Original Sin & Its Relationship to Sacrifice

Copyright 2015 Miltha Ministries

www.aramaicbibleperspectives.com

Original Sin and Its Relationship

To Sacrifice

In Christian and Jewish Thought1

2015

James J. DeFrancisco, PhD

Sacrifice & Sin Series – Part One


A SPECIAL MESSAGE A SPECIAL MESSAGE A SPECIAL MESSAGE A SPECIAL MESSAGE TO SCHOLARS AND TO SCHOLARS AND TO SCHOLARS AND TO SCHOLARS AND

AND BIBLE STUDENTSAND BIBLE STUDENTSAND BIBLE STUDENTSAND BIBLE STUDENTS

This paper presents an alternative to traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoints on sacrifice. It

is an abbreviated version of the full length book that we hope to publish through Miltha Miltha Miltha Miltha

MinistriesMinistriesMinistriesMinistries on the original faith othe original faith othe original faith othe original faith of Abraham and Jesusf Abraham and Jesusf Abraham and Jesusf Abraham and Jesus?

ABSTRACT

The author presents the premise that original sin necessitates a sacrificial system and that this is expressed within the doctrines of both Judaism and Christianity. In Judaism the sacrificial system is explicitly expressed and defined in the Torah and is especially implemented in the tabernacle and temple cult. In Christianity the central core is the belief that Jesus died for the sins of the world and was presented as a sacrificial offering in atonement for those sins. This is implemented in the sacrifice of the Mass as well as the “gospel” emphasis that Christians are saved by the blood of Jesus. The author presents textual evidence to challenge these central doctrines of 1) original sin, and 2) sacrificial atonement as presented within traditional Christianity. The historical backgrounds

1 Note: Footnotes appear at the bottom of the page in references to new material presented within this

paper. Footnotes related to the previous article on “Original Sin and Ancestral Sin – Comparative Doctrines” appear as Endnotes using Roman numerals



2

regarding the sacrificial systems of several cultures are explored with special emphasis placed on the Greco-Roman world as well as those in the Near East. The use of the statements of the Biblical prophets and sayings of Jesus compose the major component of Biblical evidence. Other primary sources from Jewish sages and Christian theologians are also used to create a compelling argument that challenges both the doctrine of original sin and the sacrificial systems within Judaism and Christianity.

INTRODUCTION

The Bible is recognized as the word of God transmitted through the prophets.

Moses, the greatest prophet according to Jewish thought, gave the written law of God, the Torah, to Israel. A serious study of the texts within the Tanakh (Torah, Nevim, and Ketuvim, i.e. the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings) often referred to by the misnomer of the “Old Testament”, reveals that some Mosaic Laws were given as permanent regulations. But it also reveals that many laws appear to be temporary and designed for the people of Israel for a particular time. This often gets lost when traditions take over or when non Israelites misappropriate the laws as their own when they, in reality, were not intended for them.

The Israelites during the time of Moses were primitive lot, as were most of their neighbors at that time. The Israelites had also been exposed to hundreds of years of slavery in pagan Egypt. To enable the Israelites of the Exodus to relate to God, God appears to have established very strict laws and regulations through Moses to separate the Israelites from the pagan world around them. Sacrifice was the general pagan religious practice of most of these pagan cultures and human sacrifice (primarily of children or young virgins) was a primary means of appeasing the gods. Some of the sacrificial systems also involved immorality through temple prostitution. It appears that God provided satisfaction to the primitive Israelites' barbaric concepts of worship by instituting a holy and very restrictive nonhuman sacrificial system.

The prophets later emphatically stated that God was less interested in the shedding of blood to remove sin than in mercy and justice. Isaiah and Jeremiah began to move the House of Israel (the Kingdom of Judah) further away from sacrifice and to prepare them to survive as a nation (without the Temple) while in captivity. Other prophets such as Hosea and Micah placed the emphasis, not on sacrifice, but on obedience.

Later, the learned physician and sage Maimonides (RaMBaM) supported this belief, as explained by the late Dr. J.H. Hertz, former Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, 2 that some Mosaic Laws are neither permanent nor infallible.

2 Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs, page 562



3

Unfortunately, Christianity seems to have grossly misunderstood the historical duration and purpose of the blood sacrifice, and has founded a belief system based on the sacrificial cult with Jesus being the sacrificial lamb. 3 This is formulated based on the belief that "without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin." Most Christians don't understand that the prophets (long after Moses) redirected the emphasis away from sacrifice and on to obedience, repentance, righteousness, justice, and mercy. Biblical emphasis has always been placed on the human ability to do good and repentance from sin.

Today many Christians believe that if they commit a sin against another person, Jesus forgives them for the sin without the need for restitution or true repentance. This attitude and reliance on "irresponsible belief" has allowed many Christians to commit atrocities for centuries without having to repent or compensate anyone for their evil actions.

In an internet article on Noahides4, Howard Rollin asks an interesting and pressing question in this regard:

For Christians, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb, and he became the replacement for the Temple sacrifice after the destruction of the second Temple. Did G-d intend for Christians to believe the way they do, because they descended primarily from longer-established pagan traditions and more primitive/barbaric lifestyles than the ancient Israelites and then the Second Temple Jews? IN ORDER FOR THE BELIEF IN ONE G-D TO SPREAD WORLDWIDE, DID G-D, THEREFORE, ESTABLISH A SPECIAL AND SEPARATE "PLURAL COVENANT" FOR THE GENTILES? (The previous sentence could very well be the most important statement of this entire document). And was this new "Plural Covenant" twisted by the Greco-Roman mind set of the early church into deviant versions to placate and thus convert pagan people more readily to something that resembles monotheism? These questions might also apply to the masses that eventually embraced Islam.5

There are many questions that would open the door to reconsideration of the cross as part of the sacrificial system. Jesus devoted most of his teaching to focus on the kingdom and not the cross. Also, could it be that the “Lamb of God” who takes away the sins of the world (John 1) is not part of the sacrificial system but rather . . . a Davidic king (David took the position of a lamb in Psalm 23) that is a good shepherd (John 10). The focus on repentance requires change of heart and conduct. Ritualistic repetitions of sacrificial services and messages is much easier – but far less productive.

3 Book of Hebrews, especially chapters 9-10. 4 The subject of Noahism will be discussed in another paper or series devoted to this area. 5 See http://www.howardrollin.com/judeochristiangap/



4

Original sin In a previous paper I explored the differences between the doctrine of

Ancestral Sin—as understood in the church of the first two centuries and the present-day Orthodox Church—and the doctrine of Original Sin—developed by Augustine in the 5th century C.E. and afterward by his heirs in the Western Christian traditions. Other viewpoints from Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic sources were also considered as well. Please consult “Original Sin or Ancestral Sin – Comparative Doctrines” at http://www.aramaicbibleperspectives.com/uploads/ABP_-_ORIGINAL_SIN_OR_ANCESTRAL_SIN.pdf for a detailed study.

There are wide-ranging disagreements among Christian groups relative to an

understanding of the state of sinfulness and its relationship to holiness. Sin has a lasting affect on all human beings, even children, which has been explained through various doctrines of original sin and with some Christian groups denying this doctrine altogether.

