SANCTUARY
A holy place devoted to God. It appears to be the name sometimes of the entire temple, Ps 73.17; Heb 9.1; sometimes of the “Holy place,” where the altar on incense, the golden candlestick, and the showbread stood, 2Ch 26:18 Heb 9:2 ; and sometimes of the “Holy of Holies,” the most secret and retired part of the temple, in which was the ark of the covenant, and where none but the high priest might enter, and he only once a year on the day of solemn expiation. The same name was also given to the most sacred part of the tabernacle set up in the wilderness, Lev 4:6 . See TABERNACLE, and TEMPLE.The temple or earthly sanctuary is an emblem of heaven, Psa 102:19 Heb 9:1,24 ; and God himself is called a sanctuary, Isa 8:14 Eze 11:16, in reference to the use of temples as a place of refuge for fugitives, because he is the only safe and sacred asylum for sinners pursued by the sword of divine justice.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Sanctuary
This term is used by Authorized Version and Revised Version (1) in Heb 9:1 for , which denotes the sacred tent in both its parts, as is implied by the synonymous , tabernacle, in the following verse; and (2) in Heb 8:2 for , the heavenly sanctuary or holy of holies (Revised Version margin holy things). The word represents in Heb 9:2 (Revised Version the Holy place), where the omission of the article, in contrast to the invariable Septuagint usage (Lev 10:4, Num 3:22, etc.), serves to emphasize the holiness (M. Dods in Expositors Greek Testament , Hebrews, 1910, in loco.). In this passage stands in express contrast to (Heb 9:3), the Holiest of all (Authorized Version ), the Holy of holies (Revised Version ). But the simple frequently denotes the Holiest, and is so translated by the Authorized Version in Heb 9:8; Heb 10:19, though elsewhere (Heb 9:25, Heb 13:11) the holy place, which is the Revised Version rendering in all these passages. This usage is justified by Lev 16:2, etc., where , Septuagint , denotes the holy place within the veil; Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] sanctuarium quod est intra velum. It is now recognized by all scholars that the central sanctuary and elaborate ritual of the desert wanderings are not historical realities but products of religions idealism, based in all essential features upon the architectural plan and sacerdotal rubric of the Second Temple. But the argument of the writer of Hebrews is scarcely affected by the change from the traditional to the critical view. Whether the earthly sanctuary, which he at once magnifies and depreciates, was the creation of Moses or of Ezekiel and Ezra, it has now had its day and must cease to be, since the true high priest has passed into the heavenly sanctuary, and become the minister of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man (Heb 9:1-2).
Literature.-articles Tabernacle and Temple in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) and Encyclopaedia Biblica .
James Strahan.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
sanctuary
(1) Consecrated place giving protection to those fleeing from justice or persecution. The right of sanctuary was based on the inviolability attaching to things sacred. It was originally confined to the church itself, but in the course of time its limits were extended to the surrounding precincts, and sometimes even to a larger area. Usually there was a large ring or knocker on the church door, the holding of which gave the right of asylum. The practise of sanctuary ceased towards the end of the 18th century, though the Church still claims her right in the code of canon law.
(2) The space in the church reserved for the high altar and the clergy. In Christian antiquity it was confined to the apse, into the wall of which the stone benches for the clergy were let; in the middle stood the bishop’s chair (cathedra). As time went on, the semi-circular niche could no longer hold the numbers of the higher and lower clergy, and a portion of the middle nave was enclosed with rails and added to the sanctuary. In later times, however, this necessity was met in another way, by introducing between the cross aisle and the apse a compartment or square, the basilica thus receiving the form of a cross.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Sanctuary
A consecrated place giving protection to those fleeing from justice or persecution; or, the privilege of taking refuge in such consecrated place. The right of sanctuary was based on the inviolability attached to things sacred, and not, as some have held, on the example set by the Hebrew cities of refuge. It was recognized under the Code of Theodosius (399) and later by that of Justinian. Papal sanction was first given to it by Leo I, about 460, though the first Council of Orange had dealt with the matter in 441. The earliest mention of sanctuary in England was in a code of laws promulgated by King Ethelbert in 600. The right of asylum was originally confined to the church itself, but in course of time its limits were extended to the precincts, and sometimes even to a larger area. Thus, at Beverley and Hexham, the boundaries of sanctuary extended throughout a radius of a mile from the church, the limits being marked by “sanctuary crosses”, some of which still remain. In Norman times there were two kinds of sanctuary in England, one belonging to every church by prescription and the other by special royal character. The latter was considered to afford a much safer asylum and was enjoyed by at least twenty-two churches, including Battle, Beverley, Colchester, Durham, Hexham, Norwich, Ripon, Wells, Winchester, Westminster, and York. A fugitive convicted of felony and taking the benefit of sanctuary was afforded protection from thirty to forty days, after which, subject to certain severe conditions, he had to “abjure the realm”, that is leave the kingdom within a specified time and take an oath not to return without the king’s leave. Violation of the protection of sanctuary was punishable by excommunication. In some cases there was a stone seat within the church, called the “frith-stool”, on which it is said the seeker of sanctuary had to sit in order to establish his claim to protection. In others, and more commonly, there was a large ring or knocker on the church door, the holding of which gave the right of asylum. Examples of these may been seen at Durham cathedral, St. Gregory’s, Norwich, and elsewhere. The ecclesiastical right of sanctuary ceased in England at the Reformation, but was after that date allowed to certain non-ecclesiastical precincts, which afforded shelter chiefly to debtors. The houses of ambassadors were also sometimes quasi-sanctuaries. Whitefriars, London (also called Alsatia), was the last place of sanctuary used in England, but it was abolished by Act of Parliament in 1697. In other European countries the right of sanctuary ceased towards the end of the eighteenth century.
