is an organized and living body, endowed with sensation.
Minerals are said to grow or increase, plants to grow and live, and
animals alone to have sensation. The Hebrews distinguished animals into
pure and impure, clean and unclean; or those which might be eaten and
offered, and those whose use was prohibited. The sacrifices which they
offered, were, 1. Of the beeve kind; a cow, bull, or calf. The ox could
not be offered, because it was mutilated; and when it is said oxen were
sacrificed, we are to understand bulls, Lev. xxii, 18, 19. Calmet
thinks, that the mutilation of animals was neither permitted, nor used,
among the Israelites. 2. Of the goat kind; a he-goat, a she-goat, or
kid, Lev. xxii, 24. 3. Of the sheep kind; a ewe, ram, or lamb. When it
is said sheep are offered, rams are chiefly meant, especially in
burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin; for as to peace-offerings, or
sacrifices of pure devotion, a female might be sometimes offered,
provided it was pure, and without blemish, Lev. iii, 1.
Besides these three sorts of animals, used in sacrifices, many others
might be eaten, wild or tame; as the stag, the roe-buck, and in general
all that have cloven feet, or that chew the cud, Lev. ix, 2, 3, &c. All
that have not cloven hoofs, and do not chew the cud, were esteemed
impure, and could neither be offered nor eaten. The fat of all sorts of
animals sacrificed was forbidden to be eaten. The blood of all kinds of
animals generally, and in all cases, was prohibited on pain of death,
Lev. iii, 17; vii, 23–27. Neither did the Israelites eat animals which
had been taken and touched by a devouring or impure beast, as a dog, a
wolf, a boar, &c, Exodus xxii, 3; nor of any animal that died of itself.
Whoever touched its carcass was impure until the evening; and till that
time, and before he had washed his clothes, he did not return to the
company of other Jews, Lev. xi, 39, 40; xvii, 15; xxii, 8. Fish that had
neither fins nor scales were unclean, Lev. xi, 20. Birds which walk on
the ground with four feet, as bats, and flies that have many feet, were
impure. The law, however, excepts locusts, which have their hind feet
higher than those before, and rather leap than walk. These were clean,
and might be eaten, Lev. xi, 21, 22, as they still are in Palestine. The
distinction between clean and unclean animals has been variously
accounted for. Some have thought it _symbolical_, intended to teach the
avoidance of those evil qualities for which the unclean animals were
remarkable; others, that, in order that the Hebrews might be preserved
from _idolatry_, they were commanded to kill and eat many animals which
were sacred among the Egyptians, and were taught to look with abhorrence
upon others which they reverenced. Others have found a reason in the
unwholesomeness of the flesh of the creatures pronounced by the law to
be unclean, so that they resolve the whole into a _sanative_ regulation.
But it is not to be forgotten that this division of animals into clean
and unclean existed both before the law of Moses, and even prior to the
flood. The foundation of it was therefore clearly _sacrificial_; for
before the deluge it could not have reference to health, since animal
food was not allowed to man prior to the deluge; and as no other ground
for the distinction appears, except that of sacrifice, it must therefore
have had reference to the selection of victims to be solemnly offered to
God, as a part of worship, and as the means of drawing near to him by
expiatory rites for the forgiveness of sins. Some it is true, have
regarded this distinction of clean and unclean beasts as used by Moses
by way of _prolepsis_, or anticipation,--a notion which, if it could not
be refuted by the context, would be perfectly arbitrary. Not only are
the beasts, which Noah was to receive, spoken of as clean and unclean;
but it will be noticed, that, in the command to take them into the ark,
a difference is made in the _number_ to be preserved--the _clean_ being
to be received by _sevens_, and the _unclean_ by _two_ of a kind. This
shows that this distinction among beasts had been established in the
time of Noah; and thus the assumption of a prolepsis is refuted. The
critical attempts which have been made to show that animals were allowed
to man for food, previous to the flood, have wholly failed.
