Keith Hunt - The Temple - Page Six   Restitution of All Things

  Home Previous Page Next Page

The TEMPLE - its Ministry and Service #6

Meaning of the Sacrifices #2




'And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
but this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for
ever, sat down on the right hand of God.'- HEB.x.11,12.

     THE question whether or not sacrifices were to cease after
the coming of the Messiah is differently answered in the Jewish
synagogue, some arguing that only thank-and-peace-offerings would
then be brought, while the majority expect a revival of the
regular sacrificial worship. 1  But on one point the authorities
of the old synagogue, previous to their controversy with
Christianity, are agreed. 


     As the Old Testament and Jewish tradition taught that the
object of a sacrifice was its substitution for the offender, so
Scripture and the Jewish fathers also teach that the substitute
to whom all these types pointed was none other than the Messiah.
It has been well remarked, 2  that the difficulties of modern
interpreters of the Messianic prophecies arise

1 See Wunsche, U.S. p 28. It has been matter of controversy
whether or not, in the first years after the destruction of the
Temple, solitary attempts were made by enthusiasts to offer
sacrifices. My own conviction is, that no such instance can be
historically established. See Derenbourg, "Essai sur I'Hist. de
la Pal." pp. 480-482.
2 Wiinsche, p.35.

chiefly from their not perceiving the unity of the Old Testament
in its progressive unfolding of the plan of salvation. Moses must
not be read independently of the Psalms, nor yet the Psalms
independently of the Prophets. Theirs are not so many unconnected
writings of different authorship and age, only held together by
the boards of one volume. They form integral parts of one whole,
the object of which is to point to the goal of all revelation in
the appearing of the Christ. Accordingly, we recognise in the
prophetic word, not a change nor a difference, but three
well-marked progressive stages, leading up to the sufferings and
the glory of Messiah. In the Proto-Evangel, as Gen.iii.15 has
been called, and in what follows it, we have as yet only the
grand general outlines of the figure. Thus we see a Person in the
Seed of the woman; suffering, in the prediction that His heel
would be bruised; and victory, in that He would bruise the
serpent's head. These merely general outlines are wonderfully
filled up in the Book of Psalms. The 'Person' is now 'the Son of
David;' while alike the sufferings and the victory are sketched
in vivid detail in such Psalms as xxii., xxxv., lxix., and cii.;
or else in Psalms ii., lxxii., lxxxix., cx., and cxviii. - not to
speak of other almost innumerable allusions.


     One element only was still wanting - that this Son of David,
this Sufferer and Conqueror, should be shown to be our
Substitute, to whom also the sacrificial types had pointed. This
is in the writings of the prophets, especially in those of
Isaiah, culminating, as it were, in Isa.liii., around which the
details furnished by the other prophets naturally group
themselves. The picture is now completed, and so true to the
original that, when compared with the reality in the Person and
Work of the Lord Jesus Christ, we can have no difficulty in
recognising it; and this not so much from one or other outline in
prophecy or type, as from their combination and progressive
development throughout the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
considered as a connected whole.
     As already stated, such early works as the Targum Jonathan
and the Jerusalem Targum 1  frankly adopt the Messianic
interpretation of these prophecies. The later Rabbis also admit
that this had been the common view of the Jewish fathers; but, on
account of 'the sages of the Nazarenes, who apply it to that man
whom they hanged in Jerusalem towards the close of the second
Temple, and who, according to their opinion, was the Son of the
Most Blessed, and had taken human nature in the womb of the
Virgin,' they reject that interpretation, and refer the
prediction of suffering either to some individual, or mostly to
Israel as a nation. But so difficult is it to weaken the language
in which the Messiah's vicarious sufferings are described - not
less than twelve times in Isa. Iii.13 to liii.--that some of
their commentators have been forced to admit it, sometimes almost
unconsciously. The language of Isaiah has even crept into the
following Messianic hymnal prayer for the Passover: 2

1 Whatever date may be assigned to these Targumin, in their
present recension,  there can be no doubt that they embody the
elements of the very earliest Jewish Biblical interpretation. For
particulars I must take leave to refer to my History of the
Jewish Nation, chap.xi. "Theological Science and Religious Belief
in Palestine," p.407, etc.
2 According to the English edition of David Levi, this prayer
applies to 'the true Messiah.' See Wunsche, p.28, etc.

'Haste, my Beloved; come, ere ends the vision's day; Make haste,
and chase Thyself the shadows all away!
"Despised" is He, but yet "extolled" and "high " shall be; "Deal
prudently," "sprinkle nations," and "judge" shall He.'

