LAMB — (1.) Heb. kebes, a male lamb from the first to the third year. Offered daily at the morning and the evening sacrifice (Ex. 29:38–42), on the Sabbath day (Num. 28:9), at the feast of the New Moon (28:11), of Trumpets (29:2), of Tabernacles (13–40), of Pentecost (Lev. 23:18–20), and of the Passover (Ex. 12:5), and on many other occasions (1 Chr. 29:21; 2 Chr. 29:21; Lev. 9:3; 14:10–25).
(2.) Heb. taleh, a young sucking lamb (1 Sam. 7:9; Isa. 65:25). In the symbolical language of Scripture the lamb is the type of meekness and innocence (Isa. 11:6; 65:25; Luke 10:3; John 21:15).
The lamb was a symbol of Christ (Gen. 4:4; Ex. 12:3; 29:38; Isa. 16:1; 53:7; John 1:36; Rev. 13:8).
Christ is called the Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36), as the great sacrifice of which the former sacrifices were only types (Num. 6:12; Lev. 14:12–17; Isa. 53:7; 1 Cor. 5:7). 1

LAMB OF GOD. This expression occurs twice only in the NT (Jn. 1:29, 36). The word amnos is also found in Acts 8:32 and 1 Pet. 1:19, arnos occurs in Lk. 10:3, and arnion is found once in Jn. 21:15 and twenty-eight times in Revelation. The words ‘Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ (Jn. 1:29) are attributed to John the Baptist when acclaiming Jesus. Many possible interpretations of the word ‘lamb’ have been canvassed.
Some suggest that it refers to the lamb of the sin-offering, and the phrase ‘who takes away the sin of the world’ lends support to this. The fact that propitiatory ideas do not seem to be found elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel is not a sufficient reason for rejecting this.
Others believe there is a reference to the paschal lamb. The Jewish festivals have great significance in John, and Jn. 19:36 may well be alluding to the lamb of the Passover. But this would not explain the whole phrase, as the paschal lamb did not take away sins.
Some maintain that we have here a reference to the suffering servant of Is. 53. The word amnos occurs in the LXX of Is. 53:7. The Baptist quoted from Is. 40 the day before and he may have been meditating on those chapters. The sin-bearing function is clear in Is. 53. The suggestion that amnos is a mistranslation of the Aramaic talyaµÕ meaning ‘servant’ is ingenious, but it has not been proved.
Another possible reference is to the horned ram who led the flock. The ‘lamb of God’ would thus be the same as the ‘king of Israel’. This view is acceptable only if it is claimed that ho airoµn teµn hamartian has no propitiatory meaning.
It seems likely that, whatever the Baptist intended, the Evangelist intended his readers to think of the lamb offered in the Temple, the paschal lamb, and the suffering servant. The ‘Lamb of God’ also reminds us of God’s provision of a lamb for Abraham to sacrifice (Gn. 22:8, 13-14).
BIBLIOGRAPHY. Arndt; J. Jeremias, TDNT 1, pp. 338-340; R. Tuente, NIDNTT 2, pp. 410-414; standard commentaries on John’s Gospel; C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, pp. 230-238; L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3, 1965, pp. 129ff. R.E.N. 2

SACRIFICE — The offering up of sacrifices is to be regarded as a divine institution. It did not originate with man. God himself appointed it as the mode in which acceptable worship was to be offered to him by guilty man. The language and the idea of sacrifice pervade the whole Bible.
Sacrifices were offered in the ante-diluvian age. The Lord clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of animals, which in all probability had been offered in sacrifice (Gen. 3:21). Abel offered a sacrifice “of the firstlings of his flock” (4:4; Heb. 11:4). A distinction also was made between clean and unclean animals, which there is every reason to believe had reference to the offering up of sacrifices (Gen. 7:2, 8), because animals were not given to man as food till after the Flood.
The same practice is continued down through the patriarchal age (Gen. 8:20; 12:7; 13:4, 18; 15:9–11; 22:1–18, etc.). In the Mosaic period of Old Testament history definite laws were prescribed by God regarding the different kinds of sacrifices that were to be offered and the manner in which the offering was to be made. The offering of stated sacrifices became indeed a prominent and distinctive feature of the whole period (Ex. 12:3–27; Lev. 23:5–8; Num. 9:2–14). (See ALTAR.)
We learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews that sacrifices had in themselves no value or efficacy. They were only the “shadow of good things to come,” and pointed the worshippers forward to the coming of the great High Priest, who, in the fullness of the time, “was offered once for all to bear the sin of many.” Sacrifices belonged to a temporary economy, to a system of types and emblems which served their purposes and have now passed away. The “one sacrifice for sins” hath “perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
Sacrifices were of two kinds: 1. Unbloody, such as (1) first-fruits and tithes; (2) meat and drink-offerings; and (3) incense. 2. Bloody, such as (1) burnt-offerings; (2) peace-offerings; and (3) sin and trespass offerings. (See OFFERINGS.) 1

SACRIFICE AND OFFERING.
I. In the Old Testament

a. Terms
The OT has no general word for ‘sacrifice’, except the rather sparsely used qorban, ‘that which is brought near’ (qrb), which is practically confined to the levitical literature. (AV renders this term ‘Corban’ in the single NT reference of Mk. 7:11.) isseh may also serve this purpose in the laws, but it is debated whether it should not be limited to ‘fire-offerings’ (es) (but cf. Lv. 24:9). The other frequently used words describe particular kinds of sacrifice, and are derived either from the mode of sacrifice, as zebah (sacrifice), ‘that which is slain, (zabah), and ola (burnt-offering), ‘that which goes up’, or from its purpose, as ola (guilt-offering), ‘for guilt’ (asam), and hattat (sin-offering), ‘for sin’ (hattat). These may be distinguished in part by the disposal of the victim, whether wholly burnt (ola, Lv. 1), or eaten by priests and worshippers together (zebah, Lv. 3), or eaten by the priests alone (hattat and asam, Lv. 4-5). For the distinction of ola and zebah, see Dt. 12:27 (cf. Je. 7:21, where the prophet ironically suggests an obliteration of the distinction).
Also included under qorban were the non-blood offerings ‘offering, oblation’, the cereal-offering (minhah, Lv. 2), the firstfruits (re sir bikkurim), the sheaf of 16 Nisan, the dough of the Feast of Weeks, and the tithes.

b. Theories of the beginnings
Sacrifice was not confined to Israel among the nations of antiquity (cf. Jdg. 16:23; 1 Sa. 6:4; 2 Ki. 3:27; 5:17), and many parallels from surrounding nations have been adduced in explanation of Israelite sacrifice. W. R. Smith (‘Sacrifice’, EBr9, 21, 1886, pp. 132-138; The Religion of the Semites, 1889) constructed, from the pre-Islamic nomadic Arabs, a hypothetical ‘Semite’, to whom the sacrificial meal was the earliest form, and the communion of the worshippers and the deity the controlling idea. The Pan-Babylonian movement (H. Winckler, A. Jeremias, from c. 1900 onwards) looked to the higher civilization of Mesopotamia, and to the developed ritual of propitiatory sacrifice practised there.
