Remember the Holocaust
Biblical scholars have debated the meaning and types of sacrifices given in Scripture. Calvin says there are two types, sin offerings and offerings of worship (Inst. 4. 18. 13). Aquinas maintains there are three: burnt offerings, sin offerings and peace offerings (ST IaIIae 102.3). Their division differs according to their emphasis. Calvin is more concerned with the purpose of the sacrifice and Aquinas more with how the victim’s carcass is disposed. Both have their merits (and demerits: neither seem to recognize the atoning element in all sacrifices), but for reasons that will become obvious, I shall follow Aquinas.
Moving in reverse order of Aquinas, the peace offering is found primarily in Leviticus 3:1-17. These are subdivided into thank, votive and freewill offerings. Each of these are offered in two ways, the wave and heave offerings. The victim of the thank and votive offerings is an unblemished male or female ox, sheep or goat. The victim of the freewill offering is the same except that that it may have minor imperfections. The portions of the peace offerings are divided in three ways. God’s portion is the fat, the fat on the inwards, the liver the kidneys (which is burned on the alter), the priest’s portion is either the breast or right foreleg (depending upon whether it is a wave or heave offering), and the offerer is given the remainder. As in all sacrifices the blood is not burned but poured on the alter or, in the case of the sin offering, sprinkled on the veil. The offerer must eat his portion on the same day of the sacrifice if it is a thank or votive offering, but he may consume it over two days if it is a freewill offering.
The sin offering is found in Leviticus 4:1-6:7. There are two types of sin offerings. The general sin offering where the sin is against the commandments are certain parts of the ceremonial law and the trespass offering where the sin is from ignorance against “the holy things of the Lord” or where restitution is possible. In the former the victim depends of the offender. If the sin is the priest’s or Israel’s in general it is a bullock, if a ruler’s sin, a male goat, and if a commoner’s sin, a female goat. In the trespass offering only a ram is acceptable and restitution must be made. The portions of the sin offerings are divided between God (his portion is the same as the peace offering) and the priests. The priests must eat the remainder in the court of the tabernacle. The two exceptions are if the sin offering is made for the priests or the congregation. In these cases, the carcass is to be taken outside the camp and burned. The priests get no portion of it.
The regulations for the burnt offering is in Leviticus 1:1-17. The victim of the burnt offering is an unblemished male ox, sheep, goat or dove according to one’s means. The entire animal is burnt for “a sweet savour unto Jehovah.” There is not portion given to either the offerer or the priest.
The purpose of this offering, the most frequent of the old covenant sacrifices, is debated by scholars. From verse 4, however, it is clear that this is, like all offerings, an atoning sacrifice. Specifically it was an offering to propitiate God’s wrath and the ensuing judgment. Noah turns away God’s judgment by a burnt offering. After David took the census, it was burnt offerings (along with peace offerings) that stopped the plagues. And judgment came upon Judah because, according to Ahaz, burnt offerings were not made. The burnt offering thus propitiated God’s wrath and kept him from bringing judgment upon his people for their sin.
Aquinas orders the sacrifices by degrees of perfection, with the burnt offering being the highest. It is the highest for two reasons. First only males were sacrificed and “the female is an imperfect animal.” (Here his Aristotelian biology comes through. Though bad biology, it is good theology. The male is the head of the female and so for the highest offering only a male is acceptable.) Second, it is the highest because “all was burnt in honor of God and nothing of it was eaten.” I would add a third argument. It is the highest because it was not only the most frequent (hence necessary), but it was also the type of sacrifice offered at significant moments in redemptive history. (See above for examples, but think also of Elijah on Mt. Carmel.)
In the New Testament, the term burnt offering is only found three times. But though it appears infrequently, this does not imply that the New Testament writers did not draw heavily upon its meaning and purpose. Of course all the sacrifices of the old covenant are fulfilled in Christ, but there are several indirect references to Christ where he accomplishes the highest of the sacrifices. In Hebrews, one of the author’s main arguments pivots around the contrast of the daily (burnt) offerings that the priests made with the one time sacrifice of Christ. Those offerings we imperfect and so were unable to propitiate God’s wrath. But Christ is a perfect burnt offering. Furthermore, at Christ’s baptism, the Father pronounces him to be his beloved son, echoing his words to Abraham after Abraham demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice even the child of the promise. The wording is significant since it sets the offering of Isaac in parallel with the offering of Christ. God stopped Abraham from making a burnt offering of his son, but did not spare his own.