     Thus, if by the universal consent of all who are
unprejudiced sacrifices point to substitution, substitution in
its turn points to the Person and Work of the Messiah.

     It has already been explained that all sacrifices were
either such as were offered on the ground of communion with God -
the burnt - and the peaceoffering; or else such as were intended
to restore that communion when it had been dimmed or disturbed -
the sin - and the trespass-offering. Each of these four kinds of
sacrifices will now have to be separately considered.


I. The burnt-offering--Olah, or also Chalil. 1--The derivation of
the term Olah, as wholly 'ascending' unto God, indicates alike
the mode of the sacrifice symbolism of and its meaning. It
symbolised the entire surrender unto God, whether of offering.
the individual or of the congregation, and His acceptance
thereof. Hence, also, it could not be offered 'without shedding
of blood.' Where other sacrifices were brought, it followed the
sin - but preceded the peace-offering. In fact, it meant general
acceptance on the ground of previous special acceptance, and it
has rightly been called the sacrificium latreuticum, or sacrifice
of devotion and service. 2  Thus day by day it formed the regular
morning and evening service in the Temple, while on

1 Deut.xxxiii.10; in literally rendered 'whole burnt.
2 In the historical books the term 0lah is, however, used in a
more general sense to denote other sacrifices also.

sabbaths, new moons, and festivals additional burntofferings
followed the ordinary worship. There the covenant-people brought
the covenant-sacrifice, and the multitude of offerings indicated,
as it were, the fulness, richness, and joyousness of their
self-surrender. Accordingly, although we can understand how this
sacrifice might be said to 'make atonement' for an individual in
the sense of assuring him of his acceptance, we cannot agree with
the Rabbis that it was intended to atone for evil thoughts and
purposes, and for breaches of positive commands, or of such
negative as involved also a positive command.
     The burnt-offering was always to be a male animal, as the
more noble, and as indicating strength and energy. The blood was
thrown on the angles of the altar below the red line that ran
round it. Then 'the sinew of the thigh,' 1 the stomach and the
entrails, etc., having been removed (in the case of birds also
the feathers and the wings), and the sacrifice having been duly
salted, it was wholly burned. The skins belonged to the
ministering priests, who derived a considerable revenue from this
source. 2  The burntoffering was the only sacrifice which
non-Israelites were allowed to bring. 3  The Emperor Augustus had
a daily burnt-offering brought for him of two lambs and a
bullock; and ever afterwards this sacrifice was regarded as
indicating that the Jewish nation recognised the Roman emperor as
their ruler. Hence at the commencement of the Jewish war Eleazar

1 Gen.xxxii.32. The 'sinew of the thigh' was neither allowed to
be eaten nor to be sacrificed.
2 Philo, "De Sacerd. Honor." p.833.
3 If they brought a 'peace-offering,' it was to be treated as a
burntoffering, and that for the obvious reason that there was no
one to eat the sacrificial meal. Of course, there was no
imposition of hands in that case.

its rejection, and this became, as it were, the open mark of the


II. The sin-offering.--This is the most important of all
sacrifices. It made atonement for the person of the offender,
whereas the trespass-offering only Symbolism of atoned for one
special offence. Hence the sin-offerings were brought on    
festive occasions for the whole people, but never
trespass-offerings. 1  In fact, the trespass-offering may be
regarded as representing ransom for a special wrong, while the
sin-offering symbolised general redemption.  Both sacrifices
applied only to sins 'through ignorance,' in opposition to those
done 'presumptuously' (or 'with a high hand'). For the latter the
law provided no atonement, but held out 'a certain fearful
looking for of judgment and fiery indignation.' By sins 'through
ignorance,' however, we are to understand, according to the
Rabbis, not only such as were committed strictly through want of
knowledge, but also those which had been unintentional, or
through weakness, or where the offender at the time realised not
his guilt. The fundamental difference between the two sacrifices
appears also in this - that sin-offerings, having a retrospective
effect on the worshippers, were brought at the various festivals,
and also for purification in such defilements of the body as
symbolically pointed to the sinfulness of our nature (sexual
defilement, those connected with leprosy, and with death). 2  On
the other hand, the animal brought for a trespass-offering was to

1 Comp. Numb.xxviii., xxix.
2 Oehler (in Herzog's Encycl. x. p.63) applies the section Lev.
v.1-13 to sin-offerings, the word 'trespass' being taken in a
general sense. The distinction between them and the ordinary
trespass offerings appears from ver.14, etc.