In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul wrote that just as sin entered the world through Adam, death also entered.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

- Romans 5:12 KJV

This is usually referred to as The Fall of Man with salvation from sin coming through Jesus, the second Adam. Most Christians believe that Jesus' death and resurrection provide salvation not only from personal sin, but from the condition of sin itself. This is the concept of ancestral sin (Eastern Christianity) or original sin (Western Christianity, following Augustine of Hippo. Beyond that, there are major differences between the two perspectives.

Augustine generally affirms that humanity inherited both the tendency to sin and the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin. The doctrine in Eastern Christianity is that humanity inherited the tendency to sin, but not the guilt for Adam and Eve's sin. This doctrine, also adopted by some in the Western Church as a form of Arminianism and is sometimes called Semipelagianism. A minority of Christians affirms Pelagianism, the belief that neither the condition nor the guilt of original sin is inherited; rather, we all freely face the same choice between sin and salvation that Adam and Eve did. Pelagianism was opposed by the Council of Carthage in 418 AD/CE.

Most Christians believe sin separated humanity from God, making all humans liable to condemnation to eternal punishment in Hell but that Jesus' death and



5

resurrection reconciled humanity with God, granting eternal life in Heaven to the saved or faithful.

The relationship between the physical body and the spirit is important in Theology and a sound understanding of original sin as well as the resurrection. In the Greek view (dualism), the body is evil but the spirit is good. In the Hebraic view, the whole person (spirit and body) is good. The importance of this subject is highlighted by John S. Romanides:i

The importance of a correct definition of original sin and its consequences can never be exaggerated. Any attempt to minimize its importance or alter its significance automatically entails either a weakening or even a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Church, sacraments and human destiny. A proper approach to the New Testament teaching of Paul concerning original sin cannot be one-sided. It is incorrect, for example, to emphasize, in Romans 5:12, the phrase, eph'ho pantes hemarton, by trying to make it fit any certain system of thought concerning moral law and guilt without first establishing the importance of Paul’s beliefs concerning the powers of Satan and the true situation not only of man, but of all creation. It is also wrong to deal with the problem of the transmission of original sin within the framework of dualistic anthropology while at the same time completely ignoring the Hebraic foundations of Paul’s anthropology. Likewise, and attempt to interpret the Biblical doctrine of the fall in terms of a hedonistic philosophy of happiness is already doomed to failure because of its refusal to recognize not only the abnormality but, more important, the consequences of death and corruption. A correct approach to the Pauline doctrine of original sin must take into consideration Paul’s understanding of (1) the fallen state of creation, including the powers of Satan, death and corruption, (2) the justice of God and law, and (3) anthropology and the destiny of man and creation. . . .

Original sin –Definitions of Key Words

Let’s begin with definitions of key words used within this paper. First, the

standard definition for Original Sin: Original Sin – According to Christian tradition, original sin is the general

condition of sinfulness in which human beings are born. Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to the serpent's temptation. This Biblical story of original sin is the sign and seed of future evil choices and effects for the whole human race. Christians usually refer to this first sin as “the Fall”. Original sin is distinguished from actual sin as cause and effect: "a bad tree bears bad fruit". Original sin is not "personal" (in the modern sense of this word)—in that it is not the consequence of personal choice or personal failure to act—but nevertheless it is "personal" in the sense that every individual person is personally subject to the effects of original sin.ii

Jews do not believe in "original sin," but it is a key teaching for most

Christians. For Christians, atonement for original sin (and actual sin) requires the



6

redemption of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. Subsequently, many mainline Christians require baptism to wash away this sin (or still many others suggest baptism as only a public and symbolic representation of one's redemption).

Original sin is “the predisposition towards sin which is part of all humanity,

believed to stem from humanity’s fall. This belief does not take away from individual responsibility, but it does highlight the inbuilt factors within environment and heredity which push us towards disobedience, and it corresponds to observable facts about human nature.”iii

This is simply expressed in the statement, “Since humanity’s fall, everyone

inherits an inclination to sin and a desire to go his or her own way rather than obey God. Human beings are sinful by nature.”iv

We cannot investigate this subject without taking into consideration the fact

that Holy Scripture states that humans were created in the image of God. Simply put, “God creates humankind to reflect his character.”v In some way, sin has affected that image.

Image of God - “That in the nature of human beings which reflects the nature of God . . . All the goodness in humanity comes from this aspect of our creation, but the image of God has been spoilt in us by the fall.vi

Since the whole subject is related to an event (or state) referred to as “the fall”

we need another basic definition:

The Fall – Humanity’s choice to be independent of God and his will, a choice in which we are all involved and which has resulted in the deflection of humanity from the path God intended, the distortion of the image of God in mankind and the spoiling of the creation itself.”vii

However, there is a significant difference between the Roman Catholic or

Western perspective and the Orthodox or Eastern perspective on Original Sin (often referred to more accurately as Ancestral Sin by the Orthodox Church.

Ancestral Sin - To the Orthodox Church, Original Sin is “The fact that every

person born comes into the world stained with the consequences of the sins of Adam and Eve and of their other ancestors. Those consequences are chiefly: (1) mortality, (2) a tendency to sin, and (3) alienation from God and other people. Original sin does not carry guilt, however, for a person is guilty only of his or her own sins, not those of Adam. Therefore, the Orthodox Church des not believe that a baby who dies unbaptized is condemned to hell. Se Gen. 3:1-24; Rom. 5:12-16”.viii

Disputes Concerning Original Sin - The doctrine of Original Sin has received

considerable scrutiny from contemporary Christians. The chief dispute focuses on the



7

emotive argument of whether an apparently innocent baby can be deemed subject to sin and death. The dispute revolves around distinctions between personal sin (i.e. freely willed, conscious and understood) and original sin (not the result of free will). The Augustinian tradition makes a clear distinction between sin which is the result of freely and consciously chosen actions, and the impersonal nature of original sin; namely the unchosen context and situations into which the child is born and which surrounds the baby, and into which the child might be educated and formed. Effectively, the Augustinian teaching says that even though the baby has not made any conscious choice, it is nevertheless personally affected by—and subject to—sin, and that God's grace is essential to give hope and salvation. The Augustinian view is seen by some scholars as a negative view of human nature, since Augustine believed that the human race, without God's help, is depraved.

Classical Biblical view

Adam and Eve's sin, as recounted in the Book of Genesis is sometimes called in Hebrew ןומדקה אטחה (the original sin), on the basis of the traditional Christian term. But the term used in classical Jewish literature is חטא אדם הראׁשון (the sin of the first man, or of Adam).

The account in Genesis 2-3 implies that Adam and Eve initially lived in a state of intimate communion with God. The narrative reads that God "caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:9, NASB). God then forbade Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil warning him that he would surely die if he did. Man was not forbidden to eat from the tree of life initially, but was after breaking the commandment to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God said that "man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Gen. 3:22, NASB). The serpent persuaded Eve to eat from the tree and "she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen. 3:6, NASB). After eating the fruit Adam became aware of his nakedness (Gen. 3:1-7). God bestowed a curse upon each of the active participants. First the earth is cursed with thorns. Next the serpent's physical form is altered and God sets up an eternal enmity between Eve and the serpent and all their offspring (Gen. 3:9-15). God then pronounces two curses upon Eve. First, she is to suffer the difficulties of pregnancy. Second, her husband will henceforth rule over her and she will strive for that power. God then tells Adam that he will now struggle for his sustenance, and places the fault of fallen mankind on his shoulders (Gen. 3:16-21).