A second argument is furnished by the prohibition of blood for food,
after animals had been granted to man for his sustenance along with the
“herb of the field.” This prohibition is repeated by Moses to the
Israelites, with this explanation:--“I have given it upon the altar to
make _an atonement_ for your souls.” From this it has indeed been
argued, that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was
then, for the first time, announced by Moses, or the same reason for the
prohibition would have been given to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That
unless the same be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to
Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be
conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from
Noah to Moses. 2. That it is a mistake to suppose, that the declaration
of Moses to the Jews, that God had “given them the blood for an
atonement,” is an _additional reason_ for the interdict, not to be found
in the original prohibition to Noah. The whole passage in Lev. xvii, is,
“And thou shalt say to them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of
Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any
manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood, and I will cut him off from among his people: FOR THE LIFE of the
flesh is in the blood; and I have given it upon the altar, to make
atonement for your souls: _for it is the_ BLOOD (or LIFE) that maketh
atonement for the soul.” The great reason, then, of the prohibition of
blood is, that it is the LIFE; and what follows respecting atonement is
_exegetical_ of this reason; the life is in the blood, and the blood or
life is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original
prohibition in Genesis, we find that precisely the same reason is given:
“But the flesh with the blood, which is _the life_ thereof, shall ye not
eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the
exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be understood in the
general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is prohibited for
this cause, that it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is “the
blood,” _or life_, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to
discover any cause for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere
circumstance that it is “the life,” and he will find it impossible. It
is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was _life_
substituted for _life_, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life
of man, and that it had a sacred appropriation. The manner, too, in
which Moses introduces the subject is indicative that, although he was
renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a “new doctrine;” he does
not teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to
make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had
made this appointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with
which they were familiar. Because the blood was the life, it was
sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and we have in the
sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a
sufficient proof, that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood
not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. Nor was
this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks,
who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at
their altars, a rite derived, probably, from the Egyptians, as they
derived it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion,
indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred to the gods,
is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.
If, therefore, the distinction of animals into clean and unclean existed
before the flood, and was founded upon the practice of animal sacrifice,
we have not only a proof of the antiquity of that practice, but that it
was of divine institution and appointment, since almighty God gave laws
for its right and acceptable performance. Still farther, if animal
sacrifice was of divine appointment, it must be concluded to be typical
only, and designed to teach the great doctrine of moral atonement, and
to direct faith to the only true sacrifice which could take away the
sins of men;--“the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,”--the
victim “without spot,” who suffered the just for the unjust, that he
might bring us to God. See SACRIFICES.
Minerals are said to grow or increase, plants to grow and live, and
animals alone to have sensation. The Hebrews distinguished animals into
pure and impure, clean and unclean; or those which might be eaten and
offered, and those whose use was prohibited. The sacrifices which they
offered, were, 1. Of the beeve kind; a cow, bull, or calf. The ox could
not be offered, because it was mutilated; and when it is said oxen were
sacrificed, we are to understand bulls, Lev. xxii, 18, 19. Calmet
thinks, that the mutilation of animals was neither permitted, nor used,
among the Israelites. 2. Of the goat kind; a he-goat, a she-goat, or
kid, Lev. xxii, 24. 3. Of the sheep kind; a ewe, ram, or lamb. When it
is said sheep are offered, rams are chiefly meant, especially in
burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin; for as to peace-offerings, or
sacrifices of pure devotion, a female might be sometimes offered,
provided it was pure, and without blemish, Lev. iii, 1.
Besides these three sorts of animals, used in sacrifices, many others
might be eaten, wild or tame; as the stag, the roe-buck, and in general
all that have cloven feet, or that chew the cud, Lev. ix, 2, 3, &c. All
that have not cloven hoofs, and do not chew the cud, were esteemed
impure, and could neither be offered nor eaten. The fat of all sorts of
animals sacrificed was forbidden to be eaten. The blood of all kinds of
animals generally, and in all cases, was prohibited on pain of death,
Lev. iii, 17; vii, 23–27. Neither did the Israelites eat animals which
had been taken and touched by a devouring or impure beast, as a dog, a
wolf, a boar, &c, Exodus xxii, 3; nor of any animal that died of itself.
