The ritual of sacrifice was current practice among most of the peoples of the ancient Near East (ANE). In the ANE, sacrifice was considered to be a gift to one’s god, providing food for the deity in exchange for help.
The Bible, however, gives a radically different meaning to the ritual of sacrifice; in fact, it reversed its purpose. While in the ANE, sacrifice signified an upward movement from the human condition to the divine sphere. In the Bible, sacrifice signified a downward movement from God to men. In the ANE, the god created humans in order to have slaves who would serve him or her and provide him or her with food. In contrast, the God of the Bible creates humans and gives them food.
In this lesson, we will study the biblical significance of the sacrifices. The biblical meaning of the sacrifices depends on the literary context in which they appear. Historical and legislative texts tend to report the events of the sacrifices as rituals, and thus provide the religious and ethical significance of the sacrifices as they are lived by the people. On the other hand, the prophetic and poetic texts tend to focus on their spiritual and prophetic significance. We have chosen one typical text of each category: the historical sacrifices of Cain and Abel, in Genesis 4, and the prophetic sacrifice of the Suffering Servant, in Isaiah 53, in order to better understand their respective significance.
Part II: Commentary
The Religious and Ethical Significance of the Sacrifices
The first explicit event of sacrifice highlights the diametric opposition between Cain and Abel. While Cain takes his offering only from “the fruit of the ground” (Gen. 4:3, NKJV), Abel, on the other hand, brings “also,” or “in addition” to, the non-animal offering “the firstborn of his flock” (Gen. 4:4, NKJV). The sacrifice of Abel, therefore, is in conformity with biblical instruction, which required that “in addition to” a vegetable offering, a sacrificial animal be presented for the burnt offering (Exod. 29:39–41). Considering the fact that Abel was “a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground” (Gen. 4:2), Cain, the elder brother, was confronted with a problem: he needed the help of his little brother. Cain’s pride may have played a role in his choice of sacrifice and in his subsequent actions.
The biblical story tells us, then, that “the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering” (Gen. 4:4, 5, NKJV). The biblical text does not explain why Abel’s sacrifice was accepted and Cain’s offering not. However, a number of clues in the text suggest the following:
God’s first concern is the person who makes the offering, as the following literal translation suggests: “God looked with interest at Abel, therefore [waw] at his offering; but He did not look with interest at Cain, therefore [waw] at his offering.” This translation indicates that the reason for God’s rejection or acceptance of the offering lies primarily in the spiritual condition of the person and not in his offering, per se (Mic. 6:7, 8; Isa. 1:11).
While Cain offers “to God,” Abel just offers. The phrase “to God” is absent in conjunction with Abel. While Cain thinks of his offering as his gift to God, Abel’s attention essentially concerns the meaning of the sacrifice itself, namely, God’s gift to him. While Cain views his religion as an upward movement to God, Abel understands it as a downward movement from God.
Whereas Abel chose from the bekorot, the “ ‘firstfruits,’ ” the most precious produce of the season, according to the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:19, NKJV), Cain took any fruit from the land. Cain’s offering was the expression of human effort toward God, whereas Abel’s offering was the expression of humanity’s need for God’s salvation.
Abel’s offering was related to the promise of the Messianic Lamb of Genesis 3:15, who would be sacrificed to save the world, whereas Cain’s offering was an empty and unsignificant ritual. Note that the same contrast appears between the human clothing and God’s clothing (Gen. 3:7). Whereas Adam and Eve used the plant that was available to them to cover themselves, God used clothing that implied an animal sacrifice (see Gen. 3:21).
Ultimately, Cain’s lack of the right religious connection reaches its climax in the act of murder. Because Cain disconnects from God the Father, he loses his connection with his brother.
Fratricide illustrates how sin works. Sin toward one’s brother derives from sin toward God. God perceives this relation between the religious and the ethical when He warns Cain: “ ‘If you do well, will you not be accepted?’ ” (Gen. 4:7, NKJV). The phrase “ ‘do well’ ” concerns, first of all, the right sacrifice, which Cain is required to offer; but it also refers to Cain’s personal struggle against evil and, more particularly, to his relationship with his brother. The Hebrew verb teytib, “do well,” has a strong ethical connotation. The same verb is used by Jeremiah to describe the desired relationship between “ ‘a man and his neighbor’ ” (Jer. 7:5, NKJV).
It is interesting to note that Jeremiah’s address to Israel connects the same issue of religious life to ethics. After a long list of ethical crimes (stealing, lying, adultery, etc.), the prophet confronts his people, who then “ ‘come and stand before Me in this house which is called by My name’ ” (Jer. 7:10, NKJV). This call has resonated with many other prophets who have emphasized God’s rejection of these sacrifices. Micah, in particular, eloquently insists on the worthlessness of such a religion: “Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams? . . . He has shown you, O man, what is good . . . to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:7, 8, NKJV).