always a male (generally a ram, which was never used as a
sin-offering); nor was it lawful, as in the sin-offering, to make
substitution of something else in case of poverty. These two
particulars indicate that the trespass-offering contemplated
chiefly a wrong, for which decided satisfaction was to be made by
offering a male animal, and for which a definite, unvarying
ransom was to be given. 1
     However, in reference both to sin and to trespass-offerings,
the Rabbinical principle must be kept in view - that they only
atoned in case of real repentance. Indeed, their  first effect
would be 'a remembrance of sins' before God. 2  All    
sin-offerings were either public or private (congregational or
individual). The former were always males; the latter always
females, except the bullock for the high-priest's sin of
ignorance, 3  and the kid for the same offence of a 'ruler.' 4
     They were further divided into fixed, which were the same in
the case of rich and poor, and varying which 'ascended and
descended' according to the circumstances of the offerer.   
'Fixed' sacrifices were all those for sins 'through ignorance'
against any of the prohibitory commands (of which the Rabbis
enumerate 365); 5  for sins of deed, not of word; or else for
such which, if they had been high-handed, would have carried the
Divine punishment of being 'cut off' (of which the Rabbis
enumerate 36). The 'varying' sacrifices were those for lepers; 6
for women after childbirth (of which concession to poverty Mary,

1 On the trespass-offering of the leper (Lev.xiv.12), and of the,
Nazarite whose vow had been interrupted (, see below.
2 Heb.x.3.     
3 Lev.iv.3.    
4 Lev.iv.22.
5 They also mention 248 affirmative precepts, or in all 613,
according to the supposed number of members in the human body.
6 Lev.xiv.21.

mother of Jesus, availed herself); 1  for having concealed a
'thing known;' 2  for having unwittingly sworn falsely; and for
having either unwittingly eaten of what had been consecrated, or
gone into the Temple in a state of defilement. Lastly, there were
'outer' and 'inner' sin-offerings, according as the blood was
applied to the altar of burnt-offering or brought into the inner
sanctuary. In the former case the flesh was to be eaten only by
the officiating priests and within the sanctuary; the latter were
to be wholly burnt without the camp or city. 3  In both cases,
however,  the 'inwards,' as enumerated in Lev.iv.8, were always
first burned on the altar of burnt-offering. Neither oil nor
frankincense were to be brought with a sin-offering. There was
nothing joyous about it. It represented a terrible necessity, for
which God, in His wondrous grace, had made provision.
     It only remains to explain in detail two peculiarities
connected with the sin-offering. 
     First, it differed according to the theocratic position of
him who brought the sacrifice. For the high-priest on the
Day of Atonement, 4  or when he had sinned, 'to the rendering
guilty of the people,' 5  that is, in his official capacity
as representing the people; or if the whole congregation had
sinned through ignorance; 6  and at the consecration of the
priests and Levites a bullock was to be brought. This was the
highest kind of sin-offering. Next in order was that of the

1 Luke ii.24; Lev.xii.8. 
2 Lev.v.I.
3 According to the Talmud, if doves were brought as a
sin-offering, the carcases were not burned, but went to the
4 Lev.xvi.3.   
5 Lev.iv.3
6 Lev.iv.13. The Rabbis apply this to erroneous decisions on the
part of the Sanhedrim.

'kid of the goats,' offered for the people on the Day of
Atonement, 1  and on the other festivals and New Moons; 2  also
for the ruler who had sinned through ignorance; 3  for the
congregation if aught had been committed by any individual
'without the knowledge of the congregation;' 4  and, lastly, at
the consecration of the Tabernacle. 5  The third kind of
sin-offering consisted of a female kid of the goats 6  for
individual Israelites, 7  and of a ewe lamb for a Nazarite 8  and
a leper. 9  The lowest grade of sin-offering was that of
turtle-doves or young pigeons offered at certain purifications;
10  or else as a substitute for other sacrifices in case of
poverty - in extreme cases something resembling to, or 'as a
meat-offering' being even allowed. 11


     Secondly, the blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled, not
thrown. In the case of a private Israelite, it was sprinkled,
that is, either jerked or dropped successively on each of the
four horns 12  of the altar of burnt-offering-beginning - at the
south-east, thence going to the north-east, then the north-west,
and finishing at the south-west, where the rest of the blood was
poured at the bottom of the altar through two funnels that
conducted into the Kedron. On the other hand, when offering
bullocks and goats, whose carcases were to be burned without the
camp, the officiating priest stood in the Holy Place, between the
golden alta

