainment of a moral standard, expressed normally in the various codes of the Law. But fulfillment of the letter of the commandment was by no means all that was required. For instance, the Law permitted the selling of a debtor into slavery (Deuteronomy 15:12), but the reckless use of the creditor's right is sharply condemned (Nehemiah 5:1-13). The prophets are never weary of giving short formulas that will exclude such supralegalism and reduce conduct to a pure motive: "Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate" (Amos 5:15); "To do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8). And the chief emphasis on the Law as written is found in the later books, especially Psalms 119:1-176 (compare Psalms 147:20). (2) Certain breaches of the Law had no pardon, but were visited with death at once, even despite repentance and confession (Joshua 7:1-26). But for the most part it is promised that repentance will remove the guilt of the sin if the sin be forsaken (Ezekiel 18:1-32) or, in the case of a sin that would not be repeated, if contrition be felt (2 Samuel 12:1-31). Suffering played a part in salvation by bringing knowledge of sin to the conscience, the exile being the most important example (Ezekiel 36:31). But almost always it is assumed that the possibility of keeping the Law is in man's own power, Deuteronomy 30:11-14 stating this explicitly, while the Wisdom Books equate virtue with learning. Consequently, an immense advance was made when man felt the need of God's help to keep the Law, the need of the inscription of the Laws on the heart (Jeremiah 31:31-34). So an outlook was opened to a future in which God would make the nation righteous (see references in 1, above).

5. Sacrifices: (1) The acceptance of repentance as expiating past sins was an act of God's mercy. And so His mercy instituted other and additional means of expiation, most notably that of the sacrifices. But a theology of sacrifice is conspicuously absent from the whole Old Testament, for Leviticus 17:11 is too incidental and too obscure to be any exception. The Christian (or very late Jewish) interpretations of the ritual laws lack all solidity of exegetical foundation, despite their one-time prevalence. Nor is the study of origins of much help for the meaning attached to the rites by the Jews in historic times. General ideas of offering, of self-denial, of propitiation of wrath, and of entering into communion with God assuredly existed. But in the advanced stages of the religion there is no evidence that sacrifices were thought to produce their effect because of any of these things, but solely because God had commanded the sacrifices. (2) Most sins required a sacrifice as part of the act of repentance, although in case of injury done the neighbor, only after reparation had been made. It is not quite true that for conscious sins no sacrifices were appointed, for in Leviticus 5:1; Leviticus 6:1-3, sins are included that could not be committed through mere negligence. And so such rules as Numbers 15:30-31 must not be construed too rigorously. (3) Sacrifices as means of salvation are taught chiefly by Ezekiel, while at the rebuilding of the temple (Haggai, Zechariah) and the depression that followed (Malachi), they were much in the foreground, but the pre-exilic prophets have little to say about their positive value (Jeremiah 7:22 is the nadir). Indeed, in preexilic times the danger was the exaltation of sacrifice at the expense of morality, especially with the peace offering, which could be turned into a drunken revel (Amos 5:21-24; Isaiah 22:13; compare Proverbs 7:14). Attempts were made to "strengthen" the sacrifices to Yahweh by the use of ethnic rites (Hosea 4:14; Isaiah 65:1-5), even with the extreme of human sacrifice (Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 20:26). But insistence on the strict centralization of worship and increasing emphasis laid on the sin and trespass offerings did away with the worst of the abuses. And many of the Psalms, especially Psalms 66:1-20 and Psalms 118:1-29, give beautiful evidence of the devotion that could be nourished by the sacrificial rites.

6. Ritual Law: Of the other means of salvation the ritual law (not always sharply distinguishable from the moral law) bulks rather large in the legislation, but is not prominent in the prophets. Requisite to salvation was the abstention from certain acts, articles of food, etc., such abstinence seeming to lie at the background of the term "holiness." But a ritual breach was often a matter of moral duty (burying the dead, etc.), and, for such breaches, ritual means of purification are provided and the matter dropped. Evidently such things lay rather on the circumference of the religion, even to Ezekiel, with his anxious zeal against the least defilement. The highest ritual point is touched by Zechariah 14:20-21, where all of Jerusalem is so holy that not a pot would be unfit to use in the temple (compare Jeremiah 31:38-40). Yet, even with this perfect holiness, sacrifices would still have a place as a means by which the holiness could be increased. Indeed, this more "positive" view of sacrifices was doubtless present from the first.

II. Intermediate Literature. 1. General: (1) The great change, compared with the earlier period, is that the idea of God had become more transcendent. But this did not necessarily mean an increase in religious value, for there was a corresponding tendency to take God out of relation to the world by an intellectualizing process. This, when combined with the persistence of the older concept of salvation in this life only, resulted in an emptying of the religious instinct and in indifferentism. This tendency is well represented in Ecclesiastes, more acutely in Sirach, and in New Testament times it dominated the thought of the Sadducees. On the other hand the expansion of the idea of salvation to correspond with the higher conception of God broke through the limitations of this life and created the new literary form of apocalyptics, represented in the Old Testament especially by Zechariah 9:1-17 through Zechariah 14:1-21; Isaiah 24:1-23 through 27, and above all by Daniel. And in the intermediate literature all shades of thought between the two extremes are represented. But too much emphasis can hardly be laid on the fact that this intermediate teaching is in many regards simply faithful to the Old Testament. Almost anything that can be found in the Old Testament--with the important exception of the note of joyousness of Deuteronomy, etc.--can be found again here. (2) Of the conceptions of the highest good the lowest is the Epicureanism of Sirach. The highest is probably that of 2 Esdras 7:91-98 Revised Version: "To behold the face of him whom in their lifetime they served" the last touch of materialism being eliminated. Indeed, real materialism is notably absent in the period, even Enoch 10:17-19 being less exuberant than the fancies of such early Christian writers as Papias. Individualism is generally taken for granted, but that the opposite opinion was by no means dormant, even at a late period, is shown by Matthew 3:9. The idea of a special privilege of Israel, however, of course pervades all the literature, Sibylline Oracles 5 and Jubilees being the most exclusive books and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the most broad-hearted. In place of national privilege, though, is sometimes found the still less edifying feature of party privilege (Ps Sol; Enoch 94-105), the most offensive case being the assertion of Enoch 90:6-9 that the (inactive) Israel will be saved by the exertions of the "little lamb" Pharisees, before whom every knee shall bow in the Messianic kingdom.

