10. § 8. Of the External Worship of God Among the Patriarchs

§ 8. Of the External Worship of God Among the Patriarchs The fragmentary character of the worship of the patriarchal age corresponds to the fragmentary character of its religious knowledge. To the outward signs of the worship of God belonged (1) Circumcision, of whose antiquity, origin, aim, and signification we shall speak at greater length after having first quoted the words of the divine institution from Genesis 17:10et seq.: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee; Every man-child among you shall be circumcised. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant; but the uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant.” And here we must first answer a question which in olden times was the cause of violent disputes; the question “whether circumcision was given to Abraham by God as an entirely new custom; or whether it already existed among other nations, and passed over from them to the Israelites? “The arguments for and against may be found collected in Spencer, de legibus Hehraeorum ritualibus, i. 1, c. 4, sec. 2, p. 58 sqq. ed. Lips. 1705. What Michaelis says on the subject, Mos. Recht. Th. iv. § 185, is borrowed from him. See also Meiner’s Comm. Götting, vol. xiv.; Bähr on Herodotus, ii. 37 and 104; Clericus, ad h. l.

There are only two nations from whom circumcision could have come to the Jews—the Egyptians and the Ethiopians—or, more correctly, but one; for in a religious point of view these two are almost equivalent to one nation, and the Israelites were in communication only with the Egyptians. Let us first collect the passages which attribute a higher antiquity to circumcision among the Egyptians than among the Hebrews. The oldest statement to this effect is to be found in Herodotus. He says, i. ii. c. 104: “It is of still greater significance (viz. for the proof of the Egyptian origin of the Colchians), that only the Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians practised circumcision from the most remote times. For the Phoenicians and Syrians in Palestine (this was the name given by Herodotus and other Greeks to the Israelites, who were in reality Ibrim, Aramaeans who had wandered into Palestine) themselves confess that they learnt this custom from the Egyptians. But the Syrians dwelling on the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, and their neighbours the Macrones, say that they had only recently adopted the custom from the Colchians. These are the only nations who practise circumcision; and all appear to have done it in imitation of the Egyptians. Respecting the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, however, I cannot say which of the two nations learnt circumcision from the other; for the custom is very ancient. But I am strongly convinced that other nations learnt it from the Egyptians, from the circumstance that those Phoenicians who have intercourse with the Greeks no longer imitate the Egyptians in this matter, but have given up circumcision.”

Diodorus Siculus says, i. 1, c. 28: “Even the Colchians in Pontus, and the Jews between Arabia and Syria, regard some colonies as Egyptian, because their inhabitants circumcise their boys soon after birth,—an old custom which they seem to have brought with them from Egypt.” In chap. 55 he says of the Colchians: “As a proof of their Egyptian origin, it has been adduced that they have circumcision like the Egyptians,—a custom which has been retained in the colonies, and which also still exists among the Jews.” The third Greek author is Strabo, who says of the Egyptians, i. 17, p. 1140, that they practise circumcision like the Jews, who, however, are originally Egyptians.