The Prophetic Significance of the Sacrifices
One of the most powerful biblical passages on the prophetic significance of the sacrifices is Isaiah’s song of the Suffering Servant. The Suffering Servant is identified as a sacrifice, thus predicting the sacrificial ministry of Jesus Christ. In fact, the central idea of the passage is the suffering and dying of the Servant for atoning purposes. This idea appears in eight out of the 12 verses (Isa. 53:4–8,10–12).
It is also intensified in the central section of Isaiah 53:4–6 and described with terms and motifs directly borrowed from the Levitical world. The Servant is compared to a lamb ready for slaughter (Isa. 53:7; compare with Lev. 4:32; Lev. 5:6; Lev. 14:13, 21; etc.). The passive form, one of the most characteristic features of the Levitical style, is most prominent in Isaiah 53. It is used 16 times in the text; 12 of them are in the Niphal, the technical form of the priestly “declaratory verdict,” which is normally used in connection with the sacrifices. This religious-cultic intention is further confirmed by the seven references to “sin,” covering all three technical terms (pesha‘, ‘awon, khet’): “He was wounded for our transgressions [pesha‘], He was bruised for our iniquities [‘awon]; . . . And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity [‘awon] of us all. . . . He shall bear their iniquities [‘awon]. He bore the sin [khet’] of many” (Isa. 53:5, 6, 11, 12, NKJV).
One verse in particular reveals the Levitical process of atonement: “By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11, NKJV). The word “knowledge” (beda‘to) points to verse 3, where the same root word “to know” (Yadu‘a) is used to characterize the Servant as a man who “knows” grief. The verse explains that it is through this knowledge, or this experience, of suffering that the Servant will “justify.” The following phrase explains the operation implied in the verb “justify”: “For He shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11). It is by bearing their iniquities that the Servant will be able to make many just. The next verse again uses the word “many” and confirms this interpretation which makes “many” the object of the verb “justify”: hence, the Servant “bore the sin of many” (Isa. 53:12, NKJV).
This language and its association of ideas are quite familiar in the biblical context, suggesting that the Servant is like the sacrificial offering, which in the Levitical system bore the sin and hence permitted justification and forgiveness from God: “ ‘If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, . . . he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering. . . . So the priest shall make atonement for his sin [khet’] that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him’ ” (Lev. 4:32–35, NKJV). The strong cultic accent in this text upholds the idea that the Suffering Servant plays the role of a vicarious sacrifice, taking the place of the sinner to provide forgiveness.
Part III: Life Application
God’s Sacrifice for Your Salvation. Read Philippians 2:7. Reflect on the expression “emptied Himself” (ESV). How does God’s willingness to become “nothing” apply to your relationship with your fellow neighbors or your relatives? How ready are you to become nothing, to “empty” yourself for the advancement of your colleague or the growth of your child?
Notes
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Key Text: Revelation 5:9
Study Focus: Gen. 4:1-8, Isa. 53:1–12.
The ritual of sacrifice was current practice among most of the peoples of the ancient Near East (ANE). In the ANE, sacrifice was considered to be a gift to one’s god, providing food for the deity in exchange for help.
The Bible, however, gives a radically different meaning to the ritual of sacrifice; in fact, it reversed its purpose. While in the ANE, sacrifice signified an upward movement from the human condition to the divine sphere. In the Bible, sacrifice signified a downward movement from God to men. In the ANE, the god created humans in order to have slaves who would serve him or her and provide him or her with food. In contrast, the God of the Bible creates humans and gives them food.
In this lesson, we will study the biblical significance of the sacrifices. The biblical meaning of the sacrifices depends on the literary context in which they appear. Historical and legislative texts tend to report the events of the sacrifices as rituals, and thus provide the religious and ethical significance of the sacrifices as they are lived by the people. On the other hand, the prophetic and poetic texts tend to focus on their spiritual and prophetic significance. We have chosen one typical text of each category: the historical sacrifices of Cain and Abel, in Genesis 4, and the prophetic sacrifice of the Suffering Servant, in Isaiah 53, in order to better understand their respective significance.