2. The Law: (1) The conceptions of the moral demands for salvation at times reach a very high level, especially in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (making every allowance for Christian interpolations). "The spirit of love worketh together with the law of God in long-suffering unto the salvation of men" (Test. Gad 4:7) is hardly unworthy of Paul, and even Jubilees can say, "Let each love his brother in mercy and justice, and let none wish the other evil" (Jub 36:8). But the great tendency is to view God's law merely as a series of written statutes, making no demands except those gained from a rigid construing of the letter. In Luke 10:29, "Who is my neighbor?" is a real question--if he is not my neighbor I need not love him! So duties not literally commanded were settled by utilitarian motives, as outside the domain of religion, and the unhealthy phenomenon of works of supererogation made its appearance (Luke 17:10). The writer of Wisdom can feel smugly assured of salvation, because idolatry had been abstained from (Wisd 15:4; contrast Paul's polemic in Romans 2:1-29). And discussions about "greatest commandments" caused character in its relation to religion to be forgotten. (2) As God's commands were viewed as statutes the distinction between the moral and the ritual was lost, and the ritual law attained enormous and familiar proportions. The beautiful story of Judith is designed chiefly to teach abstinence from ritually unclean food. And the most extreme case is in Jubilees 6:34-38--all of Israers woes come from keeping the feasts by the actual moon instead of by a correct (theoretical) moon (!). (3) Where self-complacency ceased and a strong moral sense was present, despair makes its appearance with extraordinary frequency. The period is the period of penitential prayers, with an undercurrent of doubt as to how far mercy can be expected (Song of Three Children verses 3-22; Pr Man; Baruch 3:1-8, etc.). "What profit is it unto us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas we have done the works that bring death?" (2 Esdras 7:119 the Revised Version (British and American)). The vast majority of men are lost (2 Esdras 9:16) and must be forgotten (2 Esdras 8:55), and Ezra can trust for his own salvation only by a special revelation (7:77 the Revised Version (British and American)). So, evidently, Paul's pre-Christian experience was no unique occurrence. (4) Important for the New Testament background is the extreme lack of prominence of the sacrifices. They are never given a theological interpretation (except in Philo, where they cease to be sacrifices). Indeed, in Sirach 35 they are explicitly said to be devotions for the righteous only, apparently prized only as an inheritance from the past and "because of the commandment" (Sirach 35:5; yet compare 38:11). When the temple was destroyed and the sacrifices ceased, Judaism went on its way almost unaffected, showing that the sacrifices meant nothing essential to the people. And, even in earlier times, the Essenes rejected sacrifices altogether, without losing thereby their recognition as Jews.

III. The Teaching of Christ. 1. The Baptist: The Baptist proclaimed authoritatively the near advent of the kingdom of God, preceded by a Messianic judgment that would bring fire for the wicked and the Holy Spirit for the righteous. Simple but incisive moral teaching and warning against trusting in national privileges, with baptism as an outward token of repentance, were to prepare men to face this judgment securely. But we have no data to determine how much farther (if any) the Baptist conceived his teaching to lead.

2. Kingdom of God: It was in the full heat of this eschatological revival that the Baptist had fanned, that Christ began to teach, and He also began with the eschatological phrase, "The kingdom of God is at hand." Consequently, His teaching must have been taken at once in an eschatological sense, and it is rather futile to attempt to limit such implications to passages where modern eschatological phrases are used unambiguously. "The kingdom of God is at hand" had the inseparable connotation "Judgment is at hand," and in this context, "Repent ye" (Mark 1:15) must mean "lest ye be judged." Hence, our Lord's teaching about salvation had primarily a future content: positively, admission into the kingdom of God, and negatively, deliverance from the preceding judgment. So the kingdom of God is the "highest good" of Christ's teaching but, with His usual reserve, He has little to say about its externals. Man's nature is to be perfectly adapted to his spiritual environment (see RESURRECTION), and man is to be with Christ (Luke 22:30) and the patriarchs (Matthew 8:11). But otherwise--and again as usual--the current descriptions are used without comment, even when they rest on rather materialistic imagery (Luke 22:16, 30). Whatever the kingdom is, however, its meaning is most certainly not exhausted by a mere reformation of the present order of material things.

3. Present and Future: But the fate of man at judgment depends on what man is before judgment, so that the practical problem is salvation from the conditions that will bring judgment; i.e. present and future salvation are inseparably connected, and any attempt to make rigid distinctions between the two results in logomachies. Occasionally even Christ speaks of the kingdom of God as present, in the sense that citizens of the future kingdom are living already on this earth (Matthew 11:11; Luke 17:21(?); the meaning of the latter verse is very dubious). Such men are "saved" already (Luke 19:9; 7:50(?)), i.e. such men were delivered from the bad moral condition that was so extended that Satan could be said to hold sway over the world (Luke 10:18; 11:21).

4. Individualism: That the individual was the unit in this deliverance needs no emphasis: Still, the divine privilege of the Jews was a reality and Christ's normal work was limited to them (Matthew 10:5; 15:26, etc.). He admitted even that the position of the Jewish religious leaders rested on a real basis (Matthew 23:3). But the "good tidings" were so framed that their extension to all men would have been inevitable, even had there not been an explicit command of Christ in this regard. On the other hand, while the message involved in every case strict individual choice, yet the individual who accepted it entered into social relations with the others who had so chosen. So salvation involved admission to a community of service (Mark 9:35, etc.). And in the latter part of Christ's ministry, He withdrew from the bulk of His disciples to devote Himself to the training of an inner circle of Twelve, an act explicable only on the assumption that these were to be the leaders of the others after He was taken away. Such passages as Matthew 16:18; 18:17 merely corroborate this.

5. Moral Progress: Of the conditions for the individual, the primary (belief in God being taken for granted) was a correct moral ideal. Exclusion from salvation came from the Pharisaic casuistry which had invented limits to righteousness. Exodus 20:13 had never contemplated permitting angry thoughts if actual murder was avoided, and so on. In contrast is set the idea of character, of the single eye (Matthew 6:22), of the pure heart (Matthew 5:8). Only so can the spiritual house be built on a rock foundation. But the mere ideal is not enough; persistent effort toward it and a certain amount of progress are demanded imperatively. Only those who have learned to forgive can ask for forgiveness (Matthew 6:12; 18:35). They who omit natural works of mercy have no share in the kingdom (Matthew 25:31-46), for even idle words will be taken into account (Matthew 12:36), and the most precious possession that interferes with moral progress is to be sacrificed ruthlessly (Matthew 18:8-9, etc.). Men are known by their fruits (Matthew 7:20); it is he that doeth the will of the Father that shall enter into the kingdom (Matthew 7:21), and the final ideal--which is likewise the goal--is becoming a son of the Father in moral likeness (Matthew 5:45). That this progress is due to God's aid is so intimately a part of Christ's teaching on the entire dependence of the soul on God that it receives little explicit mention, but Christ refers even His own miracles to the Father's power (Luke 11:20).

6. Forgiveness: Moral effort, through God's aid, is an indispensable condition for salvation. But complete success in the moral struggle is not at all a condition, in the sense that moral perfection is required. For Christ's disciples, to whom the kingdom is promised (Luke 12:32), the palsied man who receives remission of sins (Mark 2:5), Zaccheus who is said to have received salvation (Luke 19:9), were far from being models of sinlessness. The element in the character that Christ teaches as making up for the lack of moral perfection is becoming "as a little child" (compare Mark 10:15). Now the point here is not credulousness (for belief is not under discussion), nor is it meekness (for children are notoriously not meek). And it most certainly is not the pure passivity of the newly born infant, for it is gratuitous to assume that only such infants were meant even in Luke 18:15, while in Matthew 18:2 (where the child comes in answer to a call) this interpretation is excluded. Now, in the wider teaching of Christ the meaning is made clear enough. Salvation is for the poor in spirit, for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for the prodigal knowing his wretchedness. It is for the penitent publican, while the self-satisfied Pharisee is rejected. A sense of need and a desire that God will give are the characteristics. A child does not argue that it has earned its father's benefits but looks to him in a feeling of dependence, with a readiness to do his bidding. So it is the soul that desires all of righteousness, strives toward it, knows that it falls short, and trusts in its Father for the rest, that is the savable soul.