Adam and Eve were not necessarily expelled from the Garden of Eden for their

disobedience per se. The narrative reads that God no longer wanted them to eat from the Tree of Life, which would impart eternal life to them, something they lost upon



8

disobeying God's orders. To avoid this, God expelled them from paradise (Gen. 3:22-24).

Reform and Conservative Judaism's Views

Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and had to live ordinary, human lives. This would provide opportunity for their growth and maturity to enable them to live as responsible human beings. If they had never eaten from the forbidden tree, they would never have discovered their capacity to do evil. God gave Adam and Eve free will when he created them, but it was not until they ate the fruit that they became aware of the possibility of choosing to do evil or to do good, as they originally had no knowledge of both. Without this experience they would never develop mature character.

Judaism's Rabbinic Views

Rebbi Nachman bar Shmuel said: "And behold, it was very good!" (Bereishis 1:31); "And behold," this refers to the yetzer tov; "very good," this refers to the yetzer hara for the yetzer hara is very good. Were it not for the yetzer hara a man would not build a house, marry a woman, do business . . . (Bereishis Rabbah 9:7). This is a necessary evil, perhaps, but evil nevertheless. Indeed, the Talmud is even more direct:

Difficult is the yetzer hara that even its Creator called it evil, as it says, "Because the inclination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (Bereishis 8:21). Rav Shimon, the son of Levi said: every day the yetzer of a man strengthens itself seeking to kill him . . . (Kiddushin 30b)

Evil is a qualitative term that can really only be ascribed to a human being as an evaluation of his choice. The yetzer hara was made to be what it is-which it is very good at being-and what it was created to be is best illustrated by the following:

The Holy One, Blessed is He, said to the Jewish people: I created the yetzer hara and I created Torah as its spice. If you involve yourselves in Torah, then you will not fall prey to it, as it says, "If you improve, [you will be forgiven]," and if you don't involve yourselves with Torah then you will fall prey to it, as it says, "[If you don't improve] then transgression crouches at your door." Not only this, but it will expend every energy to induce you to transgress, as it says, "To you is its desire"; but if you choose to, you can rule over it, as it says, "And you can control it" (Bereishis 4:7; Kiddushin 30b)

Therefore, the yetzer hara is the active ingredient that transforms an act of devout servitude into a challenge to be spiritual and Godly. Indeed, it is often referred to as the "seor sh'b'issa," the leaven within the dough that causes it to rise. For Pesach, Jews burn the chometz as a symbol of breaking with the yetzer hara and its bloated



9

reality and eat matzah to remind us of how simple and pure we are without the yetzer hara.

It is the yetzer hara who makes effort possible. Without him, there would be no struggle, no challenge, and therefore no reward in the eternal world of Olam HaBah-the World-to-Come-as there will not be mitzvos done for any after his demise. Once Moshiach arrives and the yetzer hara is "slaughtered," the period of earning eternal reward comes to an end-forever.

The yetzer hara will be there on the Day of Judgment to testify against us, about how we fell for all of his clever ruses to convince us to do what was forbidden to us, and to convince us to not do what we were obligated to perform (Yoma 52b). He is a master of disguises and his best is acting and sounding like us, to the point that we believe him. We hear his voice from within us, tempting us on to do that which we'd rather avoid, or to avoid that which we would rather do if we only knew the consequences of our actions, a small detail he works hard to keep from our conscious minds. But that's his job, his raison d'être. And, it is OURS to see who he is, to see the face of our enemy, or our study partner, depending upon one's approach to God, life, and the struggle of being human. And, they say that there is no better defense than an offence, which means knowing about the yetzer hara, believing in it, and appreciating that Torah is the only way to harness its power for good and reward in the World-to-Come.

For, only then can one activate his free-will ability and use it at will, and make life naturally exhilarating. Only then can one become a partner with God in Creation, and not simply a pawn in His master plan, as so many unwittingly seem to do. And never do much about it, either, ever. And, in this statement lies another very important discussion as we come to a deeper understanding about the role of free-will in life and perfection of Creation.ix

The Soul is Pure at Birth

Judaism teaches that humans are born morally pure and this seems to be founded on a basic understanding of the creation story within Holy Scripture. This idea is reenforced every day in the morning prayers with Elohai neshama shinatata be tahora he (My God, the soul you placed within me is pure.”).6 Humans were created in the image of God with freedom of choice to obey or disobey God. Therefore, Judaism has no concept analogous to original sin but rather affirms that

6 The Complete Artscroll Siddur. Mesorah Publications; Brooklyn, NY, p.21. 1985.



10

people are born with a yetzer ha-tov (בוטה רצי), a tendency to do good, and with a yetzer hara (ערה רצי), a tendency to do evil. Thus, human beings have free will to choose the path in life that they will take. The rabbis even recognize a positive value to the yetzer ha-ra: without the yetzer ha-ra there would be no civilization or other fruits of human labor. The implication is that yetzer ha-tov and yetzer ha-ra are best understood not only as moral categories of good and evil but as the inherent conflict within man between selfless and selfish orientations.

Rabban Yochanan stated that Judaism had a source of atonement beyond the

sacrificial system, "We have another, equally important source of atonement, the practice of gemiluth ḥasadim (loving kindness), as it is stated: "I desire loving kindness and not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6). Also, the Babylonian Talmud teaches that "Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eleazar both explain that as long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel, but now, one's table atones [when the poor are invited as guests]" (Talmud, tractate Berachoth 55a). Similarly, the liturgy of the High Holy Days; i.e. Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur states that prayer, repentance, and charity atone for sin. x

The rabbinic duality of yetzer hara, the so-called "evil inclination," and yetzer

hatov, the "good inclination," is more subtle than the names connote. Yetzer hara is not a demonic force that pushes a person to do evil, but rather a drive toward pleasure or property or security, which if left unlimited, can lead to evil (cf. Genesis Rabbah 9:7). When properly controlled by the yetzer hatov, the yetzer hara leads to many socially desirable results. This includes marriage, business, and community.

For the rabbis, adults are distinguished from children by the yetzer hatov,

which controls and channels the drives that exist unchecked in the child. Thus children may seek pleasure and acquisition, but they are not able to create a sanctified relationship or exercise the responsibility to engage in business. Maturity therefore is a primary factor in the Jewish viewpoint regarding the balance of good and evil in human character.

Developing a Moral Sense

In Judaism, the young adult is not described as someone who has developed a sophisticated moral sense; in fact, the early adolescent may base moral decisions entirely on fear of punishment. Yet by age 13, the child's moral sense has developed sufficiently to hold the child responsible for his or her actions. This is the birth of the good inclination

In rabbinic texts, the distinction between childhood and young adulthood is the birth of the yetzer hatov, the good inclination. xi



11

Battling for Control of the Body in Judaism

As Rashi points out, a significant battlefield for the two inclinations is control over the physical body of the adolescent. Rashi's reference to control of the limbs may indicate the typical awkwardness that accompanies adolescent growth, but is more likely a euphemism for control over awakening sexual desire. In view of the belief that since the yetzer hara is older and stronger, few adolescents, in Rashi's view, apparently maintain control over those desires. Rashi's final comment concerning how the yetzer hara "does not accept reproof" describes the real difficulty of unlearning habits and attitudes acquired in childhood.

