Sacrifícios, Dízimos e primícias

DBA2: PRIMÍCIAS
PRIMÍCIAS
Os primeiros resultados da colheita (Êx 23:19). Figuradamente: o primeiro presente que
Deus dá aos fiéis (Rm 8:23); o primeiro a crer (Rm 16:5); o primeiro na ressurreição da
vida (1 Co 15:23); o primeiro lugar entre as criaturas (Tg 1:18); os primeiros a serem
apresentados a Deus (Ap 14:4).

KASCHEL, W. – ZIMMER, R., Dicionário da Bíblia de Almeida 2a ed.,.

Recortado: 9 de dezembro de 2015

DBA2: SACRIFICIAL
SACRIFICIAL
Relativo a SACRIFÍCIO (Ez 20:26, RA).

SACRIFÍCIOS E OFERTAS
Animais, cereais ou bebidas entregues a Deus como parte do culto de adoração. Em
Levítico 1:1–7:21 são descritos estes cinco tipos principais de sacrifícios e ofertas:

1) Holocausto, em que o animal era completamente queimado no altar (1:1–17; 6:8–13).

2) Oferta de manjares, isto é, de cereais (2:1–16; 6:14–23).

3) Sacrifício pacífico ou de paz (3:1–17; 7:11–21).

4) Oferta pelo pecado, isto é, para tirar pecados (4:1–5:13; 6:24–30).

5) Oferta pela culpa, isto é, para tirar a culpa (5:14–6:7; 7:1–7). Das ofertas de paz havia
três tipos: por gratidão a Deus (7:12), para pagar voto ou promessa (7:16) e a
voluntária, que era trazida de livre e espontânea vontade (7:16). Além dessas havia
também a libação, tipo de oferta em que se derramava vinho (Lv 23:13). Os passos
para a apresentação de um sacrifício de animal eram, com variações, os seguintes: a)
O ofertante se purificava (V. PURIFICAÇÃO), e o animal era examinado por
funcionários do Templo. b) O ofertante levava o animal ao altar, que ficava do lado de
fora do Templo, e o apresentava ao sacerdote. c) O ofertante punha as mãos na
cabeça do animal como sinal de que o estava dedicando a Deus. d) O ofertante ou o
sacerdote matava o animal, cortando as artérias do pescoço. e) O sacerdote borrifava
um pouco do sangue nos lados do altar. f) O sacerdote tirava o couro, que ficava para
ele. g) Aí cortava o animal em pedaços e os colocava sobre a lenha do altar. h) A carne
era toda queimada ou só uma parte dela, conforme o tipo do sacrifício. Depois do
sacrifício pacífico havia uma refeição comum, em que o sacerdote e o ofertante
comiam parte da carne do animal. Os sacrifícios do AT eram provisórios (Hb 10:4) e

Página 1. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 apontavam para o Cordeiro de Deus (Jo 1:29; Hb 9:9–15), cujo sangue (sua morte na
cruz) nos limpa de todo pecado (1 Jo 1:7).

KASCHEL, W. – ZIMMER, R., Dicionário da Bíblia de Almeida 2a ed.,.

Recortado: 9 de dezembro de 2015

DBA2: DÍZIMO
DÍZIMO
A décima parte, tanto das colheitas como dos animais, que os israelitas ofereciam a Deus
(Lv 27:30–32; Hb 7:1–10). O dízimo era usado para o sustento dos LEVITAS (Nm
18:21–24), dos estrangeiros, dos órfãos e das viúvas (Dt 14:28–29).

KASCHEL, W. – ZIMMER, R., Dicionário da Bíblia de Almeida 2a ed.,.

Recortado: 9 de dezembro de 2015

DBA2: OBLAÇÃO
OBLAÇÃO
Oferta feita a Deus (Is 66:3).

KASCHEL, W. – ZIMMER, R., Dicionário da Bíblia de Almeida 2a ed.,.

Recortado: 9 de dezembro de 2015

HIBD: Sacrifice and Offering

SACRIFICE AND OFFERING Physical elements the worshiper brings to the Deity to
express devotion, thanksgiving, or the need for forgiveness.

Ancient Near East Israel was not unique among the nations of the ancient Near East
in their use of sacrifices and offerings as a means of religious expression. Some type
of sacrificial system characterized the many religious methodologies that the nations
employed in their attempts to honor their gods. The presence of sacrifices and
offerings in Israel, therefore, was not unique to Israel.

Many references to the offering of sacrifices exist in extrabiblical literature. The

primary approach to the gods was through the sacrificial system. In Babylon part of
the ritual of purifying the temple of Bel for the New Year festival involved the
slaughter of a ram. The animal was decapitated and the priest, in turn, used the body
in the purification ceremony. The ram’s body then was thrown into the river. The
ritual accompanying the replacing of the head of the kettledrum that was used in the
temple required that a black bull be selected for sacrifice. After an elaborate

Página 2. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 ceremony that culminated in the sacrifice of the bull, its hide was dipped in and
rubbed with two separate mixtures and then used to cover the kettledrum.

While the above sacrifices were performed on special occasions, a variety of

rams, bulls, and birds were offered as meals to the idols on a daily basis. Barley beer,
mixed beer, milk, and wine also were placed before the deities, as well as loaves of
bread.

The sacrifices and offerings were designed to serve the gods by meeting any
physical need that they might have had. The sacrifices were the food and drink of the
gods. Faithfulness to the preparation and presentation of them was an act of
devotion.

Old Testament From the earliest times of the OT, sacrifice was practiced. Cain and
Abel brought offerings to the Lord from the produce of the land and from the first
born of the flock (Gen. 4). Upon disembarking from the ark after the great flood,
Noah immediately built an altar and offered burnt sacrifices. These were a soothing
aroma to the Lord (Gen. 8). Other ancient Near Eastern flood stories have parallels to
this act by Noah. The patriarchal stories in Gen. 12–50 are filled with instances of
sacrifice to God. The most famous is that of Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 22).