7. Person of Christ: Christ speaks of the pardon of the publican (Luke 18:9 ff) and of the prodigal welcomed by the Father (Luke 15:20), both without intermediary. And it is perhaps not necessary to assume that all of those finding the strait gate (Matthew 7:14) were explicitly among Christ's disciples. But would Christ have admitted that anyone who had come to know Him and refused to obey Him would have been saved? To ask this question is to answer it in the negative (Mark 9:40 is irrelevant). Real knowledge of the Father is possible only through the unique knowledge of the Son (Luke 10:21-22), and lack of faith in the Son forfeits all blessings (Mark 6:5-6; 9:23). Faith in Him brings instant forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5), and love directed to Him is an indisputable sign that forgiveness has taken place (Luke 7:47). But Christ thought of Himself as Messiah and, if the term "Messiah" is not to be emptied of its meaning, this made Him judge of the world (such verses as Mark 8:38 are hardly needed for direct evidence). And, since for Christ's consciousness an earthly judgeship is unthinkable, a transcendental judgeship is the sole alternative, corroborated by the use of the title Son of Man. But passage from simple humanity to the transcendental glory of the Son-of-Man Messiah involved a change hardly expressible except by death and resurrection. And the expectation of death was in Christ's mind from the first, as is seen by Mark 2:18-19 (even without Mark 2:20). That He could have viewed His death as void of significance for human salvation is simply inconceivable, and the ascription of Mark 10:45 to Pauline influence is in defiance of the facts. Nor is it credible that Christ conceived that in the interval between His death and His Parousia He would be out of relation to His own. To Him the unseen world was in the closest relation to the visible world, and His passage into glory would strengthen, not weaken, His power. So there is a complete justification of Mark 14:22-25: to Christ His death had a significance that could be paralleled only by the death of the Covenant victim in Exodus 24:6-8, for by it an entirely new relation was established between God and man.

8. Notes: (1) Salvation from physical evil was a very real part, however subordinate, of Christ's teaching (Mark 1:34, etc.). (2) Ascetic practices as a necessary element in salvation can hardly claim Christ's authority. It is too often forgotten that the Twelve were not Christ's only disciples. Certainly not all of the hundred and twenty of Acts 1:15 (compare Acts 1:21), nor of the five hundred of 1 Corinthians 15:6, were converted after the Passion. And they all certainly could not have left their homes to travel with Christ. So the demands made in the special case of the Twelve (still less in such an extremely special case as Mark 10:21) in no way represent Christ's normal practice, whatever readiness for self-sacrifice may have been asked of all. So the representations of Christ as ruthlessly exacting all from everyone are quite unwarranted by the facts. And it is well to remember that it is Matthew 11:19 that contains the term of reproach that His adversaries gave Him.

IV. Paul. Instead of laying primal stress on Paul's peculiar contributions to soteriology, it will be preferable to start from such Pauline passages as simply continue the explicit teaching of Christ. For it is largely due to the common reversal of this method that the present acute "Jesus-Paulus" controversy exists.

1. General: That Paul expected the near advent of the kingdom of God with a judgment preceding, and that salvation meant to him primarily deliverance from this judgment, need not be argued. And, accordingly, emphasis is thrown sometimes on the future deliverance and sometimes on the present conditions for the deliverance (contrast Romans 5:9 and Romans 8:24), but the practical problem is the latter. More explicitly than in Christ's recorded teaching the nature and the blessings of the kingdom are described (see KINGDOM OF GOD), but the additional matter is without particular religious import. A certain privilege of the Jews appears (Romans 3:1-8; Romans 9:1-33-Romans 11:1-36), but the practical content of the privilege seems to be eschatological only (Romans 11:26). Individual conversion is of course taken for granted, but the life after that becomes highly corporate.

See CHURCH.

2. Moral Progress: (1) The moral ideal is distinctly that of character. Paul, indeed, is frequently obliged to give directions as to details, but the detailed directions are referred constantly to the underlying principle, Romans 14:1-23 or 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 being excellent examples of this, while "love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10) is the summary. (2) Persistent moral effort is indispensable, and the new life absolutely must bring forth fruit to God (Romans 6:4; 13:12; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 2:3; Ephesians 4:17, 22-32; Titus 2:11-14). Only by good conduct can one please God (1 Thessalonians 4:1), and the works of even Christians are to be subjected to a searching test (1 Corinthians 3:13; 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10) in a judgment not to be faced without the most earnest striving (1 Corinthians 10:12; Philippians 2:12), not even by Paul himself (1 Corinthians 9:27; Philippians 3:12-14). And the possibility of condemnation because of a lack of moral attainment must not be permitted to leave the mind (1 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:21; compare Romans 8:12-13; 11:20; 1 Corinthians 10:12; Galatians 6:7-9). Consequently, growth in actual righteousness is as vital in Paul's soteriology as it is in that teaching of Christ: Christians have "put off the old man with his doings" (Colossians 3:9).

3. The Spirit: That this growth is God's work is, however, a point where Paul has expanded Christ's quiet assumption rather elaborately. In particular, what Christ had made the source of His own supernatural power--the Holy Spirit--is specified as the source of the power of the Christian's ordinary life, as well as of the more special endowments (see SPIRITUAL GIFTS). In the Spirit the Christian has received the blessing promised to Abraham (Galatians 3:14); by it the deeds of the body can be put to death and all virtues flow into the soul (Galatians 5:16-26), if a man walks according to it (1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 1 Thessalonians 4:8). The palmary passage is Romans 7:1-25 through Romans 8:1-39. In Romans 7:1-25 Paul looks back with a shudder on his pre-Christian helplessness (it is naturally the extreme of exegetical perversity to argue that he dreaded not the sin itself but only God's penalty on sin). But the Spirit gives strength to put to death the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13), to disregard the things of the flesh (Romans 8:5), and to fulfill the ordinance of the Law (Romans 8:4). Such moral power is the test of Christianity: as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God (Romans 8:14).

4. Mystical Union: This doctrine of the Spirit is simply that what Christ did on earth would be carried on with increased intensity after the Passion. That this work could be thought of out of relation to Christ, or that Christ Himself could have so thought of it (see above,III , 7) is incredible. So the exalted Christ appears as the source of moral and spiritual power ( Paul speaks even more of Christ's resurrection than of the Passion), the two sources (Christ and the Spirit) being very closely combined in 2 Corinthians 3:17; Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6. Our old man has been crucified, so putting an end to the bondage of sin, and we can prevent sin from reigning in our mortal bodies, for our burial into Christ's death was to enable us to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:2-14). The resurrection is a source of power, and through Christ's strength all things can be done (Philippians 4:13, 10). Christ is the real center of the believer's personality (Galatians 2:20); the man has become a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17; compare Colossians 2:20; 3:3); we were joined to another that we might bring forth fruit to God (Romans 7:4). And by contact with the glory of the Lord we are transformed into the same image (2 Corinthians 3:18), the end being conformation to the image of the Son (Romans 8:30).

5. Forgiveness: (1) This growth in actual holiness, then, is fundamental with Paul: "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Romans 8:9). And the acquisition of strength through union with Christ is vitally connected with the remission of sins. In Romans 7:1-6 (compare Colossians 2:11-12), the mystical union with Christ makes His death ours (compare Colossians 3:3) and so removes us from the Law (compare Romans 10:4; 1 Corinthians 15:56), which has no relation to the dead. And by the life-giving power of this union the strength of sin is broken (Romans 6:6). (2) The condition in man that makes forgiveness possible Paul calls "faith"--a very complicated term. Its chief use, however, is in opposition to "works" (most clearly in Romans 9:30 through Romans 10:13). The Jews' "pursuit after righteousness"--the attempt to wring salvation from God as wages earned--was vain (Romans 10:13), and in contrast is the appeal to God, the conscious relinquishment of all claim (Romans 4:5). The soul looks trustingly for salvation to its Father, precisely the attitude of the "children" in the teaching of Christ. But no more than in the teaching of Christ is faith a purely passive virtue, for man must be "obedient" to it (Romans 1:5; 10:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). And for the necessary presence of love in faith compare 1 Corinthians 13:2; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 3:17.