That Christ was particularly sacrificed as a burnt offering is made even more clear when compare the victims of the sacrifices. Only the burnt offering and trespass offerings required exclusively an unblemished male. But whereas a portion of the trespass offering was given to the priest, all of Christ was given to God. Thus Jesus tells his disciples, “this is my body which is given [all of it] for you.”
The Hebrew word for burnt offering is olah which, we are told, means a step or going up, probably in reference to the smoke rising to God’s throne. This is translated in the Septuagint as holokautoma, a compound word consisting of holos (whole) and kaio (to burn). Thus a holocaust is sacrifice wholly consumed by fire. As is typically the case, the New Testament follows the Septuagint. As mentioned, the word occurs just three times: in Mark 12:33 and Hebrew 10:6 and 8. (The Vulgate carries over the Greek term without translation, but most English translations render it as burnt offering.) Thus to say Christ offered himself as a burnt offering to God, is to say he offered himself as a holocaust. Not just a holocaust, but the Holocaust. There is no other and could be no other Holocaust than Christ’s.
It is therefore Christ’s Holocaust that we must remember. His sacrifice is the only thing worthy of the name.
As it is said about the other event labeled holocaust we too say “never again.” Not because we will endeavor to see to it that such an event never takes place, but because after Christ made propitiation for sin he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. The Holocaust, Christ’s Holocaust, is final and perfect; there will never be another because he has propitiated God’s wrath by his perfect offering.
As the other event labeled holocaust, the true Holocaust has its own memorials. Not museums made of stone and mortar, but living memorials in those who have been given new life. Let us therefore present ourselves as sacrifices (burnt offerings, holocausts) which the Apostle tells is is our service due God.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Powerful forces in this country and others are attempting to reorient history into making the other event labeled holocaust to be the central and defining moment. And the motivation for this is not just the modernistic mistake of elevating the recent above the distant past. Rather, the motivation is to replace Christ’s birth, death and resurrection with a different story that will interpret and give meaning to western society. And not only do these forces want us to make the holocaust the story, they also want to turn it into something holy. Far more than a mass killing, they tell us, it was a sacrifice, an offering of a holy people. As such it not a mere historical event, but a religious one. As for the heretics who do not follow their religion, these forces are putting together an inquisition to enforce their dogmas. European countries have them in place already.
Let us hold fast to the true Holocaust religion and vigorously oppose the false one.
The tone and tenor of this post is much appreciated.
A very similar analysis of our society can be found G.K. Chesterton’s Heretics.
“I remember a pamphlet by that able and sincere secularist,
Mr. G. W. Foote, which contained a phrase sharply symbolizing and
dividing these two methods. The pamphlet was called BEER AND BIBLE,
those two very noble things, all the nobler for a conjunction which
Mr. Foote, in his stern old Puritan way, seemed to think sardonic,
but which I confess to thinking appropriate and charming.
I have not the work by me, but I remember that Mr. Foote dismissed
very contemptuously any attempts to deal with the problem
of strong drink by religious offices or intercessions, and said
that a picture of a drunkard’s liver would be more efficacious
in the matter of temperance than any prayer or praise.
In that picturesque expression, it seems to me, is perfectly
embodied the incurable morbidity of modern ethics.
In that temple the lights are low, the crowds kneel, the solemn
anthems are uplifted. But that upon the altar to which all men
kneel is no longer the perfect flesh, the body and substance
of the perfect man; it is still flesh, but it is diseased.
It is the drunkard’s liver of the New Testament that is marred
for us, which which we take in remembrance of him.”
Comment by jonathan — February 18, 2008 @ 8:16 am
In a recent article in the Winnipeg Free Press, jewish lawyer, David Matas and senior honorary counsel to B’nai Brith Canada, writes the following.
“The international dimensions to the Holocaust were unprecedented and unreplicated since. The Holocaust was a crime in which virtually every country in the globe was complicit. It gave us examples worldwide of good as well as evil.”
“Anti-Semitism is unique because the situation of Israel is unique. Israel is the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack. The Holocaust and struggle against anti-Semitism, because they are seen as reasons for the existence of the State of Israel, are uniquely attacked and must be uniquely supported.”
Every nation on the globe was complicit in the holocaust, Israel is a unique, “anti-semitism” is a special sin of the most pernicious nature. Thus, says the author.
Here we witness what I wrote about in the above post. The holocaust was is a unique event in history. The jews are special and anyone who denies this truth is a heretic. Just ask John Hagee.
Comment by MRB — March 14, 2008 @ 4:21 pm