(Latin sacrificium; Italian sacrificio; French sacrifice.)
This term is identical with the English offering (Latin offerre) and the German Opfer; the latter is derived, not from offerre, but from operari (Old High German opfâron; Middle High German opperu, opparôn), and thus means "to do zealously, to serve God, to offer sacrifice" (cf. Kluge "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache", Strassburg, 1899, p. 288). By sacrifice in the real sense is universally understood the offering of a sense-perceptible gift to the Deity as an outward manifestation of our veneration for Him and with the object of attaining communion with Him. Strictly speaking however, this offering does not become a sacrifice until a real change has been effected in the visible gift (e.g. by slaying it, shedding its blood. burning it, or pouring it out). As the meaning and importance of sacrifice cannot be established by a priori methods, every admissible theory of sacrifice must shape itself in accordance with the sacrificial systems of the pagan nations, and especially with those of the revealed religions, Judaism and Christianity. Pure Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and Protestantism here call for no attention, as they have no real sacrifice; apart from these there is and has been no developed religion which has not accepted sacrifice as an essential portion of its cult. We shall consider successively:
I. Pagan Sacrifice; II. Jewish Sacrifice; III. Christian Sacrifice; IV. Theory of Sacrifice.
Pagan sacrifice
Among the Indians
The Vedism of the ancient Indies was, to an extent never elsewhere attained, a sacrificial religion connected with the deities Agni and Soma. A Vedic proverb runs: "Sacrifice is the navel of the world". Originally regarded as a feast for the gods, before whom food-offerings (cakes, milk, butter, meat, and the soma drink) were set on the holy grass before the altar, sacrifice gradually became a magical agency for influencing the gods, such as might be expressed in the formula, "Do ut des", or in the Vedic proverb: "Here is the butter; where are thy gifts?" The Vedic sacrificial prayers express no spirit of humility or submission; even the word "thank" is unknown in the Vedic language. The gods thus sank to the level of mere servants of man, while the high-priests or Brahmins entrusted with the complicated rites gradually acquired an almost divine dignity. In their hands the sacrificial ceremonial, developed to the extremest detail, became an irresistible power over the gods. A proverb says: "The sacrificer hunts Indra like game, and holds him fast as the fowler does the bird; the god is a wheel which the singer understands how to turn." The gods derive their whole might and power from the sacrifice as the condition of their existence, so that the Brahmins are indispensable for their continued existence.
However, that the gods were not entirely indifferent to man, but gave him their assistance, is proved among other things by the serious expiatory character which was not quite eliminated from the Vedic sacrifices. The actual offering of the sacrifices, which was never effected without fire, took place either in the houses or in the open air; temples were unknown. Among the various sacrifices two were conspicuous: the soma offering and the sacrifice of the horse. The offering of the soma (Agnistoma) —a nectar obtained by the pressing of some plants —took place in the spring; the sacrifice lasted an entire day, and was a universal holiday for the people. The triple pressing of the soma, performed at certain intervals during the day, alternated with the offering of sacrificial cakes, libations of milk, and the sacrifice of eleven he-goats to various gods. The gods (especially Indra) were eager for the intoxicating soma drink: "As the ox bellows after the rain, so does Indra desire the soma." The sacrifice of the horse (açvamedha), executed at the command of the king and participated in by the whole people, required a whole year's preparation.
It was the acme, "the king of the sacrifices", the solemnities lasting three days and being accompanied by all kinds of public amusements. The idea of this sacrifice was to provide the gods of light with another steed for their heavenly yoke. At first, instead of the sacrifice of the horse, human sacrifice seems to have been in vogue, so that here also the idea of substitution found expression. For the later Indians had a saying: "At first the gods indeed accepted men as sacrificial victims. Then the sacrificial efficacy passed from them to the horse. The horse thus became efficacious. They accepted the horse, but the sacrificial efficacy went to the steer, sheep, goat, and finally to rice and barley: Thus for the instructed a sacrificial cake made of rice and barley is of the same value as these [five] animals" (cf. Hardy, "Die vedisch-brahmanisehe Periode der Religion des alten Indiens", Münster, 1892, p. 150). Modern Hinduism with its numberless sects honours Vishnu and Shiva as chief deities. As a cult it is distinguished from ancient Vedism mainly by its temple service. The Hindu temples are usual artistic and magnificent edifices with numerous courts, chapels, and halls, in which representations of gods and idols are exposed. The smaller pagodas serve the same purpose. Although the Hindu religion centres in its idolatry sacrifice has not been completely evicted from its old place. The symbol of Shiva is the phallus (linga); linga stones are indeed met throughout India (especially in the holy places) in extraordinary numbers. The darker shades of this superstition, degenerated into fetichism, are somewhat relieved by the piety and elevation of many Hindu hymns or songs of praise (stotras), which surpass even the old Vedic hymns in religious feeling.
Among the Iranians
The kindred religion of the ancient Iranians centres, especially after its reform by Zoroaster, in the service of the true god Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda), whose will is the right and whose kingdom is the good. This ethically very elevated religion promotes especially a life of purity, the conscientious fulfilment of all liturgical and moral precepts, and the positive renunciation of the Devil and all demoniacal powers. If the ancient Indian religion was essentially a religion of sacrifice, this religion of the ancient Persians may be described as a religion of observance. Inasmuch as, in the old Avesta, the sacred book of the Persians, the war between the good god Ormuzd and the Devil ends eschatologically with the complete victory of the good god, we may designate the earliest Parseeism as Monotheism. However, the theological Dualism taught in the later Avesta, where the wicked anti-god Ahriman is opposed to the good god Ormuzd as an absolute principle, is already foreshadowed and prepared for in many didactic poems (gâthas) of the old Avesta. Sacrifice and prayer are intended to paralyze the diabolical machinations of Ahriman and his demons. The central feature of the Avestic divine service was the worship of fire, a worship, however, unconnected with special fire-temples. Like the modern Mobeds in India, the priests carried portable altars with them, and could thus offer sacrifice everywhere. Special fire-temples were, however, early erected, in which five times daily the priests entered the sacred fire-chamber to tend the fire in a metal vessel, usually fed with odoriferous wood. In a roomy antechamber the intoxicating haoma (the counterpart of the Indian soma drink) was brewed, the holy water prepared, and the sacrifice of flesh (myazda) and cakes (darun) offered to the gods. The precious haoma, the drink of immortality, not only conduced in the case of mankind to eternal life, but was likewise a drink for the gods themselves. In the later Avesta this drink, originally only a medium of cult, was formally deified, and identified with the divinity; nay even the very vessels used in the fabrication of this drink from the haoma branches were celebrated and adored in hymns of praise. Worthy of mention also are the sacrificial twigs (baresman, later barsom), which were used as praying twigs or magical wands and solemnly stretched out in the hand. After the reduction of the kingdom of the Sassanids by the Arabians (A.D. 642) the Persian religion was doomed to decay, and the vast majority of its followers fell away into Islamism. Besides some small remnants in modern Persia, large communities still exist on the west coast of India, in Guzerat and Bombay, whither many Parsees then immigrated.
Among the Greeks
The universal religion of ancient Greece was a glad and joyous Polytheism most closely connected with civic life. Even the ancient Amphictyonic Council was a confederacy of states with the object of maintaining in common a certain shrine. The object of the religious functions, which consisted in prayer, sacrifice, and votive offerings, was the winning of the favour and assistance of the gods, which were always received with feelings of awe and gratitude. The sacrificial offerings, bloody and unbloody, were generally taken from articles of human food; to the gods above pastry, sacrificial cakes, pap, fruits, and wine were offered, but to the nether gods, cakes of honey and, as a drink, a mixture of milk, honey, and water. The sacrificial consecration often consisted merely in the exposition of the foods in pots on the roadsides or on the funeral mounds with the idea of entertaining the gods or the dead. Usually a portion was retained wherewith to solemnize a sacrificial feast in union with the gods; of the sacrifices to the nether gods in Hades, however, nothing was retained. Great banquets of the gods (theoxenia) were well known to the Greeks as were the Leotisternia to the Romans. As a rule, however, the sacrifices were burned on the altar, at times as holocausts. Incense was added as a subsidiary offering with most sacrifices, although there were also special offerings of incense. The offerer of sacrifice wore clean clothes and chaplets around his head, sprinkled his hands and the altar with holy water, and strewed with solemn prayers sacrificial meal over the heads of the victims (pigs, goats, and cocks). Flutes were played while the victim was being slain, and the blood was allowed to drop through holes into the sacrificial trenches. The meritoriousness of the sacrifice was regarded as to a great extent dependent on its costliness. The horns of the victims were gilded, and on great festivals whole hecatombs were slain; sacrifices of twelve, and especially of three victims (trittues) were the most usual. In times of great affliction human sacrifices were offered even down to the historical era. The sacrifice was the centre of the Greek cult, and no meal was partaken of until a libation of the wine about to be consumed was poured out to the gods. Among the characteristic peculiarities of the Greek religion may be mentioned the votive offerings (anathemata), which (besides firstlings, tithes, votive tablets, and objects of value) consisted chiefly of chaplets, cauldrons, and the popular tripods (tripodes). The number of the votive offerings, which were frequently hung up on the sacred oaks, grew in time so immeasurably that various states erected their special treasuries at Olympia and Delphi.
Among the Romans
To a still greater extent than among the Greeks was religion and the whole sacrificial system a business of the state among the ancient Romans. Furthermore, no other people of antiquity developed Polytheism to such extremes. Peopling the world with gods, genii, and lares, they placed almost every action and condition under a specially-conceived deity (god or goddess). The calendar prepared by the pontifices gave the Romans detailed information as to how they should conduct themselves with respect to the gods throughout the year. The object of sacrifice was to win the favour of the gods and to ward off their sinister influence. Sacrifices of atonement (piacula) for perpetrated crimes and past errors were also scheduled. In the earliest times the ancient Indo-Germanic sacrifice of the horse, and also sacrifices of sheep, pigs, and oxen were known. That human sacrifices must have been once usual may be concluded from certain customs of a later period (e.g. from the projection of straw puppets into the Tiber and the hanging of woollen puppets at the crossways and on the doors of the houses). Under the empire various foreign cults were introduced, such as the veneration of the Egyptian deities Isis and Osiris, the Syrian Astarte, the Phrygian goddess Cybele, etc. The Roman Pantheon united in peace the most incongruous deities from every land. Finally, however, no cult was so popular as that of the Indo-Iranian Light-god Mithra, to whom especially the soldiers and officials of the empire, even in such distant places as the Danube and the Rhine offered their sacrifices. In honour of the steer-killing Mithra the so-called taurobolia were introduced from the East; by taurobolium is meant the loathsome ceremony wherein the worshippers of Mithra let the warm blood of a just-slaughtered steer flow over their naked backs as they lay in a trench with the idea of attaining thereby not only physical strength, but also mental renewal and regeneration.
Among the Chinese
The religion of the Chinese, a peculiar mixture of nature and ancestor-worship, is indissolubly connected with the constitution of the state. The oldest Sinism was a perfect Monotheism. However, we are best acquainted with the Chinese sacrificial system in the form which was given it by the great reformer, Confucius (sixth century before Christ), and which it has retained practically unaltered after more than two thousand years. As the "Son of Heaven" and the head of the State religion, the Emperor of China is also the high-priest who alone may offer sacrifice to heaven. The chief sacrifice takes place annually during the night of the winter solstice on the "altar of heaven" in the southern section of Peking. On the highest terrace of this altar stands a wooden table as the symbol of the soul of the god of heaven; there are in addition many other "soul tables" (of the sun, moon, stars, clouds, wind, etc.), including those of the ten immediate predecessors of the emperor. Before every table are set sacrificial offerings of soup, flesh, vegetables, etc. To the ancestors of the emperor, as well as to the sun and moon, a slaughtered ox is offered; to the planets and the stars a calf, a sheep, and a pig. Meanwhile, on a pyre to the south-east of the altar, a sacrifice of an ox lies ready to be burned to the highest god of heaven. While the ox is being consumed, the emperor offers to the soul-table of heaven and the tables of his predecessors a staff of incense, silk, and some meat broth. After the performance of these ceremonies, all the articles of sacrifice are brought to special furnaces and there consumed. Similarly the emperor sacrifices to the earth at the northern wall of Peking, the sacrificial gifts being in this case not burned, but buried. The gods of the soil and of corn, as well as the ancestors of the emperor, have also their special places and days of sacrifice. Throughout the empire the emperor is represented in the sacrifices by his state officials. In the classical book of ritual, "Li-ki", it is expressly stated: "The son of heaven sacrifices to the heaven and the earth; the vassals to the gods of the soil and of corn." Besides the chief sacrifices, there are a number of others of the second or third rank, which are usually performed by state officials. The popular religion with its innumerable images, which have their special temples, is undisguised idolatry.