6. Atonement: Because of faith--specifically, faith in Christ (except Romans 4:1-25; Galatians 3:6)--God does not visit the penalties of sins on believers, but treats them as if they were righteous (Romans 5:1, etc.). But this is not because of a quality in the believer or in the faith, but because of an act that preceded any act of Christian faith, the death of Christ (not the cross, specifically, for Paul does not argue from the cross in all of Roman). Through this death God's mercy could be extended safely, while before this the exercise of that mercy had proved disastrous (Romans 3:25-26). And this death was a sacrifice (Romans 3:25, etc.). And it is certain that Paul conceived of this sacrifice as existing quite independently of its effect on any human being. But he has given us no data for a really complete sacrificial doctrine, a statement sufficiently proved by the hopeless variance of the interpretations that have been propounded. And that Paul ever constructed a theory of the operation of sacrifices must be doubted. There is none in the contemporary Jewish literature, there is none in the Old Testament, and there is none in the rest of the New Testament, not even in Hebrews. Apparently the rites were so familiar that sacrificial terminology was ready to hand and was used without particular reflection and without attempting to give it precise theological content. This is borne out by the ease with which in Romans 3:24-25 Paul passes from a ransom (redemption) illustration to a (quite discordant) propitation illustration. For further discussion see ATONEMENT; JUSTIFICATION. Here it is enough make a juridical theory constructed from Pauline implications and illustrations central in Christianity is to do exactly what Paul did not do.

7. Summary: Summing up, there is a double line of thought in Paul: the remission of penalties through the atoning death of Christ and the destruction of the power of sin through strength flowing from Christ, the human element in both cases being faith. The question of the order of the steps is futile, for "to have faith," "to be in Christ," and "to have the Spirit" are convertible terms, i.e. in doctrinal phraseology, the beginnings of sanctification are simultaneous with justification. Attempts to unify the two lines of thought into a single theory cannot claim purely Biblical support. The "ethical" theory, which in its best form makes God's pardon depend on the fact that the sinner will be made holy (at least in the next world), introduces the fewest extraneous elements, but it says something that Paul does not say. On the other hand one may feel that considering Paul as a whole--to say nothing of the rest of the New Testament--the pure justification doctrine has bulked a little too large in our dogmatics. God's pardon for sin is an immensely important matter, but still more important is the new power of holiness.

8. Notes: (1) Baptism presents another obstacle to a strict unifying of Pauline theology. A very much stronger sacramentarianism is admitted in Paul today than would have been accepted a generation ago, and such passages as Romans 6:1-7; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12 make it certain that he regarded baptism as conferring very real spiritual powers. But that he made a mechanical distinction between the blessings given then and those given at some other time must be doubted. (2) Salvation from the flesh (Romans 7:24) involves no metaphysical dualism, as "flesh" is the whole of the lower nature from which the power to holiness saves a man (Romans 8:13). Indeed, the body itself is an object of salvation (Romans 8:11; and see RESURRECTION). (3) Quite in the background lies the idea of salvation from physical evil (2 Corinthians 1:10, etc.). Such evils are real evils (1 Corinthians 11:30), but in God's hands they may become pure blessings (Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 12:7). (4) Salvation from sin after conversion is due to God's judging the man in terms of the acquired supernatural nature (Romans 8:14, etc.). Yet certain sins may destroy the union with Christ altogether (1 Corinthians 3:17, etc.), while others bring God's chastening judgment (1 Corinthians 11:30-32). Or proper chastisement may be inflicted by Paul himself (1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:20) or by the congregation (Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-15; 2 Corinthians 2:6).

V. Rest of New Testament: Summary. 1. John: (1) John had the task of presenting Christ to Gentiles, who were as unfamiliar with the technical meaning of such phrases as "kingdom of God" or "Son of Man" as is the world today, and to Gentiles who had instead a series of concepts unknown in Palestine. So a "translation of spiritual values" became necessary if the gospel were to make an immediate appeal, a translation accomplished so successfully that the Fourth Gospel has always been the most popular. The Synoptists, especially the extremely literal Mark, imperatively demand a historical commentary, while John has successfully avoided this necessity. (2) The "kingdom of God," as a phrase (3:3,5; compare 18:36), is replaced by "eternal life." This life is given in this world to the one who accepts Christ's teaching (5:24; 6:47), but its full realization will be in the "many mansions" of the Father's house (14:2), where the believer will be with Christ (17:24). A judgment of all men will precede the establishment of this glorified state (5:28,29), but the believer may face the judgment with equanimity (5:24). So the believer is delivered from a state of things so bad as expressible as a world under Satan's rule (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), a world in darkness (3:19), in ignorance of God (17:25), and in sin (8:21), all expressible in the one word "death" (5:24). (3) The Jews had real privilege in the reception of Christ's message (1:11; 4:22, etc.), but the extension of the good tidings to all men was inevitable (12:23,12, etc.). Belief in Christ is wholly a personal matter, but the believers enter a community of service (13:14), with the unity of the Father and Son as their ideal (17:21). (4) The nature of the moral ideal, reduced to the single word "love" (13:34; 15:12), is assumed as known and identified with "Christ's words" (5:24; 6:63, etc.), and the necessity of progress toward it as sharply pointed as in the Synoptists. The sinner is the servant of sin (8:34), a total change of character is needed (3:6), and the blessing is only on him who does Christ's commandments (13:17). This "doing" is the proof of love toward Christ (14:15,21); only by bearing fruit and more fruit can discipleship be maintained (15:1-6; compare 14:24), and, indeed, by bearing fruit men actually become Christ's disciples (15:8, Gr). The knowledge of Christ and of God that is eternal life (17:3) comes only through moral effort (7:17). In John the contrasts are colored so vividly that it would almost appear as if perfection were demanded. But he does not present even the apostles as models of sanctity (13:38; 16:32), and self-righteousness is condemned without compromise; the crowning sin is to say, "We see" (9:41). It is the Son who frees from sin (8:36), delivers from darkness (8:12; 12:46), and gives eternal life (11:25,26; compare 3:16; 5:24; 6:47). This emphasis on the divine side of the process is probably the reason for the omission of the terms "repent," "repentance," from the Gospel in favor of "faith" (6:29, especially), but this "faith" involves in turn human effort, for, without "abiding," faith is useless (8:30,31). (5) An advance on the Synoptists is found in the number of times Christ speaks of His death (3:14,15; 10:11,15; 12:24,32; 17:19) and in the greater emphasis laid on it, but no more than in the Synoptists is there any explanation of how the Atonement became effectual. A real advance consists in the prospect of Christ's work after His death, when, through the Paraclete (7:38,39; 14:16 ff), a hitherto unknown spiritual power would become available for the world. And spiritual power is due not only to a union of will with Christ but to mystical union with Him (15:1-9). See above,III , 7, for the relation of these thoughts to the synoptic teaching.