R. Dussaud preferred a Canaanite background, and found parallels first in the Carthaginian sacrificial tariffs (Le sacrifice en Israel et chez les Phéniciens, 1914; Les origines canaéennes du sacrifice israélite, 1921), and later in the Ras Shamra texts (Les découvertes de Ras Shamra et l’Ancien Testament, 1937). Here the materials of ancient Ugarit (c. 1400 BC) indicated a developed ritual of sacrifices bearing names similar to those of the OT. The srp was a burnt-offering, the dbh, a slain-offering for a meal, the slm, possibly a propitiatory sacrifice, and the atm, the equivalent of the Heb. asam (These were not Dussaud’s identifications.) The myth and ritual school (S. H. Hooke, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, 1938; I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, 1943) stressed this sedentary background and laid weight on the substitutionary role of the suffering king in the cult.
This was not convincing to A. Alt, who had earlier claimed (Der Gott der Väter, 1929, now in Essays on OT History and Religion, 1966, pp. 1-77) that the real antecedents of Israelite faith were to be sought rather among the nomad Patriarchs, who had practised a form of religion centering in the god of the head of the clan (the ‘God of Abraham’, the ‘God of Isaac’, the ‘God of Jacob’). V. Maag (‘Der Hirte Israels’, Schweizerische Theologische Umschau 28, 1958, pp. 2-28) took this further by noticing the dominance of the shepherd metaphor in the descriptions of this God, and from a background of the migrant shepherd cultures of the Asiatic steppes, suggested that their sacrifice was the fellowship meal in which the god took over the responsibility of the shed blood, which would otherwise have exacted vengeance (cf. A. E. Jensen, ‘Über das Töten als kulturgeschichtliche Erscheinung’, Paideuma 4, 1950, pp. 23-38; H. Baumann, ‘Nyama, die Rachemacht’, ibid., pp. 191-230). Israelite religion, as it appears in the OT, is a syncretism in which the nomadic zebah sacrifice exists alongside of gift sacrifices of the ola type, which come in from the sedentary Canaanite side (V. Maag, VT 6, 1956, pp. 10-18).
Such a view finds place for both the sedentary and nomadic aspects, but becomes subjective when applied to particular OT narratives. The OT depicts early Israel less as nomadic than as a people in process of sedentarization. The Patriarchs already have the larger bovines and engage in some agriculture, and it may well be that a closer parallel to Hebrew sacrifice may be found among a tribe such as the African Nuer, whose sacrifice, as described by E. Evans-Pritchard (Nuer Religion, 1956) involved the offering of an ox in substitution for sin. The Wellhausen school, which traced an evolution from a joyous sacrificial meal in the earlier time to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings only in the post-exilic period (J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 1885; W. R. Smith, op.cit.), regarded the connection of sacrifice with sin as the latest element. But this is no longer probable (cf. the writer’s Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel, 1963), as the following historical sketch will show.

c. The development in the history
1. Patriarchal. It is significant that the first sacrifices mentioned in Gn. were not zbahim meals, but the gift-offerings of Cain and Abel (minha, Gn. 4:3-4), and the burnt-offering of Noah (ola, Gn. 8:20; we have here the first reference to an altar). Patriarchal altars are often described (e.g. Gn. 12:6-8), but unfortunately details as to the type of sacrifice are lacking. Maag thinks of the zebah communion meal, but T. C. Vriezen (An Outline of Old Testament Theology, 1958, p. 26) thinks the ola more typical. Gn. 22 gives some support to the latter position. Isaac knows that Abraham is in the habit of offering ola and that a lamb is the likely victim (v. 7). Sacrificial meals do, however, seal covenants (Gn. 31:54, first use of zebah) but not all covenants are of this type. Gn. 15:9-11 is best understood as a purificatory ritual like that of the Hittite text translated by O. Masson (RHR 137, 1950, pp. 5-25; cf. O. R. Gurney, The Hittites, 1952, p. 151).
As to the motives of sacrifice in this period, honouring of God and thanksgiving for his goodness were prominent, but more solemn thoughts cannot be ruled out. Noah’s offering is to be seen, not simply as a thank-offering for deliverance, but as an expiation or atonement. When Jacob goes to Egypt (Gn. 46:1), he pauses to seek God’s will, and offers sacrifices (zebah), which were possibly expiatory (cf. I. Rost, VTSupp 7, 1960, p. 354; ZDPV 66, 1943, pp. 205-216). In Egypt Israel is called to a solemn sacrifice in the wilderness (Ex. 5:3, zebah) which required animal victims (Ex. 10:25-26) and was distinguished from any offered by the Egyptians (Ex. 8:26).
2. Tribal. The establishment of Israel as a tribal organization, which Noth thinks of as coming into being only on the soil of Palestine in the time of the Judges (cf. The History of Israel, 1958), is taken back by strong biblical tradition to the time of Moses. Chief among tribal occasions were the three festivals, at which sacrifice was to be offered: ‘none shall appear before me empty-handed’ (Ex. 23:15). The sacrifices we know best were those of the *Passover and the *covenant. The Passover combined the elements of sacrifice as an apotropaic and sacrifice as a communion meal. Secure in the knowledge that the blood had been shed to ward off evil, the members of each family could sit down to joyful fellowship (Ex. 12; Jos. 5:5-12). Similar elements probably entered into the covenant sacrifice and its renewals (Ex. 24:1-8; Dt. 27:1ff.; Jos. 8:30ff.; 24; cf. Ps. 50:5). The blood-sprinkling purified the covenant and the eating of the meal marked its consummation.
In addition, many other sacrifices both national and local were offered. Typical of national sacrifices were those in times of disaster or war (Jdg. 20:26; 21:4; 1 Sa. 7:9), when penitence seems to have been the main note (cf. Jdg. 2:1-5). Dedications and new beginnings were marked by sacrifice (Jdg. 6:28; Ex. 32:6; 1 Sa. 6:14; 11:15; 2 Sa.6:17), as were individual occasions of celebration (1 Sa. 1:3), intercession (Nu. 23:1ff.), and perhaps hospitality (Ex. 18:12).
3. Monarchic. The building of the Temple by Solomon provided opportunity for initiatory (1 Ki. 8:62ff.) and regular sacrifices (1 Ki. 9:25), but as the sources are books of ‘kings’ they speak rather of royal participation (cf. 2 Ki. 16:10ff.) than of that of the people. That the everyday cult was in progress, however, is attested by such a verse as 2 Ki. 12:16, and by the frequent mention of sacrifice in the prophets and psalms. The many favourable references in the latter show that the condemnations of the former are not to be taken in an absolute sense, as if prophet and priest were opposed. The prophets object less to the cult itself than to the magic-working ideas borrowed from the fertility cults (Am. 4:4-5; Is. 1:11-16), and to such innovations as idolatry and child sacrifice introduced by apostatizing rulers (Je. 19:4; Ezk. 16:21).
An Isaiah can receive his call in the Temple (Is. 6), and a Jeremiah or an Ezekiel can find a place for a purified cult in the future (Je. 17:26; Ezk. 40-48). This is also the predominant feeling of the psalmists, who constantly speak of their sacrifices of thanksgiving in payment of their vows (e.g. Ps. 66:13-15). Expressions of penitence and the joy of forgiveness are also present (Pss. 32; 51) and, although sacrifice is not often mentioned in these contexts, it is probably to be assumed from the fact that forgiveness is experienced in the Temple (Ps. 65:1-5). While there is no need to make all such references post-exilic, the prophets’ complaint that penitence did not often enough accompany sacrifice in the late kingdom period should also be borne in mind.