Among the Egyptians
The ancient religion of the Egyptians, with its highly developed priesthood and its equally extensive sacrificial system, marks the transition to the religion of the Semites. The Egyptian temple contained a dark chapel with the image of the deity; before it was a pillared hall, (hypostyle) faintly lit by a small window under the roof, and before this hall a spacious court-yard, enclosed by a circular series of pillars. The ground-plan proves that the temple was not used either for assemblies of the people or as the residence of the priests, but was intended solely for the preservation of the images of the gods, the treasures, and the sacred vessels. To the sanctuary proper only the priests and the king were admitted. The sacrifices were offered in the great court-yard, where also the highly popular processions, in which the images of the gods were borne in a ship, took place. The rites of the daily service of the temple, the movements, words, and prayers of the officiating priest, were all regulated down to the smallest detail. The image of the god was entertained daily with food and drink, which were placed on the sacrificial table. At the laying of the foundation-stone of a new temple human sacrifices were offered, being abolished only in the era of the Ramassides; a trace of this repulsive custom survived in the later ceremony of impressing on the sacrificial victim a seal bearing the image of a man in chains with a knife in his throat. To the favourite god of the Egyptians, Ammon-Râ, the rulers of the New Empire made such extraordinarily numerous and costly votive offerings that the state became almost bankrupt. The Egyptian religion, which finally developed into abominable bestiolatry, fell into decay with the destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria by the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius I (391).
Among the Semites
Among the Semites the Babylonians and Assyrians deserve first mention. The Babylonian temple contained in the sanctuary the image of the god to whom it was consecrated, and in adjoining chambers or chapels the images of the other gods. The Babylonian priests were a private caste, the mediators between the gods and man, the guardians of the sacred literature, and the teachers of the sciences. In Assyria, on the other hand, the king was the high-priest, and offered up sacrifice. According to the Babylonian idea, sacrifice (libations, offerings of foods, bloody sacrifices) is the due tribute of mankind to the gods, and is as old as the world; sacrifices are the banquets of the gods, and the smoke of the offerings is for them a fragrant odour; a joyous sacrificial banquet unites the sacrificers with their divine guests. Both burnt and aromatic offerings were common to the Babylonians and the Assyrians. The sacrificial gifts included wild and tame animals, fowl, fish, fruit, curds, honey, and oil. Sacrificial animals were usually of the male sex; they had to be without defects, strong and fat, for only the unblemished is worthy of the gods. Only in the rite of purification were female animals allowed, and only in the lesser ceremonies defective animals. The offering of bread on tables (showbread) was also usual. To the sacrifices was attributed a purifying and atoning force, and the idea of substitution, the sacrificial victim being substituted for man, was clearly expressed. In the Babylonian penitential psalms especially, the deep consciousness of sin and guilt often finds touching expression. Men were slain only with lamentations for the dead.
The demonstration that the Chanaanites originally came from Arabia (that ancient home of the races) to Palestine, and there disseminated the culture of the ancient Arabians, is an achievement of modern investigators. While the Babylonian religion was governed by the course of the stars (astrology), the spiritual horizon of the Chanaanites was fixed by the periodical changes of dying and reawakening nature, and thus depended secondarily on the vivifying influence of the stars, especially of the sun and the moon. Wherever the force of nature revealed evidence of life, there the deity had his seat. At fountains and rivers temples arose, because water brings life and drought, death. Feeling themselves nearest to the deity on mountains, hill-worship (mentioned also in the Old Testament) was the most popular among the Chanaanites. On the height stood an altar with an oval opening, and around it was made a channel to carry off the blood of the sacrificial victim. To the cruel god Moloch sacrifices of children were offered —a horrible custom against which the Bible so sternly inveighs. The kindred cult of the Phœnicians originated in a low idea of the deity, which inclined towards gloominess, cruelty, and voluptuousness. We need only mention the worship of Baal and Astarte, Phallism and the sacrifice of chastity, the sacrifice of men and children, which the civilized Romans vainly strove to abolish. In their sacrificial system the Phœnicians had some points in common with the Israelites. The "sacrificial table of Marseilles", which, like the similar "sacrificial table of Carthage", was of Phœnician origin, mentions as sacrificial victims: steers, calves, stags, sheep, she-goats, lambs, he-goats, fawns, and fowl, tame and wild. Sick or emaciated animals were forbidden. The Phœnicians were also acquainted with holocausts (kalil), which were always supplicatory sacrifices and partial offerings, which might be sacrifices of either supplication or thanks. The chief efficacy of the sacrifice of men and animals was regarded as lying in the blood. When the victim was not entirely consumed, the sacrificers participated in a sacrificial banquet with music and dancing.
Jewish sacrifice
In general
That many general ideas and rites, which are found in pagan religions, find their place also in the Jewish sacrificial system, should excite as little surprise as the fact that revealed religion in general does not reject at all natural religion and ethics, but rather adopts them in a higher form. The ethical purity and excellence of the Jewish sacrificial system is at once seen in the circumstance that the detestable human sacrifices are spurned in the official religion of Jahweh (cf. Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Abraham's trial (Gen. xxii 1 sqq.) ended with the prohibition of the slaying of Isaac, God ordering instead the sacrifice of the ram caught in the briers. Among the Children of Israel human sacrifice meant the profanation of Jahweh's name (Leviticus 20:1 sqq., etc.). The later prophets also raised their mighty voices against the disgraceful service of Moloch with its sacrifice of children. It is true that the baneful influence of pagan environment won the upper hand from the time of King Achaz to that of Josias to such an extent that in the ill-omened Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem thousands of innocent children were sacrificed to Moloch. To this infectious pagan example, not to the spirit of the religion of Jahweh, is also to be referred the sacrifice which Jephte, in consequence of his vow, reluctantly performed by slaying his own daughter (Judges 11:1 sqq.). The assertion of many investigators (Ghilany, Daumer, Vatke) that even in the legitimate service of Jahweh human sacrifices occurred, is historically untenable; for, though the Mosaic Law contained the provision that, not only the firstlings of beasts and Fruits, but also the firstborn of men were due to Jahweh, it was expressly provided that these latter should be redeemed, not sacrificed. The offering of the blood of an animal instead of a human life originated in the profound idea of substitution, and has its justification in the prophetical metaphorical references to the unique vicarious sacrifice offered by Christ on Golgotha. The Israelitic blood vengeance (cherem), in accordance with which impious enemies and things were utterly exterminated (cf. Joshua 6:21 sqq.; 1 Kings 15:15, etc.), had absolutely nothing to do with human sacrifice. The idea of the blood vengeance originated, not as in various pagan religions in the thirst of God for human blood, but in the principle that the powers hostile to God should be removed by a bloody chastisement from the path of the Lord of life and death. The accursed were not sacrificed but removed from the face of the earth. According to Jewish tradition, sacrifice in its bloody and its unbloody form extends back to the beginning of the human race. The first and oldest sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is that of Cain and Abel (Gen. iv, 3 sq.). With sacrifice an altar was associated (Genesis 12:7 sq.). Even in patriarchal times we meet also the sacrificial meal, especially in connexion with treaties and the conclusion of peace. The conclusion of the covenant at Mount Sinai was also effected under the auspices of a solemn sacrifice and banquet (Exodus 24:5 sqq.). Subsequently Moses, as the envoy of Jahweh, elaborated the whole sacrificial system, and in the Pentateuch fixed with most scrupulous exactness the various kinds of sacrifice and their ritual. Like the whole Mosaic cult, the sacrificial system is governed by the one central idea, peculiar to the religion of Jahweh: "Be holy because I am holy" (Leviticus 11:44).
Material of the sacrifices
The general name for Jewish sacrifice was originally minchah (anaphora, donum), afterwards the special technical term for the unbloody food-offering. To the latter was opposed the bloody sacrifice (thysia, victima). According to the method of offering, sacrifices were known as korban ("bringing near") or 'õlah ("ascending"), the latter term being used especially of the holocaust. The material of the bloody sacrifice must be taken from the personal possessions of the offerer, and must belong to the category of clean animals. Thus, on the one hand, only domestic animals (oxen, sheep, goats) from the stock of the sacrificer were allowed (Leviticus 22:19 sqq.), and hence neither fish nor wild animals; on the other hand, all unclean animals (e.g. dogs, pigs, asses, camels) were excluded, even though they were domestic animals. Doves were about the only sort of birds that could be used. The substitution of turtle doves or young pigeons for the larger animals was allowed to the poor (Leviticus 5:7; 12:8). Concerning the sex, age, and physical condition of the animals there were also exact precepts; as a rule, they had to be free from defect, since only the best were fit for Jahweh (Leviticus 22:20 sqq.; Malachi 1:13 sq.). The material of the unbloody sacrifices (usually additions to the bloody sacrifice or subsidiary sacrifices) was chosen from either the solid or the liquid articles of human food. The fragrant incense, the symbol of prayer ascending to God, was an exception. The sacrifice of solids (minchah) consisted partly of toasted ears of corn (or shelled grain) together with oil and incense (Leviticus 2:14 sqq.), partly of the finest wheaten flour with the same additional gifts (Leviticus 2:1 sqq.), and partly of unleavened bread (Leviticus 2:4 sqq.). Since not only leaven, but also honey produced fermentation in bread, which suggests rottenness, the use of honey was also forbidden (Leviticus 2:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6 sqq.). Only the bread of the first fruits, which was offered on the feast of Pentecost, and the bread added to many sacrifices of praise were leavened, and these might not be brought to the altar, but belonged to the priests (Leviticus 2:4 sqq.; 7:13 sq., etc.). On the other hand salt was regarded as a means of purification and preservation, and was prescribed as a seasoning for all food-offerings prepared from corn (Leviticus 2:13). Consequently, among the natural productions supplied to the (later)Temple, was a vast quantity of salt, which, as "salt of Sodom" was usually obtained from the Dead Sea, and stored up in a special salt chamber (Ezra 6:9; 7:22; Josephus, "Antiquities", XII, 3:3). As an integral portion of the food-offering we always find the libation (spondeion, libamen), which is never offered independently. Oil and wine were the only liquids used (cf. Genesis 28:18; 35:14; Numbers 28:7,14): the oil was used partly in the preparation of the bread, and partly burned with the other gifts on the altar; the wine was poured out before the altar. Libations of milk, such as those of the Arabs and the Phœnicians, do not occur in the Mosaic Law.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
SACRIFICE
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 or 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, as even today the emperor in China (see PRIESTHOOD). 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 (cf. Genesis 12:7 sq.; 13:4; 28:18 sqq.). 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 sacrifice
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, endeavours 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. As the starting-point for the comparative study of the lowest religious forms is usually taken the uncivilized savage of today, 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 (q, v.) 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 honoured as dogma in the history of religions, is most vigorously combated by the experts themselves as untenable. It has been recognized that Animism and the kindred Fetichism and Totemism 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" ("Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte", I, Tübingen, 1905, p. 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" (cf. Daniel 14:2 sqq.), but this may by no means be regarded as a primitive institution, Animism is most successfully refuted by Andrew Lang ('The Making of a Religion", London, 1898).
(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 connexion with the Crucifixion imprinted on the latter its sacrificial character. (For further particulars, see SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.)
(c) 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 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 favours. 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.