———————————–
G. CYPRIAN ALSTON Transcribed by Christine J. Murray
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIIICopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Sanctuary (1)
The space in the church for the high altar and the clergy. It is variously designated apsis or concha (from the shell-like, hemispherical dome), and since the Middle Ages especially it has been called “choir”, from the choir of singers who are here stationed. Other names are presbyterium, concessus chori, tribuna or tribunal, hagion, hasyton, sanctum, sanctuarium.
From the architectural standpoint the sanctuary has undergone manifold alterations. In Christian antiquity it was confined to the apse, into the wall of which the stone benches for the clergy were let after the fashion of an amphitheatre, while in the middle rose up the bishop’s chair (cathedra). It would however be wrong to believe that this ancient Christian sanctuary had always a semicircular formation, since recent investigations (especially in the East) have revealed very various shapes. Over a dozen different shapes have already been discovered. In Syria the semicircular development advances very little or not at all from the outer wall, while beside it are situated two rooms which serve respectively for the offering (prothesis) and for the clergy (diaconicum). The sanctuary was often formed by three interconnected apses (Dreiconchensystem); the quite straight termination also occurs. An important difference between the Roman and Oriental churches consisted in the fact that in the case of the latter the wall of the sanctuary was interrupted by a window through which the sunlight freely entered, while the windowless Roman apse was shrouded. in a mysterious darkness.
As the semicircular niche could no longer in all cases hold the numbers of the higher and Lower clergy, a portion of the middle nave was often enclosed with rails and added to the sanctuary, as may be seen today in the San Clemente at Rome. Outside Rome this necessity of enlarging the sanctuary was met in another way, by introducing between the longitudinal (or cross) aisle and the apse a compartment or square, the basilica thus receiving (instead of the Roman T-shape) the form of a cross. This innovation was of far-reaching importance, since the sanctuary could not develop freely. This development proceeded from the beginning to the close of the Middle Ages in what may be declared as an almost wanton fashion. The time at which this innovation was introduced has been for a long time the subject of a violent literary feud, since it is most intimately connected with the development of the cruciform arrangement of churches. Some investigators hold that this form is first found in the Monastery of Fulda under Abbot Bangulf about the year 800; according to others it occurred before the time of Charlemagne in the French monasteries of Jumièges and Rebais. In recent times Strzygowski has maintained that both views are incorrect, and that the extended sanctuary, or in other words the cruciform church, was already common in the early Christian period in Asia Minor, and was thence transplanted to the West by Basilian monks as early as the fourth or fifth century.
A second very important alteration, which occurred during the Carlovingian Renaissance, consisted in the introduction or rather transplantation from the East to the West of the “double sanctuary”. By this is meant the construction of a second sanctuary or west choir opposite the east; this arrangement was found even in ancient times in isolated instances, but its introduction in the case of larger churches gradually became universal in the West. Concerning the reasons for this innovation various theories have been put forward. It must, however, be recognized that the reasons were not everywhere the same. They were three in particular: the duplication of the titular saints, the construction of a place for the remains of a saint, and the need of a nuns’ or winter choir. In addition, Strzygowski has also maintained the influence exercised by the change of “orientation”, that is the erection of the altar, which in the East originally stood in the west of the church, at the eastern end. The second reason seems to have given incentive most frequently to the construction of the second choir. Thus in 819 Abbot Ansger built a west choir with a crypt to receive the remains of St. Boniface; in Mittelzell (Richenau) this choir was constructed for the relics of St. Mark, in Eichstatt (1060) for the remains of St. Willibald. Especially suitable for nuns’ convents was the west choir with a gallery, since from it the nuns could follow Divine Service unobserved; for this reason the church built at Essen (Prussia) in 874 received a west choir in 947.