1 Lev.xvi.5. 
2 Numb.xxviii.15, etc.; xxix.5, etc.
3 Lev.iv.23.   
4 Numb.xv.24.  
5 Lev.ix.3,15.
6 It is not very easy to understand why goats should have been
chosen in preference for sin-offerings, unless it were that their
flesh was the most unpalatable of meat.
7 Lev.iv.28, etc.; v.6.  
9 Lev.xiv.10.
10 Lev.xii.6; xv.14,29; 
12 The 'horns' symbolised, as it were, the outstanding height and
strength of the altar.

and the candlestick, and sprinkled of the blood seven times 1
towards the Most Holy Place, to indicate that the
covenant-relationship itself had been endangered and was to be
re-established, and afterwards touched with it the horns of the
altar of incense. The most solemn of all sacrifices were those of
the Day of Atonement, when the high-priest, arrayed in his linen
garments, stood before the Lord Himself within the Most Holy
Place to make an atonement. Every spot of blood from a
sin-offering on a garment conveyed defilement, as being loaded
with sin, and all vessels used for such sacrifices had either to
be broken or scoured.
     Quite another phase of symbolic meaning was intended to be
conveyed by the sacrificial meal which the priests were to make
of the flesh of such sin-offerings as were not wholly burnt
without the camp. Unquestionably Philo 2  was right in
suggesting, that one of the main objects of this meal was to
carry to the offerer assurance of his acceptance, 'since God
would never have allowed His servants to partake of it, had there
not been a complete removal and forgetting of the sin' atoned
for. This view entirely accords with the statement in Lev x.17,
where the purpose of this meal by the priests is said 'to bear
the iniquity of the congregation.' Hence, also, the flesh of all
sacrifices, either for the high-priest, as representing the
priesthood, or for the whole people, had to be burnt; because
those who, as God's representatives, were alone allowed to eat
the sacrificial meal were themselves among the offerers of the

1 Seven was the symbolical number of the covenant. 
2 De Vict. 13.


III. The trespass-ofering was provided for certain transgressions
committed through ignorance, or else, according to Jewish
tradition, where a man afterwards voluntarily confessed himself
guilty. The Symbolism of Rabbis arrange this class into those for
a doubtful and for a certain trespass. The former were offered by
the more scrupulous, when, uncertain whether they might not have
committed an offence which, if done high-handed, would have
implied being 'cut off,' or, if in ignorance, necessitated a
sin-offering. Accordingly, the extreme party, or Chassidim, were
wont to bring such a sacrifice every day! On the other hand, the
offering for certain trespasses covered five distinct cases, 1
which had all this in common, that they represented a wrong for
which a special ransom was to be given. It forms no exception to
this principle, that a trespass-offering was also prescribed in
the case of a healed leper, 2  and in that of a Nazarite, whose
vow had been interrupted by sudden defilement with the dead, 3
since leprosy was also symbolically regarded as a wrong to the
congregation as a whole, 4  while the interruption of the vow was
a kind of wrong directly towards the Lord. But that this last
was, at the same time, considered the lightest kind of trespass
appears even from this - that, while ordinarily the flesh of the
trespass-offering, after burning the inwards on the altar of
burnt-offering, 5  was only to be eaten by

1 Lev.v.15; vi.2; xix.20 (in these three cases the offering was a
ram); and Lev.xiv.12 and (where the offering was a he-
lamb). The Word of God considers every wrong done to another, as
also a wrong done against the Lord (, and hence, as
needing a trespass-offering.
2 Lev.xiv.12.  
4 Hence the leper was banished from the congregation. 
5 Lev.vii.3.

the officiating priests within the Holy Place, the lamb offered
for such a Nazarite might be eaten by others also, and anywhere
within Jerusalem. The blood of the trespass-offering (like that
of the burnt-offering) was thrown on the corners of the altar
below the red line.