Object of sacrifice
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 (cf. St. Thomas, I-II, Q. cii, a. 3). 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 make 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 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. In so far as this definition refers to the sacrifice of the Mass, see SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
Sources
I. Concerning pagan sacrifice in general see CREUZER, Symbolik u. Mythologie der alten Völker (3rd ed., Darmstadt, 1877); WERNER, Die Religionen u. Kulte des vorchristl. Heidentums (Ratisbon, 1888); VOLLERS, Die Weltreligionen in ihrem geschichtl. Zusammenhang (Jena, 1909); DE LA SAUSSAYE, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch. (2 vols., 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1905). Concerning the sacrifices of the ancient Indians see MÜLLER, Hibbert Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of India (London, 1878); LINDNER, Die Dîkshâ oder die Weihe für das Somaopfer (1878); BERGAIGNE, La religion védique (3 vols., Paris, 1878-83); WEBER, Zur Kenntnis des ved. Opferrituals in Indische Studien, X and XIII; HILLEBRANDT, Das altind. Neu- u. Vollmondsopfer (1879); IDEM, Ritual-Literatur, ved. Opfer u. Zauber (1897); MUIR, Original Sanscrit Texts, III-V (London, 1890); HOPKINS, The Religions of India (London, 1893); HARDY, Die vedischbrahmanische Periode der Religion des alten Indiens (1893); IDEM, Indische Religionsgesch. (1898); OLDENBERG, Die Religion des Veda (1894); SCHWAB, Das altindische Tieropfer (1896); MACDONELL, Vedic Mythology (1897); DAHLMANN, Der Idealismus der indischen Religionsphilos. im Zeitalter der Opfermystik (Freiburg, 1901); ROUSSELL, La religion védique (Paris, 1909). Concerning Hinduism consult: MONIER-WILLIAMS, Brahmanism and Hinduism (London, 1891); GURU PROSAD SEN, An Introduction to the Study of Hinduism (Calcutta, 1893); CROOKE, Introduction to the Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India (London, 1896); DUBOIS, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies (Oxford, 1897); SLATER, The higher Hinduism in relation to Christianity (London, 1902). Concerning the Iranians, cf. HYDE, Historia religionis veterum Persarum (Oxford, 1700); WINDISCHMANN, Zoroastrische Studien (1863); SPIGEL, Eranische Altertumskunde, II (1878); DE HARLEZ, Les origines du Zoroastrisme (Paris, 1879); HAUG, Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsis (London, 1884); DOSABHAI FRANIJI KARAKA, History of the Parsis, including their Manners, Customs, Religion and Present Position (2 vols., London, 1884); CASARTELI, La philos. religeuse du Mazdéisme sous les Sassanides (Paris, 1884); JACKSON, Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran (New York, 1899). Concerning the Greeks, Cf. MAURY, Hist. des religions de la Grèce antique (3 vols., Paris, 1857-9); GIRARD, Le sentiment religieux en Grèce d'Homère à Eschyle (Paris, 1879); ROSCHER, Ausführliches Lexikon der griech. u. röm. Mythologie (1884); REISCH, Griechische Weihegeschenke (Vienna, 1890); STENGEL, Die griech. Sakralaltertümer (1890); RHODE, Psyche (1891); GARDENER AND JEVONS, Manual of Greek Antiquities (London, 1895); USENER, Götternamen (1896); FARNELL, Cults of the Greek States (2 vols., London, 1896); GRUPPE, Griech. Mythologie u. Religionsgesch. (Munich, 1897-1906); ROUSE, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge, 1910); REITZENSTEIN, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (1910); PIEPERS, Qu stiones anathematic (Leiden, 1903). Concerning the Romans, cf. BOUCHÉ-LECLERC, Manuel des institutions romaines (Paris, 1896); WISSOWA, Religion u. Kultus der Römer (Munich, 1902); VON PÖHLMANN, Die röm. Kaiserzeit u. der Untergang der antiken Welt (1910); GASQUET, Essai sur le culte et les mystères de Mithra (Paris, 1899); CUMONT, Die Mysterien des Mithra (Leipzig, 1903); PRELLER, Römische Mythologie (3rd ed., 1881-83); BEURLIER, Le culte rendu aux empereurs romains (Paris, 1890); WENDLAND, Die hellenist.-röm. Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum Judentum u. Christentum (1907); DIETERICH, Eine Mithrasliturgie (2nd ed., 1910). Concerning the Chinese, cf. DOUGLAS, Confucianism and Taoism (London, 1892); DE HARLEZ, Les religions de la Chine (Brussels, 1891); DVORAK, Chinas Religionen (2 Vols., Leipzig, 1895-1903). Concerning the Egyptians, cf. LE PAGE RENOUF, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of Ancient Egypt (London, 1879); ERMAN, Aegypten u, ägyptisches Leben im Altertum (2 vols., 1885-88); IDEM, Die ägyptische Religion (2nd ed., Berlin, 1909); BRUGSCH, Religion u. Mythologie der alten Aegypter (1888); BUDGE, The Mummy (London, 1893); IDEM, The Gods of the Egyptians (London, 1904); IDEM, History of Egypt (8 vols., London, 1902-); WIEDEMANN, Die Religion der alten Aegypter (1890); FLINDERS PETRIE, History of Egypt (London, 1894); SAYCE, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia (London, 1902); OTTO, Priester u. Tempel im hellenist. Aegypten (2 vols., 1902-08). Concerning the Semites. cf. VON BAUDISSIN, Beiträge zur semitischen Religionsgesch. (Berlin, 1875-78); ROBERTSON SMITH, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London, 1899); LAGRANGE, Sur les religions sémitiques (Paris, 1903); ZIMMER, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylon. Religion (1896); HAUPT, Babylonian Elements in the Levitical Ritual (1900); HILPRECHT, Die Ausgrabungen im Bel-Tempel zu Nippur (1903); JEREMIAS, Montheistische Strömungen innerhalb der babylonischen Religion (1904); WINCKLER, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (1904); JASTROW, Die Religion Babyloniens u. Assyriens (1905); KOLDEWEY, Die Tempel von Babylon (1911); MOVERS, Das Opferwesen der Karthager (1847); CHEYNE-BLACK, Encycl. biblica, s.v. Phœnicia; SCHOLZ, Götzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebräern u. benachbarten Völkern (1877); SCHANZ, Apologie des Christentums, II (1905). See also the literature to PRIESTHOOD.
II. LIGHTFOOT, Ministerium templi (Rotterdam, 1699); BÄHR, Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus, II (Heidelberg, 1839); THALHOFER, Die unblutigen Opfer des mosaischen Kultus (Ratisbon, 1848); RIEHM, Der Begriff der Sühne im A. T. (Gotha, 1876); IDEM, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums (Leipzig, 1884-); IDEM, Alttestamentl. Theologie (Halle, 1889); KURTZ, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, tr. (Edinburgh, 1863); WANGEMANN, Das Opfer nach der hl. Schrift (1866); SCHOLZ, Die hl. Altertümer des Volkes Israel (Ratisbon, 1868); IDEM, Götzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebräern (Ratisbon, 1877); HANEBERG, Die reliqiösen Altertümer der Bibel (Munich, 1869); SCHEGG, Biblische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1887); LAOUENAN, Du Brahmanisme et ses rapports avec le Judaisme et le Christianisme (Paris, 1888); CAVE, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement (Edinburgh, 1890); SCHÄFER, Die religiösen Altertümer der Bibel (1891); SCHMOLLER, Das Wesen der Sühne in der alttestamentlich. Opferthora in Studien u. Kritiken (1891); NOWACK, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1894); VOLCK, De nonnullis V. T. prophet. locis ad sacrificia spectantibus (Leipzig, 1893); SCOTT, Sacrifice, its Prophecy and Fulfilment (Edinburgh, 1894); BAXTER, Sanctuary and Sacrifice (London, 1895); SCHULTZ, Old Testament Theology, tr. (Edinburgh, 1898); FREY, Tod, Seelenglaube u. Seelenkult im alten Israel (1898); MATTHIEU, La notion de sacrifice dans l'ancien Testament et son évolution (Toulouse, 1902); GOLD, Sacrificial Worship (New York, 1903); NIKEL, Genesis u. Keilschriftforschung (Freiburg, 1903); SCHRADER, Die Keilinschriften u. das A. T. (3rd ed., Berlin, 1903); ZAPLETAL, Alttestamentliches (Freiburg, 1903); KÖBERLE, Sünde u. Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christus (Munich, 1905); HERRMANN, Die Idee der Sühne im A. T. (Leipzig, 1905); SCHÖPFER, Gesch, des A. T. (4th ed., 1906); KENT, Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents (New York, 1907); BENZINGER, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1907); MADER, Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer u. der benachbarten Völker (Freiburg, 1908); ENGELKEMPER, Heiligtum u, Opferstätten in den Gesetzen des Pentateuch (Münster, 1908); SMITH, The Biblical Doctrine of Atonement in Biblical World, XXXI (1908), 22 sqq.; KITTEL, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II (Gotha, 1909); PETERS, Die jüdische Gemeinde von Elephantine-Syene u. ihr Tempel im 5. Jahrh. vor Chr. (Freiburg, 1910); ALLGEIER, Ueber Doppelberichte in der Genesis. Eine kritische Untersuchung u. eine prinzipielle Prüfung (Freiburg, 1911).
III. TANNER, Cruentum Christi sacrificium, incruentum Missæ sacrificium explicatum (Prague, 1669); CONDREN. Das Priestertum u. das Opfer Jesu Christi (Ratisbon, 1847); VON CICHOWSKI, Das alttestamentl. Pascha in seinem Verhältnis sum Opfer Christi (Munich, 1849); THALHOFER, Die Opfer des Hebräerbriefes (Dillinger, 1855); IDEM, Das Opfer des alten u. neuen Bundes (Ratisbon, 1870); BICKEL, Messe u. Pascha (Mainz, 1871); PELL, Das Dogma von der Sünde u. Erlösung im Lichte der Vernunft (Ratisbon, 1886); IDEM, Die Lehre des hl. Athanasius von der Sünde u. Erlösung (Passau, 1888); OSWALD, Die Erlösung in Christo Jesu (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1887); STRÄTER, Die Erlösungslehre des hl. Athanasius (Freiburg, 1894); ANRICH, Das antike Mysterien. wesen u. sein Einfluss auf das Christentum (Göttingen, 1894): SCHENZ, Die priesterl. Tätigkeit des Messias nach dem Propheten Isajas (Ratisbon, 1892); SEEBERG, Der Tod Christi in seiner Bedeutung für die Erlösung (Leipzig, 1895); DÖRHOLT, Die Lehre von der Genugtuung Christi (Paderborn, 1896); CHARRE, Le sacrifice de l'Homme-Dieu (Paris, 1899); GRIMM, Gesch. des Leidens Jesu, I (Ratisbon, 1903); FUNKE, Die Satisfactionstheorie des hl. Anselm (Münster, 1903); RITTER, Christus der Erlöser (Linz, 1903); BELSER, Gesch. des Leidens u. Sterbens, der Auferstehung u. Himmelfahrt des Herrn (Freiburg, 1903); JENTSCH, Hellentum u. Christentum (Leipzig, 1903); MUTH, Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertretende Genugtuung (Ratisbon, 1904); RIVIÈRE, Le dogme de la Rédemption (Paris, 1905); CROMBRUGGHE, De soteriologiæ christianæ primis fontibus (Louvain, 1905); KLUGE, Das Seelenleiden des Welterlösers (Mainz, 1905); WEIGL, Die Heilslehre des hl. Cyrill von Jerusalem (Mainz, 1905); WEISS, Die messianischen Vorbilder im A. T. (Freiburg, 1905); FIEBIG, Babel u. das N. T. (Tübingen, 1905); FELDMANN, Der Knecht Gottes in Isajas Kap. 40-55 (Freiburg, 1907); STAAB, Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung Christi (Paderborn, 1908); POHLE, Dogmatik, II (Paderborn, 1909); BAUER, Vom Griechentum zum Christentum (Leipzig, 1910); HARNACK, Dogmengesch., I-II (Tübingen, 1901). For other literature see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE, and PRIESTHOOD.
IV. BECANUS, De triplici sacrificio natur, legis, grati (Lyons, 1631); OUTRAM, De sacrificiis libri duo (Amsterdam, 1678); STÖCKL, Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen u. seiner Gesch. (Mainz, 1861); VON LASAULX, Ueber die Gebete der Griechen u. Römer (Würzburg, 1842); IDEM, Die Sühnopfer der Griechen u. Römer u. ihr Verhältnis zum Einen auf Golgatha (Ratisbon, 1854); DE MAISTRE, Eclaircissements sur le sacrifice (Paris, 1862); DÖLLINGER, Heidentum u. Judentum (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1868); WANGEMANN, Das Opfer nach der Lehre der hl. Schrift des A. u. N. Testamentes (Berlin, 1866); LÜCKEN, Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts (Münster, 1869); SCHULTZE, Der Fetischismus (Leipzig, 1871); MÜLLER, Introduction to the Science of Religion (London, 1873); IDEM, Lectures on the Origin of Religion (London, 1878); IDEM, Natural Religion (London, 1899); IDEM, Physical Religion (London, 1890); IDEM, Anthropological Religion (London, 1892); FAIRBAIRN, Studies in the Philosophy of Religion and History (London, 1876); FREEMAN-CLARKE, Ten Great Religions (2 vols., London, 1871-83); CAIRD, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (London, 1880); VON HARTMANN, Das religiöse Bewusstsein der Menscheit in Stufengang seiner Entwickelung (Berlin, 1882); LIPPERT, Allgemeine Gesch. des Priestertums (2 vols., Berlin, 1883); SCHNEIDER, Die Naturvölker (2 vols., Paderborn, 1885-86); PELEIDERER, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtl. Grundlage (2 vols., Leipzig, 1883-89); KÖPPLER, Priester u. Opfergabe (Mainz, 1886); ROBERTSON-SMITH, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London, 1889); KELLOG, The Genesis and Growth of Religion (New York, 1892); SIEBECK, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch. (Freiburg, 1883); JEVONS, An Introduction to the History of Religion (London and New York, 1896); SABATIER, La doctrine de l'expiation et son évolution historique (Paris, 1896); TIELE, Elements of the Science of Religion (New York, 1896); BRINTON, Religions of Primitive Peoples (New York, 1897); LANG, The Making of a Religion (London and New York, 1898); DE LA GRASSERIE, La psychologie des religions (Paris, 1899); LETOURNEAU, L'évolution religieuse (Paris, 1897); VON ORELLI, Allgemeine Religionsgesch. (Bonn, 1899); FRAZER, The Golden Bough (London and New York, 1900); IDEM, Totemism and Exogamy (London 1910); BORCHERT, Der Animismus oder Ursprung der Religion aus dem Seelen-, Ahnen- u. Geisterkult (Leipzig, 1900); ZAPLETAL, Der Totemismus u. die Religion Israels (Freiburg, 1900); MORRIS-JASTROW, The Study of Religion (London, 1901); RENZ, Die Gesch. des Messopferbegriffs, I (Freising, 1901); LUBBOCK, The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man (6th ed., London, 1902); TYLOR, Primitive Culture (2 Vols., 6th ed., London, 1902); BOUSSET, Das Wesen der Religion (Leipzig, 1903); DORNER, Grundriss der Religionsphilosophie (Leipzig, 1903)
Origin of sacrifice
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, endeavours 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. As the starting-point for the comparative study of the lowest religious forms is usually taken the uncivilized savage of today, 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 (q, v.) 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 honoured as dogma in the history of religions, is most vigorously combated by the experts themselves as untenable. It has been recognized that Animism and the kindred Fetichism and Totemism 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" ("Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte", I, Tübingen, 1905, p. 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" (cf. Daniel 14:2 sqq.), but this may by no means be regarded as a primitive institution, Animism is most successfully refuted by Andrew Lang ('The Making of a Religion", London, 1898).