An organized system of sacrifice does not appear in the OT until after the exodus
of Israel from Egypt. In the instructions given for the building of the tabernacle and
the establishment of a priestly organization, sacrifices were to be used in the
consecration or ordination of the priests (Exod. 29). A bull was slaughtered as a sin
offering. Other sacrifices provided Aaron and his sons a holy meal. These sacrifices
were repeated each day for a week as a part of the “ordination” of the priests. The
altar itself was consecrated through the offering of two lambs and a grain offering
and a libation or “drink offering” (a misnomer, since it was never drunk but poured)
of wine. This sacrifice also was carried out each day for a week.

Iron Age sacrificial altar located at the site of ancient Arad.

The sacrifices that constituted much of the worship of Israel at this time were
burned on an altar that was made from acacia wood and overlaid with copper (Exod.
27). In addition to the sacrifices offered on this altar, incense was burned on a smaller
altar (Exod. 30). While the sacrificial altar was placed in the courtyard, just before the
door of the tabernacle, the incense altar was positioned inside the tabernacle, just
before the ark of the covenant. See Altar.

Leviticus 1–7 gives the most detailed description of Israel’s sacrificial system,
including five types of sacrifices. The sacrifices and offerings that were brought by the
people were to be the physical expression of their inward devotion.

1. Burnt offering (olah) Offered in the morning and in the evening, as well as on
special days such as the Sabbath, the new moon, and the yearly feasts (Num. 28–29; 2
Kings 16:15; 2 Chron. 2:4; 31:3; Ezra 3:3–6). Rituals performed after childbirth (Lev.
12:6–8), for an unclean discharge (Lev. 15:14–15) or hemorrhage (Lev. 15:29–30), or
after a person who was keeping a Nazirite vow was defiled (Num. 6:10–11) required a
burnt offering, as well as a sin offering.

Página 3. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 The animal for this sacrifice could be a young bull, lamb, goat, turtledove, or
young pigeon, but it had to be a perfect and complete specimen. The type of animal
chosen for this sacrifice seems to be dependent on the financial ability of the one who
brings the offering. The one bringing the offering was to lay a hand on the animal,
indicating that the animal was taking the person’s place, and then he was to kill it. The
priest then collected the blood and sprinkled it around the altar and the sanctuary,
and the worshiper cut up and skinned the animal. If a bird was brought, the priest
killed it. After the priest arranged the various parts on the altar, the entire animal was
burned as a sacrifice. The only portion that remained was the hide, and the priest
received it (Lev. 7:8). The one who made this sacrifice did so to restore the
relationship with God and to atone for some sin. When Araunah offered to David his
threshing floor, oxen, and wood without cost so that David could sacrifice, David
refused. His explanation was that he could not offer burnt offerings that cost him
nothing (2 Sam. 24:18–25).

2. Grain offering (minchah; “meat offering,” KJV) Offering from the harvest of the
land; the only type that required no bloodshed. It was composed of fine flour mixed
with oil and frankincense. Sometimes this offering was cooked into cakes prior to
taking it to the priest. These cakes, however, had to be made without leaven. Every
grain offering had to have salt in it (Lev. 2:13), perhaps as a symbol of the covenant
(Num. 18:19; 2 Chron. 13:5). Only a portion of this offering was burned on the altar,
with the remainder going to the priests. While no reason is given for the grain
offering, it may have symbolized the recognition of God’s blessing in the harvest by a
society based to a large degree on agriculture. The bringing of a representative
portion of the grain harvest was another outward expression of devotion. Grain
offerings as well as “drink offerings” or libations of wine accompanied all burnt
offerings and peace offerings (Num. 15:3–4).

3. Peace offering (zebach shelamim; “well-being,” NRSV; “shared,” REB;

“fellowship,” NIV) Consisting of the sacrifice of a bull, cow, lamb, or goat that had no
defect. As with the burnt offering, the individual laid a hand on the animal and killed
it. The priests, in turn, sprinkled the blood around the altar. Only certain parts of the
internal organs were burned. The priest received the breast and the right thigh (Lev.
7:28–36), but the one who offered the sacrifice was given much of the meat to have a
meal of celebration (Lev. 7:11–21). As part of the meal, various kinds of bread were
offered (and ultimately kept by the priest). A “peace offering” was to be brought in
response to an unexpected blessing (a “thank offering”) or an answer to prayer (a
“vow offering”), or for general thankfulness (a “freewill offering”). The idea of
thanksgiving was associated with the peace offering. It often accompanied other
sacrifices in celebration of events such as the dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8:63)
or spiritual renewal (2 Chron. 29:31–36). The “wave offerings” (tenuphah,
“consecrated gift”) and the “heave offerings” (terumah, “contribution”) were
associated with the peace offerings. They were portions presented or lifted up before
the Lord, mentioned first as part of the priestly ordination ceremony (Exod. 29:24–
27). Whereas the wave offering was always offered in the sanctuary, the heave
offering could be presented anywhere.

4. Sin offering (chattaʾt; “purification,” REB) This was designed to purify the
sanctuary from sin that was committed unintentionally, and thereby allow God to

Página 4. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 continue dwelling with His people. Its nature varied according to who committed the
sin. If the priest or the congregation of Israel sinned, then a bull was required. A
leader of the people had to bring a male goat, while anyone else sacrificed a female
goat or a lamb. The poor were allowed to bring two turtledoves or two young
pigeons. The one bringing the offering placed a hand on the animal and then
slaughtered it. When the priest or the congregation sinned, the blood was sprinkled
seven times before the veil in the sanctuary, and some of it was placed on the horns
of the incense altar. The rest of the blood was poured out at the base of the sacrificial
altar. For others who sinned, the sprinkling of the blood before the veil was omitted.
The same internal organs that were designated for burning in the peace offering were
likewise designated in this sacrifice. The rest of the animal was taken outside of the
camp to the place where the ashes of the sacrifices were disposed, and there it was
burned. These disposal procedures were not followed when the sin offering was
made on behalf of a non-priestly person (Lev. 6:24–30). In this case, the priest was
allowed to eat some of the meat.

5. Guilt offering (asham, “trespass,” KJV; “reparation,” REB) This offering seems
to overlap somewhat with the sin offering (Lev. 4–5). In Lev. 5:6–7 the guilt offering is
called a sin offering. The guilt offering was concerned supremely with restitution.
Someone who took something illegally was expected to repay it in full plus 20 percent
of the value and then bring a ram for the guilt offering. Other instances in which the
guilt offering was prescribed included the cleansing of a leper (Lev. 14), having sexual
relations with the female slave of another person (Lev. 19:20–22), and for the
renewing of a Nazirite vow that had been broken (Num. 6:11–12).

