Ship of Fools: Sacrifices

Thread: Sacrifices Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029707

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

I was listening to the reading from Exodus last night about slaughtering a lamb for the Passover.

My biblical knowledge has rusted a bit but others include the beginning of Levitacus which discusses burnt offerings and that the smell is pleasing to God, and sacrificing doves in the temple for the purification.

I can understand that a command to do something fulfils a human need, but why does it have to involve animals? And going back to the lamb, why does it have to be roasted but can't be boiled?

Exodus 12

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I can't speak to doves, but if you are doing camping-style cooking (with your belt on and your shoes on your feet) then roasting is the way to go. Boiling involves having, or carrying, a vessel large enough to hold the meat; it also implies that you're going to cut up the lamb rather than keeping it with its head and its inner organs (! cannot believe this would work well). And if you were going to stew (boil) the cut-up lamb, it would only be reasonable and good housewifery to add vegetables, starches, and other items to make it a one-pot meal. (I am planning a very similar dish for Easter: stewing lamb, white beans, turnips, rosemary.)
So it takes longer, is fussier (more decadent), and is not something you'd want to do if you are planning to immediately flee Egypt. Which was famous for its fleshpots, come to think of it -- it is significant that when the Israelites were in the desert they remembered the food back in Egypt with fondness.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Afaik it was universally thought that people had to appease gods, otherwise all would not go well with them. If sacrifices were made, and all was well, the associated god was assumed to be pleased with the sacrifice. Human sacrifice, especially of children, was commonplace.

Sheep were kept to eat, as were doves. God consistently told the Israelites not to sacrifice to other gods and where they did sacrifice, if they had the desire to please God, to use sheep or goats and doves, which were then eaten. The sacrifice God wanted was not animals, but the humility to serve God and other people.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm guessing the specification for roasting the Passover lamb was indeed due to the fact that they were in a hurry--later sacrifices at the temple did sometimes wind up boiled (see 1 Sam 2:12-17). Plus, as Brenda said, the desire to keep the lamb basically whole (one of the Gospel writers traces this to the Passover lamb being a foreshadowing of Christ and how he would die).

As for why animals, the whole idea traces back to "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22)--which is a very deeply embedded idea in Hebrew thought, and I think, in cultures around the world. "The blood is the life" (Deuteronomy 12:23) is another one of those basic ideas, and is repeated a bunch of times in the OT starting in Genesis. Given those two basic cultural ideas, sacrificing flowers or veggies just wouldn't be on. (though you COULD use plants as thank offerings--just not where forgiveness and salvation were concerned)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Only yesterday did I actually pay attention to the line in Exodus, when the Lord commands the Israelites to roast their lamb with the organs in and the head on. Good gosh! I hope they were at least allowed to skin it. The internal organs had to stay in! That must have made for creative carving indeed. Perhaps (as with mussels and snails) they were allowed to keep the lamb for several days before hand on a liquid diet, so as to purge its system somewhat? One of the great flaws of the Bible is that it doesn't tell you nearly enough about stuff that would be really interesting.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Sheep were kept to eat

I don't know how far ancient Palestinian pastoralism resembled ancient Balkan pastoralism, but I understand the ancient Greeks kept sheep and goats primarily for milk, which they made into cheese. Lambs were slaughtered as early as possible (beyond what was necessary to keep the flock size stable), so as to maximise the milk available for cheese.

Presumably after the lambing season there would be a sudden glut of lambs' meat, and sacrifices to the gods would be made out of this superabundance.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
The internal organs had to stay in!

Possibly to prevent any attempt to use the internal organs for divination? The entrails of sacrificed animals were often used for this in the Mediterranean region.

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Presumably after the lambing season there would be a sudden glut of lambs' meat, and sacrifices to the gods would be made out of this superabundance.

This would be the same principle as the timing of Lent, but applied in the opposite sense. Have your 40-day fast at the time of year when food of all kinds is least available, and have your sacrificial feasts at the time of year when lambs are cheap in the market! The only thing is, I don't know of any religion which timed its sacrificial feasts in the lambing season. Do you?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Remember, the lamb for this meal, whether of a sheep or a goat, had to be a year old.

FWIW, here in the southern hemisphere, Passover and Easter are autumn festivals and so the traditional Easter lamb is only 6 months or so old. A leg of kid, equally biblical, makes a delicious alternative, especially if cooked in a cover bbq, over charcoal.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I noticed in the Exodus reading that the Lord said either a sheep or a goat would do. Which tells me that the species were much closer at that time than they are now.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

According to someone I know who spent a fair amount of time in the middle east, sheep and goats there look very similar now.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

They taste and cook similar, I know. But clearly they could tell a difference, even in Biblical times (the parable of the sheep and the goats). It just doesn't make a difference at Passover, on the plate. (If they really used plates. If you eat it standing, as commanded, you need a piece of unleavened bread to use as a plate. Like a tortilla.)

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
The only thing is, I don't know of any religion which timed its sacrificial feasts in the lambing season. Do you?