2. Hebrews: (1) The emphasis of He is of course on the sacrificial work of Christ, but the Epistle makes practically no contribution to theology of sacrifice. The argument is this: The Old Testament sacrifices certainly had an efficacy; Christ's sacrifice fulfilled their types perfectly, therefore it had a perfect efficacy (Hebrews 9:13-14). This must have been a tremendously potent argument for He's own purpose, but it is of very little help to the modern theologian. (2) More than in Paul is emphasized the human training of Christ for His high-priestly work. Since He laid hold of the seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16), He learned by experience all that man had to suffer (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15; 5:8, etc.). In He the essence of the sacrifice lies not in the death but in what we call the ascension--the presentation of the blood in the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews 9:11-14; see the commentaries). That the death was specifically on the cross (Hebrews 12:2 only) belonged to the stage of training and had no special significance in the sacrificial scheme. Christ's intercession for us in heaven receives more emphasis than in the rest of the New Testament (Hebrews 7:25).

3. Peter: The one other distinct contribution to New Testament soteriology is made in 1 Peter's evaluation of the vicarious suffering of the "Servant" of Isaiah 53:1-12. What Christ did through His sufferings we may do in some degree through our sufferings; as His pains helped not only living mankind, but even departed sinners, so we may face persecution more happily with the thought that our pains are benefiting other men (1 Peter 3:16-20). It is hardly possible that Peter thought of this comparison as conveying an exhaustive description of the Atonement (compare 1 Peter 1:19), but that the comparison should be made at all is significant.

4. Summary: (1) Salvation is both a present and a future matter for us. The full realization of all that God has in store will not be ours until the end of human history (if, indeed, there will not be opened infinite possibilities of eternal growth), but the enjoyment of these blessings depends on conditions fulfilled in us and by us now. But a foretaste of the blessings of forgiveness of sins and growth in holiness is given on this earth. The pardon depends on the fact of God's mercy through the death of Christ--a fact for religious experience but probably incapable of expression as a complete philosophical dogma. But strength comes from God through the glorified Christ (or through the Spirit), this vital union with God being a Christian fundamental. These two lines are in large degree independent, and the selection of the proportions profitable to a given soul is the task of the pastor. (2) That human effort is an essential in salvation is not to be denied in the face of all the New Testament evidence, especially Paul taken as a whole. And yet no one with the faintest conception of what religion means would think of coming before God to claim merit. Here the purely intellectual discussions of the subiect and its psychological course in the soul run in different channels, and "anti-synergistic" arguments are really based on attempts to petrify psychology experience into terms of pure dogma. (3) Still more true is this of attempts to describe mathematically the steps in salvation--the ordo salutis of the older dogmatics--for this differs with different souls. In particular, New Testament data are lacking for the development of the individual born of Christian parents in a Christian country. (4) Further, the social side of salvation is an essentially Christian doctrine and cannot be detached from the corporate life of the Christian church. Salvation from temporal evils is equally, if secondarily, Christian. Nationalism in salvation is at present much in the background. But it is as true today as it was in ancient Israel that the sins of a nation tend to harm the souls of even those who have not participated actively in those sins.

LITERATURE.

The literature of salvation is virtually the literature of theology (see under separate articles, ATONEMENT; JUSTIFICATION; SANCTIFICATION; PERSON OF CHRIST; JOHANNINE THEOLOGY; PAULINE THEOLOGY, etc.), but a few recent works may be mentioned. Indispensable are the works of Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation and The Pauline Theology. Garvie's Romans in the "New Century" series should be used as a supplement to any other commentary on Romans. The juridical theory has as its best defense in English Denney's The Death of Christ. The ethical theory is best presented in the works of DuBose, The Gospel in the Gospels, The Gospel according to Paul, and High-Priesthood and Sacrifice (Sanday's The Expositor reviews of the two former, reprinted in The Life of Christ in Recent Research, should be read in any case).

Burton Scott Easton

Samael

Samael - sam'-a-el: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SALAMIEL (which see).

Samaias

Samaias - sa-ma'-yas (Samaias):

(1) One of the "captains over thousands" prominent at the Passover of Josiah (1 Esdras 1:9) = "Shemaiah" in 2 Chronicles 35:9.

(2) One of the heads of families of the sons of Adonikam who returned with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:39) = "Shemaiah" in Ezra 8:13.

(3) One of the "men of understanding" whom Ezra commissioned to obtain from Loddeus, the captain, men to execute the priest's office (1 Esdras 8:44) = "Shemaiah" in Ezra 8:16 (the King James Version Mamaias).

(4) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Shemaiah the great," a kinsman of Tobit and father of Ananias and Jonathan (Tobit 5:13).

S. Angus

Samaria, City of

Samaria, City of - sa-ma'-ri-a, (shomeron; Samareia, Semeron, and other forms):

(1) Shechem was the first capital of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kings 12:25). Jeroboam seems later to have removed the royal residence to Tirzah (1 Kings 14:17). After the brief reigns of Elah and Zimri came that of Omri, who reigned 6 years in Tirzah, then he purchased the hill of Samaria and built a city there, which was thenceforward the metropolis of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 16:24). Here the hill and the city are said to have been named after Shemer, the original owner of the land. There is nothing intrinsically improbable in this. It might naturally be derived from shamar, and the name in the sense of "outlook" would fitly apply to a city in such a commanding position. The residence, it was also the burying-place, of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 16:28; 22:37; 2 Kings 10:35; 9, 13; 14:16).

Toward the western edge of the Ephraimite uplands there is a broad fertile hollow called Wady esh-Sha`ir, "valley of barley." From the midst of it rises an oblong hill to a height of over 300 ft., with a level top. The sides are steep, especially to the Samaria. The greatest length is from East to West. The surrounding mountains on three sides are much higher, and are well clad with olives and vineyards. To the West the hills are lower, and from the crest a wide view is obtained over the Plain of Sharon, with the yellow ribbon of sand that marks the coast line, and the white foam on the tumbling billows; while away beyond stretch the blue waters of the Mediterranean. On the eastern end of the hill, surrounded by olive and cactus, is the modern village of Sebastiyeh, under which a low neck of land connects the hill with the eastern slopes. The position is one of great charm and beauty; and in days of ancient warfare it was one of remarkable strength. While it was overlooked from three sides, the battlements crowning the steep slopes were too far off to be reached by missiles from the only artillery known in those times--the sling and the catapult. For besiegers to attempt an assault at arms was only to court disaster. The methods adopted by her enemies show that they relied on famine to do their work for them (2 Kings 6:24 f, etc.). Omri displayed excellent taste and good judgment in the choice he made.

The city wall can be traced in almost its entire length. Recent excavations conducted by American archaeologists have uncovered the foundations of Omri's palace, with remains of the work of Ahab and of Herod (probably here was Ahab's ivory palace), on the western end of the hill, while on the western slope the gigantic gateway, flanked by massive towers, has been exposed to view.

Under the influence of Jezebel, Samaria naturally became a center of idolatrous worship. Ahab "reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. And Ahab made the Asherah" (1 Kings 16:32 f). Jehoram his son put away the pillar of Baal (2 Kings 3:2), and within the temple Jehu made an end at once of the instruments of idolatry and of the priests (2 Kings 10:19 f). There are many prophetic references to the enormities practiced here, and to their inevitable consequences (Isaiah 8:4; 9:9; 10:9; 28:1 ff; Isaiah 36:19; Jeremiah 23:13; Ezekiel 23:4; Hosea 7:1; 13:16; Amos 3:12; Micah 1:6, etc.).

