Sacrifice and Responsibility Responsibility

4. Sacrifice and ResponsibilityResponsibility

Sacrifice is commonly treated as a relic of man’s primitive past; attempts to direct attention to a divine srcin in terms of Scripture are discounted, and we are told that “all monogenetic theories of the srcin of sacrifice may be safely d iscountenanced from the start.”123 _{These cavalier}

dismissals rest on a faith in autonomous man and his anti-God worldview.

Sacrifice is basic to the biblical faith, and it is basic to biblical law. Any consideration of biblical law must of necessity recognize the centrality of sacrifice.

In analyzing the meaning of sacrifice to law (for our interest here is legal rather than soteriological), it is necessary, first , to recognize that biblical sacrifice requires a doctrine of human sacrifice while rejecting sinful man as the sacrifice.As Vos observed in commenting on the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22), “the sacrifice of a human being cannot be condemned on principle.”124 _Moreover,

All Biblical sacrifice rests on the idea that the gift of life to God, either in consecration or in expiation, is necessary to the action or the restoration of religion. What passes from man to God is not regarded as property but, even though it be property for a symbolic purpose, means always in the last analysis the gift of life. And this is, in the srcinal conception, neither in expiation nor in consecration of the gift of alien life; it is the gift of the life of the offerer himself. The second principle underlying the idea is that man in the abnormal relation of sin is disqualified for offering this gift of his life in his own person. Hence the principle of vicariousness is brought into play: one life takes the place of another life. . . . Not sacrifice of human life as such, but the sacrifice of average sinful human life, is deprecated by the O.T. In the Mosaic law these things are taught by an elaborate symbolism.125

Notice that sacrifice serves both forexpiation and for consecration. It is, as Vos pointed out, “the gift of the life of the offerer himself,” and yet, because of the disqualification of sin, “the principle of vicariousness,” i.e., a God-provided substitute, is introduced. Oehler, in dealing with all forms of offerings and sacrifices, declared,“The essential nature of an offering in general is the devotion of man to God, expressed in an outwardact.”126 This, then, is the essence of sacrifice,man’s total devotion to God.

Second , this true and total devotion to God requires obedience to the law of God in love and faith. The Ten Commandments are followed by the summons to obey in total devotion: “And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. 6:5; cf. vv. 1-6). Before sacrifices were described by the law, Moses at Sinai on the first day commanded obedience (Ex. 19:5-6) and, on the third day, the law was given and sacrifices offered (Ex. 19:10-24:8). It is apparently to this primacy of obedience to the law that Jeremiah referred (Jer. 7:21-24). Sacrifices should be linked to obedience, according to Jeremiah 33:10-11, and will be in the day of restoration. The prophets denounced a purely formal sacrifice: obedience was required to give the sacrifice meaning as man’s full devotion to God.127

Third , the physical sacrifice of sinful man as an offering to God is a fearful offense against Him and invites judgment (Jer. 7:30-34). Since the essence of sacrifice is the devotion of man to God, human sacrifice represents an attempt to by pass God’s law and find a man-made way to God. Human sacrifice is thus humanistic to the core: it is atonement by man on his own terms.

Fourth, it is obvious that the sacrifices, as distinct from the offerings, typified Christ, the sinless and perfect man, who, in perfect devotion to God, kept the law fully. Christ, as the sinless man, was the acceptable sacrifice in atonement for the sins of His elect, who are redeemed by His atoning blood. Hence, to represent Christ, the offered animal had to be without blemish.

Fifth, the sacrifices were required of all believers as their bond of peace and unity with God. Those not covered by the sacrifice of Christ are under sentence of death. In the sacrificial system, the believer “put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering” (Lev. 1:4), or, more literally, leaned his hand.128 Certain portions of the sacrifice and of all meats were reserved portions, forbidden to man: the blood, the omentum or fat, the kidneys with the fat on them, and, in the case of sheep, the tail (also fat); these were the continually reserved portions, as distinct from portions reserved for the priest (Ex. 29:22; Lev. 3:9; 7:3-4; 8:25; 9:19-20). The animal sacrifices which were acceptable were cattle (bovine), sheep (ovine), and kids (caprine); of fowl, turtle- doves and young pigeons; all these were in the class of “clean” animals (Lev. 9:3; 14:10; 5:7; 12:8; Num. 28:3, 9, 11; 7:16-17, 22-23; etc.).

The shedding of blood was basic to the unity of the believer with God. Oehler noted:

The mediator of the covenant first offers to God in the blood a pure life, which comes in between God and the people, covering and atoning for the latter. In this connection the sprinkling of the altar does not merely signify God’s acceptance of the blood, but at the same time serves to consecrate the place in which Jehovah enters into intercourse with his people. But when a portion of the blood accepted by God is further applied to the people by an act of sprinkling, this is meant to signify that the same life which is offered up in atonement for the people is also intended to consecrate the people themselves to covenant fellowship with God. The act of consecration thus becomes an act of renewal of life — a translation of Israel into the kingdom of God, in which it is filled with divine vital energy, and is sanctified to be a kingdom of priests, a holy people.129