Rashi pointed out how hard it is for the yetzer hatov to overcome the yetzer

hara's control over one's sexual urges. R. Epstein extends this to the entirety of one's spiritual being. The birth of the yetzer hatov does not make life easier; it makes life more difficult, at least for those who "desire to connect to God." R. Epstein's realistic description of the process of growth and self-examination as being lengthy provides a valuable lesson for the young adult. Bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah are significant milestones, but they are not transformative. They mark the beginning of a process that takes place "very, very slowly." xii

This paper will move beyond investigating and challenging the above positions

and operate on the premise that Original Sin is a predisposing factor in creating a sacrificial system. For more on comparative doctrines regarding Original Sin please refer to my paper on “Original Sin or Ancestral Sin – Comparative Doctrines.”

For now, let us move on to the subject of sacrificial offerings. It is the author’s

position that sacrifice is needed when one accepts the doctrine of original sin. This is because if sin is inherited and beyond one’s control then sin comes from outside of oneself requiring a vicarious sacrifice to eliminate it. This will explain the need for sacrifice (the cross of Jesus Christ) as atonement in Christianity but what of Islam and Judaism?

Sacrifice Considered Historically7

Note that the following section is adapted from Pohle, J. in the article on “Sacrifice” within The Catholic Encyclopedia. The observation that human sacrifice once extended over the whole earth, leaves room also for the supposition that the bloody sacrifice in the form of slaughtered men claims chronological priority, the hideous custom being replaced, as civilization advanced, by the sacrifice of animals. But among many peoples (e.g. the Canaanites, Phoenicians, and the ancient Mexicans) not even the

7 Pohle, J. (1912). Sacrifice. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from New Advent:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13309a.htm



12

possession of a high culture succeeded in abolishing the detestable human sacrifices. But, whatever view may be taken of the priority question, it is undoubted that both the bloody and the unbloody sacrifices reach back to prehistoric times.

Not without its significance for the scientific idea of sacrifice is the fact that the material of the bloody and unbloody sacrifices was regularly taken from things used as food and drink, and indeed from the best of these commodities. This very general circumstance affords evidence that the sacrificial gift must be taken from the belongings of the sacrificer and must be associated, as a means of sustenance, with his physical life. The independent sacrifice of incense alone requires another explanation; this is supplied by the fragrant odor, which symbolizes either the sweetness of the ascending offering of prayer or the gracious acceptance of the sacrifice by the Deity. The bloody sacrifice, on account of its symbolical connection with the life of man, was especially expressive of complete self-oblation to the Divinity. In the cruder views of naive natural man, the ascending odor of the incense offering soothed the olfactory organs of the gods. Especially crude was this unworthy materializing of sacrifice in Indian Vedism (the soma drink) and in the Babylonian story of the Flood, where it is said: "The gods suck in the fragrant odor; like flies, the gods gathered over the sacrificer." Even the Tanakh (Old Testament) expression, "a sweet savor for God" (odor suavitatis), was originally an accommodation to the ingenuous ideas of the uncultured nomadic people (cf. Genesis 8:21; Leviticus 1:17, etc.), an anthropomorphism which was ever more clearly recognized as such according as the Israelites progressed in their ethical refinement of the idea of God. Not on the greatness or material worth of the sacrificial gifts should store be laid, since YHWH was above necessity, but on the true sentiment of sacrifice, without which, as declared by the Prophets (cf. Isaiah 1:11; Hosea 4:5; Malachi 1:10), all external sacrifices were not only worthless, but even reprehensible.

While sacrifice itself originates spontaneously in the natural prompting of religious-minded man, the particular rites, dependent on culture, law, and custom, display a manifold variety at different times and places. Among the different peoples the ceremonial of sacrifice offers indeed a very variegated picture. The simplest sacrificial rite consists in the mere exposition of the gifts in a holy place, as for example the show-bread (panis propositionis) of the Israelites and Babylonians, or the votive offerings (anathemata – which took on a different meaning later by the church) of the Greeks. Frequently the idea of entertaining the gods or the dead is evidently associated with the offering of food and drink, e.g. among the Indians, Egyptians, and Greeks. Even in the oldest history of Israel this idea of entertainment, although spiritualized, is perceptible (Judges 6:17; 13:15). True sacrifices in the strict sense were regarded only those in which a real alteration was effected in the sacrificial gift at the time of offering it. By this immutation the gifts were not only withdrawn from all profane usage, but were also completely given over to the service and possession of God or the gods. With this object in view edibles or sacrificial victims were either completely or partly burned, while libations were poured out as drink offerings. The earliest form seems to have been the whole or burnt-offering (holocaust). While only special portions of the victims (for the



13

most part the best portions) were burned, the remainder of the flesh was regarded as holy sacrificial food, and was eaten either by the priests or by the offerers in a holy place (or even at home) with the idea of entering into communion. The chief element in the sacrifice, however, was not the sacrificial meal, but rather the sprinkling of the blood, which, as the bearer of life, was clearly intended in many religions to represent man himself. This idea of substitution is seen by many Christians with overwhelming clearness in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Among all peoples the sacrifice, as the chief and most perfect function of religion, was surrounded with the greatest pomp and solemnity; the celebration was usually of a light and joyous character, especially in the case of the sacrifices of praise, petition, and thanksgiving. With joyous heart man consecrated himself to the Deity through the medium of the gifts he offered. External adornment, music, song, prayer, and dance heightened the festive joy. On the other hand the expiatory sacrifice was of a serious character, whether it was intended to atone for misdeeds or to avert misfortune. Not every private person was competent to offer sacrifice; this function pertained only to certain persons – especially the priests, whose office was immediately connected with the sacrifices. In the earliest time the head of the family or tribe performed the functions of priest — in ancient Egypt the king, or more recently the emperor in China. Sacrifice and altar are, like sacrifice and priest, correlative terms. Originally the altar consisted of a single stone, which by consecration became the dwelling of God (Genesis 12:7; 13:4; 28:18). Among many peoples the place of sacrifice was either the house (for private sacrifices) or the open air (for public sacrifices). In the latter case specially selected places (trees, groves, heights) in an elevated position were preferred for sacrifice. Among the Romans altar and hearth (ara et focus) were regarded as indispensable requisites for sacrifice.

Origin of Sacrificial Idea and Practice

Most pagan religions sacrificed animals to soothe their temperamental gods and some even sacrificed human beings. Because the heathen worshipers believed their gods had human desires, they also offered food and drink offerings to them. 8

The Canaanites believed sacrifices had magical powers that brought the worshiper

into sympathy and rhythm with the physical world. However, the gods were capricious, so worshipers sometimes offered sacrifices to secure a victory over their enemies. 9This may be the reason that the decadent kings of Israel and Judah indulged in pagan sacrifice.

8 Isaiah 57:5–6; Jeremiah 7:18 9 II Kings 3:26–27)



14

10 Perhaps they were seeking magical aid in fighting their enemies, the Babylonians and Assyrians—preferably the aid of the same gods that had made their enemies victorious.11

Since sacrifice is a regular concomitant of every religion, sacrifice must, according to the law of causality, have originated simultaneously with religion. Consequently, sacrifice is as old as religion itself. It is evident that the nature of the explanation given of sacrifice will depend on the views one takes of the origin of religion in general.