(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 connexion with the Crucifixion imprinted on the latter its sacrificial character. (For further particulars, see SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.)
(c) 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 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 favours. 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.
Object of sacrifice
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 (cf. St. Thomas, I-II, Q. cii, a. 3). 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 make 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 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. In so far as this definition refers to the sacrifice of the Mass, see SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
Sources
I. Concerning pagan sacrifice in general see CREUZER, Symbolik u. Mythologie der alten Völker (3rd ed., Darmstadt, 1877); WERNER, Die Religionen u. Kulte des vorchristl. Heidentums (Ratisbon, 1888); VOLLERS, Die Weltreligionen in ihrem geschichtl. Zusammenhang (Jena, 1909); DE LA SAUSSAYE, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch. (2 vols., 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1905). Concerning the sacrifices of the ancient Indians see MÜLLER, Hibbert Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of India (London, 1878); LINDNER, Die Dîkshâ oder die Weihe für das Somaopfer (1878); BERGAIGNE, La religion védique (3 vols., Paris, 1878-83); WEBER, Zur Kenntnis des ved. Opferrituals in Indische Studien, X and XIII; HILLEBRANDT, Das altind. Neu- u. Vollmondsopfer (1879); IDEM, Ritual-Literatur, ved. Opfer u. Zauber (1897); MUIR, Original Sanscrit Texts, III-V (London, 1890); HOPKINS, The Religions of India (London, 1893); HARDY, Die vedischbrahmanische Periode der Religion des alten Indiens (1893); IDEM, Indische Religionsgesch. (1898); OLDENBERG, Die Religion des Veda (1894); SCHWAB, Das altindische Tieropfer (1896); MACDONELL, Vedic Mythology (1897); DAHLMANN, Der Idealismus der indischen Religionsphilos. im Zeitalter der Opfermystik (Freiburg, 1901); ROUSSELL, La religion védique (Paris, 1909). Concerning Hinduism consult: MONIER-WILLIAMS, Brahmanism and Hinduism (London, 1891); GURU PROSAD SEN, An Introduction to the Study of Hinduism (Calcutta, 1893); CROOKE, Introduction to the Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India (London, 1896); DUBOIS, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies (Oxford, 1897); SLATER, The higher Hinduism in relation to Christianity (London, 1902). Concerning the Iranians, cf. HYDE, Historia religionis veterum Persarum (Oxford, 1700); WINDISCHMANN, Zoroastrische Studien (1863); SPIGEL, Eranische Altertumskunde, II (1878); DE HARLEZ, Les origines du Zoroastrisme (Paris, 1879); HAUG, Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsis (London, 1884); DOSABHAI FRANIJI KARAKA, History of the Parsis, including their Manners, Customs, Religion and Present Position (2 vols., London, 1884); CASARTELI, La philos. religeuse du Mazdéisme sous les Sassanides (Paris, 1884); JACKSON, Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran (New York, 1899). Concerning the Greeks, Cf. MAURY, Hist. des religions de la Grèce antique (3 vols., Paris, 1857-9); GIRARD, Le sentiment religieux en Grèce d'Homère à Eschyle (Paris, 1879); ROSCHER, Ausführliches Lexikon der griech. u. röm. Mythologie (1884); REISCH, Griechische Weihegeschenke (Vienna, 1890); STENGEL, Die griech. Sakralaltertümer (1890); RHODE, Psyche (1891); GARDENER AND JEVONS, Manual of Greek Antiquities (London, 1895); USENER, Götternamen (1896); FARNELL, Cults of the Greek States (2 vols., London, 1896); GRUPPE, Griech. Mythologie u. Religionsgesch. (Munich, 1897-1906); ROUSE, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge, 1910); REITZENSTEIN, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (1910); PIEPERS, Qu stiones anathematic (Leiden, 1903). Concerning the Romans, cf. BOUCHÉ-LECLERC, Manuel des institutions romaines (Paris, 1896); WISSOWA, Religion u. Kultus der Römer (Munich, 1902); VON PÖHLMANN, Die röm. Kaiserzeit u. der Untergang der antiken Welt (1910); GASQUET, Essai sur le culte et les mystères de Mithra (Paris, 1899); CUMONT, Die Mysterien des Mithra (Leipzig, 1903); PRELLER, Römische Mythologie (3rd ed., 1881-83); BEURLIER, Le culte rendu aux empereurs romains (Paris, 1890); WENDLAND, Die hellenist.-röm. Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum Judentum u. Christentum (1907); DIETERICH, Eine Mithrasliturgie (2nd ed., 1910). Concerning the Chinese, cf. DOUGLAS, Confucianism and Taoism (London, 1892); DE HARLEZ, Les religions de la Chine (Brussels, 1891); DVORAK, Chinas Religionen (2 Vols., Leipzig, 1895-1903). Concerning the Egyptians, cf. LE PAGE RENOUF, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of Ancient Egypt (London, 1879); ERMAN, Aegypten u, ägyptisches Leben im Altertum (2 vols., 1885-88); IDEM, Die ägyptische Religion (2nd ed., Berlin, 1909); BRUGSCH, Religion u. Mythologie der alten Aegypter (1888); BUDGE, The Mummy (London, 1893); IDEM, The Gods of the Egyptians (London, 1904); IDEM, History of Egypt (8 vols., London, 1902-); WIEDEMANN, Die Religion der alten Aegypter (1890); FLINDERS PETRIE, History of Egypt (London, 1894); SAYCE, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia (London, 1902); OTTO, Priester u. Tempel im hellenist. Aegypten (2 vols., 1902-08). Concerning the Semites. cf. VON BAUDISSIN, Beiträge zur semitischen Religionsgesch. (Berlin, 1875-78); ROBERTSON SMITH, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London, 1899); LAGRANGE, Sur les religions sémitiques (Paris, 1903); ZIMMER, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylon. Religion (1896); HAUPT, Babylonian Elements in the Levitical Ritual (1900); HILPRECHT, Die Ausgrabungen im Bel-Tempel zu Nippur (1903); JEREMIAS, Montheistische Strömungen innerhalb der babylonischen Religion (1904); WINCKLER, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (1904); JASTROW, Die Religion Babyloniens u. Assyriens (1905); KOLDEWEY, Die Tempel von Babylon (1911); MOVERS, Das Opferwesen der Karthager (1847); CHEYNE-BLACK, Encycl. biblica, s.v. Phœnicia; SCHOLZ, Götzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebräern u. benachbarten Völkern (1877); SCHANZ, Apologie des Christentums, II (1905). See also the literature to PRIESTHOOD.
II. LIGHTFOOT, Ministerium templi (Rotterdam, 1699); BÄHR, Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus, II (Heidelberg, 1839); THALHOFER, Die unblutigen Opfer des mosaischen Kultus (Ratisbon, 1848); RIEHM, Der Begriff der Sühne im A. T. (Gotha, 1876); IDEM, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums (Leipzig, 1884-); IDEM, Alttestamentl. Theologie (Halle, 1889); KURTZ, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, tr. (Edinburgh, 1863); WANGEMANN, Das Opfer nach der hl. Schrift (1866); SCHOLZ, Die hl. Altertümer des Volkes Israel (Ratisbon, 1868); IDEM, Götzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebräern (Ratisbon, 1877); HANEBERG, Die reliqiösen Altertümer der Bibel (Munich, 1869); SCHEGG, Biblische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1887); LAOUENAN, Du Brahmanisme et ses rapports avec le Judaisme et le Christianisme (Paris, 1888); CAVE, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement (Edinburgh, 1890); SCHÄFER, Die religiösen Altertümer der Bibel (1891); SCHMOLLER, Das Wesen der Sühne in der alttestamentlich. Opferthora in Studien u. Kritiken (1891); NOWACK, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1894); VOLCK, De nonnullis V. T. prophet. locis ad sacrificia spectantibus (Leipzig, 1893); SCOTT, Sacrifice, its Prophecy and Fulfilment (Edinburgh, 1894); BAXTER, Sanctuary and Sacrifice (London, 1895); SCHULTZ, Old Testament Theology, tr. (Edinburgh, 1898); FREY, Tod, Seelenglaube u. Seelenkult im alten Israel (1898); MATTHIEU, La notion de sacrifice dans l'ancien Testament et son évolution (Toulouse, 1902); GOLD, Sacrificial Worship (New York, 1903); NIKEL, Genesis u. Keilschriftforschung (Freiburg, 1903); SCHRADER, Die Keilinschriften u. das A. T. (3rd ed., Berlin, 1903); ZAPLETAL, Alttestamentliches (Freiburg, 1903); KÖBERLE, Sünde u. Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christus (Munich, 1905); HERRMANN, Die Idee der Sühne im A. T. (Leipzig, 1905); SCHÖPFER, Gesch, des A. T. (4th ed., 1906); KENT, Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents (New York, 1907); BENZINGER, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1907); MADER, Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer u. der benachbarten Völker (Freiburg, 1908); ENGELKEMPER, Heiligtum u, Opferstätten in den Gesetzen des Pentateuch (Münster, 1908); SMITH, The Biblical Doctrine of Atonement in Biblical World, XXXI (1908), 22 sqq.; KITTEL, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II (Gotha, 1909); PETERS, Die jüdische Gemeinde von Elephantine-Syene u. ihr Tempel im 5. Jahrh. vor Chr. (Freiburg, 1910); ALLGEIER, Ueber Doppelberichte in der Genesis. Eine kritische Untersuchung u. eine prinzipielle Prüfung (Freiburg, 1911).
III. TANNER, Cruentum Christi sacrificium, incruentum Missæ sacrificium explicatum (Prague, 1669); CONDREN. Das Priestertum u. das Opfer Jesu Christi (Ratisbon, 1847); VON CICHOWSKI, Das alttestamentl. Pascha in seinem Verhältnis sum Opfer Christi (Munich, 1849); THALHOFER, Die Opfer des Hebräerbriefes (Dillinger, 1855); IDEM, Das Opfer des alten u. neuen Bundes (Ratisbon, 1870); BICKEL, Messe u. Pascha (Mainz, 1871); PELL, Das Dogma von der Sünde u. Erlösung im Lichte der Vernunft (Ratisbon, 1886); IDEM, Die Lehre des hl. Athanasius von der Sünde u. Erlösung (Passau, 1888); OSWALD, Die Erlösung in Christo Jesu (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1887); STRÄTER, Die Erlösungslehre des hl. Athanasius (Freiburg, 1894); ANRICH, Das antike Mysterien. wesen u. sein Einfluss auf das Christentum (Göttingen, 1894): SCHENZ, Die priesterl. Tätigkeit des Messias nach dem Propheten Isajas (Ratisbon, 1892); SEEBERG, Der Tod Christi in seiner Bedeutung für die Erlösung (Leipzig, 1895); DÖRHOLT, Die Lehre von der Genugtuung Christi (Paderborn, 1896); CHARRE, Le sacrifice de l'Homme-Dieu (Paris, 1899); GRIMM, Gesch. des Leidens Jesu, I (Ratisbon, 1903); FUNKE, Die Satisfactionstheorie des hl. Anselm (Münster, 1903); RITTER, Christus der Erlöser (Linz, 1903); BELSER, Gesch. des Leidens u. Sterbens, der Auferstehung u. Himmelfahrt des Herrn (Freiburg, 1903); JENTSCH, Hellentum u. Christentum (Leipzig, 1903); MUTH, Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertretende Genugtuung (Ratisbon, 1904); RIVIÈRE, Le dogme de la Rédemption (Paris, 1905); CROMBRUGGHE, De soteriologiæ christianæ primis fontibus (Louvain, 1905); KLUGE, Das Seelenleiden des Welterlösers (Mainz, 1905); WEIGL, Die Heilslehre des hl. Cyrill von Jerusalem (Mainz, 1905); WEISS, Die messianischen Vorbilder im A. T. (Freiburg, 1905); FIEBIG, Babel u. das N. T. (Tübingen, 1905); FELDMANN, Der Knecht Gottes in Isajas Kap. 40-55 (Freiburg, 1907); STAAB, Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung Christi (Paderborn, 1908); POHLE, Dogmatik, II (Paderborn, 1909); BAUER, Vom Griechentum zum Christentum (Leipzig, 1910); HARNACK, Dogmengesch., I-II (Tübingen, 1901). For other literature see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE, and PRIESTHOOD.