Sixth, the sacrificial system incorporated into law a basic principle: the greater the responsibility, the greater the culpability, the greater the sin.This is very clearly set forth in Leviticus 4, according to which there are four levels or grades of sin: 1) of the high priest, 4:3-12, whose sin offering required a bullock, the largest and most expensive sacrifice. “This is the very same kind of offering as when the whole congregation sins.”130 Religious leaders, because they have a central responsibility with respect to the law of God, are all the more guilty, and all the more severely judged by God. 2) The sin of the whole congregation is next in consequence, 4:13-21; “the congregation” here had reference to the Hebrew nation. The sin of a people collectively is a real one; it can be a sin of ignorance, or of falling short in obeying the law, but it is still a sin. The required sacrifice was again a bullock. 3) The sin of a ruler, a civil magistrate or officer, is next in order of consequence. The sin offering here was “a kid of the goats, a male without blemish” (4:22-26). The “ruler” clearly “includes all civil magistrates. His high responsibility is here shewn just as in Prov. xxiv. 12, ‘If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants will be wicked.’” Moreover, the text speaks of “[t]he Lord his God” because “[a] ruler is specially bound to be a man of God.”131 4) The sins of individuals, of any of the people of the land, are last in the order of sins (4:27-35). For the well-to-do, the prosperous, a female kid was required; if they were unable to bring the kid, a lamb could be offered. For sins of inadvertency, the poor could bring two turtle-

doves or two young pigeons (Lev. 5:11); for other sacrifices also, this poor man’s offering was possible. Thus, some individuals have a responsibility almost equal to that of rulers, in that they rule an estate or a segment of society. Psychologically, a female kid is lesser than a male kid; productively, its potential is greater. Some private individuals can often wield a power greater

than civil authorities, and their sin is commensurate to their responsibility. Most telling in this list is the clear and great prominence given to the religious leaders, and the markedly lower place given to civil authorities. According to Proverbs 29:18, “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” The Berkeley Version notes that “vision” has

reference to a “prophetic ministry,” without which “the people run wild.” Law and order are dependent on the faithful proclamation of God’s prophetic law-word, and, without it, social anarchy ensues.

Seventh, ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor are sins of inadvertency any the less sins. This is clear from Leviticus 4 and 5, which specify the sacrifices for such sins. Bonar called attention to the significance of this aspect of the law:

Here, too, we learn that “sin is thetransgression of the law” (I John iii. 4). It is not merely when we act contraryto the dictates of consciencethat we sin; we may often be sinning when conscience never upbraids us.132

Modern autonomous man regards as sin, if he considers the subject at all, only that which offends his conscience. But biblical law holds that sin and lawlessness can occur without knowledge and without conscience. Man, in fact, may sin with good conscience, but this does not alter the fact that he sins: the criterion of transgression is not man’s conscience but the law of God. Cannibalism and human sacrifice have both been practiced as matters of conscience, and much else also. The conscience of fallen man is no law criterion.

The main offerings of the Mosaic law were burnt offerings, meal offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and trespass offerings. The burnt offerings, consisting of bullocks, goats, rams, lambs, turtle-doves, or young pigeons, were entirely burnt on the altar, except for the animal skins, the priest’s portion (Lev. 1; 6:8-13; 7:8). The sin offerings and trespass offerings, as we have seen, were males or females of the herd, flock, or turtle-doves and young pigeons, and one-tenth ephah of flour. All of the sin offerings save God’s reserved portions went to the priest (Lev. 6:24-30); the same was true of some of the trespass offerings (Lev. 7:1-7). The meal offering consisted of fine flour, green ears of grain, frankincense, oil, and salt; again, a portion went to the priests (Lev. 2; 6:14-23). The peace offerings were male and female of the herd and flock, of bullocks, lambs, and goats; there were also unleavened cakes and wafers mingled with oil. But leavened bread was also to be used (Lev. 3; 7:11-13). The priest’s portion was the heave-shoulder and the wave- breast. The fact that offerings which were vicarious representatives of man’s sin became acceptable food for the priests had a symbolic aspect: “The memorial of the mass of sin is consumed in the fire of wrath; but the priest takes his portion, in order to show that the sin is cleansed out from the mass.”133

But,eighth, before this cleansing could occur the law required restitution. The goal of sacrifice as well as of law is the restoration of God’s law order. The requirement of restitution is both man- ward and God-ward. Bonar commented, with reference to Leviticus 6,

The trespasser is to be no gainer by defrauding God’s house. He is to suffer, even in temporal things, as a punishment for his sin. He is to bring, in addition to the thing of which he had defrauded God, money to the extent of one-fifth of the

value of the thing. This was given to the priest as the head of the people in things of God, and representative of God in holy duties. It was to be a double tithe because of the attempt to defraud God. (The tithe regularly paid was an

acknowledgement that God had a right to the things tithed; and this double tithe was an acknowledgment that, in consequence of this attempt to defraud Him, His right must be doubly acknowledged.)

134

Finally,ninth, a leavened offering was a part of the peace offering, an important fact (Lev. 7:13). Leaven is taken by some as a symbol or type of sin; it is rather a symbol of corruptibility. As a peace offering, this was acceptable. Other offerings had established man’s atonement through the blood of the unblemished and innocent one. Man was now in communion with God, and man’s works, however faulty, become thereby acceptable to God. All man’s services to God have an element of corruptibility; his works, buildings, gifts, and efforts decay and pass away. They are none the less a fulfilment of God’s law and an acceptable sacrifice. The acceptability of man’s works rests not on their perf ection, but on the perfection of God and on God’s provision of atonement for His elect. Man’s obedience to the law is a leavened offering, clearly corruptible, yet when faithful and obedient to God’s authority and order, a “sacrifice” well-pleasing in His sight and assured of His reward.

5.