(a) Widely held today is the theory of evolution, which, in accordance with the principles of Darwin, endeavors to trace the origin of religion from the degraded stage of the half-animal, religionless primeval man, and its gradual development to higher forms. The scheme of development is naturally different according to the personal standpoint of the investigator. The uncivilized savage of today is usually taken as the starting-point for the comparative study of the lowest religious forms and this is the true portrait of the primeval man (Lubbock, Tyler, etc.). An attempt is made to construct an ascending scale from the crudest Fetishism to naturalistic Polytheism, from which develops ethical Monotheism, as the highest and purest product. Until recently the Animism proposed by Tylor was the prevalent theory; this traced religion from the ancient worship of souls, ghosts, spirits of ancestors, etc. (under the influence of fear). At this original stage sacrifice had no other purpose than the feeding and entertaining of these deified beings, or their appeasement and conciliation, if hostile dispositions were ascribed to them (demons). In recent times this explanation, once honored as dogma in the history of religions, is most vigorously combated by the experts themselves as untenable. It has been recognized that Animism and Tetemism represent only secondary elements of many nature-religions, not the essence. "In any case," says Chantepie de la Saussaye, "a purely animistic basis of religion can nowhere be shown". 12 But if the origin of the idea of God cannot be explained from Animism, entertainment cannot have been the original idea of sacrifice, especially since, according to the most recent investigations, the primeval religions seem to converge rather towards Monotheism. Just as in the consciousness of all sacrificing peoples the gods remained sublime above souls, spirits, and demons, sacrifice as a religious gift far transcended food and drink. But, wherever the gods are represented as companions at the banquet, there always appeared the right idea, that by his participation in the sacrificial gifts man enters into communion with the gods, and (e.g. in the case of the ancient Indian soma drink) even partakes of divine strength. The obscuring of this idea by anthropomorphic errors, fostered by priestly deceit, did indeed here and there lead to the one-sided "feeding of the gods"

10 I Kings 21:25–26; II Kings 17:23 11 Packer, J., Tenney, M. C., & White, W., Jr. (1997). Nelson's illustrated manners and customs of the Bible (90). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

12 "Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte", I, Tübingen, 1905, p. 12



15

(Daniel 14:2), but this may by no means be regarded as a primitive institution, Animism is most successfully refuted by Andrew Lang. 13

(b) A second naturalistic explanation, which may be called the "social theory", derives religion from social instincts and accordingly sacrifice from the communal meal which was established to strengthen and seal in religious manner the tribal community. These communal meals are supposed to have given the first impulse to sacrifice. These fundamental thoughts may be developed in several ways. As Totemism, in addition to its religious, has also a distinctly social element, and in this respect is on a far higher level than Animism, some authors (especially W. Robertson Smith, "The Religion of the Semites", London, 1894) believe that the origin of animal sacrifices can be traced back to Totemism. When the different clans or divisions of a tribe partook at the communal meal of the sacred animal (totem) which represented their god and ancestors, they believed that by this meal they participated in the divine life of the animal itself. Sacrifice in the sense of offering gifts to the Deity, the symbolic replacing of human life by an animal, the idea of expiation, etc., are declared to belong to a much later period of the history of sacrifice. Originally the gifts of cereals had rather the character of a tribute due to the gods, and this idea was later transferred to the animal sacrifices. It is however very questionable whether this totemistic theory, notwithstanding some excellent suggestions, entirely meets the facts. Certainly the social force of religion and its significance in the formation of communities should not be underestimated; but, apart from the fact that Totemism is not, any more than Animism, an explanation of the origin of religion, the hypothesis is contradicted by the certain fact that in the earliest epoch the whole or burnt offering existed side by side with the communal meal, the former being equally old, if not older than the latter. In the consciousness of the peoples the sacrificial meal constituted not so much an element of the sacrifice, as the participation, confirmation, and completion of the same. On the same ground what is called the "banquet theory" of the late Bishop Bellord must also be rejected; this theory refers the essence of the sacrifice to the meal, and declares a sacrifice without a meal impossible (cf. The Ecclesiastical Review, XXXIII, 1905, pp. 1 sqq., 258 sqq.). This theory is not in accordance with the facts; for, as it is compelled to refer the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass solely to the priest’s communion, instead of to the twofold transubstantiation, the truth of the sacrifice of the Cross can be maintained only on the forced and false supposition that the Last Supper in its organic connection with the Crucifixion imprinted on the latter its sacrificial character.

(c) The Roman Catholic view is as follows: “So far as we may gather from revelation, the most natural and probable view seems to be that sacrifice originated in the positive command of God, since, by the original revelation in Paradise, the whole religion of mankind appears to have been established in advance on a supernatural basis. The

13 'The Making of a Religion", London, 1898.



16

Greek legend of the invention of sacrifice by Prometheus and the giant Chiron, together with similar legends of Asiatic religions, might be interpreted as reminiscences of the Divine origin of sacrifice. The positive command to sacrifice might even after the Fall have been preserved by tradition among the descendants of Adam, and thus spread among the pagan nations of all lands. The idolatrous deviations from the paradisaic idea of sacrifice would thus appear as regrettable errors, which, however, would not be more difficult to explain than the general fall of the human race. But, however plausible and probable this hypothesis may be, it is unprovable, and indeed unnecessary for the explanation of sacrifice. Regarding sacrifice in Paradise the Bible gives us no information; for the explanation of "eating of the Tree of Life" as a sacramental food offering is a later theologumenon which the acuteness of theologians, following Augustine's lead, has devised. But without recurring to a Divine ordinance, the origin of sacrifice may easily be explained by purely psychological motives. In consideration of the relation of sonship between man and God, which was felt more deeply in primitive times than subsequently, the only evidence of sincere inner adoration that the creature could give was by sacrificing some of his own possessions, thus visibly expressing his absolute submission to the Divine Majesty. Nor was it less in keeping with the inner promptings of man to declare his gratitude to God by gifts offered in return for benefits received, and to give through the medium of sacrificial presents expression to his petitions for new favors. Finally, the sinner might hope to free himself of the oppressive consciousness of guilt, when in the spirit of contrition he had to the best of his ability repaired the wrong done to the Divinity. The more childlike and ingenuous the conception of God formed by primitive man, the more natural and easy was for him the introduction of sacrifice. A truly good child offers little gifts to his parents, though he does not know what they will do with them. The psychological theory thus seems to offer the best explanation of the origin of sacrifice.” 14

(d) The view of this writer is an eclectic perspective embracing elements of the above three viewpoints. Essentially, the appreciative elements of man motivate a sacrifice to a Creator being while the baser elements of man bring in the elements of bloody sacrifices and even human sacrifice. With Abraham, God moved people away from primitive human sacrifices and provided a ram as a substitute. The prophets later made it clear that God does not need sacrifices – especially from sinful offerers. The Mosaic system is a stepping stone toward pure worship as described in Jeremiah 31, by the other prophets, and later by Jesus and Paul.