Under pressure of Damascus Omri conceded to the Syrians the right to "make streets in Samaria" (1 Kings 20:34).

Ben-hadad II besieged the city, but suffered ignominious defeat (1 Kings 20:1-21; Josephus, Ant, VIII, xiv, 1 f). Persistent attempts by the Syrians to reach the city in the time of Jehoram were frustrated by Elisha (2 Kings 6:8 ff; Josephus, Ant, IX, iv, 2 Kings 3:1-27). At length, however, Ben-hadad again invested the city, and the besieged were reduced to dire straits, in which, urged by famine, scenes of awful horror were enacted (2 Kings 6:24 ff). A mysterious panic seized the Syrians. Their deserted camp was discovered by despairing lepers who carried the good news to the famished citizens of the plenty to be found there. Probably in the throat of the great western gateway occurred the crush in which the incredulous captain was trampled to death (1 Kings 7:1-51; Josephus, Ant, IX, iv, 1 Kings 5:1-18).

Here the 70 sons of Ahab were slain by Jehu in the general destruction of the house of Ahab (2 Kings 10:1 ff). In Samaria, the Chronicler tells us, Ahaziah in vain hid from Jehu (2 Chronicles 22:9; compare 2 Kings 9:27). Pekah brought hither much spoil from Jerusalem and many captives, whom, at the instance of the prophet Oded, he released (2 Chronicles 28:1-27 ff). The siege of Samaria was begun by Shalmaneser in the 7th year of Hoshea, and the city was finally taken by Sargon II at the end of 3 years, 722 BC (2 Kings 17:5 f; 2 Kings 18:9 f; Ant, IX, xiv, 2 Kings 1:1-18). This marked the downfall of the Northern Kingdom, the people being transported by the conqueror. That this was not done in a thoroughgoing way is evident from the fact recorded in the inscriptions that two years later the country had to be subdued again. Colonists were brought from other parts to take the places of the exiles (2 Kings 17:24; Ezra 4:10). Alexander the Great took the city in 331 BC, killed many of the inhabitants, and settled others in Shechem, replacing them with a colony of Syro-Macedonians. He gave the adjoining country to the Jews (Apion, II, 4). The city suffered at the hands of Ptolemy Lagi and Demetrius Poliorcetes, but it was still a place of strength (Josephus, Ant, XIII, x, 2) when John Hyrcanus came against it in 120 BC. It was taken after a year's siege, and the victor tried to destroy the city utterly. His turning of the water into trenches to undermine the foundations could only refer to the suburbs under the hill. From the only two sources, `Ain Harun and 'Ain Kefr Rima, to the East of the town, the water could not rise to the hill. The "many fountains of water" which Benjamin of Tudela says he saw on the top, from which water enough could be got to fill the trenches, are certainly not to be seen today; and they have left no trace behind them. The city was rebuilt by Pompey and, having again fallen under misfortune, was restored by Gabinius (Josephus, Ant, XIV, iv, 4; v, 3; BJ, I, vii, 7; viii, 4). To Herod it owed the chief splendor of its later days. He extended, strengthened and adorned it on a scale of great magnificence, calling it Sebaste (= Augusta) in honor of the emperor, a name which survives in the modern Sebastiyeh. A temple also was dedicated to Caesar. Its site is probably marked by the impressive flight of steps, with the pedestal on which stood the gigantic statue of Augustus, which recent excavations have revealed. The statue, somewhat mutilated, is also to be seen. Another of Herod's temples West of the present village was cleared out by the same explorers. The remains of the great double-columned street, which ran round the upper terrace of the hill, bear further testimony to the splendor of this great builder's work (Josephus, Ant, XV, vii, 3; viii, 5; BJ, I, xxi, 2). It was here that Herod killed perhaps the only human being whom he ever really loved, his wife Mariamne. Here also his sons perished by his hand (Josephus, Ant, XV, vii, 5-7; XVI, iii, 1-3; xi, 7).

It is commonly thought that this city was the scene of Philip's preaching and the events that followed recorded in Acts 8:1-40, but the absence of the definite article in Acts 8:5 makes this doubtful. A Roman colony was settled here by Septimius Severus. From that time little is known of the history of the city; nor do we know to what the final castastrophe was due. It became the seat of a bishopric and was represented in the councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. Its bishop attended the Synod of Jerusalem in 536 AD.

The Church of John, a Crusading structure beside the modern village, is now a Moslem mosque. It is the traditional burying-place of John the Baptist's body.

(2) he Samareia: A town mentioned in 1 Maccabees 5:66 as on the route followed by Judas from the district of Hebron to the land of the Philistines. The name is probably a clerical error. The margin reads Marisa, and probably the place intended is Mareshah, the site of which is at Tell Sandachannah, about a mile South of Belt Jibrin.

W. Ewing

Samaria, Country of

Samaria, Country of - (shomeron; he Samareitis chora): The name of the city was transferred to the country of which it was the capital, so that Samaria became synonymous with the Northern Kingdom (1 Kings 13:32; Jeremiah 31:5, etc.). The extent of territory covered by this appellation varied greatly at different periods. At first it included the land held by Israel East of the Jordan, Galilee and Mt. Ephraim, with the northern part of Benjamin. It was shorn of the eastern portion by the conquest of Tiglath-pileser (1 Chronicles 5:26). Judah probably soon absorbed the territory of Dan in the Samaria. In New Testament times Samaria had shrunk to still smaller dimensions. Then the country West of the Jordan was divided into three portions: Judea in the South, Galilee in the North, and Samaria in the middle. The boundaries are given in general terms by Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 1, 4, 5). The southern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon and the lands of Scythopolis, the city of the Decapolis West of the Jordan, formed the northern boundary. It reached South as far as the toparchy of Acrabatta (modern `Aqrabeh), while on the border between Samaria and Judea lay the villages of Annath and Borceos, the modern Khirbet `Aina and Berqit, about 15 miles South of Nablus. The Jordan of course formed the eastern boundary. On the West the coast plain as far as Acre belonged to Judea. The country thus indicated was much more open to approach than the high plateau of Judah with its steep rocky edges and difficult passes. The road from the North indeed was comparatively easy of defense, following pretty closely the line of the watershed. But the gradual descent of the land to the West with long, wide valleys, offered inviting avenues from the plain. The great trade routes, that to the fords of Jordan and the East, passing through the cleft in the mountains at Shechem, and those connecting Egypt with the North and the Northeast, traversed Samarian territory, and brought her into constant intercourse with surrounding peoples. The influence of the heathen religions to which she was thus exposed made a swift impression upon her, leading to the corruptions of faith and life that heralded her doom (Jeremiah 23:13; Hosea 7:1 ff, etc.). The Assyrians came as the scourge of God (2 Kings 17:5-23). Their attack centered on the capital. Shalmaneser began the siege, and after three years the city fell to Sargon II, his successor. With the fall of Samaria the kingdom came to an end. Following the usual Assyrian policy, great numbers of the inhabitants were deported from the conquered country, and their places taken by men brought from "Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim," cities which had already bowed to the Assyrian power (2 Kings 17:24).