These writers are therefore of the opinion that the Israelites got circumcision from the Egyptians. But it would betray an entire want of historical criticism to prefer the accounts of foreign writers, of whom the oldest is a thousand years younger than Moses, who did not even know the language of the people of whom they speak, to the account of Moses, who does not derive circumcision from the Egyptians, but represents it as a divine appointment. We see how little their accounts are to be relied on, from the mistakes they make elsewhere. Herodotus, who never visited Judea, but only heard of the Jews through the Phoenicians (comp. Bähr on Herod, ii. 104), is mistaken in maintaining that the Jews themselves acknowledged they had received circumcision from the Egyptians. His assumption that the Phoenicians got circumcision from the Egyptians is also false; for the Phoenicians or Canaanites were not circumcised at all, as Herodotus afterwards himself confesses. Diodorus and Strabo show their ignorance by asserting that the Jews are descended from the Egyptians. But the value or worthlessness of the whole theory is best ascertained by investigating its source. It undoubtedly owes its origin to Egyptian national vanity. This is shown by the great mass of analogous inventions which appear in those accounts of Greek authors which are taken from Egyptian tradition. To represent themselves as the original people, older than all others, from whom all other nations borrowed manners, inventions, and civilisation, was the most zealous endeavour of the Egyptians; more especially from the time when Egypt, subjugated by the Persians, had lost its whole political importance. Vanity now sought to find in the past that satisfaction which the present could no longer afford. It is almost incredible to what distortions of history it gave rise in the time that lay next to Greek history. Many examples of this have been given by Müller, Orchomenos, p. 1170; also in The Books of Moses and Egypt, f. 217 sqq., and by Creuzer in his treatise, Ægyptii in Israelit. malevoli ac maledici, in the Comm. Herod. § 21; by Welker in Jahn’s Year-Book, ix. 3, p. 276 sqq., who recognises nothing more in the Egyptian story of Helena in Herodotus, than a transformation of matter originally Greek in the interest of national vanity. Greek credulity, and the childish wonder of the Egyptians, were calculated to provoke the Egyptian spirit of lying to such fabrications. Moreover, the three accounts may probably be reduced to one. It appears that Herodotus alone draws independently from Egyptian accounts; and that Diodorus and Strabo only copied him, as they frequently did. It cannot therefore be maintained with any appearance of probability, as Bertheau and Lengerke have done, that the Israelites adopted circumcision from the Egyptians. This is the more evident, when we see how little reliance can be placed on the other proofs which have been cited in favour of the great antiquity of circumcision among the Egyptians. Special reference is made to Joshua 5:9, where, after the completion of the circumcision which had been neglected in the wilderness, it is said that God had freed the Israelites from the reproach of Egypt. The reproach of Egypt, it is maintained, was the neglect of circumcision, with which the Egyptians had reproached the Israelites. But according to the correct explanation, the reproach of Egypt is the scorn which the Israelites suffered from the Egyptians, as well as the heathen generally, because they had been rejected by their God. The real explanation of this rejection was the neglect of circumcision,—a thing which had been commanded by God. When Israel had again been circumcised by God’s command, the reproach of Egypt was taken away. For circumcision was a real assurance from God that Israel was again the covenant people. The following passages serve to illustrate this: Exodus 32:12, “Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth?” Numbers 14:13 sqq.; Deuteronomy 9:28. Jeremiah 9:25-26, has also been appealed to. But this passage rather furnishes a proof that, even in the comparatively late time of Jeremiah, circumcision was not universal among the Egyptians. It is there said, according to De Wette’s translation: “Behold, there come days, says Jehovah, when I shall punish all the circumcised with the uncircumcised, Egypt and Judah, and Edom and the sons of Ammon, etc. For all the heathen are uncircumcised; but the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” This passage is intended to deprive the godless covenant people of that false security which was based on outward circumcision. Therefore they are to be placed in the midst of the uncircumcised. The uncircumcised in heart are to be punished no less than the uncircumcised in flesh, the heathen. By way of example, the Egyptians are also mentioned among the latter; and it is added, that all the heathen are outwardly uncircumcised; only the Israelites are outwardly circumcised. Comp. especially Venema, and more recently Graf, on this passage. The Egyptians are also placed among the uncircumcised in several passages in Ezekiel; for example, Ezekiel 31:18, Ezekiel 32:19. To this is added that, according to other accounts, even to most recent times, circumcision among the Egyptians was peculiar to the priests. The whole nation was never circumcised. Compare the proofs in Jablonsky, Prol. p. 14; Wesseling on Herodotus, ii. 37. It is also stated that, in the appointment of circumcision, it is spoken of as a familiar thing. But we must not forget that Moses preserved only what was important for his time. The mode and way of circumcision were known at that time. Why then should he detail all the commands given respecting it on its first appointment? But we have an important proof of the great antiquity of circumcision among the Israelites, in the circumstance that, according to Joshua 5:2, it was done with stone knives. At the time of the first introduction of circumcision, knives of a kind which had long gone out of use in Joshua’s time must still have been employed. That which was sacred from its antiquity was retained only for a religious purpose; just as at a later period stone knives were used among the Egyptians for embalming. Yet in maintaining that circumcision originated among the race of Abraham, we do not necessarily imply that, wherever else it is found, it must have been borrowed from them. This was certainly the case with reference to the present Ethiopians, among whom circumcision prevails. Comp. Ludolph, Hist. Æthiop. iii. 1. Among this people it was a consequence of the great influence which, according to reliable accounts, Judaism exercised on them in the centuries antecedent to the introduction of Christianity. Among them Judaism stands parallel to the rest of the Jewish Sabbath solemnities. It is equally certain that all Mohammedan nations derived circumcision from the Israelites. With respect to the Egyptians and the ancient Ethiopians the matter is more doubtful: borrowing is even improbable in this case. The same may be said of the non-Mohammedan nations in Western and Southern Africa, who despise all that are not circumcised; comp. Oldend. part i. p. 297 sqq. They may readily be regarded as having been subject to Mohammedan influence, which indeed seems probable.