IV. The most joyous of all sacrifices was the peace-offering, or,
as from its derivation it might also be rendered, the offering of
completion. 1  This was, indeed, a season of happy fellowship
with the Covenant God, in which He condescended to become
Israel's Guest at the sacrificial meal, even as He was always
their Host. Thus it symbolised the spiritual truth expressed in
Rev.iii.20, 'Behold, I stand at the door, and knock
if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to
him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.' In peace-offerings
the sacrificial meal was the point of main importance. Hence the
name 'Sevach,' by which it is designated in the Pentateuch, and
which means 'slaying,' in reference to a meal. It is this
sacrifice which is so frequently referred to in the Book of
Psalms as the grateful homage of a soul justified and accepted
before God. 2  If, on the one hand, then, the 'offering of
completion' indicated that there was complete peace with God, on
the other, it was also literally the offering of completeness.
The peace-offerings were either public or private. The two lambs
offered every year at Pentecost 3  were a public peace-offering,
and the only one which was regarded as 'most holy.' As such they
were sacrificed at the north side of the altar, and their flesh
eaten only bY

1 It always followed all the other sacrifices.
2; liv.6; lvi.12; cxvi.17,18.
3 Lev.xxiii,19.

the officiating priests, and within the Holy Place. The other
public peace-offerings were slain at the south side, and their
'inwards' burnt on the altar.1  Then, after the priests had
received their due, the rest was to be eaten by the offerers
themselves, either within the courts of the Temple or in
Jerusalem. 2  On one occasion (1 Kings viii.63) no less than
22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep were so offered. Private
peace-offerings were of a threefold kind: 3  'sacrifices of
thanksgiving,' 4 'vows,' and strictly 'voluntary offerings.' 5
The first were in general acknowledgment of mercies received; the
last, the free gift of loving hearts, as even the use of the same
term in Ex.xxv.2, xxxv.29 implies. Exceptionally in this last
case, an animal that had anything either 'defective' or
'superfluous' might be offered.6


     Peace-offerings were brought either of male or of female
animals (chiefly of the former), but not of pigeons, the
sacrifice being, of course, always accompanied by a meat - and a
drink-offering. 7  As every other sacrifice, they needed
imposition of hands, confession, and offerings, sprinkling of
blood, the latter being done as in the burnt-offering. Then the
'inwards' were taken out and 'waved' before the Lord, along with
'the breast' and the 'right shoulder' (or, perhaps more
correctly, the right leg). In reference to these two wave-
offerings we remark, that the breast properly belonged to the
Lord, and that He gave it to His priests, 8  while Israel gave
the 'right shoulder' directly to the priests. 9  The ritual of
waving has already been

1 Lev.iii.4,5. 
2 Deut.xxvii.7.     
3 Lev.vii.11.
4 Lev.vii.12.  
5 Lev.vii.16.  
6 Lev.xxii.23.
7 Lev.vii.11, etc.  
8 Lev.vii.30.  
9 Lev.vii.32.

described, 1  the meaning of the movement being to present the
sacrifice, as it were, to the Lord, and then to receive it back
from Him. The Rabbinical suggestion, that there was a distinct
rite of 'heaving' besides that of 'waving,' seems only to rest on
a misunderstanding of such passages as Lev.ii.2,9; vii.32; x.15,
etc. 2  The following were to be 'waved' before the Lord: the
breast of the peace-offering; 3  the parts mentioned at the
consecration of the priests; 4  the first omer at the Passover; 5
the jealousy-offering; 6  the offering at the close of a
Nazarite's vow; 7  the offering of a cleansed leper; 8  and 'the
two lambs' presented 'with the bread of the firstfruits,' at the
Feast of Tabernacles. 9  The two last-mentioned offerings were
'waved' before being sacrificed. After the 'waving,' the
'inwards' 10  were burnt on the altar of burnt-offering, and the
rest eaten either by priests or worshippers, the longest term
allowed in any case for the purpose being two days and a night
from the time of sacrifice. Of course, the guests, among whom
were to be the Levites and the poor, must all be in a state of
Levitical purity, symbolical of 'the wedding garment' needful at
the better gospel-feast.


     We close with a few particulars about meat-offerings. These
were either brought in conjunction with burntand peace-offerings
(but never with sin-offerings or with trespass-offerings) or else
by themselves. The latter were either public

1 The pieces were laid on the hands as follows: the feet, and
then the breast, the right shoulder, the kidneys, the Gaul of the
liver, and, in the case of a thank-offering, the bread upon it
2 The 'heave' is, in reality, only the technical term for the
priest's 'taking' his portion.
3 Lev.vii.30.  
4 Lev.viii. 25-29.  
5 Lev.xxiii.11.
6 Numb.v.25.   
7 20. 
8 Lev.xiv.12.
9 Lev.xxiii.20.     
10 Lev.iii.3-5, etc.