The burnt, grain, peace, sin, and guilt offerings composed the basic sacrificial
system of Israel. These sacrifices were commonly used in conjunction with each other
and were carried out on both an individual and a corporate basis. The sacrificial
system taught the necessity of dealing with sin and, at the same time, demonstrated
that God had provided a way for dealing with sin.

Prophets’ Attitude toward the Sacrificial System The prophets spoke harshly about
the people’s concept of sacrifice. They tended to ignore faith, confession, and
devotion, thinking the mere act of sacrifice ensured forgiveness. Isaiah contended
that the sacrifices were worthless when they were not accompanied by repentance
and an obedient life (Isa. 1:10–17). Micah reflected the same sentiments when he
proclaimed that God was not interested in the physical act of sacrifice by itself but in
the life and heart of the one making the sacrifice (Mic. 6:4–6). Jeremiah condemned
the belief that as long as the temple was in Jerusalem and the people were faithful to
perform the sacrifices, then God would protect them. The symbol of the sacrifice
must be reflected in the individual’s life (Jer. 7:1–26). Malachi chastised the people
for offering the lame and sick animals to God instead of the best, as the Levitical law
required. In doing this, the people were defiling the altar and despising God (Mal.
1:7–14).

The prophets did not want to abolish the sacrificial system. They, instead,
denounced the people’s misuse of it. God wanted more than the physical
performance of meaningless sacrifices. He desired the offerings to exemplify the
heart of the worshiper.

Página 5. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 New Testament During the time of the NT the people sacrificed according to the
guidelines in the OT. In keeping with the Levitical law (Lev. 12), Mary brought the
baby Jesus to the temple and offered a sacrifice for her purification. She sacrificed
turtledoves or pigeons, indicating the family’s low financial status. When Jesus healed
the leper (Luke 5:12–14), He told him to go to the priest and make a sacrifice (cp. Lev.
14). The cleansing of the temple (John 2) came about because people were selling
animals and birds for the various sacrifices within the temple precincts. These people
had allowed the “business” of sacrifice to overwhelm the spiritual nature of the
offerings. Jesus chided the Pharisees for neglecting family responsibilities by claiming
that something was “corban,” or offered to God, and thus unavailable for the care of
their parents (Mark 7). Corban is the most common and general Hebrew word for
sacrificial offering (Lev. 1:2). See Corban.

The NT consistently describes Christ’s death in sacrificial terms. Hebrews portrays

Christ as the sinless high priest who offered Himself up as a sacrifice for sinners
(7:27). The superiority of Christ’s sacrifice over the Levitical sacrificial system is seen
in that His sacrifice had to be offered only once. The book ends with an
encouragement to offer sacrifices of praise to God through Christ. This thought is
reflected in 1 Pet. 2 where believers are called a holy and royal priesthood who offer
up spiritual sacrifices.

Paul used the terminology of the OT sacrifices in teaching about the death of
Jesus. His death was an offering and sacrifice to God and, as such, a fragrant aroma
(Eph. 5:2). He associated Jesus with the Passover sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7).

The first-century church lived in a culture that sacrificed to their gods. Paul and
Barnabas at Lystra were thought to be the gods Zeus and Hermes. The priest of Zeus
sought to offer sacrifices to them (Acts 14). The church at Corinth was embroiled in a
controversy over whether or not it was permissible for Christians to eat meat offered
to idols (1 Cor. 8–10). Paul’s preaching of the gospel at Ephesus disrupted the
business and worship of the goddess Artemis (Acts 19).

When the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, the Jews’ sacrificial
system ceased. By this time, however, the church had begun to distance itself from
Judaism. The biblical view of sacrifice changed as well. In the OT and in the beginning
years of the NT, sacrifice was the accepted mode of worship. With the death of Christ,
however, animal sacrifice became unnecessary. As the temple and priest of God, the
believer now has the responsibility for offering acceptable spiritual sacrifices (Rom.
12:1–2; 1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 13:15). Paul also spoke of himself as a libation poured out
(Phil. 2:17). He called the Philippians’ gift a fragrant aroma and an acceptable sacrifice
to God (Phil. 4:18; Rom. 15:16).

Scott Langston and E. Ray Clendenen

CLENDENEN, E. R. with LANGSTON SCOTT, “Sacrifice and Offering”, Holman Illustrated

Bible Dictionary, 1428-1432.

Marcadores: Sacrifice and Offering

Recortado: 9 de dezembro de 2015

Página 6. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

ABD: Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (New Testament)
NEW TESTAMENT

When the NT was in the process of formation, any religion without the practice of
sacrifice would have been almost inconceivable. As far as Judaism is concerned, the
sacrifices described by the law continued to be offered daily in Jerusalem right up to
the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Following that event the rabbis continued to
discuss the sacrificial system as prescribed by the Torah and in fact laid even greater
emphasis upon it (cf., e.g., Zebaḥ). In the gentile world the practice of sacrifice
continued into late antiquity (cf. Rudhardt and Reverdin 1981). On the other hand,
signs of a reaction against the practice began to appear. There was precedent for this
in the OT with the prophetic critique of the cultus (e.g., Amos 5:21–27) and in the
metaphorical use of sacrificial terms for interior religious dispositions (Ps 50:23;
51:19). There are further examples of this in postbiblical Judaism, e.g., Philo of
Alexandria and the Qumran sect. Philo was a Diaspora Jew with no direct contact with
the temple cult. He interpreted the OT references to sacrifice in allegorical terms and
took them to refer to inward processes of the soul (cf. Vita Mos 2.106–8). As a result
of its historical circumstances the Qumran sect found it impossible to take part in
temple worship even though in principle they would have liked to have done so. They
found a way out of their dilemma by interpreting their whole communal life, their very
existence, their organization, and their prayer life in cultic terms (cf. 1QS 8:5–10;
Klinzing 1971:50–166). In any case the centralizing of worship in Jerusalem made it
increasingly necessary, even before the debacle of A.D. 70, for those living outside the
holy city to worship in the synagogue. Here holiness in everyday life provided a
substitute for the sacrificial system. In Greek philosophy since pre-Socratic times there
had been a strong tradition advocating a more appropriate view of God and
humanity. This led to a polemic against blood sacrifice which reached its climax in the
hermetic literature, with its fundamental antagonism toward the cultus (cf. Ascl. 41).
We find the same thing in Porphyry (Ferguson 1980:1152–65).