Neither can we allow that which has been asserted by many, viz. that circumcision among the Israelites is quite distinct from that among other nations,—because among the former it had a religious significance, among the latter only a physical aim,—and that there is therefore as little connection between them as between the habit of washing oneself and baptism. It is very questionable whether circumcision on physical grounds existed among any nation. The contrary is unquestionable with respect to the Egyptians at least. Under certain circumstances they did indeed appeal to the medicinal uses of circumcision; on which comp. Niebuhr’s Description of Arabia, pp. 76-80. But this was only the ostensible reason, given to those who were incapable of understanding the higher. Philo even seeks to defend circumcision from physical arguments with regard to such persons. In the work de Circumcisione (t. ii. p. 211, ed. Mangey) he appeals to a double use of circumcision; that it prevents a most painful and troublesome disease which is very frequent, especially in hot countries, and also that it promotes greater cleanliness of the body. That circumcision among the Egyptians had a religious aim, that it had a symbolical meaning, appears from the simple fact that only the priests were obliged to be circumcised; among whom it was so sacred a duty, that without it nobody could be initiated into the mysteries: comp. Jablonsky, p. 14. A further argument is, that the whole Egyptian ceremonial has religious significance: all interpretations which represent it as having a physical and dietetic object are proved to have been introduced at a later time, the invention of an age in which the religious element had lost its importance, and men had become incapable of understanding the power it had exercised in antiquity. But it is quite unnecessary to invent distinctions; the one which really exists is great enough. Circumcision among the Israelites is related to circumcision among other nations, not as ordinary washing perhaps, but as the religious washings of the Indians and all other nations are related to baptism. Even if all the nations of antiquity had been circumcised, and if in the case of one of them the pre-Abrahamic introduction of circumcision could be proved, that would not affect the matter. “Verbum,” says Augustine, “cum accedit elementum, fit sacramentum.” The word is the great thing, the living spirit; the external is only an addition. It is matter of perfect indifference whether the dead material, the corpse of the sacrament, is to be found anywhere else. The animating thought in Israelitish circumcision is specifically Israelitish. This leads naturally to the inquiry respecting the aim and meaning of circumcision. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant. A covenant presupposes reciprocity. Hence the sign in which the covenant is embodied must contain a double element: it must be at once an embodied promise and an embodied engagement; the respective extent of each can only be ascertained by a discussion on the meaning of the symbolical rite.