Whoever touched its carcass was impure until the evening; and till that
time, and before he had washed his clothes, he did not return to the
company of other Jews, Lev. xi, 39, 40; xvii, 15; xxii, 8. Fish that had
neither fins nor scales were unclean, Lev. xi, 20. Birds which walk on
the ground with four feet, as bats, and flies that have many feet, were
impure. The law, however, excepts locusts, which have their hind feet
higher than those before, and rather leap than walk. These were clean,
and might be eaten, Lev. xi, 21, 22, as they still are in Palestine. The
distinction between clean and unclean animals has been variously
accounted for. Some have thought it _symbolical_, intended to teach the
avoidance of those evil qualities for which the unclean animals were
remarkable; others, that, in order that the Hebrews might be preserved
from _idolatry_, they were commanded to kill and eat many animals which
were sacred among the Egyptians, and were taught to look with abhorrence
upon others which they reverenced. Others have found a reason in the
unwholesomeness of the flesh of the creatures pronounced by the law to
be unclean, so that they resolve the whole into a _sanative_ regulation.
But it is not to be forgotten that this division of animals into clean
and unclean existed both before the law of Moses, and even prior to the
flood. The foundation of it was therefore clearly _sacrificial_; for
before the deluge it could not have reference to health, since animal
food was not allowed to man prior to the deluge; and as no other ground
for the distinction appears, except that of sacrifice, it must therefore
have had reference to the selection of victims to be solemnly offered to
God, as a part of worship, and as the means of drawing near to him by
expiatory rites for the forgiveness of sins. Some it is true, have
regarded this distinction of clean and unclean beasts as used by Moses
by way of _prolepsis_, or anticipation,--a notion which, if it could not
be refuted by the context, would be perfectly arbitrary. Not only are
the beasts, which Noah was to receive, spoken of as clean and unclean;
but it will be noticed, that, in the command to take them into the ark,
a difference is made in the _number_ to be preserved--the _clean_ being
to be received by _sevens_, and the _unclean_ by _two_ of a kind. This
shows that this distinction among beasts had been established in the
time of Noah; and thus the assumption of a prolepsis is refuted. The
critical attempts which have been made to show that animals were allowed
to man for food, previous to the flood, have wholly failed.
A second argument is furnished by the prohibition of blood for food,
after animals had been granted to man for his sustenance along with the
“herb of the field.” This prohibition is repeated by Moses to the
Israelites, with this explanation:--“I have given it upon the altar to
make _an atonement_ for your souls.” From this it has indeed been
argued, that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was
then, for the first time, announced by Moses, or the same reason for the
prohibition would have been given to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That
unless the same be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to
Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be
conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from
Noah to Moses. 2. That it is a mistake to suppose, that the declaration
of Moses to the Jews, that God had “given them the blood for an
atonement,” is an _additional reason_ for the interdict, not to be found
in the original prohibition to Noah. The whole passage in Lev. xvii, is,
“And thou shalt say to them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of
Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any
manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood, and I will cut him off from among his people: FOR THE LIFE of the
flesh is in the blood; and I have given it upon the altar, to make
atonement for your souls: _for it is the_ BLOOD (or LIFE) that maketh
atonement for the soul.” The great reason, then, of the prohibition of
blood is, that it is the LIFE; and what follows respecting atonement is
_exegetical_ of this reason; the life is in the blood, and the blood or
life is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original
prohibition in Genesis, we find that precisely the same reason is given:
“But the flesh with the blood, which is _the life_ thereof, shall ye not
eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the
exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be understood in the
general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is prohibited for
this cause, that it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is “the
blood,” _or life_, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to
discover any cause for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere
circumstance that it is “the life,” and he will find it impossible. It
is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was _life_
substituted for _life_, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life
of man, and that it had a sacred appropriation. The manner, too, in
which Moses introduces the subject is indicative that, although he was
renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a “new doctrine;” he does
not teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to
make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had
made this appointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with
which they were familiar. Because the blood was the life, it was
sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and we have in the
sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a
sufficient proof, that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood
not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. Nor was
this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks,
who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at
their altars, a rite derived, probably, from the Egyptians, as they
derived it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion,
indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred to the gods,
is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.
If, therefore, the distinction of animals into clean and unclean existed
before the flood, and was founded upon the practice of animal sacrifice,
we have not only a proof of the antiquity of that practice, but that it
was of divine institution and appointment, since almighty God gave laws
for its right and acceptable performance. Still farther, if animal
sacrifice was of divine appointment, it must be concluded to be typical
only, and designed to teach the great doctrine of moral atonement, and
to direct faith to the only true sacrifice which could take away the
sins of men;--“the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,”--the
victim “without spot,” who suffered the just for the unjust, that he
might bring us to God. See SACRIFICES.