Such was the world into which Christianity was born. In general it may be said
that Christianity succeeded in bringing the problem of sacrifice into association with
the Christ event and working it out from that perspective. To be specific, the following
questions arise in connection with the various levels of historical tradition and the
respective documents: What was the Christians’ attitude to the sacrificial practices of
Judaism and pagan religion? Are the death of Jesus on the cross and, in close
connection with it, the Lord’s Supper, interpreted in sacrificial terms? In what way
was sacrificial imagery employed as a metaphor for the Christian life?

A. Jesus and the Synoptic Tradition

1. Attitude to Sacrifice

2. Suffering and Death

3. The Last Supper

B. The Primitive Christian Community

C. Paul

Página 7. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

1. Attitude to Sacrifice

2. Christological Use

3. The Lord’s Supper

4. Metaphorical (Ethical) Use

D. The Johannine Writings

1. The Gospel of John

2. 1 John

3. Revelation

E. The Letter to the Hebrews

1. High Priest and Sacrifice

2. The Christian Life

3. The Binding of Isaac

F. Conclusion

A. Jesus and the Synoptic Tradition

1. Attitude to Sacrifice. There is surprisingly little about the actual performance

of sacrifices in the Jesus tradition. We are never told that Jesus took an active part in
them. In the infancy narratives (Luke 1:8–11; 2:22–24) temple sacrifice is mentioned
merely as part of the necessary background. There is one authentic Jesus saying
which is relevant, viz. Matt 5:23. Here the practice of sacrifice is taken for granted.
The same is true in Mark 1:44 and Luke 17:15; cf. 13:1. On textual grounds Mark 9:49
is to be regarded as secondary and so may be left out of the account. There is no
trace of any direct polemic against sacrifice. At the same time, however, Jesus does
expect the worshipper, if necessary, to stop what he is doing in the middle of a
sacrifice in order to seek reconciliation with a neighbor. Here we have a paradoxical
and provocative perspective. Jesus takes up the requirements of OT liturgy and Jewish
admonitions about approaching sacrifice in the proper frame of mind and enhances
them in a significant way (Kertelge 1983:349–51). The redactional insertion of the
prophet’s critique of the cultus (Hos 6:6) in Matt 9:13 and 12:7 is along the same
lines. Mark 12:33 (cf. 1 Sam 15:22) gives a similar precedence to the love
commandment over burnt offerings (holokautōmata) and other sacrifices (thysiai).
The same point is made indirectly in Luke 10:25–37 with the two figures of the priest
and Levite in vv 31 and 32 (cf. also Mark 7:9–13; 12:41–44). Jesus introduces an
unmistakably new emphasis in the cleansing of the temple (Mark 11:15–19), as he
does with the difficult saying about the temple’s destruction (Mark 14:58 par). In an
act of prophetic symbolism Jesus shows explicitly that the temple is first and foremost
a place not for the sacrificial cultus—which is so easily open to corruption—but for
prayer to God (cf. Isa 56:7). In line with the apocalyptic hope for a new temple in the
end time Jesus sets before his people the prospect of a complete renewal of worship
in the kingdom of God. Such things as the forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5) and festive
table fellowship (Mark 2:15), which in Judaism had sacrificial associations, Jesus

Página 8. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 transforms, with supreme messianic authority, into profane occasions of everyday
life.

2. Suffering and Death. It can hardly be denied that Jesus had a premonition of
his impending suffering and death. The question is, What categories did he use to
interpret these events? And which of them belong to the pre- or post-Easter strata of
the tradition? (Gubler 1977:206–334; Hengel 1981:65–75). Sacrificial images should
not be given too much prominence in a one-sided way. Nor should they be entirely
eliminated. After all, it was customary in Judaism to use such terms for the deaths of
human beings. The innocent death of the Servant of God on behalf of the many, i.e.,
the nations of the world (Isa 53:12), was regarded as a sin offering (Isa 53:10; cf.
53:6f.; T. Ben. 3:8 may have undergone Christian reworking). The martyrdom of the
Maccabees was believed to be a means of atonement for the sins of the people (4
Macc. 6:29; cf. 2 Macc 7:37). This means that the Jews considered the vicarious
surrender of life to have sacrificial significance. This was partly, though by no means
entirely, a result of Hellenistic influence. True, the personal dimension remains
primary; the ritual allusion is added more by way of illustration. In any case, this
opens up the way as far as it goes for the interpretation of Jesus’ death as a
fulfillment of the OT sacrifices and their atoning effect. Of course it is difficult to prove
how much of this goes back to the historical Jesus himself. We cannot be sure
whether he used Isaiah 53 as Mark 10:45 suggests. This logion probably has its Sitz im
Leben in the eucharistic tradition and must be judged accordingly.

3. The Last Supper. In the eucharistic tradition we find a great variety of motifs
concentrated in a remarkably small space. The following elements may be mentioned
as suggesting a sacrificial interpretation (cf. Cooke 1960:15–38; Aalen 1963:147–52).
(a) In our texts the Lord’s Supper is set in the framework of the Passover. Now, in
Judaism the Passover was interpreted as a sacrifice because of the killing of the lambs
in the temple and the shedding of blood which accompanied it. (b) The cup-word in
Mark 14:24 includes the phrase “the blood of the covenant which was shed …” This is
an allusion to the covenant sacrifice and to the sacrificial meal in which it culminated
(Exod 24:1–10). (c) In the same cup-word the phrase “for the many (hyper)” is a
reminiscence of Isa 53:12. Here we have a connecting link with the martyrological
interpretation of the Servant Song. Matt 26:28 makes the specific point that its
purpose was “the forgiveness of sins,” an idea associated in Judaism with the sin
offering. (d) Various attempts have been made to classify the Lord’s Supper as a tōdā
meal, another type of OT sacrifice. But this suggestion cannot be taken as proven (cf.
Klauck 1986:17f.). We must reject the thesis that “body” and “blood” in the words of
interpretation were technical terms associated with sacrifice, referring to the division
of the sacrificial animal into its component parts (Klauck 1986:305–61). Rather, the
word “body” stands for the entire person of the speaker, while “blood” points to his
violent end.