Philo, de Circumcisione, calls circumcision σύμβολον ἡδονῶν ἐκγομῆς, αἳ καταγοητεύουσι διανονίαν. In another place he says, τὸ περιτέμνεσθαι ἡδονῶν καὶ παθῶν πάντων ἐκτομὴν καὶ δόξης ἀναίρεσιν ἀσέβους ἐμφαίνει. But we have other more important interpretations of the meaning of circumcision,—interpretations which are quite ignored by those who in recent times have set up a theory which at a glance is manifestly absurd, viz. that circumcision is a modification of that voluptuous service in which priests unmanned themselves (von Bohlen, Tuch, Baur, Lengerke). With equal right, it might be maintained that baptism is a modification of the Indian custom of drowning in the Nile. For there is nothing in favour of the view but a similarity altogether external. The difference in essence is utterly ignored. If this be considered, it will be found that there never was any transition from self-emasculation to circumcision. The circumcision of the heart is by the lawgiver himself said to be symbolized by outward circumstances, Leviticus 26:41, and especially Deuteronomy 10:16, Deuteronomy 30:6. To these are added the prophets; Jeremiah 4:4, and Jeremiah 9:25-26, where he says, “All the heathen are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” Ezekiel goes a step further. In Ezekiel 44:9-10, he characterizes the godless priests and Levites as uncircumcised, not merely in heart, but also in flesh; because, according to the expression of the apostle, their περιτομή is become ἀκροβυστία, the sign having reality only in the presence of the res dignata.

It is therefore placed beyond all doubt that outward circumcision symbolized purity of heart. But, at the same time, attention is drawn to the true nature of that which is opposed to purity of heart, which ought to be removed by spiritual circumcision, and to the main thing to be considered in the reaction against sin; the reaction which proceeds from God, and the reaction which proceeds from man. Human corruption has its seat, not so much in the abuse of free will by individuals, in the power of example, etc.; but it is propagated by generation, brought into the world by birth. Circumcision presupposes the doctrine of original sin. It is a virtual acknowledgment, “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” Psalms 51:5; and a confession to the truth expressed in Job 14:4, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.” To every man circumcision was a testimony to this effect: Ἐν ἁμαρτίαις σὺ ἐγεννήθης ὅλος, John 9:34. From this remark alone does it appear why this very sign should have been chosen for a designation of the thing. Circumcision generally points to sin universally; the manner of circumcision points to the nature of sin, and designates it as having taken possession of man. But it is evident from the passages already quoted, that original sin has its proper seat not in the body, but in the heart: it is clear that what happens to the body only prefigures what ought to happen to the heart; which cuts away the root from the physical theory of v. Hofmann (p. 100). The manner of circumcision points not to the seat but to the origin of sin.

It now becomes easy to define more exactly the twofold element embodied in circumcision, viz. that of the promise and that of the engagement. It is the more easy, because the lawgiver himself clearly gives prominence to both; the former in Deuteronomy 30:6, “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live;” the latter in the exhortation based on the promise, Deuteronomy 10:16.

1. So far as circumcision was an embodied promise, it formed the comforting assurance that God would freely bestow that which it symbolized on the whole nation, and on those individuals who had participated in the rite by His command. Whoever bore the mark of circumcision might have perfect confidence that God would not leave him without the help of His grace, but would give him power to circumcise his heart, and to eradicate the sin he had inherited. In so far as the means by which sin could be met in an internal effectual way did not exist in full power under the Old Testament, circumcision pointed beyond the old dispensation to the new, under which the most efficacious principle for the extermination of sin was to be given in the πνεῦμαΧριστοῦ. Circumcision was an indirect Messianic prophecy. In the main, therefore, it guaranteed the fundamental benefit of the kingdom of God—renovation of the heart, regeneration. But circumcision was at the same time a pledge of participation in all the outward blessings of God. Both are closely connected. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you,” is perfectly applicable here. In the kingdom of God there were no outward blessings. The blessing was in every case only the reflection of faithfulness towards God. But it was also its necessary attendant. Hence that which was a pledge of the help of divine grace in the alteration of the heart, must also necessarily be a pledge of the communication of external divine favours. Whoever therefore received circumcision, was adopted by this means into the sphere of divine privileges in every respect.