4. Post-exilic. The disaster of the Exile is usually seen as resulting in a
deeper sense of sin, and no doubt this is true (cf. 2 Ki. 17:7ff.; Ne. 9), but not in the sense of Wellhausen that only then could the expiatory note of Lv. 1-7 and Lv. 16 have entered Israelite religion. References to sacrifice in the non-levitical writings before and after the Exile, although usually too fragmentary to decide the issue, give little support to such an evolution. Joy, as well as penitence, continues to characterize sacrifice (Ezr. 6:16-18; Ne. 8:9ff.). Temple and cult are valued (Hg. 1-2; Joel 2:14, and especially Chronicles), but only as they are the vehicles of sincere worship (Mal. 1:6ff.; 3:3ff.). Apocalyptic and Wisdom literature take the cult for granted (Dn. 9:21, 27; Ec. 5:4; 9:2) and also continue the prophetic moral emphasis (Ec. 5:1; Pr. 15:8).

d. The regulations of the laws
Laws for sacrifice are scattered through all the codes (Ex. 20:24ff.; 34:25ff.; Lv. 17; 19:5ff.; Nu. 15; Dt. 12, etc.), but the sacrificial ‘torah’ par excellence is Lv. 1-7. Chs. 1-5 deal in turn with the burnt-offering (ola), cereal-offering (minhah), peace-offering (zebah), sin-offering (hattat) and guilt-offering (asam), while chs. 6-7 give additional regulations for all five—6:8-13 (burnt); 6:14-18 (cereal); 6:24-30 (sin); 7:1-10 (guilt); 7:11ff. (peace). From these and other references the following synthetic account is compiled.
1. The materials. The sacrificial victim had to be taken from the clean animals and birds (Gn. 8:20), and could be bullock, goat, sheep, dove or pigeon (cf. Gn. 15:9), but not camel or ass (Ex. 13:13) (*Clean and Unclean). These provisions are not to be traced to the idea of sacrifice as ‘food for the gods’ (viz. that the gods ate what man ate)—as might be suggested by Lv. 3:11; 21:6; Ezk. 44:7—for fish (Lv. 11:9) and wild animals (Dt. 12:22) could be eaten but not sacrificed. The principle seems rather to have been that of property (cf. 2 Sa. 24:24), the wild animals being regarded as in some sense already God’s (Ps. 50:9ff.; cf. Is. 40:16), while the domestic animals had become man’s by his labours (Gn. 22:13 is only apparently an exception), and were in a kind of ‘biotic rapport’ with him. This was even more clearly the case with the non-blood offerings, which had been produced by ‘the sweat of his brow’ (cereals, flour, oil, wine, etc.), and were also staple articles of the kitchen. Property unlawfully acquired was not acceptable (Dt. 23:18).
The principle of ‘the best for God’ was observed throughout—as to sex, males being preferred to females (Lv. 1:3; but cf. Lv. 3:1; Gn. 15:9; 1 Sa. 6:14; 16:2); as to age, maturity being especially valuable (1 Sa. 1:24); as to physical perfection, ‘without blemish’ being constantly emphasized (Lv. 1:3; 3:1; Dt. 15:21; 17:1; 22:17-25; cf. Mal. 1:6ff., but note the exception for free-will offerings Lv. 22:23); and in some cases as to colour, red being chosen (Nu. 19:2), perhaps as representing blood (cf. prehistoric cave paintings of animals). The difference between Israel and her neighbours is clearly seen in the rejection of the extension of this principle to what might be thought its logical climax in the human first-born. The child sacrifice, which was present in the late kingdom (2 Ki. 21:6), and the human sacrifices occasionally reported of earlier times (Jdg. 11:29ff.), were from outside influences, and were condemned by prophet (Je. 7:31ff.), precept (Lv. 20:4) and example (Gn. 22). Ex. 22:29b is clearly to be interpreted by Ex. 34:19-20 and Ex. 13:12-16. The principle of substitution is present, not only in this replacing of the human first-born by an animal victim but in the provision given to the poor to offer the cheaper doves for a sin-offering (Lv. 5:7) and, if even this was too much, a cereal-offering (Lv. 5:11). The words ‘such as he can afford’ (Lv. 14:22, etc.) are very significant here.
Libations of oil (Gn. 28:18), wine (Gn. 35:14) and water (?1 Sa. 7:6) seem to have had a place in the cult, but only the wine-offerings are referred to in the basic laws (Nu. 28:7, etc.). The prohibition of leaven and honey (with some exceptions), and possibly also of milk, is probably to be put down to their liability to putrefaction. For the opposite reason salt was probably added to the sacrifices, because of its well-known preservative qualities (mentioned only in Lv. 2:13 and Ezk. 43:24, but cf. Mk. 9:49). *Incense (lbonaqtoret) played a considerable role, both as an independent offering (Ex. 30:7, cf. the instructions for its making in vv. 34-38) and as an accompaniment of the cereal-offering (Lv. 2). Many scholars, doubting its early use on the ground that it was neither edible nor home-grown property (Je. 6:20), think qtoret in the historical books describes the burning of the fat (qtr) rather than incense, but this is not certain. (See N. H. Snaith, IB, 3, 1954, p. 40, and J. A. Montgomery, ICC, Kings, 1952, p. 104, also VT 10, 1960, pp. 113-129.)
2. The occasions. The regulations cover both national and individual offerings, and daily and festival occasions. The first public sacrifices with good attestation are the seasonal ones, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits or Weeks and Ingathering or *Tabernacles (Ex. 23:14-17; 34:18-23; Dt. 16). With the first the *Passover was early connected (Jos. 5:10-12), and with the last, in all probability, covenant renewal ceremonies (cf. Ex. 24; Dt. 31:10ff.; Jos. 24) and possibly new year and atoning rites (cf. Lv. 23:27ff.) (*Pentecost.) A full tariff of sacrifices for these, and for additional observances, monthly (new moon), weekly (sabbath) and daily (morning and evening), is found in Nu. 28-29, and may be set out in tabular form (see the chart on p. 1046).
The date of the beginning of the twice-daily burnt-offering is controverted, and certainty is difficult to arrive at, because of the ambiguous nature of minha for both cereal- and burnt-offerings. (See the chart on p. 1050.) ola and minha are also referred to without time notes in 1 Sa. 3:14; Je. 14:12; and Ps. 20:3, and continual olot and minhot in Ezr. 3:3ff. and Ne. 10:33.