14 “Sacrifice”, The Catholic Encyclopedia



17

The Object of Sacrifice in Roman Catholic Theology15

As its "metaphysical form", the object first gives sacrifice its full spiritual content, and quickens the external rites with a living soul. The developed pagan religions agree with “revealed religion” in the idea that sacrifice is intended to give symbolical expression to man's complete surrender of himself into the hands of the Supreme God in order to obtain communion with Him. In the recognition of the absolute supremacy of God lies the juridical, and in the correlative absolute subjection to God, the ethical side of sacrifice. In both moments the latreutic character of the sacrifice stands out clearly, since to God alone, as the First Cause (Causa prima) and the Last End (Finis ultimus) of all things, may sacrifice be offered. Even the idolatrous sacrifices of pagans did not entirely lose sight of this fundamental idea, since they esteemed their idols as gods. Even sacrifices of thanksgiving and petition never exclude this essential latreutic feature, since they concern thanksgivings and petitions to the ever-adorable Divinity. From our sinful condition arises the fourth object of sacrifice, i.e. the appeasing of the Divine anger. The fourfold object of sacrifice supplies an immediate explanation of the four kinds of sacrifice. 16 With the sentiments of sacrifice incorporated in these objects is closely connected the high importance of prayer, which accompanies the rite of sacrifice in all the higher religions; Grimm thus simply declares: "Sacrifice is only a prayer offered with gifts." Where we are to seek the culminating point of the sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), in which the object of sacrifice is especially expressed, is the most freely debated question, and concerning it the theorists are not in agreement. While some see the culmination of the sacrifice in the real alteration (immutatio), and especially in the destruction of the gift, others refer the essence of the sacrificial act to the external oblation of the gift, after it has been subjected to any change whatsoever; a third, but not very numerous party makes the sacrificial meal the chief element. This last view has already been set aside as untenable. That the meal is not essential is likewise shown by numerous sacrifices, with which no meal is associated (e.g. the primitive burnt-sacrifice, and the sacrifice of the Cross). Again, the importance of the blood, which as a means of nourishment was avoided, spurned by, and even forbidden to the Jews, finds no expression in the banquet-theory. That the destruction of the gift (especially the slaying) cannot constitute the essence of the sacrifice is clear from the fact that the sprinkling of the blood (aspersio sanguinis) was regarded as the culmination, and the killing as only the preparation for the real sacrificial act. In fact the "destruction theory", settled in Catholic theology since the time of Vasquez and Bellarmine, harmonizes neither with the historical pagan conception of sacrifice nor with the essence of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, nor finally with the fundamental ideas of the Mosaic cult. The destruction is at most the material, and the oblation the formal element of the sacrifice. Consequently, the idea of sacrifice lies in the self-surrender of man to God, not with the object of (symbolical) self-destruction, but of final transformation, glorification, and deification. Wherever a meal is associated with the sacrifice, this signifies merely the confirmation

15 Ibid 16 St. Thomas, I-II, Q. cii, a. 3.



18

and certification of the communion with God, already existing or reacquired by expiation. We may thus define sacrifice as the external oblation to God by an authorized minister of a sense-perceptible object, either through its destruction or at least its real transformation, in acknowledgement of God’s supreme dominion and for the appeasing of His wrath. This definition leads to the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Animal Sacrifice

The following is adapted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with an emphasis on Judeo-Christian as well as pagan thought in the Near East and Europe.

Animal sacrifice is defined as the ritual killing and offering of an animal to appease or maintain favour with a divine agency. Forms of animal sacrifice are practised within many religions throughout the world and have appeared historically in almost all cultures, including those of the Sumerians, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Germanics, Celts, Mayans, and others. All or only part of a sacrificial animal may be offered, especially in the context of ritual slaughter.

Remnants of ancient animal sacrifice can also be found in various contemporary practices. Examples include the kapparos and shechita of Judaism and Dabihah of Islam, for example.

Animal sacrifice in the ancient world

Animal sacrifices were common throughout Europe and the ancient Near East until late antiquity.

Abrahamic traditions

Judaism - Many Jewish sources discuss the deeper meaning behind korbanot. For example, Sepher Hachinuch explains that an individual bringing an animal sacrifice for a sin understands that he personally should have been sacrificed as punishment for the rebellion against God inherent in his sin, but God mercifully accepts the sacrifice in his or her place. Furthermore, it is considered fitting that an animal is used as a sacrifice because at the moment of sin, the individual in question disregarded his elevated human soul, effectively acting as an animal.

In Kapparot, a rooster literally becomes a religious and sacred vessel and is sacrificed on the afternoon before Yom Kippur. The purpose of the sacrifice being the expiation of the sins of the man as the chicken symbolically receives the man's sins, which is based on the reconciliation of Isaiah 1:18.

The Samaritans, a group historically related to the Jews, practice animal sacrifice in accordance with the Law of Moses.



19

Christianity - References to animal sacrifice appear in the Christian writings, such as the parents of Jesus sacrificing two doves (Luke 2:24) and the Apostle Paul performing a Nazirite vow even after the death of Christ (Acts 21:23-26).

Christ is referred to by his apostles as "the Lamb of God", the one to whom all sacrifices pointed (Hebrews 10). Christ's crucifixion is comparable to animal sacrifice on a large scale as His death serves as atonement for all of man's sins.

Some villages in Greece also sacrifice animals to Orthodox saints in a practice known as kourbania. Sacrifice of a lamb, or less commonly a rooster, is a common practice in Armenian Church and Tewahedo Church. This tradition, called matagh, is believed to stem from pre-Christian pagan rituals.

Islam - Muslims engaged in the Haji (pilgrimage) are obligated to sacrifice a lamb or a goat or join others in sacrificing a cow or a camel during the celebration of the Eid al-Adha. Other Muslims not on the Hajj to Mecca are also encouraged to participate in this sacrifice to share in the sanctity of the occasion. It is understood as a symbolic re-enactment of Abraham’s sacrifice of a ram in place of his son (Ishmael rather than Isaac in Islamic thought), a narrative present throughout Abrahamic religions. Meat from this occasion is divided into three parts:

• For personal nourishment • For distribution among friends • And, as charity for the poor

Other occasions where the lamb is sacrificed include the celebration of the birth of a child, reaching the final stages of building a house, the acquisition of a valuable commodity, and even the visit of a dear or honourable guest. For Muslims, the sacrifice of lamb is and is associated with celebrations, feasts, generosity, and the seeking of blessings.

Sacrifice in Islam- see articles below which are taken directly from Islamic

sources and which support the author’s interpretation of Genesis 22. This may be due to influence of Church of the East (Nestorian) priests on Muhammad.

The Concept of Animal Sacrifice in Islam

Sacrifice is not a pillar of Islam. We must look at the occurrences in a contextual manner, understanding not only the pre-Islamic institution of sacrifice, the Qur'anic reforms concerning this practice, and the continuance of sacrifice in the Muslim world, but also the context in which the Qur'anic revelations occurred. It seems that with many people, both non-Muslims and Muslims alike, context is the key that they are missing.



20

With this in mind, let us start with the situation as it was in pre-Islamic Arabia with regard to animal sacrifice. Not only did the pagan Arabs sacrifice to a variety of gods in hopes of attaining protection or some favor or material gain, but so, too, did the Jews of that day seek to appease the One True God by blood sacrifice and burnt offerings. Even the Christian community felt Jesus to be the last sacrifice, the final lamb, so to speak, in an otherwise valid tradition of animal sacrifice (where one's sins are absolved by the blood of another).