IV. BECANUS, De triplici sacrificio natur, legis, grati (Lyons, 1631); OUTRAM, De sacrificiis libri duo (Amsterdam, 1678); STÖCKL, Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen u. seiner Gesch. (Mainz, 1861); VON LASAULX, Ueber die Gebete der Griechen u. Römer (Würzburg, 1842); IDEM, Die Sühnopfer der Griechen u. Römer u. ihr Verhältnis zum Einen auf Golgatha (Ratisbon, 1854); DE MAISTRE, Eclaircissements sur le sacrifice (Paris, 1862); DÖLLINGER, Heidentum u. Judentum (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1868); WANGEMANN, Das Opfer nach der Lehre der hl. Schrift des A. u. N. Testamentes (Berlin, 1866); LÜCKEN, Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts (Münster, 1869); SCHULTZE, Der Fetischismus (Leipzig, 1871); MÜLLER, Introduction to the Science of Religion (London, 1873); IDEM, Lectures on the Origin of Religion (London, 1878); IDEM, Natural Religion (London, 1899); IDEM, Physical Religion (London, 1890); IDEM, Anthropological Religion (London, 1892); FAIRBAIRN, Studies in the Philosophy of Religion and History (London, 1876); FREEMAN-CLARKE, Ten Great Religions (2 vols., London, 1871-83); CAIRD, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (London, 1880); VON HARTMANN, Das religiöse Bewusstsein der Menscheit in Stufengang seiner Entwickelung (Berlin, 1882); LIPPERT, Allgemeine Gesch. des Priestertums (2 vols., Berlin, 1883); SCHNEIDER, Die Naturvölker (2 vols., Paderborn, 1885-86); PELEIDERER, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtl. Grundlage (2 vols., Leipzig, 1883-89); KÖPPLER, Priester u. Opfergabe (Mainz, 1886); ROBERTSON-SMITH, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London, 1889); KELLOG, The Genesis and Growth of Religion (New York, 1892); SIEBECK, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch. (Freiburg, 1883); JEVONS, An Introduction to the History of Religion (London and New York, 1896); SABATIER, La doctrine de l'expiation et son évolution historique (Paris, 1896); TIELE, Elements of the Science of Religion (New York, 1896); BRINTON, Religions of Primitive Peoples (New York, 1897); LANG, The Making of a Religion (London and New York, 1898); DE LA GRASSERIE, La psychologie des religions (Paris, 1899); LETOURNEAU, L'évolution religieuse (Paris, 1897); VON ORELLI, Allgemeine Religionsgesch. (Bonn, 1899); FRAZER, The Golden Bough (London and New York, 1900); IDEM, Totemism and Exogamy (London 1910); BORCHERT, Der Animismus oder Ursprung der Religion aus dem Seelen-, Ahnen- u. Geisterkult (Leipzig, 1900); ZAPLETAL, Der Totemismus u. die Religion Israels (Freiburg, 1900); MORRIS-JASTROW, The Study of Religion (London, 1901); RENZ, Die Gesch. des Messopferbegriffs, I (Freising, 1901); LUBBOCK, The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man (6th ed., London, 1902); TYLOR, Primitive Culture (2 Vols., 6th ed., London, 1902); BOUSSET, Das Wesen der Religion (Leipzig, 1903); DORNER, Grundriss der Religionsphilosophie (Leipzig, 1903)
JESUS, KING SLAVES OF SLAVES .
Jesus the Slave
by BRYANT EVANS on SEPTEMBER 19, 2010
It is a strange thought that Jesus was a slave. But the facts are there. He was a servant, a slave of the Father as he calls us to be. No one likes the idea of being totally devoted to the point that you surrender your will to someone else but isn’t that exactly what our Lord did? And if he did it, shouldn’t we?
Jesus’ subservience to the Father began when Jesus came to Earth. Previously Jesus was with God in heaven (John 1:1-4) but willingly chose to surrender his divinity to come to earth . Look careful at Paul’s description from Philippians 2:5-8.
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. “
Notice first that Jesus “took the form of a servant” and he “humbled himself by becoming obedient.” Our Lord was in the form of God and was Good. Through him all the Universe was created. Yet when the time came he “made himself nothing.” That’s a pretty good description of a slave don’t you think? Nothing. The Corinthians were told, “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor…”(2 Corinthians 8:9). That’s another good description of a slave. Poor. We ought to add that this change, from divine to denigrated, was a choice. Not a requirement. The text says that “he humbled himself.” Now no one chooses to be a slave, or do they?
Jesus, praying to his father just hours before his death , said, “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do” (John 17:4, emphasis mine), and “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:18, emphasis mine). Just like a slave, Jesus did work that was assigned to him and went where he was sent. Like a slave. Obedient.
Jesus was not just a slave but he was also an example for other slaves. We claim the name for our own – we are Christians. Are we Christians in name only? Or do we adopt the lifestyle of Jesus? There are always many who would be masters. Plenty of folks want to be in charge. What the Lord needs are workers, slaves if you will, who will go where they are sent and accomplish the work they are given.
The true Christian life is that of a servant. An underling who obeys. A radical concept really but one that was demonstrated by the Savior.
There is another crucial fact about slaves. They are rewarded by their master. In Revelation 5:5 Jesus is described as the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” and as one who has conquered. And again in John 17:1 Jesus prays for his own glorification which comes after he has accomplished his work. Just like Jesus glory awaits us. If we serve as Jesus served we will sure be glorified as Jesus was glorified.
All of this makes me consider my own pride and haughty spirit. Let me pray that God will humble, gently I hope, so that I can be more like my Lord.
by BRYANT EVANS on SEPTEMBER 19, 2010
It is a strange thought that Jesus was a slave. But the facts are there. He was a servant, a slave of the Father as he calls us to be. No one likes the idea of being totally devoted to the point that you surrender your will to someone else but isn’t that exactly what our Lord did? And if he did it, shouldn’t we?
Jesus’ subservience to the Father began when Jesus came to Earth. Previously Jesus was with God in heaven (John 1:1-4) but willingly chose to surrender his divinity to come to earth . Look careful at Paul’s description from Philippians 2:5-8.
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. “
Notice first that Jesus “took the form of a servant” and he “humbled himself by becoming obedient.” Our Lord was in the form of God and was Good. Through him all the Universe was created. Yet when the time came he “made himself nothing.” That’s a pretty good description of a slave don’t you think? Nothing. The Corinthians were told, “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor…”(2 Corinthians 8:9). That’s another good description of a slave. Poor. We ought to add that this change, from divine to denigrated, was a choice. Not a requirement. The text says that “he humbled himself.” Now no one chooses to be a slave, or do they?
Jesus, praying to his father just hours before his death , said, “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do” (John 17:4, emphasis mine), and “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:18, emphasis mine). Just like a slave, Jesus did work that was assigned to him and went where he was sent. Like a slave. Obedient.
Jesus was not just a slave but he was also an example for other slaves. We claim the name for our own – we are Christians. Are we Christians in name only? Or do we adopt the lifestyle of Jesus? There are always many who would be masters. Plenty of folks want to be in charge. What the Lord needs are workers, slaves if you will, who will go where they are sent and accomplish the work they are given.
The true Christian life is that of a servant. An underling who obeys. A radical concept really but one that was demonstrated by the Savior.
There is another crucial fact about slaves. They are rewarded by their master. In Revelation 5:5 Jesus is described as the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” and as one who has conquered. And again in John 17:1 Jesus prays for his own glorification which comes after he has accomplished his work. Just like Jesus glory awaits us. If we serve as Jesus served we will sure be glorified as Jesus was glorified.
All of this makes me consider my own pride and haughty spirit. Let me pray that God will humble, gently I hope, so that I can be more like my Lord.
SLAVE FAMILIES, ARE THE HEAD OF SLAVED COMMUNITIES
Modern Day Slavery Around The World
We have all heard the stories of how slavery was ended in 1865. Yet, even today there are examples of slavery in the world. I am not talking about conditions that are the "equal" of slavery under one theory or another. I am talking about out-and-out slavery. I am talking about people being kidnapped or tricked and then held against their will. People who must work every day long hours or be beat. I am talking about people who are given no money for their labors. People who are bought and sold.
Why would slavery ever exist? The reason is money. Employees cost money. It's a lot cheaper to steal their labor than pay them.
The surprising thing is that it actually goes on in the United States.
Newsweek Magazine (May 4, 1992) reports that slavery is widespread in two African countries, Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania, over 100,000 Africans are enslaved. Their families were made slaves by the sword during the 12th century invasions. In the centuries that followed, they accepted it as natural.
Dada Ould Mbarek, 25, of Mauritania, says he and his whole family are slaves. Mbarek spends his back-breaking day taking water from a well and bringing it to paddies where vegetables are grown.
Mbarek's boss lives in the city and owns many cars. He owns 15 slaves in all.
Women in poor Asian countries are tricked into coming into places like Saudi Arabia with promises of jobs. When they get there they are forced to become permanent household slaves, without pay. They are not permitted to leave and are beaten often to control obedience.
One Filipino who escaped from Kuwait claimed "The whole country was a jail."
Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 World Data Annual shows that the economically active sector of the population in Kuwait is 699,000. And one must remember that this leaves out a lot of unemployed children and old people. And a lot of women. Only 20.6 percent of women are employed.
Yet, the total official population is only 400,000. That shows a lot of workers are from overseas. And, only 9% of all workers are in manufacturing, with only 1% in agriculture. What do the rest of them do?
It seems that 53% of them are in the category of "services." Compare this to the US, where 32% are in services, and Saudi Arabia, where 29% are in services, and Egypt, where 35% are in services. What do the extra 20% of service workers in Kuwait do?
Laxmi Swami, an Indian woman lured with a housekeepers job, escaped when her Kuwaiti "employers" took her on a trip with them to London. She was kept behind bars for 4 years, half-starved, with daily beatings with an electric cord. "Hundreds of times they called me slave, hundreds of times" said Swami.
Anti-Slavery International of Britain says this is all too common, even today. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, embassies in Kuwait were flooded with "guest workers" desperately taking advantage of their one opportunity to escape.
Slavery takes different forms in different lands. In Pakistan and India there is debt bondage. Poor people are tricked with promises of good jobs, but they are isolated and must deal with their employer in every way. The food they buy and other required things are sold only by their employers, with very high prices. The workers are forced to stay and work until the debt is paid off. But the deck is stacked so the debt keeps getting bigger. The "employee" is a slave for life.
And, even beyond life. The children are kept working until the debt is paid, which never happens. Generations are forced to work without ever seeing a day of freedom.
Like other slaveries, force is used to keep the worker in his place. Beatings, threats and killings are commonplace.
The type of work is different, though. In Kuwait they are household servants. In India it is usually profit making work such as working in stone quarries, brickmaking and carpetmaking.
An ABC TV show recently did an expose on slavery as it exists today. It focused on three countries: India, Brazil, and the United States.
In India it was common for agents of manufacturers to go to rural areas and trick uneducated country folk. These people often had never been to a city, and knew nothing of city life. They lived very traditionally and were very poor. India is one of the poorest countries in the world.
The agents would find poor people with a lot of children, and offer good jobs to one or more. Sometimes they would pay the parents an advance on salary, which would be pennies to us, but was valuable to people in India. Then, they would take the children away. They would make all sorts of promises to the parents that were never kept.
The report showed the heartbreak of parents who never saw their children again. All they knew was that their children were gone forever.
Back in the city, the children were put at work weaving carpets. It seems that their little fingers can make tighter, better knots than adults can, making a higher quality carpet. The ABC news camera burst into a room with dozens of children working feverishly at their looms.
One child, named Israel, told his story. Israel was 12 years old. One day agents appeared at his village, and spoke to his parents. They promised he would make money, but they never pay him. They feed him very little. They make him work all day and night, and beat him when he stops. He sleeps on the floor with 40 other boys. He shows his scars for the camera.
When he left his village, they promised he could visit his family every year. In 4 years, he had not seen any member of his family. Naturally, he never went to school. He was way too busy working for that.
It turned out that every boy working there was under 16. Once they got too big, it was cheaper to just dump them on the street in another town, and go round up some more boys. So, if Israel had not been rescued, he would someday go free. But he could never go home.
Without help, Israel could never find his native village. He had never left his village before. He did not know its location. He could not read. He did not even know where he was. Most importantly, he had no money. And, the bosses would scare them with stories of what would happen if they tried to run away.