Sacrifices of a more private nature were the Passover, for which the unit was the family (Ex. 12; cf. 1 Sa. 20:6, but this was a new moon, not a full moon), and individual sacrifices, such as those in fulfilment of a vow (1 Sa. 1:3, cf. v. 21; 2 Sa. 15:7ff.), or in confirmation of a treaty (Gn. 31:54), veneration of God (Jdg. 13:19), personal dedication (1 Ki. 3:4), consecration (1 Sa. 16:3) or expiation (2 Sa. 24:17ff.). Whether the extending of hospitality to a guest was always regarded as a sacrificial occasion is not clear (Gn. 18; Nu. 22:40; 1 Sa. 28:24 may not have involved altar rites, but cf. 1 Sa. 9). Additional occasions mentioned in the laws are the cleansing of the leper (Lv. 14), purification after child-birth (Lv. 12), the consecration of a priest (Lv. 8-9) or a Levite (Nu. 8), and the release of a Nazirite from his vows (Nu. 6). Less frequent sacrifices were those of sanctuary dedication (2 Sa. 6:13; 1 Ki. 8:5ff.; Ezk. 43:18ff.; Ezr. 3:2ff.), royal coronations (1 Sa. 11:15; 1 Ki. 1:9), and days of national penitence (Jdg. 20:26; 1 Sa. 7) or preparation for battle (1 Sa. 13:8ff.; Ps. 20).
Among seasonal offerings brought annually in recognition of God’s share in productivity were firstlings and firstfruits (Ex. 13; 23:19; Dt. 15:19ff.; 18:4; 26; Nu. 18; cf. Gn. 4:3-4; 1 Sa. 10:3; 2 Ki. 4:42), *tithes, and the offerings of the first sheaf (Lv. 23:9ff.) and the first dough (Nu. 15:18-21; Ezk. 44:30; cf. Lv. 23:15ff.). Their purpose was probably not to consecrate the rest of the crop, but to deconsecrate it. All was God’s until the first portion had been offered and accepted in lieu of the whole. Only then was the restriction on the human use of the remainder removed (Lv. 23:14, cf. 19:23-25). Even the portion brought was usually presented only in token at the altar, and afterwards taken away for the use of the priests or for a sacrificial meal. This was also the final fate of the weekly *showbread.
3. The ritual. The major altar sacrifices of Lv. 1-5 are described in a framework of a stereotyped ritual comprising six acts, of which three belong to the worshipper and three to the priest. They may be illustrated from the ola and the zebah (cf. R. Rendtorff, Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift, 1954). (See the chart on p. 1051.) The provisions for the sin-offering, several times repeated for various classes (Lv. 4:1-12, 13-21, 22-26, 27-31), follow the same scheme, except in minor details. The burnt-offering of a bird (Lv. 1:14-17) and the cereal-offering (Lv. 2) of necessity present greater variations, but are not entirely dissimilar. A similar formula for the guilt-offering is not given (cf., however, 7:1-7), but it may be understood as coming under the law of the sin-offering (Lv. 7:7).
(i) The worshipper brings near (hiqrib) his offering (also hebiasah). The place of the sacrifice is the tabernacle forecourt on the N side of the altar (for burnt-, sin- and guilt-offerings, but not for the more numerous peace-offerings), although in earlier times it may have been the door of the tabernacle (Lv. 17:4), or local sanctuary (1 Sa. 2:12ff.), or a rough altar of stone or earth (Ex. 20:24ff.) or a rock (1 Sa. 6:14) or pillar (Gn. 28:18). Killing on the altar, although implied by Gn. 22:9 and Ex. 20:24 (Ps. 118:27 is corrupt), is not normal in the cult.
(ii) He lays (samak) his hands, or in the biblical period more probably one hand (cf. Nu. 27:18), upon the victim, and possibly confesses his sin. This latter is mentioned, however, only in connection with the scapegoat, where the blood was not shed (Lv. 16:21) and with some sin-offerings (Lv. 5:5) and guilt-offerings (Nu. 5:7) (cf., however, Dt. 26:3; Jos. 7:19-20), so that the smika cannot certainly be claimed as a transferring of sin. On the other hand, it seems inadequate to regard it simply as an identification by the owner of his property, for such an identification is not made with the non-blood sacrifices, where it would have been equally appropriate. Representation, if not transference, seems to be clearly involved (cf. the use of the same word for the commissioning of Joshua (Nu. 27:18) and the Levites (Nu. 8:10) and the stoning of a blasphemer (Lv. 24:13f.)). See P. Volz, ZAW 21, 1901, pp. 93-100, and for an opposite view J. C. Matthes, ibid. 23, 1903, pp. 97-119.
(iii) The slaughtering (sahat) is performed by the worshipper, except for the national offerings (Lv. 16:11; 2 Ch. 29:24). In the non-levitical literature the verb zabah is used, but this may have referred to the subsequent cutting up of the sacrifice, and the laying of the parts on the altar (mizbeah, not mishat) (so K. Galling, Der Altar, 1925, pp. 56ff.). For this, however, nthis normally used (1 Ki. 18:23; Lv. 1:6), and zabah describes rather the zbahim sacrifices, except for a few passages (Ex. 20:24; 1 Ki. 3:4; cf. 2 Ki. 10:18ff.) where it occurs with olot These are perhaps to be put down to a loose use of the verb, which in the cognate languages can even be used of vegetable offerings, and in the Piel in Heb. seems to be used quite generally for the whole round of the (usually apostate) cult. It is not certain, then, that every use of zebah was sacrificial, or that meat could be eaten only on occasions of sacrifice, although this was often the case in antiquity (cf. the problem of the idol-meat at Corinth) (see N. H. Snaith, VT 25, 1975, pp. 242-246).
(iv) The manipulation (zaraq) of the blood is in the hands of the priest, who collects it in a basin and dashes it against the NE and SW corners of the altar in such a way that all four sides are spattered. This takes place with the animal burnt-offerings (Lv. 1), peace-offerings (Lv. 3) and guilt-offerings (Lv. 7:2), but not with the burnt-offering of birds (Lv. 1:15), where the quantity of blood was insufficient, and so was drained out on the side of the altar. The sin-offerings (Lv. 4) uses a different set of verbs, hizza (‘sprinkle’) or natan (‘put’) according to whether the offering is of primary or secondary rank (see below). The remainder of the blood is then poured out (sapak) at the base of the altar. The blood rite is referred to in the historical books only in 2 Ki. 16:15 (but cf. 1 Sa. 14:31-35; Ex. 24:6-8). (See Th. C. Vriezen, OTS 7, 1950, pp. 201-235; D. J. McCarthy, JBL 88, 1969, pp. 166-176; 92, 1973, pp. 205-210; N. H. Snaith, ExpT 82, 1970-71, pp. 23f.)
(v) Some burning (hiqtir) took place with all the sacrifices. Not only the blood but also the fat belonged to God, and this was first burnt (Gn. 4:4; 1 Sa. 2:16). This was not the fat in general, but specifically the fat of the kidneys, liver and intestines. From the peace-, sin- and guilt-offerings only this was burnt, from the cereal-offerings a portion called the azkarawas separated off and burnt, but the burnt-offering was wholly burnt except for the skin, which became the perquisite of the priests (Lv. 7:8). A different kind of burning (sarap) away from the altar was the fate of the primary rank sin-offerings. In this burning the skin was also included.
(vi) The remaining portions of the sacrifice were eaten (akal) in a sacrificial meal, either by the priests and worshippers together (peace-offering), or by the priests and their families, or by the priests alone. Priestly food was classified as either holy or most holy. The former included the peace-offerings (Lv. 10:14; 22:10ff.) and firstfruits and tithes (Nu. 18:13), and could be eaten by the priest’s family in any clean place, but the latter included the sin-offerings (Lv. 6:26), guilt-offerings (Lv. 7:6), cereal-offerings (Lv. 6:16), and showbread (Lv. 24:9), and could be eaten only by the priests themselves, and within the Temple precincts. The people’s sacrificial meal from the peace-offering was the popular accompaniment of local worship in early times (1 Sa. 1; 9), but with the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem (cf. Dt. 12) tended to recede before the formal aspects of worship. As late as Ezk. 46:21-24, however, provision continued to be made for it.