2. So far as circumcision was an embodied engagement, it contained the voluntary declaration that a man would circumcise his heart; that, rooting out all sinful desires, he would love God with his whole heart, and obey Him alone. From this second meaning of circumcision, it follows, as St. Paul says, that circumcision is of use if a man keep the law; if not, that circumcision becomes uncircumcision. And as those who do not fulfil the conditions of the covenant have no part in its verbal promises, so also are they excluded from participation in the embodied promise which, in another aspect, is an embodied engagement. The necessary consequence of this, St. Paul says, Galatians 5:3, is that every one who is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law. The circumcision given to Israel was a solemn declaration that a man would circumcise his heart, and that, denying his own inclinations, he would serve God alone. Whoever made this declaration in the form prescribed under the Old Testament dispensation, thus declared himself a member of that covenant, and ready to seek after righteousness in the Old Testament form: the transgression of the least of the Old Testament commandments then became a violation of his engagement. Circumcision is related to the mere promise of purity of heart, as the Mosaic law to the divine law generally. Both meanings of circumcision lieclose to one another, and are not unconnected; or rather, the second follows from the first. Just as every gift of God at the same time imposes an obligation, so the necessary sequence of “I will purify thee,” is, “I will purify myself.” Whoever has declared the contrary to “I will purify myself,” is either outwardly deprived of circumcision, as in the march through the wilderness, or at least it ceases to be circumcision for him.

All the foregoing representation explains the reason why, on the appointment of circumcision, the neglect of it was designated as so great a crime, that whoever was guilty of it was expelled eo ipso from the community of God, as one who had made His covenant of none effect. Circumcision was the embodied covenant. Whoever despised the former, made a virtual declaration that he would have no part in the promises of the latter; would not fulfil its conditions—viz. that he had no desire that God should purify his heart, and would not himself strive after purity.

We have still to speak of the relation of circumcision to the passover. But it will be better to do so after we have explained the nature of the passover. A second outward sign of the worship of God consisted in sacrifice. The presentation of sacrifices was not yet confined to any one place. According to the accounts of the ancients, Egypt was the land where temples were first erected to the gods (Herod, ii. 4; Lucian, de Dea Syra, ii. p. 657 opp.), and that very probably as early as the time of the patriarchs. For we find even in Joseph’s time a developed priestly condition in Egypt. The patriarchs built an altar to Jehovah in every place where they resided for any length of time, in groves or on mountains; of stones, or of green turf, under the open heavens. Under certain circumstances, they even split the wood themselves for the burning of the sacrifice, slaughtered it with a sacrificial knife, and then burnt it whole. In sacrifice they used the same animals which Moses afterwards commanded, viz. sheep, rams, and cows, but not goats, which in the Mosaic time were appointed as sin-offerings—a thing which does not yet appear in the patriarchal time. This similarity of sacrificial animals is due to the fact that the Mosaic commands in this respect rest not so much on caprice as upon a certain natural fitness, or a perception of their symbolical character, which must have been prevalent before the legal determination. The sacrifice of the pig or the dog is inconceivable, except among nations in whom the sense of natural symbolism is wholly corrupted. To offer up other than domestic animals did not belong to the idea of sacrifice. Sacrifice has throughout a vicarious signification. In sacrifice a man offers up himself; and therefore, according to the expression of De Maistre, the most human sacrifices must be chosen, viz. those animals which stand in the closest relation to man. Prayer was constantly combined with sacrifice, and is often mentioned by itself in the history of the patriarchs; for example, in Genesis 24:63, Genesis 20:7, Genesis 32:9. Wherever the erection of an altar is mentioned, reference is also made to invocation of God. Quite naturally, for sacrifice is only an embodied expression of prayer. Prayer is its embodiment. We learn the closeness of the connection between sacrifice and prayer from passages like Hosea 14:2 : “Receive us graciously; so will we render the calves of our lips.” Thanksgiving here appears as the soul of thank-offering. The embodiment of prayer in sacrifice was in harmony with the symbolic spirit of antiquity, with the necessity of beholding outwardly that which moves the heart inwardly,—a want which dwells so deeply in man in times of the predominance of sensuous views and imagination. But we must not dwell upon this. Along with the impulse towards outward representation, another tendency is operative in sacrifice, viz. to attest the truth and reality of internal feeling, and so to avoid the possibility of self-deception. It is essential to sacrifice, that man offer up a part of his possessions. In every great section of their lives, after every great divine preservation and blessing, the patriarchs instituted a peculiarly solemn public act of worship: for example, Abraham, after his arrival in Canaan, and the first manifestations of God given to him there, and again after his return from Egypt, etc. The קָרָאבְֹשֵׁםיְהוָֹח, which is generally used in Genesis in speaking of such a solemn act of worship—for example, in Genesis 12:8—means to call on the name of the Lord, not to preach of the name of the Lord, as Luther has translated it. The name of the Lord is mentioned, because all invocation of God has reference, not to the mere summum numen, but to the God who has revealed Himself in His works. The name of God is everywhere in Scripture the product and combination of His deeds. But Luther’s translation is not incorrect in essence. Abraham’s public solemn invocation of God, and his thanksgiving for those actions which had made him famous, were at the same time a preaching of the name of the Lord.