An anti-slavery campaigner got the man running the sweatshop to tell who he was working for. And, when the trail was followed, the employer turned out to be a very important man in the community, the school principal. "How could you make all those boys work and not go to school?" he was questioned. He just shrugged.
Lots of carpets sold in this country labeled as being Persian or Chinese actually come from India. Many of the largest carpet distributors had business dealings with little Israel's "employers." The beautiful carpets many people have in their homes were made with the labor of these sad little boys.
On December 9, 1994, ABC News with Peter Jennings named escaped slave Iqbal Masih as the Person of the Week. "They threaten us not to even think of leaving. They tell us, 'We'll burn your fingers in oil if you even try to leave. We'll put you in oil.'"
"I would start working at 4:00 a.m. and work until 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. at night. If the children fell asleep or were slow in their work, they would be punished by either being beaten or starved."
Iqbal was 12 years old. He worked at the factory since he was 4. He never got paid and was a slave. "Even when we are sick, we are forced to work. If we are slow, we are struck" he said.
Two carpet dealers tried to say this was just a regular job. "It gives kids something to do. It's not hard labor. They like what they do" said one.
"It's a family business. It is not all that bad what they say. They exaggerate everything." said another.
The expose show next traveled to Brazil, where a different kind of business was involved. In big cities of Brazil there are a lot of unemployed people. A lot of them are very poor and live in very little shacks all crowded together. Lots of them hang out all day and have no hope for the future.
A man would go around and meet teenage girls. He was handsome and talked real smooth. He would flirt with them. He would tell them that he knew where there was a lot of good paying jobs working as maids and cooks. Up in the gold fields of Brazil there were boom towns, filled with rich men and not enough women to do the cleaning and cooking (as in the US, such jobs in Brazil are generally held by women). He would fill their heads with whatever dream seemed to be the girls thing. And he would get them to agree to fly away with him and some other girls he met to a great new opportunity.
When they got there, they got some surprises. The boom town turned out to be a few muddy blocks of crummy little shacks. They were told they owed huge amounts of money for the plane ticket and their rent and their food. There were no jobs as maids or waitresses. The only jobs were as prostitutes. They were told they had to be prostitutes and pay back their debts. They would not be allowed to leave.
These places were hundreds of miles deep in the jungle and none of the girls knew where they were. There was no phones and no police. The only way in and out was by plane, and no one could afford that, assuming the boss would allow it in the first place. There was only one way to get any money at all.
Girls who refused to go along were beaten. Some who tried to escape were killed. The rest of them were scared and did what they were told.
Like in other countries, the debt can never be paid. In the little mining town you had to deal with your boss. He provided the room where the girl slept with customers, and he took most of the money as rent. Every bit of food she bought was bought at his prices. And they made it a point to introduce the girls to alcohol and drugs, which of course were sold only by their boss. Some girls, being very unhappy, were regular customers. The more the girl worked, the deeper in debt she became. And she became a slave.
When ABC News with Brazilian police raided this one mining town, they found about 40 teenage girls working as prostitutes for one boss. They asked who wanted to leave this place and go back to the city. Every single one of them raised their hands. Several began to cry.
And that brings us to the United States. The slavery uncovered in the United States was not prostitution like in Brazil. It was not manufacturing work like in India and Pakistan. It was not household servant like in Kuwait. But it was worked a lot like them.
A guy would go around places where unemployed people would hang out and offer them jobs working on a farm. "It's just temporary" they would say. A farmer would need help picking his oranges or his cotton or his sugar cane just for a few weeks. They could all ride up there, work for a few weeks, and come back to the city with a few dollars in their pockets. People were picked up in all the major cities of Florida. They would load up in vans and station wagons and head out. They would go to places like Georgia and South Carolina.
When they got there they moved into a compound surrounded by fences and barbed wire. Vicious dogs patrolled all night. The bosses got them up early. They were worked hard all day long. They were charged room and board that was more than they got paid. They were encouraged to buy liquor and drugs on credit.
None of the workers was allowed to leave. When they worked, they had a overseers armed with shotguns. They were marched to work, and marched home again. They never saw a telephone. They never saw an outsider. And they picked cotton all day long. Sometimes it was other crops.
Sooner or later the cotton would be picked, and the workers would want to go home like he promised. But they could not leave. They owed a lot of money. So the boss took them out late at night and drove them to some other big farm where they needed help with the crops, and it started all over again.
These places were all on private property, far away from the road. They never saw any outsiders. No one knew they were there. If anyone knew, they didn't care. The people they worked for and that the boss got paid by were rich important people in their area. The workers were nobody.
Most of the slaves were poor black people, but some of them were poor white people too. In this one operation, it was actually a black man who was the slave driver.
Some of the people rescued had been slaves for years. Others were younger. One young black man talked about how now he finally knew what it was like for his ancestors. He said he would never pick cotton again, not for all the money in the world.
As you can see, there is still a lot of slavery in the world today. As long as people want to make money, some will want to steal. Slavery is the worst kind of stealing. They don't just steal your money. They steal your life, your freedom, everything.
It was not long ago when slavery was completely legal in the United States. It was accepted that people could be stolen,kept prisoner at gunpoint, and forced to work. It was accepted that you could be beaten or whipped if you didn't work fast enough.
Now these things are illegal, but the law still helps the slavemasters. Unions can't get to farm workers because they are on private property. The law keeps them out. So no one can find out that maybe they are being kept as slaves.
People own these giant plantations that need a lot of workers and make it pay to steal them. If these were small farms the workers would get paid. Some of these families have had these big farms ever since the days of slavery.
In India and Pakistan, there is no law making kids go to school, and there is no law saying kids can't work. So if kids are working, that could be legal. Again, private property keeps snoopers out.
The stories of today's slaves helps us understand a little about the slaves from before. At least today's slaves have some hope of being rescued someday. Before the Civil War, the slaves did not even have that.
Story submitted by a contributor.
For further information, please visit the website of the American Anti-Slavery Group.
We have all heard the stories of how slavery was ended in 1865. Yet, even today there are examples of slavery in the world. I am not talking about conditions that are the "equal" of slavery under one theory or another. I am talking about out-and-out slavery. I am talking about people being kidnapped or tricked and then held against their will. People who must work every day long hours or be beat. I am talking about people who are given no money for their labors. People who are bought and sold.
Why would slavery ever exist? The reason is money. Employees cost money. It's a lot cheaper to steal their labor than pay them.
The surprising thing is that it actually goes on in the United States.
Newsweek Magazine (May 4, 1992) reports that slavery is widespread in two African countries, Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania, over 100,000 Africans are enslaved. Their families were made slaves by the sword during the 12th century invasions. In the centuries that followed, they accepted it as natural.
Dada Ould Mbarek, 25, of Mauritania, says he and his whole family are slaves. Mbarek spends his back-breaking day taking water from a well and bringing it to paddies where vegetables are grown.
Mbarek's boss lives in the city and owns many cars. He owns 15 slaves in all.
Women in poor Asian countries are tricked into coming into places like Saudi Arabia with promises of jobs. When they get there they are forced to become permanent household slaves, without pay. They are not permitted to leave and are beaten often to control obedience.
One Filipino who escaped from Kuwait claimed "The whole country was a jail."
Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 World Data Annual shows that the economically active sector of the population in Kuwait is 699,000. And one must remember that this leaves out a lot of unemployed children and old people. And a lot of women. Only 20.6 percent of women are employed.
Yet, the total official population is only 400,000. That shows a lot of workers are from overseas. And, only 9% of all workers are in manufacturing, with only 1% in agriculture. What do the rest of them do?
It seems that 53% of them are in the category of "services." Compare this to the US, where 32% are in services, and Saudi Arabia, where 29% are in services, and Egypt, where 35% are in services. What do the extra 20% of service workers in Kuwait do?
Laxmi Swami, an Indian woman lured with a housekeepers job, escaped when her Kuwaiti "employers" took her on a trip with them to London. She was kept behind bars for 4 years, half-starved, with daily beatings with an electric cord. "Hundreds of times they called me slave, hundreds of times" said Swami.
Anti-Slavery International of Britain says this is all too common, even today. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, embassies in Kuwait were flooded with "guest workers" desperately taking advantage of their one opportunity to escape.
Slavery takes different forms in different lands. In Pakistan and India there is debt bondage. Poor people are tricked with promises of good jobs, but they are isolated and must deal with their employer in every way. The food they buy and other required things are sold only by their employers, with very high prices. The workers are forced to stay and work until the debt is paid off. But the deck is stacked so the debt keeps getting bigger. The "employee" is a slave for life.
And, even beyond life. The children are kept working until the debt is paid, which never happens. Generations are forced to work without ever seeing a day of freedom.
Like other slaveries, force is used to keep the worker in his place. Beatings, threats and killings are commonplace.
The type of work is different, though. In Kuwait they are household servants. In India it is usually profit making work such as working in stone quarries, brickmaking and carpetmaking.
An ABC TV show recently did an expose on slavery as it exists today. It focused on three countries: India, Brazil, and the United States.
In India it was common for agents of manufacturers to go to rural areas and trick uneducated country folk. These people often had never been to a city, and knew nothing of city life. They lived very traditionally and were very poor. India is one of the poorest countries in the world.
The agents would find poor people with a lot of children, and offer good jobs to one or more. Sometimes they would pay the parents an advance on salary, which would be pennies to us, but was valuable to people in India. Then, they would take the children away. They would make all sorts of promises to the parents that were never kept.
The report showed the heartbreak of parents who never saw their children again. All they knew was that their children were gone forever.
Back in the city, the children were put at work weaving carpets. It seems that their little fingers can make tighter, better knots than adults can, making a higher quality carpet. The ABC news camera burst into a room with dozens of children working feverishly at their looms.
One child, named Israel, told his story. Israel was 12 years old. One day agents appeared at his village, and spoke to his parents. They promised he would make money, but they never pay him. They feed him very little. They make him work all day and night, and beat him when he stops. He sleeps on the floor with 40 other boys. He shows his scars for the camera.
When he left his village, they promised he could visit his family every year. In 4 years, he had not seen any member of his family. Naturally, he never went to school. He was way too busy working for that.
It turned out that every boy working there was under 16. Once they got too big, it was cheaper to just dump them on the street in another town, and go round up some more boys. So, if Israel had not been rescued, he would someday go free. But he could never go home.
Without help, Israel could never find his native village. He had never left his village before. He did not know its location. He could not read. He did not even know where he was. Most importantly, he had no money. And, the bosses would scare them with stories of what would happen if they tried to run away.
An anti-slavery campaigner got the man running the sweatshop to tell who he was working for. And, when the trail was followed, the employer turned out to be a very important man in the community, the school principal. "How could you make all those boys work and not go to school?" he was questioned. He just shrugged.
Lots of carpets sold in this country labeled as being Persian or Chinese actually come from India. Many of the largest carpet distributors had business dealings with little Israel's "employers." The beautiful carpets many people have in their homes were made with the labor of these sad little boys.
On December 9, 1994, ABC News with Peter Jennings named escaped slave Iqbal Masih as the Person of the Week. "They threaten us not to even think of leaving. They tell us, 'We'll burn your fingers in oil if you even try to leave. We'll put you in oil.'"
"I would start working at 4:00 a.m. and work until 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. at night. If the children fell asleep or were slow in their work, they would be punished by either being beaten or starved."
Iqbal was 12 years old. He worked at the factory since he was 4. He never got paid and was a slave. "Even when we are sick, we are forced to work. If we are slow, we are struck" he said.
Two carpet dealers tried to say this was just a regular job. "It gives kids something to do. It's not hard labor. They like what they do" said one.
"It's a family business. It is not all that bad what they say. They exaggerate everything." said another.
The expose show next traveled to Brazil, where a different kind of business was involved. In big cities of Brazil there are a lot of unemployed people. A lot of them are very poor and live in very little shacks all crowded together. Lots of them hang out all day and have no hope for the future.
A man would go around and meet teenage girls. He was handsome and talked real smooth. He would flirt with them. He would tell them that he knew where there was a lot of good paying jobs working as maids and cooks. Up in the gold fields of Brazil there were boom towns, filled with rich men and not enough women to do the cleaning and cooking (as in the US, such jobs in Brazil are generally held by women). He would fill their heads with whatever dream seemed to be the girls thing. And he would get them to agree to fly away with him and some other girls he met to a great new opportunity.
When they got there, they got some surprises. The boom town turned out to be a few muddy blocks of crummy little shacks. They were told they owed huge amounts of money for the plane ticket and their rent and their food. There were no jobs as maids or waitresses. The only jobs were as prostitutes. They were told they had to be prostitutes and pay back their debts. They would not be allowed to leave.
These places were hundreds of miles deep in the jungle and none of the girls knew where they were. There was no phones and no police. The only way in and out was by plane, and no one could afford that, assuming the boss would allow it in the first place. There was only one way to get any money at all.
Girls who refused to go along were beaten. Some who tried to escape were killed. The rest of them were scared and did what they were told.
Like in other countries, the debt can never be paid. In the little mining town you had to deal with your boss. He provided the room where the girl slept with customers, and he took most of the money as rent. Every bit of food she bought was bought at his prices. And they made it a point to introduce the girls to alcohol and drugs, which of course were sold only by their boss. Some girls, being very unhappy, were regular customers. The more the girl worked, the deeper in debt she became. And she became a slave.
When ABC News with Brazilian police raided this one mining town, they found about 40 teenage girls working as prostitutes for one boss. They asked who wanted to leave this place and go back to the city. Every single one of them raised their hands. Several began to cry.
And that brings us to the United States. The slavery uncovered in the United States was not prostitution like in Brazil. It was not manufacturing work like in India and Pakistan. It was not household servant like in Kuwait. But it was worked a lot like them.
A guy would go around places where unemployed people would hang out and offer them jobs working on a farm. "It's just temporary" they would say. A farmer would need help picking his oranges or his cotton or his sugar cane just for a few weeks. They could all ride up there, work for a few weeks, and come back to the city with a few dollars in their pockets. People were picked up in all the major cities of Florida. They would load up in vans and station wagons and head out. They would go to places like Georgia and South Carolina.
When they got there they moved into a compound surrounded by fences and barbed wire. Vicious dogs patrolled all night. The bosses got them up early. They were worked hard all day long. They were charged room and board that was more than they got paid. They were encouraged to buy liquor and drugs on credit.
None of the workers was allowed to leave. When they worked, they had a overseers armed with shotguns. They were marched to work, and marched home again. They never saw a telephone. They never saw an outsider. And they picked cotton all day long. Sometimes it was other crops.
Sooner or later the cotton would be picked, and the workers would want to go home like he promised. But they could not leave. They owed a lot of money. So the boss took them out late at night and drove them to some other big farm where they needed help with the crops, and it started all over again.
These places were all on private property, far away from the road. They never saw any outsiders. No one knew they were there. If anyone knew, they didn't care. The people they worked for and that the boss got paid by were rich important people in their area. The workers were nobody.
Most of the slaves were poor black people, but some of them were poor white people too. In this one operation, it was actually a black man who was the slave driver.
Some of the people rescued had been slaves for years. Others were younger. One young black man talked about how now he finally knew what it was like for his ancestors. He said he would never pick cotton again, not for all the money in the world.
As you can see, there is still a lot of slavery in the world today. As long as people want to make money, some will want to steal. Slavery is the worst kind of stealing. They don't just steal your money. They steal your life, your freedom, everything.
It was not long ago when slavery was completely legal in the United States. It was accepted that people could be stolen,kept prisoner at gunpoint, and forced to work. It was accepted that you could be beaten or whipped if you didn't work fast enough.
Now these things are illegal, but the law still helps the slavemasters. Unions can't get to farm workers because they are on private property. The law keeps them out. So no one can find out that maybe they are being kept as slaves.
People own these giant plantations that need a lot of workers and make it pay to steal them. If these were small farms the workers would get paid. Some of these families have had these big farms ever since the days of slavery.
In India and Pakistan, there is no law making kids go to school, and there is no law saying kids can't work. So if kids are working, that could be legal. Again, private property keeps snoopers out.
The stories of today's slaves helps us understand a little about the slaves from before. At least today's slaves have some hope of being rescued someday. Before the Civil War, the slaves did not even have that.
Story submitted by a contributor.
For further information, please visit the website of the American Anti-Slavery Group.
Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas, the HEAVENLY FATHER, WHICH SEALED 12,000 OF EACH TRIBE
Slave Marriages, Families Were Often Shattered By Auction Block
Tell Me More, February 11, 2010 · During the slavery era, when slaves wanted to get married, it often presented a range of complexities that today's couples can't even begin to comprehend. Professor Tera Hunter, who teaches history at Princeton University, talks with host Michel Martin about jumping the broom during slave times.
About the Books
In the 1960s, as a response to segregation in the United States, the influential art patron Dominique de Menil began a research project and photo archive called The Image of the Black in Western Art. Now, fifty years later, as the first American president of African American descent serves his historic term in office, her mission has been re-invigorated through the collaboration of Harvard University Press and the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research to present new editions of the coveted five original books, as well as an additional five volumes.
“Miriam, Daughter of Yeshua, Son of Caiaphas” Inscription Announced
This morning, archaeologists from Bar Ilan University and Tel Aviv University announced the discovery of an ossuary (burial bone box) in Israel, which was recovered from thieves who had robbed a tomb.
The ossuary is unprovenanced – that is, because it was not discovered in a controlled archaeological excavation, its origin and context are unknown. However, further investigation (which I understand to be interrogation of the thieves) has led researchers to the conclusion “that the ossuary came from a burial cave in the area of the Valley of ‘Elah, in the Judean Shephelah.”
The authenticity of the ossuary and inscription were verified by Dr. Boaz Zissu of the Department of the Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology of Bar Ilan University, and Professor Yuval Goren of the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations of the Tel Aviv University using ESEM/EDS (Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope / Energy-Dispersive Spectrometer) technology. The results of the study are published in Vol. 61 of Israel Exploration Journal (published this week by the Israel Exploration Society).
The ossuary includes the Aramaic inscription, which appears to read:
מרים ברת ישוע בר קיפא כהני מעזיה דבית עמרי
which translates:
“Miriam, Daughter of Yeshua, Son of Caiaphas, Priests of Ma’aziah from Beth ‘Imri”
or
מרים ברת ישוע בר קיפא כהן דמעזיה דבית עמרי
which translates:
“Miriam, Daughter of Yeshua, Son of Caiaphas, Priest of Ma’aziah from Beth ‘Imri”
or, as Jack Kilmon suggests
“Miriam, Daughter of Yeshua Bar Qayafa, Priest of (the course of) Ma’aziah of the House of ‘Omri”
(There is a question about whether the letter following the נ (nun) in כהן (cohen, or priest) is a ד (dalet), or a י (yod) with an unrelated scratch beneath it, or a מ (mem, apparently not in final form) similar to the letter that follows it. This is partially due to the fact that it is not certain whether the נ (nun) is in final form. It is longer, which would argue for a final ן (nun), but it is also curved, which would support the letter being a regular נ (nun). If it is a ד (dalet), then it would serve as a genitive construct indicator for the phrase “priest of Ma’aziah.” If it is a י (yod), then the word כהן (priest) would become the plural construct כהני מעזיה (priests of Ma’aziah), and the נ (nun) before would have to be interpreted as a standard נ (nun) not in final form. If it is a מ (mem), the result would be a pluralized מעזיה כהנמ with the construct implied (“priests [of] (the course of) Ma’aziah”), and the preceding נ (nun) before would have to be interpreted as a standard נ (nun) not in final form. All three options translate roughly the same. There will be other questions about the ש (shin) in the name Yeshua, as well as the diagonal mark to the right of the initial י (yod) in the same name, as well as a few others. I shall leave the formal epigraphical work to my Aramaic colleagues, who to be sure are already working up all possible interpretations and alternatives for this inscription.)
The ossuary is not unprecedented as ossuaries bearing the family name “Qayafa” (which many pronounce as “Caiaphas”) were among a total of twelve previously discovered in Jerusalem in 1990. I stated in an article at Bible and Interpretation:
“Twelve ossuaries were discovered in the so-called “Caiaphas” tomb, including a highly ornate ossuary discovered in situ (Ossuary 6) with two inscribed Aramaic inscriptions reading, יהוסף בר קיפא and יהוסף בר קפא (variant spellings of “Joseph, son of Caiaphas”), and another (Ossuary 3) with just the name קפא (“Caiaphas”) etched in an almost graffito fashion on the ossuary.”
The peripheral significance of this discovery to Christianity is that the High Priest Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, is mentioned in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus:
“First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.” (John 18:13 NRSV)
Dr. Boaz Zissu of Bar-Ilan University made the following photo available:
The official press release is here. DO read this release for the best information about the ossuary and inscription.
News reports can be found on AP, Arutz Sheva, Jerusalem Post, Yahoo News, and more photos can be found at TimesUnion. Jerusalem Post video is here.
One can see the Aramaic inscription running from right to left along the top of the ossuary.
Regarding the end of the inscription, Arutz Sheva explains:
Ma’azyah was the name of the 24th priestly service shift at the temple. Members of this family signed the convention mentioned in the book of Nehemiah (10,9). The House of Imri refers to the priestly family of Miriam, or to the location she came from.
Steve Caruso at Aramaic Designs has offered up a mashup of the inscription with the letters filled in with black.
Caruso suggests the following:
I have done the same below. The top image is an animated GIF (made with the help of MakeAGif) of my Photoshop fill-in of the inscription. I flash the inscription because it allows the viewer to verify precisely how I filled in the inscription (transparency, transparency, transparency!)
Below is a still photo of the inscription released by Dr. Zissu (top), and my highlight with the letters in black (and uncertain areas in gray, bottom).
Finally, before everyone gets carried away with what this ossuary and inscription mean, let me give the reader a quick review of what it does NOT mean:
1. Since the ossuary was recovered from a thief, it is unprovenanced, meaning we cannot be certain of its place of origin or context. As an unprovenanced archaeological object, many academic publications that have agreed not to publish unprovenanced objects (to deter against looting and forgery) will not be publishing this ossuary. That is why you may not read about it in some of the more credible archaeological journals. 2. The “investigation” (which I’m assuming was, in part, the interrogation of the thieves) concludes that the ossuary came from the Valley of ‘Elah, in the Shephelah, and NOT from the so-called “Caiaphas family tomb” in the Jerusalem Peace Park. There are some who understand the tomb in Jerusalem to have been the family tomb of Caiaphas, the High Priest mentioned in the Bible (Matt 26:57-68), who is said to have been involved with the trial of Jesus. If the ossuary came from elsewhere, there is a question why this ossuary would not have been found in the Caiaphas family tomb in Jerusalem. One answer may be that the Valley of ‘Elah tomb may be that of ישוע (Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus) Bar Qayafa (whose daughter, Miriam’s, ossuary was recovered), while the Jerusalem tomb may belong to יהוסף (Yehosef/Joseph), his brother. 3. That said, the discovery of this ossuary is NOT evidence of the existence of Jesus. The ישוע (Yeshua/Jesus) mentioned in the inscription was NOT the same Jesus who is the central figure of the New Testament. Likewise, the presence of an inscription mentioning a peripheral character mentioned in the Bible does not mean that the entire story is true or historical. 4. The inscription is NOT evidence that Jesus was tried by Caiaphas. This inscription only lends support to the understanding that there was, in fact, a priestly family named Qayafa/Caiaphas. 5. The inscription is NOT evidence that there was a trial of Jesus. (See above.) 6. The inscription is NOT evidence that Jesus died and was raised form the dead. That has nothing to do with this ossuary. Again, this discovery only lends support to the understanding that there was, in fact, a priestly family named Qayafa/Caiaphas. 7. The inscription in and of itself is NOT evidence that the Bible is historically reliable, inerrant, infallible, or any other “See, I told you so” statement. The Bible is full of true facts and historical verities. No one questions this. However, the authentication of one claim does NOT mean that all claims are verifiable.
What this discovery DOES tell us is this:
1. Someone named Miriam existed. She was apparently the daughter of ישוע (Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus) Bar Qayafa (or the son of Qayafa/Caiaphas). 2. If this Miriam is the daughter of Yeshua, and if that Yeshua is the son of Caiaphas, then the discovery gives us new information that the Qayafa/Caiaphas family was from the Ma’aziah order of priests from Beyt ‘Imri. 3. Thus, the discovery of this unprovenanced ossuary provides support to the understanding that there was, in fact, a priestly family named Qayafa (Caiaphas) around the time of Jesus.
I look forward to following this story as it develops. I do NOT look forward to what will inevitably be the sensationalization of this story by some whose false or ignorant claims will be used to make money or promote a particular ideology, religious or otherwise.
Tell Me More, February 11, 2010 · During the slavery era, when slaves wanted to get married, it often presented a range of complexities that today's couples can't even begin to comprehend. Professor Tera Hunter, who teaches history at Princeton University, talks with host Michel Martin about jumping the broom during slave times.
About the Books
In the 1960s, as a response to segregation in the United States, the influential art patron Dominique de Menil began a research project and photo archive called The Image of the Black in Western Art. Now, fifty years later, as the first American president of African American descent serves his historic term in office, her mission has been re-invigorated through the collaboration of Harvard University Press and the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research to present new editions of the coveted five original books, as well as an additional five volumes.
“Miriam, Daughter of Yeshua, Son of Caiaphas” Inscription Announced
This morning, archaeologists from Bar Ilan University and Tel Aviv University announced the discovery of an ossuary (burial bone box) in Israel, which was recovered from thieves who had robbed a tomb.
The ossuary is unprovenanced – that is, because it was not discovered in a controlled archaeological excavation, its origin and context are unknown. However, further investigation (which I understand to be interrogation of the thieves) has led researchers to the conclusion “that the ossuary came from a burial cave in the area of the Valley of ‘Elah, in the Judean Shephelah.”
The authenticity of the ossuary and inscription were verified by Dr. Boaz Zissu of the Department of the Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology of Bar Ilan University, and Professor Yuval Goren of the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations of the Tel Aviv University using ESEM/EDS (Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope / Energy-Dispersive Spectrometer) technology. The results of the study are published in Vol. 61 of Israel Exploration Journal (published this week by the Israel Exploration Society).
The ossuary includes the Aramaic inscription, which appears to read:
מרים ברת ישוע בר קיפא כהני מעזיה דבית עמרי
which translates:
“Miriam, Daughter of Yeshua, Son of Caiaphas, Priests of Ma’aziah from Beth ‘Imri”
or
מרים ברת ישוע בר קיפא כהן דמעזיה דבית עמרי
which translates:
“Miriam, Daughter of Yeshua, Son of Caiaphas, Priest of Ma’aziah from Beth ‘Imri”
or, as Jack Kilmon suggests
“Miriam, Daughter of Yeshua Bar Qayafa, Priest of (the course of) Ma’aziah of the House of ‘Omri”
(There is a question about whether the letter following the נ (nun) in כהן (cohen, or priest) is a ד (dalet), or a י (yod) with an unrelated scratch beneath it, or a מ (mem, apparently not in final form) similar to the letter that follows it. This is partially due to the fact that it is not certain whether the נ (nun) is in final form. It is longer, which would argue for a final ן (nun), but it is also curved, which would support the letter being a regular נ (nun). If it is a ד (dalet), then it would serve as a genitive construct indicator for the phrase “priest of Ma’aziah.” If it is a י (yod), then the word כהן (priest) would become the plural construct כהני מעזיה (priests of Ma’aziah), and the נ (nun) before would have to be interpreted as a standard נ (nun) not in final form. If it is a מ (mem), the result would be a pluralized מעזיה כהנמ with the construct implied (“priests [of] (the course of) Ma’aziah”), and the preceding נ (nun) before would have to be interpreted as a standard נ (nun) not in final form. All three options translate roughly the same. There will be other questions about the ש (shin) in the name Yeshua, as well as the diagonal mark to the right of the initial י (yod) in the same name, as well as a few others. I shall leave the formal epigraphical work to my Aramaic colleagues, who to be sure are already working up all possible interpretations and alternatives for this inscription.)
The ossuary is not unprecedented as ossuaries bearing the family name “Qayafa” (which many pronounce as “Caiaphas”) were among a total of twelve previously discovered in Jerusalem in 1990. I stated in an article at Bible and Interpretation:
“Twelve ossuaries were discovered in the so-called “Caiaphas” tomb, including a highly ornate ossuary discovered in situ (Ossuary 6) with two inscribed Aramaic inscriptions reading, יהוסף בר קיפא and יהוסף בר קפא (variant spellings of “Joseph, son of Caiaphas”), and another (Ossuary 3) with just the name קפא (“Caiaphas”) etched in an almost graffito fashion on the ossuary.”
The peripheral significance of this discovery to Christianity is that the High Priest Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, is mentioned in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus:
“First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.” (John 18:13 NRSV)
Dr. Boaz Zissu of Bar-Ilan University made the following photo available:
The official press release is here. DO read this release for the best information about the ossuary and inscription.
News reports can be found on AP, Arutz Sheva, Jerusalem Post, Yahoo News, and more photos can be found at TimesUnion. Jerusalem Post video is here.
One can see the Aramaic inscription running from right to left along the top of the ossuary.
Regarding the end of the inscription, Arutz Sheva explains:
Ma’azyah was the name of the 24th priestly service shift at the temple. Members of this family signed the convention mentioned in the book of Nehemiah (10,9). The House of Imri refers to the priestly family of Miriam, or to the location she came from.
Steve Caruso at Aramaic Designs has offered up a mashup of the inscription with the letters filled in with black.
Caruso suggests the following:
I have done the same below. The top image is an animated GIF (made with the help of MakeAGif) of my Photoshop fill-in of the inscription. I flash the inscription because it allows the viewer to verify precisely how I filled in the inscription (transparency, transparency, transparency!)
Below is a still photo of the inscription released by Dr. Zissu (top), and my highlight with the letters in black (and uncertain areas in gray, bottom).
Finally, before everyone gets carried away with what this ossuary and inscription mean, let me give the reader a quick review of what it does NOT mean:
1. Since the ossuary was recovered from a thief, it is unprovenanced, meaning we cannot be certain of its place of origin or context. As an unprovenanced archaeological object, many academic publications that have agreed not to publish unprovenanced objects (to deter against looting and forgery) will not be publishing this ossuary. That is why you may not read about it in some of the more credible archaeological journals. 2. The “investigation” (which I’m assuming was, in part, the interrogation of the thieves) concludes that the ossuary came from the Valley of ‘Elah, in the Shephelah, and NOT from the so-called “Caiaphas family tomb” in the Jerusalem Peace Park. There are some who understand the tomb in Jerusalem to have been the family tomb of Caiaphas, the High Priest mentioned in the Bible (Matt 26:57-68), who is said to have been involved with the trial of Jesus. If the ossuary came from elsewhere, there is a question why this ossuary would not have been found in the Caiaphas family tomb in Jerusalem. One answer may be that the Valley of ‘Elah tomb may be that of ישוע (Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus) Bar Qayafa (whose daughter, Miriam’s, ossuary was recovered), while the Jerusalem tomb may belong to יהוסף (Yehosef/Joseph), his brother. 3. That said, the discovery of this ossuary is NOT evidence of the existence of Jesus. The ישוע (Yeshua/Jesus) mentioned in the inscription was NOT the same Jesus who is the central figure of the New Testament. Likewise, the presence of an inscription mentioning a peripheral character mentioned in the Bible does not mean that the entire story is true or historical. 4. The inscription is NOT evidence that Jesus was tried by Caiaphas. This inscription only lends support to the understanding that there was, in fact, a priestly family named Qayafa/Caiaphas. 5. The inscription is NOT evidence that there was a trial of Jesus. (See above.) 6. The inscription is NOT evidence that Jesus died and was raised form the dead. That has nothing to do with this ossuary. Again, this discovery only lends support to the understanding that there was, in fact, a priestly family named Qayafa/Caiaphas. 7. The inscription in and of itself is NOT evidence that the Bible is historically reliable, inerrant, infallible, or any other “See, I told you so” statement. The Bible is full of true facts and historical verities. No one questions this. However, the authentication of one claim does NOT mean that all claims are verifiable.
What this discovery DOES tell us is this:
1. Someone named Miriam existed. She was apparently the daughter of ישוע (Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus) Bar Qayafa (or the son of Qayafa/Caiaphas). 2. If this Miriam is the daughter of Yeshua, and if that Yeshua is the son of Caiaphas, then the discovery gives us new information that the Qayafa/Caiaphas family was from the Ma’aziah order of priests from Beyt ‘Imri. 3. Thus, the discovery of this unprovenanced ossuary provides support to the understanding that there was, in fact, a priestly family named Qayafa (Caiaphas) around the time of Jesus.
I look forward to following this story as it develops. I do NOT look forward to what will inevitably be the sensationalization of this story by some whose false or ignorant claims will be used to make money or promote a particular ideology, religious or otherwise.
The PLAN IF CHRIST RETURNS, HE WILL BE THE ANTI-CHRIST
The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000.
1 Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;
2 for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me:
they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred;
and fought against me without a cause.
4 For my love they are my adversaries:
but I give myself unto prayer.
5 And they have rewarded me evil for
and hatred for my love.
6 Set thou a wicked man over him:
and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned:
and let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few;
and let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless,
and his wife a widow.
10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg:
let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath;
and let the strangers spoil his labor.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto
neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off;
and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD;
and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be before the LORD continually,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
16 Because that he remembered not to show mercy,
but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing,
so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment,
so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him,
and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.
20 Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD,
and of them that speak evil against my soul.
21 But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake:
because thy mercy is good, deliver thou
22 For I am poor and needy,
and my heart is wounded within me.
23 I am gone like the shadow when it declineth:
I am tossed up and down as the locust.
24 My knees are weak through fasting;
and my flesh faileth of fatness.
25 I became also a reproach unto them:
when they looked upon me they shook their heads.
26 Help me, O LORD my God:
O save me according to thy mercy:
27 that they may know that this is thy hand;
that thou, LORD,hast done it.
28 Let them curse, but bless thou:
when they arise, let them be ashamed; but let thy servant rejoice.
29 Let mine adversaries be clothed with
and let them cover themselves with their own confusion, as with a mantle.
30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my
yea, I will praise him among the multitude.
31 For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor
to save him from those that condemn his soul.
1 Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;
2 for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me:
they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred;
and fought against me without a cause.
4 For my love they are my adversaries:
but I give myself unto prayer.
5 And they have rewarded me evil for
and hatred for my love.
6 Set thou a wicked man over him:
and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned:
and let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few;
and let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless,
and his wife a widow.
10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg:
let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath;
and let the strangers spoil his labor.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto
neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off;
and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD;
and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be before the LORD continually,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
16 Because that he remembered not to show mercy,
but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing,
so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment,
so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him,
and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.
20 Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD,
and of them that speak evil against my soul.
21 But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake:
because thy mercy is good, deliver thou
22 For I am poor and needy,
and my heart is wounded within me.
23 I am gone like the shadow when it declineth:
I am tossed up and down as the locust.
24 My knees are weak through fasting;
and my flesh faileth of fatness.
25 I became also a reproach unto them:
when they looked upon me they shook their heads.
26 Help me, O LORD my God:
O save me according to thy mercy:
27 that they may know that this is thy hand;
that thou, LORD,hast done it.
28 Let them curse, but bless thou:
when they arise, let them be ashamed; but let thy servant rejoice.
29 Let mine adversaries be clothed with
and let them cover themselves with their own confusion, as with a mantle.
30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my
yea, I will praise him among the multitude.
31 For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor
to save him from those that condemn his soul.
Let us make man, in our image, after our likeness
HEAVENLY FATHER, OR FORE FATHERS IDEOLOGY
LET’S MAKE A SLAVE “The Original and Development of a Social Being Called ‘The Negro.’” Let us make a slave.
Let Us make man in our image
There are several verses in the Old Testament where God speaks as a plurality. Many trinitarians quote these verses to help support the Trinity doctrine because they strongly suggest that there is more than one person in the godhead.
"Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,” (Gen. 1:26, NASB). "Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," (Gen. 3:22, NASB). “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech,” (Gen. 11:7, NASB). "Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (Isaiah 6:8, NASB)
Those opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity say that God is speaking of Himself in a "royal" sense, in a "plural of majesty." They can say this, but biblically there is never any account of a king or a ruler speaking of himself in a plural sense or in the third person. So, there is no biblical support for God using it of Himself in this way.
In regards to Gen. 1:26, those who deny the Trinity say that when God says, "Let Us make..." He is speaking with the angels in mind. The problem with this is that angels do not create. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that angels created anything at all. We see in Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone.'" God made all things alone. Therefore, the "us" in "Let Us make man in our image" cannot be the angels. Furthermore, people are not created in the image of angels, but of God.
The three verses in Genesis do not prove that the Trinity is true. However, they cannot be dismissed by the assumption that God is speaking of himself in a type of third person way.
Furthermore, notice in the fourth verse above, Isaiah 6:8, that God is speaking in the singular and then switches to the plural. He says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" This on the unusual construction: the singular speaker refers to himself in the plural.
LET’S MAKE A SLAVE “The Original and Development of a Social Being Called ‘The Negro.’” Let us make a slave.
Let Us make man in our image
There are several verses in the Old Testament where God speaks as a plurality. Many trinitarians quote these verses to help support the Trinity doctrine because they strongly suggest that there is more than one person in the godhead.
"Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,” (Gen. 1:26, NASB). "Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," (Gen. 3:22, NASB). “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech,” (Gen. 11:7, NASB). "Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (Isaiah 6:8, NASB)
Those opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity say that God is speaking of Himself in a "royal" sense, in a "plural of majesty." They can say this, but biblically there is never any account of a king or a ruler speaking of himself in a plural sense or in the third person. So, there is no biblical support for God using it of Himself in this way.
In regards to Gen. 1:26, those who deny the Trinity say that when God says, "Let Us make..." He is speaking with the angels in mind. The problem with this is that angels do not create. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that angels created anything at all. We see in Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone.'" God made all things alone. Therefore, the "us" in "Let Us make man in our image" cannot be the angels. Furthermore, people are not created in the image of angels, but of God.
The three verses in Genesis do not prove that the Trinity is true. However, they cannot be dismissed by the assumption that God is speaking of himself in a type of third person way.
Furthermore, notice in the fourth verse above, Isaiah 6:8, that God is speaking in the singular and then switches to the plural. He says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" This on the unusual construction: the singular speaker refers to himself in the plural.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)