4. The kinds. (i) ola The burnt-offering seems to have a better claim to be regarded as the typical Hebrew sacrifice than the zebah favoured by the Wellhausen school. It is present from the beginning (?Gn. 4; 8:20; 22:2; Ex. 10:25; 18:12; Jdg. 6:26; 13:16), early became a regular rite (1 Ki. 9:25; cf. 1 Ki. 10:5), was never omitted on great occasions (1 Ki. 3:4; Jos. 8:31), and retained its dominant role to the latest times (Ezk. 43:18; Ezr. 3:2-4) (see R. Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im alten Israel, 1967). Whatever may be said for Robertson Smith’s view of a primary peace-offering, from which the burnt-offering later developed, as far as the OT is concerned it is from the ola that the minhaasamhattat and even slamim seem to have arisen. The kalil referred to five times (1 Sa. 7:9; Ps. 51:19; Dt. 33:10; cf. Dt. 13:16 and Lv. 6:22-23) is also another name for the ola, although apparently differing somewhat in the Carthage and Marseilles tariffs.
While there is truth in Rost’s view that the incidence of the ola is confined to Greece and the region ‘bordered by the Taurus in the N, the Mediterranean in the W and the desert in the E and S‘ (‘Erwägungen zum israelitischen Brandopfer’, Von Ugarit nach Qumran (Eissfeldt Festschrift), 1958, pp. 177-183), it does not follow that its origins in Israel are in human sacrifice (2 Ki. 3:27) or rites of aversion of the Greek kind. Its undoubted gift character is apparent from the sublimation of the elements into a form in which they can be transported to God (Jdg. 6:21; 13:20; cf. Dt. 33:10), but this does not say anything about the purpose of the gift, which may have been of homage and thanksgiving, or to expiate sin. The latter note is present in Jb. 1:5; 42:8 and many early passages, and is given as the reason for the sacrifice in Lv. 1:4 (cf. the Ugaritic Text 9:7, where the burnt-offering (srp) is connected to forgiveness of soul (slhrips). When the sin-offering came to take precedence as the first of the series of sacrifices (Mishnah, Zebahim 10. 2) it tended to take over this function, but this was not originally the case (cf. Nu. 28-29, and cf. Nu. 6:14 with 6:11).
(ii) minha (‘meal-offering’, AV ‘meat-offering’, RSV ‘cereal-offering’). It is somewhat confusing that this term is used in three different ways in the OT: 34 times it simply means ‘present’ or ‘tribute’ (cf. Jdg. 3:15; 1 Ki. 4:21—the root is probably minha, ‘to give’, cf. the peculiar form of the plural in the MT of Ps. 20:3), 97 times in the levitical literature it is the cereal-offering (e.g. in Lv. 2), and an indeterminate number of the remaining instances also have this meaning (e.g. Is. 43:23; 66:20), but in the others it refers to sacrifice generally (1 Sa. 2:29; 26:19, and probably in Malachi), and to animal sacrifice in particular (1 Sa. 2:12-17; Gn. 4:3-4; but see N. H. Snaith, VT 7, 1957, pp. 314-316). S. R. Driver rightly defines mimha as not merely expressing the neutral idea of gift, but as denoting ‘a present made to secure or retain good-will’ (HDB, 3, 1900, p. 587; cf. Gn. 33:10), and this propitiatory sense is to the fore also in such sacrificial references as 1 Sa. 3:10-14; 26:19.
In these references the minha is an independent sacrifice, whereas in the laws it is the accompaniment of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings (Nu. 15:1-16), except in Nu. 5:15, 25; Lv. 5:11, 13; 6:19-23. According to Lv. 2, it is to consist of either flour (2:1-3), baked cakes (2:4-10) or raw grain (2:14-16), together with oil and frankincense (lbona). With this minha of the forecourt’ may be compared what J. H. Kurts called the minha of the holy place’—the altar of incense, the showbread on the table and the oil in the lamp (The Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, 1865). Other ingredients might be salt (Lv. 2:13) and wine (Lv. 23:13). None of these offerings was eaten by the worshippers (but ?Lv. 7:11-18). They went to the priests, but only after a ‘memorial portion’ (Lv. 2:2) had been burnt on the altar. This RSV translation implies a derivation of azkara from zakar, but G. R. Driver has suggested the meaning ‘token’, a part for the whole (JSS 1, 1956, pp. 97-105), and this would be yet another instance or the principle of substitution in the sacrifices.
(iii) zebah and slamim Again there is a variety of usage, in which zebah and slamim are sometimes interchangeable (Lv. 7:11-21; 2 Ki. 16:13, 15), sometimes distinguished (Jos. 22:27; f. Ex. 24:5; 1 Sa. 11:15), sometimes independent (2 Sa. 6:17-18; Ex. 32:6), and sometimes combined into a compound expression zebahslamim or zibheslamim (so usually in the levitical law). It is doubtful if all these uses are to be understood as referring simply to the zebah sacrificial meal. slamim, when used alone, was possibly not a meal at all (cf. however 2 Sa. 6:19), but a solemn expiatory offering akin to the ola (so R. Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers), and in conjunction with other sacrifices may still have retained this meaning. A slm of a propitiatory kind seems to have been known at Ugarit (D. M. L. Urie, ‘Sacrifice among the West Semites’, PEQ 81, 1949, pp. 75-77) and is reflected in such passages as Jdg. 20:26; 1 Sa. 13:9; 2 Sa. 24:25. It is in no way inconsistent that a joyous meal followed, if the joy was the joy of forgiveness, for the zebah covenant meal also usually marked it reconciliation after estrangement (Gn. 31:54; cf. S. I. Curtiss, ‘The Semitic Sacrifice of Reconciliation’, The Expositor, 6th series, 6, 1902, pp. 454-462).
Either of the proposed derivations of selem—from salom, ‘peace’, so ‘to make peace’ (cf. G. Fohrer, ‘to make complete’ so ‘concluding offering’; TDNT 7, pp. 1022-1023) or from sillem, ‘compensate’, so ‘to pay off, expiate’ (cf. B. A. Levine, ‘a tribute, a present, a gift of greeting’, In the Presence of the Lord, 1974)—would be in keeping and preferable to the reduction of the peace-offering to what were in fact only segments ‘vow-offering’ or ‘thank-offering’. These two, together with the freewill-offering, made up three classes within the peace-offering proper, and the regulations governing them (Lv. 7:11ff.) are a supplement to those of Lv. 3. All three were thank-offerings, but the vow-offering, which discharged an earlier promise at the time of its accomplishment, was no longer optional, while the others were. Possibly it was for this reason that the vow reverted to the stricter regulation of a victim without blemish (Lv. 22:19; cf. Mal. 1:14, where it is added that it should be a male), while this requirement was relaxed for the freewill-offering (Lv. 22:23). Lv. 7 also adds the rules for the sacrificial meal, which had been missing in Lv. 3—viz. that the thank-offering was to be eaten the same day, and the vow and freewill-offering not later than the next. The priests’ portions are defined (Lv. 7:32ff.) as the ‘wave’ breast and the ‘heave’ shoulder (thigh). G. R. Driver (op.cit.)suggests some such meaning as ‘contribution’ for the terms ‘wave’ (tnupa) and ‘heave’ (truma), and this seems better than the older suggestion of horizontal and vertical motions at the altar, which are scarcely appropriate when rams, he-goats and Levites are the objects of the actions (Nu. 8:11). (See W. B. Stevenson, ‘Hebrew ola and zebach Sacrifices’, Festschrift Alfred Bertholet, 1950, pp. 488-497; cf. J. Milgrom, ‘The Alleged Wave-Offering in Israel and in the Ancient Near East’, IEJ 22, 1972, pp. 33-38.)