The expansion of the eucharistic words with sacrificial notions is the result of a
theological development which was as rapid as it was intensive. The source of it
seems to lie in the gestures and words which Jesus used at his farewell meal to
interpret his death as a voluntary act of self-giving. After Easter all this could be
brought out and made explicit with the help of sacrificial terms derived from Jewish
martyrology and covenant theology. It was an attempt to express the uniqueness of

Página 9. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 Jesus’ death and its universal validity, and to show how it was the ultimate fulfillment
of the ancient sacrificial cultus. The rending of the temple veil in Mark 15:38 points in
the same direction. The death of Jesus opens up access for all to the holy of holies
which only the high priest hitherto could enter once a year on the Day of Atonement.

B. The Primitive Christian Community

In Acts 2:46, 3:1, and 5:42 we see the early Jerusalem community regularly
attending the temple. But they only went there for the times of prayer, thus agreeing
with the cleansing of the temple in Mark 11:17 (“house of prayer”). Whether they
occasionally took part in the daily sacrifices is not entirely clear. From Acts 2:46 we
gather that the breaking of bread in private homes replaced the temple sacrifices.
This rite formed a nucleus from which distinctive Christian forms of worship were
developed (Hahn 1983:69–71). The canonical texts do not make it clear whether the
strict Jewish Christians associated with James took a more favorable view of sacrificial
practice or whether such an attitude developed over the course of time. The
apocryphal evidence is equally vague. It is typical that the Hellenists, Diaspora Jews
who had already drifted away from temple worship, were critical of the temple itself
and the sacrificial cult, as can be seen from Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:41–43, 48–49). It
is obvious that in circles such as these the view prevailed that Christ’s death had an
exclusive saving significance. This was realized through the resurrection and the
descent of the Holy Spirit. Hence the earlier cult became superfluous. The
development of the eucharistic tradition and the concomitant formation of creedal
statements belong to this phase. We can trace these developments in the older
formulae of the epistolary literature.

C. Paul

1. Attitude to Sacrifice. As a result of his origins and the sphere of his missionary
activity Paul was on the one hand familiar with the temple sacrifices of Judaism. On
the other hand he found himself face-to-face with the sacrificial cults of paganism (cf.
the telling description in Acts 14:11–15).

a. Jewish. In arguing for his right as an apostle to receive financial support Paul
refers in 1 Cor 9:13 to the privilege of the priests to have a share in the sacrifices (cf.
Lev 6:9 etc.). In 10:18 he speaks of the table fellowship in which “Israel according to
the flesh” became partners in the sacrifice. It is an open question whether Paul is
simply giving an objective description or whether he is continuing the polemical
invective of 10:7—the golden calf, Exod 32:6—as an instance of idolatry. In Acts 22:17
Paul visits the temple only for prayer, whereas in 21:26 he offers a sacrifice to
discharge the dues for four Nazarites (cf. Num 6:13–21). The reliability of this piece of
information has often been questioned. It becomes more plausible when we take
Paul’s missionary policy enunciated in 1 Cor 9:20 seriously.

b. Pagan. Paul discusses the sacrificial practices of paganism in a debate about

meat sacrificed to idols in Corinth (cf. Acts 15:29). For Christians, participating in a
sacrifice or worshipping in a pagan temple (1 Cor 8:10) is strictly prohibited. Paul
believes that pagan sacrifices are offered not to God but to demons (10:20) as was
already the case in the OT (cf. Deut 32:17). He is familiar with the technical details of
sacrifice as we can see when he refers in 10:21 to the cup of libation and to the table

Página 10. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 which was a special feature of the theoxenia (a banquet given to the gods) and of the
cult of the dead (Klauck 1986:264–71).

2. Christological Use. It would be wrong to suppose that everything Paul has to

say about atonement (e.g., Gal 2:20; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14–15; Rom 5:8–9; 8:3, 32)
has sacrificial implications. But the idea of atonement, with its related images (e.g.,
ransom and reconciliation), includes the metaphor of sacrifice (Hengel 1981:34–54).
When Paul says Christ was offered as our paschal lamb (1 Cor 5:7) he is borrowing
from early tradition. In this instance the death of Jesus has already affected Christian
perspective on Jewish ritual and has accentuated already latent ideas of sacrifice and
atonement. In Jewish thought the killing of the lamb, though a necessary preliminary
to the Passover meal, had no intrinsic significance of its own (Schmitz 1910:51, 161).
When Paul says in 2 Cor 5:21 that “he made him to be sin who knew no sin,” this is
best taken as an allusion to the OT sin offering (hamartia, e.g., LXX Lev 4:8, 20–21).
Such sacrifices are now overshadowed by the death of Christ (Lyonnet and Sabourin
1970:187–289). In Rom 3:25 Paul cites a fragment of tradition which probably comes
from the Hellenistic circle in Jerusalem. It shows their critical attitude to the temple
and was probably connected with the Lord’s Supper (Gubler 1977:224–30). The focal
points in it are “place of atonement” (hilastērion) and “in his blood.” The LXX uses
hilastērion to translate kappōreth. This is the golden plate on the ark of the covenant
in the holy of holies, which the high priest sprinkles with the blood of the animal
sacrificed as a sin offering on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:14–16; cf. 4 Macc. 17:22).
The final stage of the atonement ritual takes place concealed within the innermost
shrine of the temple, one of a series of sacrifices performed on that occasion. Now,
however, the atonement has taken place on Golgotha for all to see. The Deutero-
Pauline saying in Eph 5:2 makes the same point. Here we have a formula which
speaks of Christ’s self-surrender (“he gave himself for us”), expanded with sacrificial
language from the OT: “as a fragrant offering and a sacrifice to God” (cf. Ps 40:7; Num
15:24, etc.). The context here is parenetic. It is an appeal to Christians, bidding them
to show the same kind of love to one another (Hahn 1983:75–76).

3. The Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper appears to be connected with sacrifice in
1 Cor 10:14–22, where Paul places the two entities side by side and draws a
comparison between them (Fiebig 1911:272–73). But Paul is not thinking of thysia,
the actual performance of a sacrifice, but of koinonia, the fellowship which is formed
by participation in the common meal and which forms the climax of the sacrifice. The
Christ community created by the Lord’s Supper is exclusive in character and rules out
any further participation in pagan sacrifices (Klauck 1986:284–85). In 1 Cor 11:27
sacral terminology is used in connection with the eucharistic tradition (Aalen
1963:143–46). Again, in the explanation given at 11:30 Paul uses the idea of taboo,
which comes from the sacrificial cultus. Such ideas are certainly not dominant in the
text taken as a whole. It is arguable that, for Paul, Jesus’ self-offering on the cross
becomes a present reality in the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor 11:26), but in no way can it
be said that the Church itself offers any sacrifice in the supper except perhaps in a
metaphorical or ethical sense.

4. Metaphorical (Ethical) Use. There is ample evidence for a metaphorical or

ethical use of sacrificial language. Such terms describe concrete Christian behavior

Página 11. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 exhibited in everyday life in the world or in the missionary activity of the apostle
himself (Klauck 1989:349–56).

Temple imagery is used to describe the community in 1 Cor 3:16–17 and the
individual in 6:19 (cf. 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:19–22; 1 Pet 2:5–6; Klinzing 1971:167–96). In
Phil 4:18 Paul gives a symbolic meaning to the material gifts provided by the
Philippians: they are a “fragrant offering” (cf. Gen 8:21, etc.) and an “acceptable
sacrifice” (Rom 15:31). The cultic language in 12:1 is colored much more by the
Hellenistic milieu. The closest parallels to logikē latreia (“reasonable service”) are to
be found in Corp. Herm. 1.31; 13.18. Yet in one respect Paul does transcend the
Hellenistic critique of the cultus with its spiritualizing tendency (Seidensticker
1954:17–43, 256–63). He can charge the Romans to offer their own bodies (sōmata)
as a living sacrifice. Here Paul rises to new heights of existential relevance and ethical
responsibility. In this connection we may also add 1 Pet 2:5. Here the community is
pictured as a priestly body which offers spiritual sacrifices (pneumatikas thysias) in a
life consistent with its faith (cf. 1:15).

In 2 Cor 2:14–16 Paul borrows two sacrificial terms, “savior” and “aroma,” and
applies them to the preaching of the gospel. The content of the gospel is Christ, with
the apostle as his personal representative. In Rom 15:16 Paul calls himself a “liturgist”
or “priest” of Christ Jesus. He is performing a “priestly sacrifice” (hierogounta) and
making the gentiles into an “acceptable sacrifice” by converting them. In Phil 2:17 the
two trains of thought converge. Alongside “sacrifice” (thysia) and cultic service
(liturgia), Paul introduces the image of “drink offering” (spendomai; cf. 2 Tim 4:6). He
pictures his own life, which he is likely to lose (cf. Rom 8:36), as a libation
accompanying the main sacrifice, which is the Philippians’ faith. See APOSTLE.

In conclusion let us mention the term aparchē, which is derived from the offering
of the firstfruits and is applied by Paul in several different ways. He uses it for Christ
(1 Cor 15:20, 23), for the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:23), for Israel (Rom 11:16), and for the
first converts to be baptized in a particular city (1 Cor 16:15; Rom 16:5).

D. The Johannine Writings

1. The Gospel of John. According to the gospel of John Jesus travels several times
to Jerusalem in order to celebrate the principal Jewish feasts (2:13; 5:1; 7:14; 10:22–
23; cf. 12:1, 12, 20). He suffers death on the cross on the day before the Passover
(18:28; 19:14, 31) at the same hour the lambs were being slaughtered for the
Passover meal in the forecourt of the temple. How far this rests on historical
reminiscence we need not now inquire. The gospel’s intention is to say that Jesus
invests the Jewish lamb cult with entirely new content. He gives himself (3:16; cf.
Horvarth 1979:74–77) as the Passover lamb of the new covenant (cf. 19:36) for
(hyper) his own (10:15; cf. 13:1) and for the life of the world (6:51; cf. 11:50, 52;
18:14). John 6:51 serves as a bridge to the tradition of the Lord’s Supper. The
Johannine redaction carries this further in the eucharistic discourse of 6:52–58, which
is remarkable for its brutal language about “flesh” and “blood” and “chewing”
(trōgein) the flesh. Whether this language is sacrificial in origin (Betz 1964:180–81) is
open to question. According to 1:29 (cf. 1:36) the Baptist calls Jesus the “Lamb who
takes away the sin of the world” (cf. also 1 Pet 1:19). But the matrix of this concept
was more likely the Servant of Yahweh of Isa 53:7, even though further connotations

Página 12. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 (paschal lamb; the lamb of the daily Tamid-sacrifices) cannot be excluded. The saying
about Jesus consecrating himself in 17:19 should most likely be connected with the
activity of the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Schmitz 1910:256–57). The
theological basis for the new evaluation of the Jewish sacrificial cult is laid down by
the Evangelist in 4:20–24. Earthly places of cultic worship lose their significance when
the eschatological hour dawns. The need is for a new form of worship “in spirit and in
truth.” The Pneuma i.e., the reality of God, makes the renewal of worship possible.
Jesus Christ is an essential factor in such worship for he is the One in whom God’s
truth is personally revealed. Such worship of God in the spirit is not therefore to be
construed as a purely spiritual affair which only takes place in the human psyche.
Rather, it is located in the worship of the Johannine community.

2. 1 John. In 1 John 1:7 we read that the “blood of Jesus” cleanses us from all sin.
This assumes that blood has an atoning effect (Lev 17:11) brought about by the
sprinkling of the blood of the sacrificial animal on the horns of the altar or suchlike
manipulations. Later on in 2:2 (cf. 4:10) we read that Jesus, our advocate in heaven
(2:1) is in person the atonement (hilasmos) for our sins. Atonement according to the
OT is accomplished through bloody sacrifice. In Lev 25:9 the great day of
reconciliation is called the “Day of Atonement” (LXX: hilasmou). 1 John applies the
terms of sacrifice strictly to Jesus. They serve to explain 3:16: He gave his “life for us
(hyper).” The conclusion drawn from this is that we must therefore do the same for
our brothers and sisters. The Christians’ existence is incorporated into the self-giving
of the Lord. The concept of sacrifice can also be applied to the Christian life, although
1 John does not make this point directly.