It is not purely accidental that in the patriarchal time there existed no special priestly condition—just as little accidental as the appointment of such a condition in the Mosaic time. It stands in the closest connection with the simplicity and formlessness of the patriarchal religion. In ancient times there “were warm disputes as to who possessed the right of offering sacrifices under the patriarchal constitution. Hebrew scholars unanimously conceded this right to the first-born, as Onkelos had previously done in Genesis 49:3; Luther founded a proof for the priesthood of the first-born on an incorrect translation of the same passage; and many theologians followed their footsteps. Spencer has combated this opinion with the greatest thoroughness: de legibus Hebr. ritualibus, i. c. 6, sec. 2, p. 208 sqq. Yet it may be maintained with a certain modification, namely, just as in every family the father exercised supreme authority, so he also possessed the right to sacrifice, as appears from the examples of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And if the father of the family died, the first-born became head, and received also the right to sacrifice. But just as the power of the first-born over the younger brethren, lasted only so long as they remained in the same family, so the right to sacrifice passed over to them as soon as they themselves founded a family. The first-born had therefore the right to sacrifice, not as such, but as the head of a family. It may therefore be said that the right to sacrifice was associated with the right to command. Whoever had a right to command those beneath him, had also the right and the obligation to supplicate the power which was superior to him. He was the natural representative before God of those over whom he had charge, and so far he was the priest appointed by God Himself. But this right, pertaining to the head of the house, to present sacrifices and prayers for his family and for himself, was distinct from the public priesthood which Melchizedek exercised, and concerning which we have said all that is necessary in the history of Melchizedek. The origin of sacrifice has been much disputed. One party maintained that it was originally a divine institution, while others advocated a natural origin. Of the former view there is not the least trace to be found in Genesis. It probably originated in incapacity to transport oneself to old times. Otherwise it must have been seen that sacrifice and prayer stood on the same level. Sacrifice, on the subjective side, which is the only aspect apparent in Genesis (the objection first appears in the Mosaic economy), is an embodiment of prayer; and in the tendency of the old world to symbolism, having its basis on the prevalence of intuition, this embodiment must necessarily take form of itself, as it did among different nations independently. Here the divine element is prayer. This is a living testimony of the union of God with the human race, perpetuated even after the fall. But we must not regard prayer as an outward demonstration. It is a natural and necessary efflux of religious consciousness. Religious consciousness, however, only exists where God reveals Himself to the heart. From this relation of sacrifice to religious consciousness, it appears that the offering of sacrifice is not in itself the sign of a lower religious standpoint. It only becomes such when religious consciousness and prayer, the soul of sacrifice, have become impure and degenerate. Here also the original seat of sin is not in the body. Sacrifices outwardly alike are separated as widely as possible by the different intention with which they are offered. Yet the danger of the opus operatum lies close at hand, as in all embodiments of religious feelings. Abraham is already directed to this by the command to offer up his son. By such means he is distinctly told that God does not desire cows and sheep, but in cows and sheep demands the heart. Every sacrifice of an animal must also be a human sacrifice. The patriarchs had a lesson concerning the nature of sacrifice in the history of Abel and Cain, which has passed on to us by their means. According to Genesis 4:2-3, notwithstanding the outward similarity of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, their acceptance with God is different; and this difference is traced back to the difference of personalities. Hence it becomes evident to all who have any desire to see the truth, that sacrifice has significance only as a reflection of inner states. Whoever therefore presents an offering as a mere opus operatum, takes the rejected Cain for his father; for Cain’s sacrifice typifies the sacrifices of the heathen generally; while the offering of Abel forms the type of the offering of the faithful of the Old Testament. Heathen sacrifices are a subterfuge, a substitute for the heart which the offerer has neither powder nor wish to bring. On the other hand, in the biblical sphere, the sacrifice of animals bears a patent character: in the form of an animal, man himself is offered up. Three kinds of sacrifice are prescribed by the law: sin-offering; burnt or whole offering, which expresses the consecration of the whole person to God in all the particulars of existence; and schelamim, atonement-offering, which in thanksgiving and prayer had salvation for their object. Of these three the patriarchal age knows only two, viz. burnt-offering and atonement-offering. We have already pointed out the reason of this. It lies in the childlike character of the patriarchal time. Consciousness of sin was not yet developed. Sin-offerings were still included in burnt-offerings. Even in the Mosaic time the latter retained a reference to the consciousness of guilt; for if, in presenting them, the whole man consecrated himself to God, sin could not be left quite out of consideration. In them a man besought forgiveness for his sins as the principal hindrance to consecration, and his request was granted; all burnt-offerings served at the same time as an atonement for souls. But the consciousness of sin had now become so powerful, that it required a peculiar representation besides.