Islam, however, broke away from this longstanding tradition of appeasing an "angry God" and instead demanded personal sacrifice and submission as the only way to die before death and reach "fana’" or "extinction in Allah." The notion of "vicarious atonement of sin" (absolving one's sins through the blood of another) is nowhere to be found in the Qur'an. Neither is the idea of gaining favor by offering the life of another to Allah. In Islam, all that is demanded as a sacrifice is one's personal willingness to submit one's ego and individual will to Allah.

One only has to look at how the Qur'an treats this subject, to see a marked difference regarding sacrifice and whether or not Allah is appeased by blood. The Qur'anic account of the sacrifice of Ismaìl ultimately speaks against blood atonement. Allah says: (Then when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "Oh my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "Oh my father! Do as thou art commanded: Thou wilt find me, if Allah so wills one practicing patience and constancy!" So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice), we called out to him, "Oh Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" Thus indeed do we reward those who do right. For this was obviously a trial and we ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice.) (As-Safat 37: 102-107)

Notice that the Qur'an never says that Allah told Abraham to kill (sacrifice) his son. Though subtle, this is very important, for the moral lesson is very different from that which appears in the Bible. Here, it teaches us that Abraham had a dream in which he saw himself slaughtering his son. Abraham believed the dream and thought that the dream was from Allah, but the Qur'an never says that the dream was from Allah. However, in Abraham and Ismaìl's willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice—Abraham of his son, Ismaìl of his own life—they are able to transcend notions of self and false attachment to the material realm, thus removing a veil between themselves and Allah, enabling Allah's mercy to descend upon them as the Spirit of Truth and illuminate them with divine wisdom (thus preventing a miscarriage of justice and once and for all correcting the false notion of vicarious atonement of sin).

For, certainly, Allah, the Ever Merciful, Most Compassionate, would never ask a father to go against His command of "thou shall not kill" and kill his own son in order to be accepted by Him. For the Qur'an teaches us that Allah never advocates evil (see 7:28 and 16:90) and that only Satan advocates evil and vice (24:21). The notion that Allah would want us to do an immoral act runs counter to Allah's justice.

As far as the yearly tradition that has followed this event (that is, the sacrificing of a ram to commemorate Abraham and Ismaìl's great self sacrifice), we must understand it and the Qur'anic versus that pertain to animal sacrifice, in relation to the time and place circumstances under which these revelations were received and how people were trying to make a personal sacrifice by sharing their limited means of survival with the poorer members of their community.

That is to say, the underlying implication of Islam's attitude toward ritual slaughter is not that of blood atonement, or seeking favor with Allah through another's death, but rather, the act of thanking Allah for one's sustenance and the personal sacrifice of sharing one's possessions and valuable food with one's fellow humans. The ritual itself is NOT the sacrifice. It is merely a method of killing where the individuals kill as quickly as possible and acknowledge that only



21

Allah has the right to take a life and that they do so as a humble member of Allah's creation in need of sustenance just like every other species in Allah's creation.

So let us examine some of the appropriate verses in the Qur'an to see what it has to say about sacrifice and how it related to life in 500 C.E. Arabia. (Also included is commentary by Yusuf Ali to show that even someone who was pro-sacrifice with an understanding of animals as subject to humans did not champion wanton cruelty or notions of blood atonement.) Allah says: (In them ye have benefits for a term appointed: In the end their place of sacrifice is near the Ancient House.) (Al-Hajj 22: 33)

“The word ‘In them’ refers to cattle or animals offered for sacrifice. It is quite true that they are useful in many ways to humans, e.g., camels in desert countries are useful as mounts or for carrying burdens or for giving milk, and so, for horses and oxen; and camels and oxen are also good for meat, and camel's hair can be woven into cloth; goats and sheep also yield milk and meat, and hair or wool. But if they are used for sacrifice, they become symbols by which people show that they are willing to give up some of their own benefits for the sake of satisfying the needs of their poorer brethren." (Yusuf Ali commentary)

Allah also says: (To every people did we appoint rites (of sacrifice) that they might celebrate the name of Allah over the sustenance He gave them from animals (fit for food). But your God is One God: Submit then your wills to Him (In Islam): and give thou the good news to those who humble themselves.) (Al-Hajj 22: 34)

“This is the true end of sacrifice, not propitiation of higher powers, for Allah is One, and He does not delight in flesh and blood, but a symbol of thanksgiving to Allah by sharing meat with fellow humans. The solemn pronouncement of Allah's name over the sacrifice is an essential part of the rite." (Yusuf Ali commentary)

Allah says further: (It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His guidance to you: And proclaim the Good News to all who do right.) (Al-Hajj 22: 37)

“No one should suppose that meat or blood is acceptable to the One True God. It was a pagan fancy that Allah could be appeased by blood sacrifice. But Allah does accept the offering of our hearts, and as a symbol of such offer, some visible institution is necessary. He has given us power over the brute creation, and permitted us to eat meat, but only if we pronounce His name at the solemn act of taking life, for without this solemn invocation, we are apt to forget the sacredness of life. By this invocation we are reminded that wanton cruelty is not in our thoughts, but only the need for food …" (Yusuf Ali commentary)

It is quite clear from the Qur'anic passages above that the issue of animal sacrifice is in relation to the role animals played in Arabian society at that place and time (as well as other societies with similar climates and culture), in that humans are commanded to give thanks to Allah and praise Allah for the sustenance He has given them and that they should sacrifice something of value to themselves to demonstrate their appreciation for what they have been given (which in their case was the very animals on which their survival was based).17

17 See http://www.islamveg.com/sacri.html



22

Atonement by Blood Sacrifice in Islam

The three great theistic religions of the world all commemorate in some solemn way the celebrated sacrifice on Mount Moriah by Abraham the friend of God. In Judaism we have not only the full record of this heroic faith but the Akedah prayer, which recalls the binding of Isaac, has a place in the Jewish ritual to this day. In the New Testament there are several references to the faith of Abraham (Heb. 11:17-20; James 2:21-23.). The first announcement of the Messiah by John, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," runs like a golden thread through the epistles and the book of Revelation. The substitutionary death of Christ for sinners is the theme of the New Testament. In the Old Testament Judaism and in New Testament Christianity it is obvious that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. This basic principle of sacrifice as atonement is also found in nearly all of the ethnic religions, even in primitive tribal customs.

In Islam there are also sacrifices, blood-covenants and consecration by blood, of which many seem unaware. The chief feast in the world of Islam is the Feast of Sacrifice held at Mecca during the pilgrimage and simultaneously in every Moslem community from Tangier and Timbuctoo to Bombay and Bokhara.

The sacerdotal function in Islam as in all religions is that of blood-sacrifice. Abraham not only made the great renunciation at Mount Moriah but was a priest of his household, built altars and sacrificed. Melchizedak was a priest of the most High without special consecration. So among the Semites the patriarch was priest. Among the Arabs we also find blood-sacrifice as a household rite before Islam and in Islam; and the great festival, the Feast-of-Sacrifice was consecrated and perpetuated by Mohammed at Mecca when he acted as priest-prophet for his followers for the first time as conqueror of the old Arab shrine.

There are six words used in the Mohammedan religion to express the idea of sacrifice: Zabh, used in the Koran (5:4) for Abraham's sacrifice of his son. Qurban, this word occurs three times in the Koran. In places (3:179; 5:30) it obviously means an offering or sacrifice; in the third passage (46:27) the meaning is obscure. In Christian-Arabic the word signifies the Eucharist. The Lisan dictionary gives two striking traditions: "The characteristics of the Moslem community lie in the fact that their qurban is their blood," i.e., those who died in jihad as martyrs. And the other: "The daily prayer is the qurban of every pious man." This same word, however, is used in Persia and India and China for the sacrifice at the great festival 'Id-i-Qurban.