3. Revelation. The heavenly sanctuary the seer speaks of is modeled after the
temple at Jerusalem. The heavenly ritual is patterned on the liturgy of the temple.
This provides a starting point for the development of many points of contact with the
sacrificial cults. We will select only the most important ones.

The preeminent christological title is the “Lamb” (28 times). There are several
references to “the blood of the Lamb” and also to the fact that this lamb was
slaughtered (e.g., 5:6, 9, 12; 13:8). The lamb figures in early Judaism as a sacrificial
animal par excellence. It serves as a sacrificial element in the daily Tamid. Alongside
of this the Passover rites and Isa 53:7 may also be influential. In any case the author
uses the Lamb as a code word for the crucified and exalted Lord, who is now
enthroned in heaven but bears the signs of his sacrificial death upon his person
(Wenschkewitz 1932:149–52).

Revelation reflects the persecution which provides the immediate context of the
work. In 7:14 the author speaks of those who have washed their robes and made
them white in “the blood of the Lamb,” and in 12:11 of those who have conquered
“through the blood of the Lamb.” The reference here is to the Christian martyrs who
have given up their lives for the sake of their beliefs. In 6:9 their fate is interpreted
theologically in sacramental terms. The souls of those who were “slain” for the word
of God are under the altar in the heavenly sanctuary. They are the firstfruits (aparchē)
who were redeemed for God and for the Lamb (14:4).

In the OT the incense offering is by no means unimportant (e.g., Lev 16:13). In Rev
8:3–4 it is transferred from the temple cult on earth to the heavenly liturgy. In Rev 5:8

Página 13. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 the incense offering acquires a metaphorical meaning symbolizing the prayers of the
saints (Daly 1978:64–69, 301–3).

E. The Letter to the Hebrews

Of all the writings in the NT the Letter to the Hebrews provides the most
systematic treatment of the sacrificial cultus of the OT. But it does so not for its own
sake but because it wants to make a theological statement for mainly parenetic
purposes. Christians who are unsure of themselves and are unduly impressed by
certain Jewish rites (cf. 9:9–10; 12:16; 13:9) are told that they enjoy in full (4:14; 8:1;
13:10) what was only partially available in the worship of the old covenant. The
paradox of this work is that it uses a thoroughly cultic language to make a deeply
uncultic statement. In sacramental terms it announces the end of all sacrifice (10:18).
The author succeeds in using the thought forms of apocalyptic and Platonism (8:5;
9:23; 10:1) to describe the permanent effect of the Christ event—how it fulfills and
transcends all previous sacrifices.

1. High Priest and Sacrifice. Christ stands at the center of the argument as the
One who is both priest (2:17) and victim (9:14). The author is relatively free in his
handling of his OT sources. He uses as his archetype not the temple but the
tabernacle in the wilderness (9:1–5). The ritual he has in mind is the liturgy of the
great Day of Atonement (9:7). But the covenant sacrifice of Exod 24:3–8 also figures
in the discussion (9:18–20; cf. 12:18–21; 13:20), and elsewhere he even mentions the
daily sacrifice (7:27; 10:11). The main purpose of all sacrifice was to make atonement
for one’s own and other people’s sins (5:1–3), which is accomplished by the shedding
of blood (9:22). But the effects were only temporary (10:1–4, 11). Jesus, the sinless
One (7:26), however, offered himself as a victim on the cross and was raised to the
right hand of God (12:2). Thus he removed the burden of sin from humanity once and
for all (7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10) by a single sacrifice (10:12, 14) and opened up access
to God for them for all time (1:3; 4:16; 10:19). One aspect of this self-sacrifice is the
obedience to God which he showed during his earthly life and suffering (5:7–8; cf.
10:9–10). Now he is continuing his priestly work by making intercession in heaven
(7:25; 9:24). As we can see from 13:11–12, his death on the cross was basically a
noncultic affair despite all the cultic terms employed in 13:11–12. The unclean
cadavers of the animals sacrificed on the Day of Atonement were burnt outside the
city gates, their blood having already been used in the atonement rites of the temple
(Lev 16:27). In this noncultic place Jesus shed his redeeming and atoning blood for all
(2:9).

2. The Christian Life. In the parenetic part of the letter (from 10:19 onward) the
meaning of this theology of sacrifice for the Christian life of the recipients is set forth.
Now that the sacrifice of Christ has freed them from their sins (10:22) they are
henceforth enabled and obligated to hold fast to the confession (10:23), to show
brotherly love to one another, and to join in the assembly (10:24–25). They must
guard against lapsing into sin a second time—if they do so there can be no atoning
sacrifice (10:26)—and they must stand firm in suffering (10:32–39; cf. 12:1–11). As
the cultic community of the new covenant which takes part in the heavenly liturgy
(12:18–24), God finally honors them for their faith and for the gratitude they show in
their lives (12:28). The shameful death of Jesus in that unholy place (13:13) should
inspire them to face hostility outside of existing religious conventions. Their ongoing

Página 14. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 sacrifice according to 13:15 consists of prayer and the confession of faith, which the
author calls “the fruit of the lips” (cf. Ps 50:14, 23; 1QS 9:26; 10:6, 8, 14, 22). As stated
in 13:16, to do good and to maintain fellowship (koinōnia) is the only sacrifice
pleasing to God. It is a matter of scholarly discussion as to whether these injunctions
might be susceptible in part at least to a sacramental interpretation, in other words
whether they allude to the celebration of the eucharist (Betz 1964:144–66). But this is
highly questionable since there are no clear indications of that in the text. The
expression “blood of the covenant” in 9:20 (cf. 10:29; 13:20) could just as well come
directly from the OT, thus bypassing the eucharistic tradition entirely. The term
“altar” (thysiastērion) in 13:10 serves as a summary description of Christ’s saving work
as a whole and should not be interpreted in isolation as a reference to the Lord’s
Supper. It would seem that the primary focus of the community’s worship was the
Word. The expositor should not be led astray by the sacrificial language.