3. The celebration of the Sabbath is generally reckoned as part of the outward worship of God. Michaelis, after the example of other theologians, has strenuously endeavoured to prove that it was observed in the patriarchal age: Mos. Recht. iv. § 195; also Liebetrut, The Day of the Lord; and Oschwald in his prize-essay on the celebration of the Sabbath. But there is not a single tenable argument to be adduced in favour of the pre-Mosaic existence of the Sabbath. That it was instituted immediately after the creation cannot be maintained, for nothing is then said of a command. It is true that God hallows the seventh day and blesses it; but the realization of this would presuppose circumstances which were present only in the Mosaic economy. The Sabbath could not have been destined to come into operation except in connection with a whole divine institution. It is false to assert that the division into weeks, which we find in the very earliest times, can be explained only by the existence of the Sabbath. The week is a subdivision of the month into quarters of the moon; comp. Ideler, Chronologie, Th. i. 60. It is equally vain to appeal to the hallowing of the seventh day among the most diverse peoples of the earth. On nearer examination of the proofs brought forward for the celebration of the Sabbath, it is evident that the seventh day was kept by no other nation besides the Israelites. The command, “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy,” would only prove that the Sabbath was at that time already known among Israel, if it were not followed by an accurate statement respecting what was to be understood by the Sabbath. On the other hand, we must remember that in the whole pre-Mosaic history no trace at all is to be found of the celebration of the Sabbath; that, according to Exodus 16:22-30, God hallows the Sabbath as a completely new institution, by the cessation of the manna on that day, before the command to keep it holy had been given to the Israelites; and that the Sabbath is everywhere represented as a special privilege bestowed by God upon Israel, as a sign of the covenant and a pledge of their election: comp. Exodus 31:13-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14.