or private meat-offerings. The three public meat offerings were:
the twelve loaves of shewbread, renewed every Sabbath, and
afterwards eaten by the priests; the omer, or sheaf of the
harvest, on the second day of the Passover; and the two
wave-loaves at Pentecost. Four of the private meat-offerings were
enjoined by the law, viz.: (1) the daily meatoffering of the
high-priest, according to the Jewish interpretation of;
(2) that at the consecration of priests; 1 (3) that in
substitution for a sin-offering, in case of poverty; 2  and that
of jealousy. 3  The following five were purely voluntary, viz,
that of fine flour with oil, unbaken; 4  that 'baken in a pan;'
in a frying-pan;' 'in the oven;' and the 'wafers.' 5  All these
offerings were to consist of at least one omer of corn (which was
the tenth part of an ephah) But any larger number under 61 omers
might be offered, the reason of the limitation being, that as the
public meat-offerings enjoined on the Feast of Tabernacles
amounted to 61, all private offerings must be less than that
number. In all baken meat-offerings, an 'omer' was always made
into ten cakes - the symbolical number of completeness - except
in that of the high-priest's daily meat-offering, of which twelve
cakes were baken, as representative of Israel. Finally, as the
Rabbis express it, every meat-offering prepared in a vessel had
'three pourings of oil' - first into the vessel, then to mingle
with the flour, and lastly, after it was ready - the frankincense
being then put upon it.  The 'wafers' were 'anointed' with oil,
after the form of the Hebrew letter, or the Greek

2 Lev.v.11,12. 
3 Numb.v.15.
4 Lev.ii.1.    
5 Lev.ii.4-7.  
6 Ex.xvi.36.
7 See Relandus, p.353. This, however, only when the feast fell on
a Sabbath.

letter K, as they explain, 'to run down in two parts.' 1
When presenting a meat-offering, the priest first brought it in
the golden or silver dish in which it had been prepared, and then
transferred it to a holy vessel, putting oil and frankincense
upon it. Taking his stand at the south-eastern corner of the
altar, he next took the 'handful' that was actually to be burnt,
put it in another vessel, laid some of the frankincense on it,
carried it to the top of the altar, salted it, and then placed it
on the fire. The rest of the meat-offering belonged to the
priests. 2  Every meat-offering was accompanied by a
drink-offering of wine, which was poured at the base of the


     So complicated a service, and one which enjoined such
frequent sacrifices, must always have kept a large number of
priests busy in the courts of the Large Temple. This was
especially the case on the great festivals; and if the
magnificent Temple could hold its 210,000 worshippers - if the
liturgy, music, and ritual were equally gorgeous - we cannot
wonder that it required,

1 The subjoined Rabbinical table may be of use:

Requiring the addition of oil and frankincense: Of fine flour
unbaken; baken in a pan; baken in a frying-pan; baken in the
oven; the 'wafers;' the high-priest's daily and the priest's
consecration offering; the flour from the 'sheaf' offered on the
second day of the Passover. Requiring oil without frankincense:
All meat-offerings, accompanying a burnt or a peace-offering.    
Requiring frankincense without oil: The shewbread. Requiring
neither oil nor frankincense: The two loaves at Pentecost; the
jealousy-offering; and that in substitution for a sin-offering.
2 Except to the meat-offering of the high-priest, and of priests
at their consecration; the exception in both cases for the
obvious reason already referred to in explaining sacrificial
meals. Similarly, the meat-offerings connected with
burnt-sacrifices were wholly consumed on the altar.

multitudes of white-robed priests properly to discharge its
ministry. Tradition has it, that on the Day of Atonement no less
than five hundred priests were wont to assist in the services. On
other feastdays even more must have been engaged, as it was a
Rabbinical principle, 'that a man should bring all his offerings,
that were either due from him or voluntarily dedicated, at the
solemn festival that cometh next.' In other words, if a man
incurred a sacrifice, or voluntarily promised one, he was to
bring it when next he came to Jerusalem. But even this provision
showed 'the weakness and unprofitableness thereof,' since in all
ordinary cases a long time must have elapsed before the stain of
guilt could be consciously removed by an atoning sacrifice, or a
vow performed. Blessed be God, the reality in Christ Jesus in
this, as in all other things, far out-distances the type! For we
have always 'liberty to enter into the Holiest by the blood of
Jesus;' and 'if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of
an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of
the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through
the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge
your conscience from dead works to serve the living God!'


To be continued with "At Night in the Temple"

  Home Previous Page Top of Page Next Page

Navigation List:

Word Search: