"The children of the world are members one of another. When the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, he smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake heals all the rest. Whence do we learn this? From the saying, 'He was wounded for our transgressions.” TALMUD. "Not by breaking from the community was the individual to realize himself, but by taking it to his heart, by feeling its sorrows and its sins, as if they were his own, and by sharing its misery, and even its punishment from God." G. A. SMITH. CHAPTER VII. BACK TO THE OLD TESTAMENT FOR THE SUFFERING CHRIST. I. THE SOCIAL VIEW OF ATONEMENT ACCORDING TO 2 ISAIAH. I. That the sacrifice of a human victim has supreme power to win the favor or avert the disfavor of a deity, is an idea widely prevalent in primitive society. The practice of offering human sacrifices has been, in times past, well-nigh universal. There are several passages in the Old Testament which indicate that this was, at one time, an orthodox Hebrew practice. It is probable that we have relics of it in the expression "before Jahveh," that occurs in the account of the murder of Agag by Samuel, and in the story of the hanging up, before Jahveh at Gibeah, of the relatives of Saul. Still clearer are the large number of passages in which it is said that a man is made "to pass through the fire." In some of these it is stated that the victim passed through the fire to Moloch. But others make no such limitation; and Jahveh, who was a consuming fire, and whose original abode was the lightning-capped Sinai, was equally conceived, by some Israelites, to be a God who could be appeased by the burning before him of a human sacrifice.1 Ahaz and Manasseh are both said, 1 See especially Deut. xii. 30, 31. by the Book of Kings, to have sacrificed their sons. Jeremiah and Ezekiel both knew of the practice, and condemned it; and Josiah sought to root out this relic of barbarism entirely. One of the most interesting passages bearing upon this question, is found in Kings xvi. 34, where an account is given of the rebuilding of Jericho. The founding of a city was, in early times, an event of great importance.2 The city, as a whole, must, by some rite or ceremony, be dedicated to a god, or. must purchase his protecting favor. Hiel, the Bethelite, when he rebuilt Jericho, sacrificed a son at the laying of the foundation, and another son when he set up the gates. The original purport of the passage is partly obscured by the prophecy of the events in Josh. vi. 26, where a curse is pronounced upon the man who shall rebuild the city. But the original meaning of the passage in Kings is perfectly clear. And it is, obviously, the intention of both passages to censure the practice of human sacrifice.3 So, too, the famous chapter of the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen. xxii. is clearly intended to show that human sacrifices are no longer pleasing to Jahveh. The implica 1 Cf. 2 Kings xvi. 3; xvii. 17; xxi. 6; xxiii. 10; Jer. xxxii. 25; Ezek. xx. 26, 31. The practice is condemned in Deut. xviii. 10; Lev. xviii. 21. The early passage condemns it as a corrupt form of Jahveh worship; the later one, as a form of idolatry. 2 Coulanges' Ancient City, p. 177 fol. 8 Dillmann regards this view "an unfounded conjecture," and cites, from classic history, proof that it was a cursed thing to build waste cities. Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, S. 466. 4 Says Professor Kuenen in his Hexateuch, p. 244: "Gen. xxii. shows how Elohim, though having the right to demand the sacrifice of children, does not actually require it, but is content with the willingness to make it." tions of the Hebrew law agree with the histories in this regard. Originally all first-born belonged to Jahveh. And the firstlings of flock, and field were sacrificed. But already in the oldest law human sacrifice is tacitly condemned. It is said that the first-born sons are Jahveh's, but his not to be offered in sacrifice, but to minister to him as priests. And when the Levites took the place of the first-born they were bought off (redeemed) from this service. And if, indeed, sacrifice goes back for its origin to the times of totemism, when the sacrificial animal was really looked upon as a sacred animal, if not, indeed, as a fellow tribesman, we can see how the substitution of the totem animal for the first-born might have appeared a perfectly valid exchange. 2. As time went on, however, it became apparent that neither human nor animal sacrifices gave expression to the highest truths of ethics and religion. It was inevitable that the Jews would come to see that bloody sacrifices were not in accord with either pure worship or good morals; that only a depraved conscience could think of offering a bull or goat, or even the fruit of the body, for the sin of the soul.2 Yet, on closer reflection, it must have appeared that the real essential truth in the sacrificial idea found its fullest expression in human sacrifice, when correctly understood. And, in fact, the true idea which underlay this notion survived and found expression in a large number of passages. It consists in the belief that the 1 See the Little Book of the Covenant, Ex. xxxiv. 20, the Book of the Covenant, Ex. xxii. 29, and the Deuteronomic section, Ex. xiii. 1, 2 fol. 2 Mic. vi. 6-8. |