4. The offering of tithes belonged to the external worship of God. That these, if not prevailing before the Mosaic time, did at least exist, is evident not merely from the circumstance that Jacob made a vow to give them to God, Genesis 28:22; but also because Moses, in his regulations respecting the second tithes, speaks of them as already customary before his time. No properly comprehensive law respecting these tithes is to be found in the Pentateuch. In Deuteronomy 12 they are mentioned only with reference to the place where they are to be consumed; and in Deuteronomy 14:22 only a secondary precept is given respecting them. Clearly, therefore, they were not established by Moses, but only recognised. A man did not give them to another, but consumed them himself at sacrificial meals, to which he invited widows, orphans, strangers, the poor, and his own servants, and thus gave them a joyous day. It was thought that God could be best honoured by bestowing benefits on His creatures; the sacrificial meals were at the same time love-feasts: comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. xv. § 192. What had originally been a voluntary act of love to individuals, had by degrees become an established custom. In this matter the example of the ancestor doubtless exercised great influence. We find a pre-indication of the later Levitical tithes in those given by Abraham to Melchizedek.

5. The anointing and consecration of stones are regarded by many as having been an outward religious custom. But the circumstance that Jacob consecrated a stone does not justify the assumption that this was a usual form of worship. Rather does the narrative itself show that it here treats of something exceptional. The stone is consecrated by Jacob not as such, but as representative of an altar to be erected there at a future time, so that the latter was consecrated in the former.

6. Purifications belong to the number of religious usages (purifications before the offering of sacrifice; connected with the putting on of clean garments, which in Genesis 35:2 is said to have been done by Jacob and his whole family before going to Bethel). At the basis of this rite of purification lies the feeling that he who wishes to approach God must do so with the deepest reverence. “Be ye holy, for I am holy,” enters most powerfully into the consciousness in approaching the Holy One; comp. Isaiah 6. If this reverence is exemplified even in outward things, how much more ought it to be evident in the direction of the heart! The delusion that it is enough to be externally reverent is far removed from the religious standpoint of the patriarchs; but this standpoint necessarily demands that the internal be expressed through the medium of the external.

7. Imposition of hands, first mentioned in Genesis 48:13-14, was another external religious custom, symbolizing the granting of divine grace. The hand serves as it were for a ladder. The practice presupposes that the laying on of hands stands in close relation to God, and may therefore be the medium of His grace. Traces of such a mediation also occur apart from its embodiment in this custom. Abimelech is told in a dream: “Abraham is a prophet; let him pray for thee, and thou shalt live,” Genesis 20. Again, in Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and Gomorrha, and the sparing of Lot for his sake; and in the blessing which Melchizedek pronounces on Abraham, by virtue of his office as priest of the most high God. This custom was afterwards very general among the Israelites. The laying on of hands was practised not only in investing with an office (comp. Numbers 27:18, Deuteronomy 34:9, and other passages), but children were also brought to those who had the character of peculiar holiness and sanctity before God, that they might be blessed by the laying on of hands; comp. Matthew 19:13. The hand was laid on also in imparting the Holy Ghost, and in healing. “The meaning of the rite,” Kurtz strikingly remarks, “is quite obvious in all these cases. Its object is, the communication of something which the one has, and the other lacks or is to receive. The object of the communication is determined by the individual case, blessing, health, the Holy Spirit. The hand of the one is really or symbolically the medium of the communication, the head of the other is the receptive part.”

We find burial ceremonies observed in the history of the patriarchs only in the case of Jacob and Joseph, and that after the Egyptian fashion. Their corpses were embalmed by Egyptians; an Egyptian custom which is copiously described by Herodotus, l. ii. c. 85 sqq., and by Diodorus Siculus, i. 1, p. 81 sqq. On Jacob’s death a public mourning was held in Egypt, and the most distinguished Egyptians accompanied his body in solemn procession to Canaan.