Nahr, to cut the jugular vein is used in the Koran (108:1-2) in a command to the prophet to sacrifice a camel. Udhiya is the word used in Moslem tradition for the annual sacrifice at Mecca (Mishkat, Bk. IV, ch. 19). Hady occurs four times in the Koran for animal victims sent to Mecca when the pilgrim himself is not able to be



23

in time for the sacrifice, (2:193 and 5:2, 96, 98). It signifies a vicarious present. Finally, there is the word mansakh (Koran 22:35). "We have appointed to every nation a rite." The commentator, Baidhawi, explains this as sacrifice (Tafsir, p. 91).

There are two main occasions when Islam enjoins a blood-sacrifice, namely, at the birth of a child (‘aqiqa), and at the annual feast in Mecca which is also celebrated in every Moslem community. The first is the sacrament of initiation, like Christian baptism. The second is commemorative, as the Eucharist also is in part. Yet both have features and prayers which seem both expiatory and vicarious.

Elsewhere there is a full account of the 'aqiqa sacrifice.1 Suffice to say it consists in shaving the head of the new-born child, killing a sheep or goat as sacrifice, no bone of which may be broken, and offering this prayer: "O God, here is the 'aqiqa for my son [giving the name], its blood for his blood, its flesh for his flesh, its hair for his hair and save my son from the fire, etc." (The full prayer is given by Herklots and Swestermarck).2 Doughty states that this sacrifice is the most common of Islamic religious ceremonies in the Arabian Desert. It may be derived from Arabian paganism but it has Jewish features and, in parts of the Moslem world (e.g. Morocco and China), the sacrificer is not the father of the child but the mullah or imam. So this custom is common everywhere in Islam today. What does it signify? Why does a Moslem child need blood-atonement?

The great Feast of Sacrifice in the world of Islam is annually celebrated to commemorate Abraham's faith in willingness to sacrifice his son. That was Mohammed's attempted unhistoric explanation of the ancient pagan ritual at Mecca which he perpetuated. The details of the annual celebration at Mecca have been described by Burckhardt, Burton, Hurgronje and later travelers. The whole ceremony is based on an injunction of the Koran (22: 33-38). It includes prayers, a brief exhortation, the killing of a sheep, goat, camel, or other clean animals, a partaking of the sacrifice, ablution, and shaving of their hair. Although the sacrifice can be made by any male Moslem, the religious part of the festival is always in the charge of an imam and is conducted in a musalla, a special area set apart for prayer on this annual occasion.3 Everywhere the head of the sacrificial victim must be turned toward the Ka'ba. Edmond Doutté and Westermarck have written extensively on this feast of sacrifice and other blood-sacrifices common among Moslems of North Africa and in Islam generally. There are such sacrifices at laying foundations of a house, launching a ship, in time of epidemic, to fulfill a vow or to atone for some omission in the ritual of Islam. The idea of expiation and the sanctity of the sacrificer when he officiates are so evident that Doutté, a Roman Catholic, closes his chapter with this observation: "With us the sacrifice of the Mass renews every day this expiation and the Church defines justification as the application of the merits of the suffering of Jesus Christ to the sinner. Moslems have not reached that far. The idea of redemption has not penetrated their thought as it has Christian thought. But we have told enough to show the



24

great importance of the idea of sacrifice in the development of their dogma in this respect."4

Westermarck tells of blood-sacrifices made by Moslems at the tombs of saints to secure their intercession; on the sea for a safe voyage; at the eclipse of the sun or moon; on the threshing-floor to bless the harvest; on taking a solemn oath; or even to consecrate a new market place in the village.5 He also gives traditions and practices regarding the expiatory value of the blood shed at the annual animal-sacrifice feast.

We may well ask, what does all this mean to a thoughtful Muslim? The Koran denies the death of Christ on the Cross and yet makes sacrifice, the great Feast of Islam at its focal centre, Mecca, obligatory on true believers.

There is also no question that for orthodox Jews, Yom Kippur has as its central significance, atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11) by penitence – but today usually without the shedding of blood! The day Christians call Good Friday brings to memory the perfect and final atonement and satisfaction for sin on the Cross of Calvary by the world's Redeemer, the Lamb of God. He died for our sins and arose from the dead for our justification.

Does the 'Aqiqa sacrifice with its beautiful prayer for expiation and the many traditions regarding the value of the sacrificial victims slain in Arafat, for crossing the Sirat on the day of doom, give no deeper and worthier message?

Is not the Cross of Christ the one missing links in the Moslem creed? "For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." And Allah is merciful and forgiving to sinners.

"Note, for example," says an Anglican priest, "how universal has been the institution of sacrifice in all ancient religion. Whatever the differences between ancient religions – and they are very many – they were united in their recognition that man had offended his gods and that their anger must be placated. How incredibly shallow were the rationalists of the so-called Enlightenment in their attitude to this fact. The fear of the gods, if you please, was the invention of priests. O sancta simplicitas! Deep down in the roots of his being, ancient man knew that he had ‘offended against Thy holy laws.’ It takes much more than the superficial idiocies of the French rationalists of the eighteenth century and of the still greater idiocies of their modern successors to get over that fact."6

The great Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, and the annual sacrifice at Mecca seem to have much in common. Both date back to the days before the Hegira; and there was a time, as we all know, when the followers of Mohammed turned toward Jerusalem to pray. Read the description of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 and in Numbers 29:7-11 with the contrast drawn in Hebrews 9:6-28.



25

The Jewish high-priest offered sacrifice for himself and for all the people annually, as now at Mecca there is the annual sacrifice. In both cases we have "ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary." "But Christ being come an high-priest of good things to come... neither by the blood of goats and calves but His own blood entered in once [for all] into the holy place having secured eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and goats... 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?" - Good Friday, 1946 - Samuel M. Zwemer 18

To be continued in the paper: “SACRIFICE AS A RELIGIOUS CULT & AKIDAH REVISITED” by Dr. James J. DeFrancisco

This paper is Part 1 of the Sacrifice & Sin Series (SSS-1)

18 See http://www.islamonline.net/



26

ENDNOTES (from previous paper on “Original Sin and Ancestral Sin –

Comparative Doctrines”)

i Romanides, John, Original Sin According to St. Paul; St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Vol. IV, Nos. 1 and 2, 1955-6. at http://www.romanity.org.

ii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin iii Eerdman’s Handbook to Christian Belief, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982, p.471 iv Ibid, p. 247 v Ibid, p. 224 vi Ibid, p. 468 vii Ibid, p. 467 viii The Orthodox Study Bible New Testament and Psalms, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993, p. 804 ix http://www.thirtysix.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=237&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=7712d56a7606cba9c9b83c0f0a615830

x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith

xi Jeffrey Spitzer “The Birth of the Good Inclination” at

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Bar_Bat_Mitzvah/AboutBarBatMitzvah/HowOld/barmitzvahpsychology.htm

xii Spitzer

Original Sin & Its Relationship to Sacrifice

Documents

Transcript of Original Sin & Its Relationship to Sacrifice