It appears from the Assyrian inscriptions that the number carried away was 27,290. The number afterward deported from Judah was 200,000, and then the poorest of the land were left to be vinedressers and husbandmen (2 Kings 25:12). It is evident that a similar policy must have been followed in Samaria, as 27,290 could certainly not include the whole population of the cities and the country. But it would include the higher classes, and especially the priests from whom the victors would have most to fear. The population therefore after the conquest contained a large proportion of Israelites. It was no doubt among these that Josiah exercised his reforming energy (2 Kings 23:19 f; 2 Chronicles 34:6 f). Here also must have been that "remnant of Israel," Manasseh and Ephraim, who contributed for the repair of the house of God (2 Chronicles 34:9). These people, left without their religious guides, mingling with the heathen who had brought their gods and, presumably, their priests with them, were apt to be turned from the purity of their faith. A further importation of pagan settlers took place under Esar-haddon and Osnappar (Ezra 4:9-10). The latter is to be identified with Assur-bani-pal. What the proportions of the different elements in the population were, there is now no means of knowing. That there was some intermarriage is probable; but having regard to racial exclusiveness, we may suppose that it was not common. When the Jews deny to them any relation to Israel, and call them Cuthaeans, as if they were the descendants purely of the heathen settlers, the facts just mentioned should be borne in mind.

After the Assyrian conquest we are told that the people suffered from lions (2 Kings 17:25). Josephus (Ant., IX, xiv, 3) says "a plague seized upon them." In accordance with the ideas of the time, the strangers thought this due to the anger of the tutelary deity of the land, because they worshipped other gods in his territory, while neglecting him. Ignorant of his special ritual ("manner"), they petitioned the Assyrian king, who sent one (Josephus says "some") of the priests who had been carried away to teach them "how they should fear the Lord." How much is implied in this "fearing of the Lord" is not clear. They continued at the same time to serve their own gods. There is nothing to show that the Israelites among them fell into their idolatries. The interest of these in the temple at Jerusalem, the use of which they may now have shared with the Jews, is proved by 2 Chronicles 34:9. In another place we are told that four score men "from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria," evidently Israelites, were going up with their offerings to the house of the Lord (Jeremiah 41:5). Once the people of the country are called Samaritans (2 Kings 17:29). Elsewhere this name has a purely religious significance.

See SAMARITANS.

Of the history of Samaria under Assyrian and Babylonian rulers we know nothing. It reappears at the return of the Jews under Persian auspices. The Jews refused the proffered assistance of the Samaritans in rebuilding the temple and the walls of Jerusalem (Ezra 4:1, 3). Highly offended, the latter sought to frustrate the purpose of the Jews (Ezra 4:4 ff; Nehemiah 4:7 ff; 1 Esdras 2:16 ff). That the Samaritans were accustomed to worship in Jerusalem is perhaps implied by one phrase in the letter sent to the Persian king: "The Jews that came up from thee are come to us unto Jerus" (Ezra 4:12). Perhaps also they may be referred to in Ezra 6:21. Idolatry is not alleged against the "adversaries." We can hardly err if we ascribe the refusal in some degree to the old antagonism between the North and the South, between Ephraim and Judah. Whatever the cause, it led to a wider estrangement and a deeper bitterness. For the history of the people and their temple on Gerizim, see SAMARITANS.

Samaria, with Palestine, fell to Alexander after the battle of Issus. Antiochus the Great gave it to Ptolemy Epiphanes, as the dowry of his daughter Cleopatra (Josephus, Ant, XII, iv, 1). John Hyrcanus reduced and desolated the country (Josephus, BJ, I, ii, 6 f). After varying fortunes Samaria became part of the kingdom of Herod, at whose death it was given to Archelaus (Josephus, Ant, XVII, xi, 4; BJ, II, vi, 3). When Archelaus was banished it was joined to the Roman province of Syria (Josephus, Ant, XVII, xiii, 5; BJ, II, viii, 1).

Samaria is a country beautifully diversified with mountain and hill, valley and plain. The olive grows plentifully, and other fruit trees abound. There is much excellent soil, and fine crops of barley and wheat are reaped annually. The vine also is largely cultivated on the hill slopes. Remains of ancient forests are found in parts. As Josephus said, it is not naturally watered by many rivers, but derives its chief moisture from rain water, of which there is no lack (BJ, III, iii, 4). He speaks also of the excellent grass, by reason of which the cows yield more milk than those in any other place.

There is a good road connecting Nablus with Jaffa; and by a road not quite so good, it is now possible to drive a carriage from Jerusalem to Nazareth, passing through Samaria.

W. Ewing

Samaritan Pentateuch

Samaritan Pentateuch - sa-mar'-i-tan.

See PENTATEUCH,THE SAMARITAN .

Samaritans

Samaritans - sa-mar'-i-tanz (shomeronim; Samareitai, New Testament; (singular), Samarites): The name "Samaritans" in 2 Kings 17:29 clearly applies to the Israelite inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom. In subsequent history it denotes a people of mixed origin, composed of the peoples brought by the conqueror from Babylon and elsewhere to take the places of the expatriated Israelites and those who were left in the land (722 BC). Sargon claims to have carried away only 27,290 of the inhabitants (KIB, II, 55). Doubtless these were, as in the case of Judah, the chief men, men of wealth and influence, including all the priests, the humbler classes being left to till the land, tend the vineyards, etc. Hezekiah, who came to the throne of Judah probably in 715 BC, could still appeal to the tribes Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, Asher and Zebulun (2 Chronicles 30:5, 10-11, 18 ff); and the presence of these tribesmen is implied in the narrative of Josiah's reformation (2 Chronicles 34:6 f). Although the number of the colonists was increased by Esar-haddon and Osnappar (Assur-bani-pal, Ezra 4:2, 9 f), the population, it is reasonable to suppose, continued prevailingly Israelite; otherwise their religion would not so easily have won the leading place. The colonists thought it necessary for their own safety to acknowledge Yahweh, in whose land they dwelt, as one among the gods to be feared (2 Kings 17:24 ff). In the intermixture that followed "their own gods" seem to have fallen on evil days; and when the Samaritans asked permission to share in building the temple under Zerubbabel, they claimed, apparently with a good conscience, to serve God and to sacrifice to Him as the Jews did (Ezra 4:1 f). Whatever justification there was for this claim, their proffered friendship was turned to deadly hostility by the blunt refusal of their request. The old enmity between north and south no doubt intensified the quarrel, and the antagonism of Jew and Samaritan, in its bitterness, was destined to pass into a proverb. The Samaritans set themselves, with great temporary success, to frustrate the work in which they were not permitted to share (Ezra 4:4 ff: Nehemiah 4:7 ff. etc.).

From the strict administration of the Law in Jerusalem malcontents found their way to the freer atmosphere of Samaria. Among these renegades was Manasseh, brother of the high priest, who had married a daughter of Sanballat, the Persian governor of Samaria. According to Josephus, Sanballat, with the sanction of Alexander the Great, built a temple for the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim, of which Manasseh became high priest (Ant., XI, vii, 2; viii, 2 ff). Josephus, however, places Manasseh a century too late. He was a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 13:28).