You're right, I was going by vague memories of rules on first fruits and confusing them with even vaguer memories of the rules about firstborn lambs. Neither of which, on closer investigation, prove anything like the point I thought I was making, so it's possible that the sentence beginning with 'presumably' is in fact complete rubbish.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The concept of sacrifice fascinates me. The image is unavoidable in Christian scripture, liturgy and theology, but unless you limit it to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (which I find completely unconvincing) it is not obvious what it means.

The other fascinating thing is that sacrifice appears almost universal in pre World religions throughout the world, including the indigenous American civilizations. This suggest it dates from the very earliest stages of human development.

My theory is sacrifice developed from the experience of preparing food and eating together. In barely articulate humans this was above all what nourished them, made them aware of each other and of themselves and their dependence on a wider world that provided for them.

Sacrifice then is not primarily a matter of propitiation, a bribe to God, but a covenant, reconciliation and sharing. (Granted it wouldn't seem like that if you were a victim for an Aztec sacrifice.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The concept of sacrifice fascinates me. The image is unavoidable in Christian scripture, liturgy and theology, but unless you limit it to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (which I find completely unconvincing) it is not obvious what it means.

Sacrifice is very different from substitution. In PSA, Jesus dies in our place.

In the sacrificial model, Jesus lives a whole life (not just its ending) in obedience to God and invites us to share in it.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

IMHO sacrifice is the opposite of grabbiness, which is what we did in the Garden. Now we have Jesus of the Philippians 2 passage.

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

The concept of sacrifice is very important, to offer things to God, generally at personal cost, and I think it is in many ways for us still, like worship, to turn our attentions to God, I do struggle with why animals have to bear the brunt though.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm not sure I'd put it quite that way. I mean, the animals exist, they are certainly going to be eaten by their owners/raisers, and being sacrificed doesn't make the death any worse. Possibly better, in that there are certain standards for how you must treat sacrificial animals, both while you raise them (no neglect or abuse, as the animal must be flawless) and when you kill them (generally a quick cut with the knife or a wringing of a bird neck. No slow and gruesome torture.).

Obviously an animal would prefer to live. But that option is not on the table for the vast majority of male sheep, goats, bulls...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

You need to kill animals because they provide blood. It’s all pre-scientific but blood in the OT is the life of the creature (Leviticus 17.11) and that achieves various things.

The crudest purpose of sacrifice is that it provides food for the god – as the Hindus in their temple here is Neasden still appear to do on one level when they make food offerings at meal times. Psalm 50 knows this possible view and rejects it “Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats”

In the case which the OP mentions – the Exodus Passover – “The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Exodus 12.11

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
You need to kill animals because they provide blood.

But how does this argument account for the grain and wine offerings described in the OT? Is the purpose of non-animal offerings different from the purpose of animal sacrifice?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Off the top of my head, the grain offerings are not used for sacrifices of atonement.

And animal sacrifices better symbolise the aspect of sacrifice LC was mentioning - giving up our lives to others. (Apologies to LC if I've got that wrong.)

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Chocoholic posted:

quote:
The concept of sacrifice is very important, to offer things to God, generally at personal cost, and I think it is in many ways for us still, like worship, to turn our attentions to God

Surely the grain offerings and wine offerings involved personal cost to the giver? So why animals, exactly?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Animals provided the blood. Blood is life.

There must be lots of anthropological explanations, but I'm not an anthropologist.

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

Exactly Chamois, that's what I'm thinking.

I'm no Hebrew or Greek scholar but are the words for these different sacrifice types the same?

For the blood on the door posts for the sign at the Passover, I wonder why it had to be that, there could surely have been an alternative?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Augghh. Repeating myself:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for why animals, the whole idea traces back to "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22)--which is a very deeply embedded idea in Hebrew thought, and I think, in cultures around the world. "The blood is the life" (Deuteronomy 12:23) is another one of those basic ideas, and is repeated a bunch of times in the OT starting in Genesis. Given those two basic cultural ideas, sacrificing flowers or veggies just wouldn't be on. (though you COULD use plants as thank offerings--just not where forgiveness and salvation were concerned)

And adding--

Thank offerings and tithes did involve fruits, vegetables, wine, oil, grain--basically any farm produce, animal or plant. The purpose of a tithe is to acknowledge the God who gave you everything, and to support those who serve in his temple--that was what the tithes were specifically designated for. The purpose of a thank offering is, well, to thank. In neither case was sin or forgiveness the point. So there was no difficulty if someone wanted to bring an offering that was NOT an animal--no blood was needed, as that was only required in sacrifices that specifically foreshadowed the work of Christ on the cross. For tithes and thank offerings, you could even offer human beings and unclean animals via redemption--that is, you gave a certain amount of money or a substitute clean animal as the designated stand-in for the one you were offering, but going to take home again alive.

So the only spot where blood/life was central was the whole sin/guilt/burnt offering complex, and those did require unblemished animal sacrifices of a carefully specified type (generally a year old lamb or kid, a dove or pigeon, a ram or bull). And the Passover lamb was one of those.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0