(iv) asam and hattat The names of these offerings, guilt-offering (trespass-offering) and sin-offering, are the names of the offences for which they are to atone, asam (‘guilt’) and hattat (‘sin’). In a cultic context these terms refer, not so much to moral offences, as to those which are ceremonially defiling, although the moral aspect is by no means ruled out. Of the former kind are the sin-offerings of the leper (Lv. 14; cf. Mk. 1:44) and the mother after childbirth (Lv. 12; cf. Lk. 2:24), and of the latter, those of deception and misappropriation in Lv. 6:1-7, and passion in Lv. 19:20-22. These examples can have been but little more than random specimens to illustrate the laws, and should not be regarded as giving a full account of sacrifice for sin in these laws, much less in the cult as a whole. In the history, for example, these sacrifices scarcely figure at all. They are not mentioned in Deuteronomy (cf. Dt. 12), and are probably not to be understood in Ho. 4:8. But this is to be put down less to their post-exilic origin as Wellhausen argued—for they are well known to Ezekiel (cf. 40:39; 42:13) and may be hinted at in Ps. 40:6; 2 Ki. 12:16; 1 Sa. 6:3 (unless these are only monetary)—than to their individual nature (this might explain the silence concerning the asam, which was not a festival sacrifice), and the fragmentary character of the records. They are equally silent for the post-exilic period (asam is mentioned, doubtfully, only in Ezr. 10:19 and hattat in Ne. 10:33 and what appears a formula of the Chronicler in Ezr. 6:17; 8:35; 2 Ch. 29:21ff.).
Equally obscure is the relation between the two offerings (e.g. they are used synonymously in Lv. 5:6). All that can certainly be said is that sins against the neighbour are more prominent in the asam and those against God in the hattat The asam therefore requires a monetary compensation in addition to the sacrifice. The value of the misappropriation plus a fifth is to be repaid to the wronged neighbour (Lv. 6:5) or, if he or his representative is not available, to the priest (Nu. 5:8). The sacrificial victim in the guilt-offering, usually a ram, also became the priest’s, and after the regular blood and fat ritual could be eaten by the priests as ‘most holy’ (Lv. 7:1-7). The same provision applies (Lv. 6:24-29) to the sin-offerings of the ruler (Lv. 4:22-26) and the common man (Lv. 4:27-31), but in these cases the blood is put on the horns of the altar.
The sin-offerings of the high priest (Lv. 4:1-12) and the whole community (Lv. 4:13-21) follow a still more solemn ritual, in which the blood is sprinkled (hizza, not zarak) before the veil of the sanctuary, and the bodies of the victims are not eaten but burnt (saarap, not hiqtir) outside the camp (Lv. 6:30; cf. Heb. 13:11). In addition to these four classes provisions are made for substitute offerings from the poor (Lv. 5:7-13). Chs. 4 and 5 thus contain a graduated scale of victims: bull (high priest and congregation, but cf. Nu. 15:24; Lv. 9:15; 16:5), he-goat (ruler), she-goat or lamb (common man), turtle-doves or pigeons (poor), flour (very poor). The following principles may be remarked: everyone must bring some sin-offering, no-one may eat of his own sin-offering, and the more propitiatory the rite the nearer the blood must come to God. On the Day of Atonement the veil itself was penetrated and the blood sprinkled on the ark. (See D. Schötz, Schuld- und Sündopfer im Alten Testament, 1930; L. Morris, Asham‘, EQ 30, 1958, pp. 196-210; J. Milgrom, VT 21, 1971, pp. 237-239; D. Kellerman, TDOT 1, pp. 429-437.)
5. The meaning. The oft-stated purpose of the sacrifices in Lv. is ‘to atone’ (kipper, Lv. 1:4, etc.). This verb may be explained in one of three ways: ‘to cover’, from the Arab. kaffara; ‘to wipe away’, from the Akkad. kuppuru; ‘to ransom by a substitute’, from the Heb. noun koper Although the second is favoured by most modern writers, it is the third which seems most in keeping with the theory of sacrifice given in Lv. 17:11, AV, ‘the life of the flesh is in the blood . . . it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul’ (but cf. RSV and J. Milgrom, JBL 90, 1971, pp. 149-156), and with the principle at work in many of the practices encountered above: the choice of offering material in ‘biotic rapport’; their designation by the laying on of the hand; the burning of a token such as the fat or the azkara; the offering of a first portion and the redemption of the first-born (cf. S. H. Hooke, ‘The Theory and Practice of Substitution’, VT 2, 1952, pp. 1-17, and for an opposite view A. Metzinger’s articles, Bib 21, 1940). To these might be added the ritual of the heifer in Dt. 21 and the scapegoat in Lv. 16, which, although not blood sacrifices, reflect ideas which must a fortiori have been true of blood sacrifices. It was in this light that Lv. 16 was understood in the Jewish tradition (e.g. Mishnah, Yoma 6. 4, ‘bear our sins and be gone’).
Such passages are a warning against confining the atonement to a single act, as if it were the death alone, or the presentation of the blood, or the disposal of the victim, which atoned. The death was important—the live goat is only half of the ritual in Lv. 16 (cf. v. 15 with 14:4-7; 5:7-11). The blood manipulation was also important—in 2 Ch. 29:24 it seems to make atonement subsequent to the killing. The final disposal of the victim by fire or eating or to Azazel also had its place—in Lv. 10:16-20 the priestly eating of the sin-offering is more than just declaratory. The view that the death of the victim was only to release the life that was in the blood, and that the atonement consisted only of the latter, is as one-sided as that which sees the death as a quantitative penal satisfaction. To the latter view it has been objected that the sins for which sacrifice was offered were not those meriting death, that sin-offerings did not always require death (cf. Lv. 5:11-13), and that the killing could not have been central or it would have been in the hands of the priest, not the layman. These objections tell only against extreme forms of the substitution theory, not against the principle of substitution itself.
The real advantage of the substitution theory is that it retains the categories of personal relationships, where other views tend to descend to sub-personal dynamistic categories, in which the blood itself is thought of as effecting mystic union or revitalizing in a semi-magical way (cf. the theories of H. Hubert and M. Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function, 1964; A. Loisy, RHLR n.s. 1, 1910, pp. 1-30, and Essai historique sur le sacrifice, 1920; S. G. Gayford, Sacrifice and Priesthood, 1924; A. Bertholet, JBL 49, 1930, pp. 218-233, and Der Sinn des kultischen Opfers, 1942; E. O. James, The Origins of Sacrifice, 1933).