When it suited their purpose the Samaritans claimed relationship with the Jews, asserting that their roll of the Pentateuch was the only authentic copy (see PENTATEUCH,THE SAMARITAN ); they were equally ready to deny all connection in times of stress, and even to dedicate their temple to a heathen deity (Josephus, Ant,XII , v, 5). In 128 BC, John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple (XIII, ix, 1). In the time of Christ the Samaritans were ruled by procurators under the Roman governor of Syria. Lapse of years brought no lessening of the hatred between Jews and Samaritans (Ant., XX, vi, 1). To avoid insult and injury at the hands of the latter, Jews from Galilee were accustomed to reach the feasts at Jerusalem by way of Peraea. "Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon" was an expression of opprobrium (John 8:48). Although Jesus forbade the Twelve to go into any city of the Samaritans (Matthew 10:5), the parable of the Good Samaritan shows that His love overleaped the boundaries of national hatred (Luke 10:30 ff; compare Luke 17:16; John 4:9).

During the Jewish war Cerealis treated the Samaritans with great severity. On one occasion (67 AD) he slaughtered 11,600 on Mt. Gerizim. For some centuries they were found in considerable numbers throughout the empire, east and west, with their synagogues. They were noted as "bankers" money-changers, For their anti-Christian attitude and conduct Justinian inflicted terrible vengeance on them. From this the race seems never to have recovered. Gradually-dwindling, they now form a small community in Nablus of not more than 200 souls. Their great treasure is their ancient copy of the Law.

See SAMARIA.

LITERATURE.

The best account of the Samaritans is Mills, Nablus and the Modern Samaritans (Murray, London); compare Montgomery, The Samaritans (1907). A good recent description by J. E. H. Thomson, D. D., of the Passover celebrated annually on Mt. Gerizim will be found in PEFS, 1902, 82 ff.

W. Ewing

Samatus

Samatus - sam'-a-tus (Samatos): One of the sons of Ezora who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:34). It is difficult to say which, if any, name it represents in parallel Ezra 10:34 ff, where no "sons of Ezora" are inserted between "sons of Bani" and "sons of Nebo": probably Shallurn (Ezra 10:42), but possibly Shemariah (Ezra 10:41).

Samech

Samech - sam'-ek (camekh): The 15th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "c". It came to be used for the number 60. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.

Sameius

Sameius - sa-me'-yus: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SAMEUS (which see).

Samellius

Samellius - sa-mel'-i-us (Codex Vaticanus Samellios; Codex Alexandrinus Sebellios, al Semellios; the King James Version Semellius): "Samellius the scribe," one of those who wrote a letter of protest to Artaxerxes against the building of Jerusalem by the returned exiles (1 Esdras 2:16, 17, 25, 30) = "Shimshai" in Ezra 4:8.

Sameus

Sameus - sa-me'-us (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, Samaios; Codex Vaticanus Thamaios; the King James Version Sameius): One of the sons of Emmer who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:21) = "Shemaiah" (the Revised Version margin "Maaseiah") of the sons of Harim in Ezra 10:21.

Samgar-nebo

Samgar-nebo - sam-gar-ne'-bo (camgar nebho, a Babylonian name): An officer of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who, according to the Massoretic Text of Jeremiah 39:3, took his seat with other nobles in the middle gate of Jerusalem after the Chaldean army had taken the city. Schrader (COT, ii, 109) holds that the name is a Hebraized form of the Assyrian Sumgirnabu ("be gracious, Nebo"), but Giesebrecht (Comm., 211) conjectures for Samgar a corruption of Sar-mag (Sar-magh), equivalent to Rab-mag (rab-magh), which implies virtual dittography. The number of variant readings exhibited by the Septuagint seems to confirm the belief that the text is corrupt. Nebo (nabu) is there joined with the following Sarsechim to agree with Nebushazban of Jeremiah 39:13. If the name Samgar-nebo is correct, the first Nergal-sharezer "should perhaps be dropped; we would then read: "Samgar-nebo the Sarsechim, Nebushazban the Rab-saris (compare Jeremiah 39:13) and Nergal-sharezer the Rab-mag" (Sayce).

See RAB-MAG; RAB-SARIS.

Horace J. Wolf

Sami

Sami - sa'-mi: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SABI (which see).

Samis

Samis - sa'-mis: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SOMEIS (which see).

Samlah

Samlah - sam'-la (samlah; Salama): One of the kings of Edom, of the city of Masrekah. He reigned before the Israelites had kings (Genesis 36:36-37; 1 Chronicles 1:47-48). The fact that the city is mentioned in connection with the name of the king suggests that Edom was a confederacy at this time and the chief city was the metropolis of the whole country.

Sammus

Sammus - sam'-us (Codex Alexandrinus Sammous; Codex Vaticanus Sammou): One of those who stood on Ezra's right hand as he expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:43) = "Shema" in Nehemiah 8:4.

Samos

Samos - sa'-mos (Samos, "height," "mountain" (see Strabo 346, 457)): One of the most famous of the Ionian islands, third in size among the group which includes Lesbos,CHIOS (which see) and Cos (which see). It is situated at the mouth of the bay of Ephesus, between the cities of EPHESUS and MILETUS (which see), and separated from the mainland of Ionia by the narrow strait where the Greeks met and conquered the Persian fleet in the battle of Mycale, 479 BC (Herodotus ix.100 ff). The surface of the island is very rugged and mountainous, Mt. Kerki (modern name) rising to a height of 4,700 ft., and it was due to this that the island received its name (see above).

Samothrace

Samothrace - sam'-o-thras (Samothrake, "the Thracian Samos"; the King James Version Samothracia, sam-o-thra'sha; the island was formerly Dardania; for change of name see Pausanias vii.4,3; Strabo x.457, and for a full discussion Conze, Hauser and Benndorf, Neue Untersuchungen auf South, 1880): An island in the Aegean Sea, South of Thrace opposite the mouth of the Hebrus River, and Northwest of Troas. The island is mountainous, as the name indicates (see SAMOS), and towers above Imbros when viewed from the Trojan coast. The summit is about a mile high. It is mentioned in the Iliad (xiii.12) as the seat of Poseidon and referred to by Virgil Aeneid vii.208.

The island was always famous for sanctity, and the seat of a cult of the Cabeiri, which Herodotus (ii.51) says was derived from the Pelasgian inhabitants (see also Aristophanes, Pax 277). The mysteries connected with the worship of these gods later rivaled the famous mysteries of Eleusis, and both Philip of Macedon and Olympias his wife were initiated here (Plut. Alex. 3).

Probably because of its sacred character the island did not figure to any extent in history, but in the expedition of Xerxes in 480 BC, one ship at least of the Samothracian contingent is mentioned as conspicuous in the battle of Salamis.

The famous "Victory of Samothrace" (now in the Louvre) was set up here by Demetrius Poliorcetes circa 300 BC, and was discovered in 1863. Since that time (1873-75), the Austrian government carried on extensive excavations (see Conze, Hauser and Benndorf, op. cit.).

In the New Testament the island is mentioned in Acts 16:11. From Troas, Paul made a straight run to Samothrace, and the next day sailed to NEAPOLIS (which see) on the Thracian coast, the port of PHILIPPI (which see). At the northern end of Samothrace was a town where the ship could anchor for the night, and on the return journey (Acts 20:6) a landing may have been made, but no details are given. Pliny characterizes the island as being most difficult for anchorage, but because of the hazards of sailing by night, the ancient navigators always anchored somewhere if possible.

LITERATURE.

See under SAMOS.

Arthur J. Kinsella

Sampsames

Sampsames - samp'-sa-mez (Sampsames): A place mentioned in 1 Maccabees 15:23, usually identified with Samsun, on the coast of the Black Sea. The Vulgate, with the Revised Version margin, has "Lampsacus."