Part II: Commentary
The Religious and Ethical Significance of the Sacrifices
The first explicit event of sacrifice highlights the diametric opposition between Cain and Abel. While Cain takes his offering only from “the fruit of the ground” (Gen. 4:3, NKJV), Abel, on the other hand, brings “also,” or “in addition” to, the non-animal offering “the firstborn of his flock” (Gen. 4:4, NKJV). The sacrifice of Abel, therefore, is in conformity with biblical instruction, which required that “in addition to” a vegetable offering, a sacrificial animal be presented for the burnt offering (Exod. 29:39–41). Considering the fact that Abel was “a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground” (Gen. 4:2), Cain, the elder brother, was confronted with a problem: he needed the help of his little brother. Cain’s pride may have played a role in his choice of sacrifice and in his subsequent actions.
The biblical story tells us, then, that “the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering” (Gen. 4:4, 5, NKJV). The biblical text does not explain why Abel’s sacrifice was accepted and Cain’s offering not. However, a number of clues in the text suggest the following:
Fratricide illustrates how sin works. Sin toward one’s brother derives from sin toward God. God perceives this relation between the religious and the ethical when He warns Cain: “ ‘If you do well, will you not be accepted?’ ” (Gen. 4:7, NKJV). The phrase “ ‘do well’ ” concerns, first of all, the right sacrifice, which Cain is required to offer; but it also refers to Cain’s personal struggle against evil and, more particularly, to his relationship with his brother. The Hebrew verb teytib, “do well,” has a strong ethical connotation. The same verb is used by Jeremiah to describe the desired relationship between “ ‘a man and his neighbor’ ” (Jer. 7:5, NKJV).
It is interesting to note that Jeremiah’s address to Israel connects the same issue of religious life to ethics. After a long list of ethical crimes (stealing, lying, adultery, etc.), the prophet confronts his people, who then “ ‘come and stand before Me in this house which is called by My name’ ” (Jer. 7:10, NKJV). This call has resonated with many other prophets who have emphasized God’s rejection of these sacrifices. Micah, in particular, eloquently insists on the worthlessness of such a religion: “Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams? . . . He has shown you, O man, what is good . . . to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:7, 8, NKJV).
The Prophetic Significance of the Sacrifices
One of the most powerful biblical passages on the prophetic significance of the sacrifices is Isaiah’s song of the Suffering Servant. The Suffering Servant is identified as a sacrifice, thus predicting the sacrificial ministry of Jesus Christ. In fact, the central idea of the passage is the suffering and dying of the Servant for atoning purposes. This idea appears in eight out of the 12 verses (Isa. 53:4–8,10–12).
It is also intensified in the central section of Isaiah 53:4–6 and described with terms and motifs directly borrowed from the Levitical world. The Servant is compared to a lamb ready for slaughter (Isa. 53:7; compare with Lev. 4:32; Lev. 5:6; Lev. 14:13, 21; etc.). The passive form, one of the most characteristic features of the Levitical style, is most prominent in Isaiah 53. It is used 16 times in the text; 12 of them are in the Niphal, the technical form of the priestly “declaratory verdict,” which is normally used in connection with the sacrifices. This religious-cultic intention is further confirmed by the seven references to “sin,” covering all three technical terms (pesha‘, ‘awon, khet’): “He was wounded for our transgressions [pesha‘], He was bruised for our iniquities [‘awon]; . . . And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity [‘awon] of us all. . . . He shall bear their iniquities [‘awon]. He bore the sin [khet’] of many” (Isa. 53:5, 6, 11, 12, NKJV).
One verse in particular reveals the Levitical process of atonement: “By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11, NKJV). The word “knowledge” (beda‘to) points to verse 3, where the same root word “to know” (Yadu‘a) is used to characterize the Servant as a man who “knows” grief. The verse explains that it is through this knowledge, or this experience, of suffering that the Servant will “justify.” The following phrase explains the operation implied in the verb “justify”: “For He shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11). It is by bearing their iniquities that the Servant will be able to make many just. The next verse again uses the word “many” and confirms this interpretation which makes “many” the object of the verb “justify”: hence, the Servant “bore the sin of many” (Isa. 53:12, NKJV).
This language and its association of ideas are quite familiar in the biblical context, suggesting that the Servant is like the sacrificial offering, which in the Levitical system bore the sin and hence permitted justification and forgiveness from God: “ ‘If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, . . . he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering. . . . So the priest shall make atonement for his sin [khet’] that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him’ ” (Lev. 4:32–35, NKJV). The strong cultic accent in this text upholds the idea that the Suffering Servant plays the role of a vicarious sacrifice, taking the place of the sinner to provide forgiveness.
Part III: Life Application
God’s Sacrifice for Your Salvation. Read Philippians 2:7. Reflect on the expression “emptied Himself” (ESV). How does God’s willingness to become “nothing” apply to your relationship with your fellow neighbors or your relatives? How ready are you to become nothing, to “empty” yourself for the advancement of your colleague or the growth of your child?
Notes