The peace-offering may be divided, according to Lev. r, etc., into three species—(L) 171f11 rizt, i.e., praise-offering ; (2.) n-2 rat, votive-offering ; and (3.) 11":1? 1111, free-will offering (Kurtz, sec.
126). 'A state of peace and friendship with God was the basis and sine qua non to the presentation of a Shelem ; and the design of the presentation, from which its name was derived, was the realization and establishment, verification and enjoyment of the exist ing relation of peace, friendship, fellowship, and blessedness' (Kurtz, sec. 125). The name, there fore, indicates the distinctive quality of the sacri fice, and the meal was its distinctive feature, which, together with the name, clearly expressed the state of peace which existed, and the fellowship which was enjoyed. The peace-offering, therefore, stood in most significant relationship to the preceding offerings. The sin-offering, with the trespass offering, which were closely related, came first, making expiation for sin ; the burnt-offering fol lowed; for when sin is atoned, the way is opened for self-consecration to God ; and that is rightly and beautifully followed by sacrifices of peace and joy, giving expression at once to the feelings experi enced and the peace with God which exists. The order of these sacrifices here indicated was followed in the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev. viii.) ; and on the eighth day after, the same kind of offering, in the same order, was offered for the people and visibly accepted by God,—fire coming out from before the Lord, and consuming upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat (Lev. ix.) A peculiar custom connected with the peace offering was the heaving and waving of the portions set apart for the priests (Lev. vii. 30, 32, 34 ; viii. 25). They were both forms of consecration ; the former pointing to God in the heavens, the latter to God as ruling upon the earth and filling it with his presence. (But see Kurtz, sec. 133-138.) Were peace-offerings ever supplicatory? It seems they were, as they were sometimes offered in seasons of sorrow, ex. gr., 2 Sam. xxiv. 25 ; Judg. xx. 26 ; xxi. 14. The key to the understand ing of this is furnished by Hengstenberg : to give thanks for grace already received is a refined way of begging for more.' As prayer is founded on the divine promise, it may be expressed in the way of anticipated thanks.' The sacrifice of the red heifer (Num. xix. 1-1o) is altogether unique, and requires distinct notice. A heifer, or young cow, perfectly red, and free from every blemish, and which had never borne the yoke—i.e., in the full vigour of life—of which the red colour was the symbol—life unimpaired by labour—was to be selected by the children of Israel, and brought to Eleazar the priest. She
was then to be conducted without the camp and slaughtered there, as a thing peculiarly unclean. The blood was then to be sprinkled by the priest seven times towards the tabernacle of the congrega tion, to make expiation for the whole people whose sacrifice the heifer was. The entire body was then burned with cedar wood,' the symbol of the im perishable, and hyssop,' the symbol of purifica tion, and scarlet'—' wool dyed with coccus,' a brilliant scarlet dye—the symbol of the fulness of life ; and the ashes carefully collected and pre served, to be mingled with running water—another symbol of life—as occasion might demand, for sprinkling and purifying the unclean through con tact with a dead body. The water so prepared was called rn) ,* =aqua impuritatis, not as mean ,– • ing impure water, but for the removal of impurity; as the sin-offering does not mean an offering loaded with sin, but intended to expiate sin. The red heifer was, in fact, a sin-offering of a peculiar kind. The proofs are : it is called a ntipri, chatath (v. 9, 17), and its blood was sprinkled before the taber nacle. The whole transaction was a type of Christ cast forth without the gates, as a thing utterly un clean, nevertheless from whom proceeds a living, powerful influence, to purify the conscience from dead works to serve the living God.' (See Kurtz, sec. 217, etc.) The door of the tabernacle was the place ap pointed by God for the killing of the animals offered in sacrifice (Lev. i. 3 ; ii. 2 ; iv. 4). Such was the law, a law stringently enforced even in rela tion to animals slaughtered for ordinary consump tion, while the Israelites wandered in the desert (Lev. xvii.) This law held good of the Temple when it succeeded the tabernacle, where God recorded his name* (Deut. xii. II-15). Yet this rule was often transgressed, not only with impunity, but with divine sanctions—ex.gr., at Bochim (Judg. ii. 5) ; in Ophra, by Gideon ( Judg. vi. 26) ; at Zorah, by Manoah (Judg. xiii. 19) ; at Gilgal, when Saul was made king (I Sam. xi. 15) ; by David, at Gibeah, when bringing the ark from the house of Obed-edom (2 Sam. vi. 13) ;—but here the presence of the ark obviated the irregularity ;—by Elijah, on Mount Carmel (i Kings xviii. 30-39). Before the erection of the temple high places' were much resorted to by the people for sacrifice (2 Sam. vi. 13) ; nor was the practice afterwards wholly dis continued. The people ever showed a strong pro pensity to sacrifice on them (1 Kings iii. 2 ; 2 Kings xvii. 22 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 17).