A weightier objection to the substitution theory is that which finds difficulty in the description of the sin-offering after the sacrifice as ‘most holy’, and as fit for priestly food. If a transfer of sin had taken place, would it not be unclean and fit only for destructive burning (sarap)? This was in fact the case with the primary rank sin-offerings. In the other cases the priestly eating is perhaps to be similarly interpreted, as if the power of superior ‘holiness’ in the priests through their anointing absorbed the uncleanness of the offering (cf. Lv. 10:16-20 and the article ‘Sin-Eating’, ERE, 11, 1920, pp. 572-576 (Hartland)). That we are dealing here with categories of ‘holiness’, which are not ours, is evident from the instruction to break the earthen vessels in which the sin-offering has been boiled (Lv. 6:28; cf. *Clean and Unclean). Alternatively, the death of the victim could be understood as neutralizing the infection of sin, so that the fat and blood could come unimpeded to the altar as an offering to God.
Whether other views of sacrifice such as ‘homage’ and ‘communion’ are possible alongside that outlined here, as favoured by most scholars (A. Wendel, Das Opfer in der altisraelitischen Religion, 1927; W. O. E. Oesterley, Sacrifices in Ancient Israel, 1937; H. H. Rowley, The Meaning of Sacrifice, 1950), or whether certain types of sacrifice express one of these aspects more than another (e.g. burnt-offering, homage, and peace-offering, communion) is best left an open question. But in the laws at least the burnt-offering, the cereal-offering and even the peace-offering (but only rarely; cf. Ex. 29:33; Ezk. 45:15), as well as the sin- and guilt-offerings, are said to atone. And what is true of the laws seems to be true also of the history.
The question as to whether the offering was both an expiation (i.e. of sins) and a propitiation (i.e. of wrath) or only an expiation is also difficult to answer. kipper undoubtedly means propitiation in some instances (Nu. 16:41-50; Ex. 32:30), and this is supported by the use of the expression reahriihoah, ‘sweet-smelling savour’, throughout the laws (cf. also Gn. 8:21, and LXX of Dt. 33:10). reahriihoah may, however, have a weakened sense (G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 1925, pp. 77-81, points out that it is used where we should hardly expect it, with cereal and zebah offerings, but not where we do expect it with sin- and guilt-offerings), and this is even more evidently the case with kipper when it is used in connection with such material things as the tabernacle furniture (Ex. 29:37; Ezk. 43:20; 45:19), and must be rendered simply ‘cleanse’.
Of importance to the discussion here is the recognition that God himself gave the ritual to sinful man (Lv. 17:11, ‘the blood. . . I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls’). The sacrifices are to be seen as operating within the sphere of the covenant and covenanting grace. They were not ‘man’s expedient for his own redemption’ as L. Köhler (Old Testament Theology, 1957) suggests, but were ‘the fruit of grace, not its root’ (A. C. Knudson, The Religious Teaching of the Old Testament, 1918, p. 295). The question as to whether within this context propitiation has a place is similar to the NT one, and will depend on the view taken of sin, and law and the nature of God (*Atonement; also L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 1955).
It remains to be said that within the OT itself there is much to suggest that its system was not a final one. No sacrifices availed, for example, for breach of covenant (cf. Ex. 32:30ff.)—it is in this light that the prophetic rejection of sacrifice is to be understood—or for sins of a ‘high hand’ that put man outside the covenant (Nu. 15:30), though perhaps idolatry and apostasy would be illustrations here. While not accepting the view, on the one hand, that the efficacy of sacrifice was limited to inadvertent sins, which were no real sins at all, or, on the other, that prophets and pious psalmists saw no value in sacrifice whatsoever, it remains true that the cult was liable to abuse, when the inward tie between worshipper and means of worship was loosed, and prophetic religion became necessary to emphasize the priority of a personal relation to God. It is no accident, however, that when priestly and prophetic religion meet in the figure of the Servant of the Lord in Is. 53 the highest point of OT religion is reached, as all that is valuable in cult is taken up into a person, who both makes a sacrificial atonement (hizza, ‘lamb’, ‘guilt-offering’) and calls for the love and personal allegiance of the human heart.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. The works referred to throughout the article: articles on sacrifice in EB, HDB, HDB (one vol.), ERE, ISBE, IDB, ZPEB; S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion Today, 1902; articles in The Expositor, 6th series, 1902-5; R. de Vaux, Les Sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament, 1964; F. C. N. Hicks, The Fulness of Sacrifice3, 1946; F. D. Kidner, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 1952; R. K. Yerkes, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism, 1952; H. Ringgren, Sacrifice in the Bible, 1962, and Israelite Religion, 1965; R. de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice, 1964, and Ancient Israel2, 1965; G. Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 1973; B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 1974; F. M. Young, Sacrifice and the Death of Christ, 1975.

II. In the New Testament
The Greek words used are thysiadoronprosphora and their cognates, and anaphero, translated ‘sacrifice, gift, offering, offer’ (thysia in Mk. 12:33 probably means ‘meal-offering’); holokaytoma, ‘whole burnt offering’; thymiama, ‘incense’; spendo, ‘pour out as a drink-offering’. All were adopted, with the other terms given below, from LXX.

a. Old Testament sacrifices in the New
The OT sacrifices (see ., above) were still being offered during practically the whole period of the composition of the NT, and it is not surprising, therefore, that even their literal significance comes in for some illuminating comment. Important maxims are to be found in Mt. 5:23-24; 12:3-5 and parallels, 17:24-27; 23:16-20; 1 Cor. 9:13-14. It is noteworthy that our Lord has sacrifice offered for him or offers it himself at his presentation in the Temple, at his last Passover, and presumably on those other occasions when he went up to Jerusalem for the feasts. The practice of the apostles in Acts removes all ground from the opinion that after the sacrifice of Christ the worship of the Jewish Temple is to be regarded as an abomination to God. We find them frequenting the Temple, and Paul himself goes up to Jerusalem for Pentecost, and on that occasion offers the sacrifices (which included sin-offerings) for the interruption of vows (Acts 21; cf. Nu. 6:10-12). However, in principle these sacrifices were now unnecessary, for the old covenant was now indeed ‘old’ and ‘ready to vanish away’ (Heb. 8:13), so that when the Romans destroyed the Temple even the non-Christian Jews ceased to offer the sacrifices.
The Epistle to the Hebrews contains the fullest treatment of the OT sacrifices. The teaching of this writer has its positive side (11:4), but his great concern is to point out their inadequacy except as types. The fact that they cannot gain for men entrance into the Holy of holies proves that they cannot free the conscience from guilt, but are simply carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation (9:6-10). Their inadequacy to atone is shown also by the fact that mere animals are offered (10:4), and by the very fact of their repetition (10:1-2). They are not so much remedies for sin as reminders of it (10:3).