3. The Binding of Isaac. One of the heroes of the faith cited in Heb 11:17–19 was
Abraham, who was ready to sacrifice his only son at God’s behest (Gen 22:1–18; cf.
esp. v 9 quoted again at Jas 2:21, with a possible allusion in Rom 8:32). Isaac plays a
central role in the Jewish Haggadah. He willingly accepts a sacrificial death, and in fact
the sacrifice is regarded as actually accomplished. It has the effect of atonement for
Israel (Gubler 1977:336–75; Daly 1978:175–86). The main evidence for this belief is to
be found in the Palestinian Targums. But in view of the late date of their written form
we have here a major chronological problem. It may be that it was only after the
destruction of the temple that the sacrifice of Isaac came to be interpreted as an
archetype of the Tamid-offering and its atoning function (Davies and Chilton 1978).
We should therefore be cautious. Heb 11:17–19 shows no sign that this interpretation
of the sacrifice of Isaac had already been developed.

F. Conclusion

It is impossible to do justice to the NT evidence if it is judged in the light of a

general concept of sacrifice as a phenomenon in the history of religion. Otherwise the
novelty and originality of the Christian appropriation of the concept would be
decidedly shortchanged. Equally, the favorite notion that sacrifice was “spiritualized”
(Wenschkewitz 1932:6–10) does not really fit the bill. It would be better to speak of
its being “christologized” and “pneumatized.” Jesus’ saving death gives an entirely
new meaning to sacrifice as a consequence of his resurrection and the sending of the
Holy Spirit. He opened up a new dimension of reality. As a result sacrifice is reduced
to its personal core from which ethical consequences can be drawn for Christian faith
and life.

Here is the unbroken thread in the early Church’s understanding of sacrifice (Daly
1978:311–508). We can see this, for instance, in the use of sacrificial language in
connection with martyrdom (Ign. Rom. 2.2; 4.2; Young 1979:223–33). There is a
parallel development in the application of sacrificial language to the new worship of
the Christian community. The liturgy comes to be increasingly interpreted in the
categories of the OT cultus (1 Clem. 40–45). This has an important effect on the
understanding of the eucharist (cf. Did. 14.1–2), although to begin with it was only the
prayer of thanksgiving plus the material gifts of charity that were regarded as the
Church’s offering. This tendency is enhanced from another angle. The absence of real
sacrifices in the ancient sense led to accusations that the early Christians had no

Página 15. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

 cultus of their own and were therefore atheists. The apologists replied by seeing the
“pure offering” of Mal 1:11 as a reference to the eucharist. It was the sacrifice of the
new covenant (Just. Dial 41.1–3; 117.1–3; cf. also Iren. Haer. 4.17.5; 4.18.4–5). Much
of this development is perfectly understandable from a historical point of view (Young
1979:239–84), but it has only a limited justification in the NT.

Bibliography

Aalen, S. 1963. Das Abendmahl als Opfermahl im Neuen Testament. NovT 6:128–52.

Betz, J. 1964. Die Eucharistie in der Zeit der griechischen Väter. Vol. 2, pt.1, Die
Realpräsenz des Leibes und Blutes Jesu im Abendmahl nach dem NT. 2d ed. Freiburg.

Cooke, B. 1960. Synoptic Presentation of the Eucharist as Covenant Sacrifice. TS 21:1–44.

Daly, R. J. 1978. Christian Sacrifice. Studies in Christian Antiquity 18. Washington, D.C.

Davies, P. R., and Chilton, B. D. 1978. The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History. CBQ
40:514–46.

Ferguson, E. 1980. Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and Its Environment. ANRW
2/23/2:1151–89.

Fiebig, P. 1911. Das kultische Opfer im Neuen Testament. ZWT 53:253–75.

Gubler, M. L. 1977. Die frühesten Deutungen des Todes Jesu. OBO 15. Freiburg and
Göttingen.

Hahn, F. 1983. Das Verständnis des Opfers im Neuen Testament. Pp. 51–91 in Das Opfer
Jesu Christi und seine Gegenwart in der Kirche. Ed. K. Lehmann and E. Schlink. Dialog
der Kirchen 3. Freiburg and Göttingen.

Hengel, M. 1981. The Atonement. Trans. J. Bowden. Philadelphia.

Horvarth, T. 1979. The Sacrificial Interpretation of Jesus’ Achievement in the New

Testament. New York.

Kertelge, K. 1983. Die “reine Opfergabe”: Zum Verständnis des “Opfers” im Neuen
Testament. Pp. 347–60 in Freude am Gottesdienst, Aspekte ursprünglicher Theologie.
Ed. J. Schreiner. Stuttgart.

Klauck, H. J. 1986. Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult. 2d ed. NTAbh n.s. 15. Münster.

———. 1989. Kultische Symbolsprache bei Paulus. Pp. 348–58 in Gemeinde-Amt-

Sakrament, ed. H. J. Klauck. Würzburg.

Klinzing, G. 1971. Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen
Testament. SUNT 7. Göttingen.

Lyonnet, S., and Sabourin, L. 1970. Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice. AnBib 48. Rome.

Rudhardt, J., and Reverdin, O., eds. 1981. Le sacrifice dans l’Antiquité. Entretiens sur
l’Antiquité classique 27. Geneva.

Schmitz, O. 1910. Die Opferanschauung des späteren Judentums und die Opferaussagen
des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen.

Página 16. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.

Seidensticker, P. 1954. Lebendiges Opfer (Röm 12,1). NTAbh 20/1–3. Münster.

Wenschkewitz, H. 1932. Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel. Angelos Beihefte

4. Leipzig.

Young, F. M. 1979. The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New
Testament to John Chrysostom. Patristic Monograph Series 5. Cambridge, MA.

HANS-JOSEF KLAUCK

Trans. Reginald H. Fuller

KLAUCK, H.-J., “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings: New Testament”, The Anchor Yale
Bible Dictionary 5, 886-891.

Marcadores: Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings: New Testament

Recortado: 9 de dezembro de 2015

Página 17. Exportados do Software Bíblico Logos, 14:18 9 de dezembro de 2015.