b. ‘Spiritual sacrifices’
‘Spiritual sacrifices’ (1 Pet. 2:5; cf. Jn. 4:23-24; Rom. 12:1; Phil. 3:3) are the NT substitute for carnal ordinances, and appear frequently (Rom. 12:1; 15:16-17; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; 2 Tim. 4:6; Heb. 13:15-16; Rev. 5:8; 6:9; 8:3-4). Even in the OT, however, the psalmists and prophets sometimes use the language of sacrifice metaphorically (e.g. Pss. 50:13-14; 51:16-17; Is. 66:20), and the usage is continued in the intertestamental literature (Ecclus. 35:1-3; Testament of Levi 3. 6; Manual of Discipline 8-9; Philo, De Somniis 2. 183). The attempt of F. C. N. Hicks (The Fulness of Sacrifice3, 1946) to refer such passages to literal sacrifices must be reckoned on the whole a failure. The sacrifices mentioned in these passages are not always immaterial, and sometimes involve death: the sense in which they are ‘spiritual’ is that they belong properly to the age of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 4:23-24; Rom. 15:16). But sometimes they are immaterial, and they never have a prescribed ritual. It appears, in fact, that every act of the Spirit-filled man can be reckoned as a spiritual sacrifice, and the sense in which it is a sacrifice is that it is devoted to God and is acceptable to God. It does not, of course, atone. The antitype of atoning sacrifice is to be sought not here but in the sacrifice of Christ, without which spiritual sacrifices would not be acceptable (Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:5).

c. The sacrifice of Christ
The sacrifice of Christ is one of the chief themes of the NT. His saving work is sometimes spoken of in ethical, sometimes in penal, but often also in sacrificial terms. He is spoken of as the slain lamb of God, whose precious blood takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29, 36; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; Rev. 5:6-10; 13:8)—a lamb being an animal used in various sacrifices. More specifically, he is spoken of as the true Passover lamb (pascha, 1 Cor. 5:6-8), as a sin-offering perihamartias, Rom. 8:3, cf. LXX Lv. 5:6-7, 11; 9:2-3; Ps. 40:6, etc.), and in Heb. 10:9-10 as the fulfilment of the covenant sacrifices of Ex. 24, the red heifer of Nu. 19, and the Day of Atonement offerings. The NT constantly identifies our Lord with the suffering Servant of Is. 52-53, who is a guilt-offering (Is. 53-10), and with the Messiah (Christ) of Dn. 9, who is to atone for iniquity (v. 24). The NT uses the terms ‘propitiate’ and ‘ransom’ (*Propitiation, *Redeemer) of Christ in a sacrificial sense, and the idea of being cleansed by his blood (1 Jn. 1:7; Heb. ) is sacrificial (*Atonement, III. b; *Sanctification).
The doctrine is most fully worked out in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The writer stresses the importance, in Christ’s sacrifice, of his death (2:9, 14; 9:15-17, 22, 25-28; 13:12, 20), and the fact that his sacrifice is over (1:3; 7:27; 9:12, 25-28; 10:10, 12-14, 18), but his other statements have led some Anglo-Catholics (e.g. S. C. Gayford, Sacrifice and Priesthood, 1924) and the Presbyterian W. Milligan (The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord, 1892) to suppose, on the contrary, that the death is not the important element in Christ’s sacrifice, and that his sacrifice goes on for ever. It is quite true that the Epistle confines Christ’s priesthood and sanctuary to heaven (8:1-5; 9:11, 24), but it emphatically does not confine his sacrifice there. It states indeed that he offered there (8:3), but ‘offer’ is a word used equally of the donor who brings and kills a sacrifice outside the sanctuary and of the priest who presents it, either there on the altar or within. The reference here is doubtless to the sprinkling or ‘offering’ of blood in the Holy of holies on the Day of Atonement by the high priest (9:7, 21-26), a typical action fulfilled by Christ. All that was costly in the sacrifice—the part of the donor and the victim—took place at the cross: there remained only the priestly part—the presentation to God by an acceptable mediator—and this Christ performed by entering into his Father’s presence at the ascension, since when his sprinkled blood has remained there (12:24). There is no call to think of any literal presentation of himself or of his blood at the ascension: it is enough that he entered as the Priest of the sacrifice slain once for all at the cross, was immediately welcomed, and sat down in glory. His everlasting priestly intercession in heaven (7:24f.; cf. Ps. 99:6; Joel 2:17) is not some further activity, but is all part of his ‘now appearing in the presence of God on our behalf’ (9:24). On the basis of his finished work on the cross, and with his sufferings now all past, his simple appearance in God’s presence on our behalf is both continual intercession for us and continual *’expiation’ or *’propitiation’ for our sins (2:10, 17f.; note present tense in the Gk.). See also *Priests and Levites.
It is a mistake to view Christ’s sacrifice as being any more a literal sacrifice than the spiritual sacrifices are. Both transcend their OT types, and neither is ritual. The contention of Owen and others that Christ’s sacrifice was a real sacrifice was directed against the Socinian view that Christ’s death does not fulfil what the OT sacrifices set out to do, and failed to do—the view which denied that Christ’s death makes propitiation. But apart from the slaying (and this is not performed, as in OT ritual, by the donor), everything in his sacrifice is spiritualized. For the body of an animal we have the body of God’s Son (Heb. 10:5). For spotlessness, we have sinlessness (Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19). For a sweet smell, we have true acceptableness (Eph. 5:2). For the sprinkling of our bodies with blood, we have forgiveness (Heb. 9:13-14, 19-22). For symbolical atonement, we have real atonement (Heb. 10:1-10).
d. Sacrifice and the Lord’s Supper
Sacrifice and the *Lord’s Supper are indissolubly connected—not indeed in the way that Romanists, Non-jurors and Tractarians have wished to connect them, by making the eucharist an act of oblation, but as complementary to each other. To give ‘do’ and ‘remembrance’ (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25) a technical sacrificial sense is merely an afterthought of those who have already accepted the eucharistic sacrifice on non-scriptural grounds. The same is true of the attempt to exclude a future meaning from the participles ‘given’ and ‘shed’ (Mt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:19-20). And to correlate the eucharist with the eternal sacrifice of Christ in heaven is impossible if the eternal sacrifice is disproved. But to regard the eucharist as a feast upon Christ’s sacrifice is demanded by the argument of 1 Cor. 10:14-22, in which it is made to correspond with Jewish and Gentile sacrificial meals; by the allusion to Ex. 24:8 in Mt. 26:28 and Mk. 14:24; and by the traditional interpretation of Heb. 13:10. Since the sacrifice of Christ is in so many points to be spiritualized, the language about the feast on his sacrifice is doubtless to be spiritualized also, but it is not to be bereft of its meaning. The meaning of the sacrificial meal was not so much the appropriation of atonement as the fellowship with God which it effected, and this was betokened by a feast with God upon the victim. Whether in enjoying this fellowship with God we also truly partake of Christ or of his body and blood is the central point of controversy about the sacrament. But since Jn. 6 teaches that those who believe on Christ when they see him or hear his words do feed on him, on his body and blood, through the Spirit, there does not seem to be any reason for doubting that what happens through his words also happens through the tokens of bread and wine which he instituted, though in an equally spiritual manner.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews; V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 1943; B. B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, 1950, pp. 391-426; N. Dimock, The Doc- trine of the Death of Christ, 1903 A. Cave, The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement, 1890; G. Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ed. and rewritten by J. G. Vos), 1956; T. S. L. Vogan, The True Doctrine of the Eucharist, 1871; H.-G. Link et al., NIDNTT 3, pp. 415-438.2

1 Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996.

2 The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.