The increase of the clergy, in conjunction with the striving (in the Romanesque period) after as large crypts as possible, led to the repeated increase of the sanctuary, which, however, exercised a very prejudicial influence on the architectural arrangement of space. The sanctuary was extended especially westwards — thus into the longitudinal aisle, but at times also into the cross aisle. Examples of this excessively great extension are supplied by the cathedrals of Paderborn and Speyer. The walls of this sanctuary, which had thus become a formal enclosure, were often decorated with Biblical reliefs; here, in fact, are preserved some very important Romanesque reliefs, as on the Georgentor at Bamberg and in the Church of St. Michael at Hildesheim. But even in the Romanesque period began the war against this elevated sanctuary, waged mainly by the monks of Hirsan (Germany), then highly influential, and the Cistercians. The former as opponents of the crypts, restored the sanctuary to the same level as the nave or made it only a few steps higher; they also ended the sanctuary in a straight line, and gave it only a small round apse. More important was the change made by the Cistercians, who, to enable so many priests to read Mass simultaneously, resolved the eastern portion into a number of chapels standing in a straight line at either side of the sanctuary. This alteration began in the mother-house of Cisteaux, and extended with the monks everywhere even to the East.
These alterations paved the way for the third great transformation of the sanctuary: this was accomplished by Gothic architecture, which, in consequence of the improved vaulting, found it easier to conduct the side aisles around the choir, as the Romanesque architects had already done in individual cases. The sanctuary indeed was not thereby essentially altered, but it was now accessible on all sides, and the faithful could attain to the immediate vicinity of the high altar, When it was not separated by a wall, an entirely free view of the sanctuary was offered. For the most part, however, the termination of the sanctuary with walls was retained, while in front was still erected the screen, which enjoyed in the Gothic period its special vogue. This arrangement of the sanctuary is usually found in the great cathedrals after the French models, and may thus be designated the “cathedral type”, although it also occurs in the larger parish and monastery churches. Frequently the sanctuary has an exceptional length; this is especially the case in England, and influenced the architectonic arrangement of space if the sanctuary was enclosed with walls. Its effect was most unfavourable in the canon’s choir (called the Trascoro) in the cathedrals of Spain, which was transferred to the middle nave as a separate construction and was cut off by high walls with grated entrances. This enclosure was most magnificently decorated with architectural and other ornamentations, but it entirely destroyed the view of the glorious architecture. Side by side with this “cathedral type” was retained the old simple type, in which the sanctuary was not accessible on all sides; this was found especially in parish churches and in the churches of the mendicant orders. When the church had three naves, the choirs of the side naves lay beside the chief choir. This kind of a sanctuary remained the most popular, especially in Germany and Italy.
The Renaissance to a great extent restored to the sanctuary its original form. In the effort to increase the middle nave as much as possible, Renaissance architecture in many cases neglected the side naves or limited them to the narrowest aisles. The free approach to the sanctuary from all sides thus lost its justification. The sanctuary necessarily received a great breadth, but lost its earlier depth. In its preference for bright and airy spaces, the Renaissance also abandoned the method of separating the sanctuary from the rest of the church by means of a screen; at a subsequent period, the latter was replaced by the low Communion bench. Thus a person entering the church through the main door commanded a free view of the sanctuary, which, especially in Italy, was gloriously decorated with marble incrustations. As the sunlight, entering unchecked through the cupola covering the intersection, brightly illuminated the edifice, the effect was entirely different from that awakened by the Romanesque and Gothic sanctuaries. In the medieval church the sanctuary was shut off from the congregation and was as inaccessible as the Holy of Holies in the Temple of the Old Testament; the sanctuary of the Renaissance church stands out before us in a brilliance of light like Mount Tabor, but without blinding our gaze. We believe that we are nearer the Deity, our hearts are filled with joyous sentiments, so that we might cry out with the Apostle Peter “It is good for us to be here”. In the medieval church, on the other hand, we are penetrated with a mysterious awe and like Moses feel urged to take off our shoes, for this is a holy place.
———————————–
STRZYGOWSKI, Kleinasien. Ein Neuland der Kunstgeschichte (Leipzig, 1903); HASAK, Die romanische u. gotische Baukunst der Kirchenbau (Stuttgart 1902).
BEDA KLEINSCHMIDT. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IVCopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Sanctuary
Is the occasional rendering, in the A.V., of two Heb. and one Greek term. A general term is , kodesh ( sanctuary, Exo 30:13; Exo 30:24; Exo 36:1; Exo 36:3-4; Exo 36:6; Exo 38:25-27; Lev 4:6; Lev 5:15; Lev 10:4; Lev 27:3; Lev 27:25; Num 3:28; Num 3:31-32; Num 3:47; Num 3:50; Num 4:12; Num 4:15; Num 7:9; Num 7:13; Num 7:19; Num 7:25; Num 7:31; Num 7:37; Num 7:43; Num 7:49; Num 7:55; Num 7:61; Num 7:67; Num 7:73; Num 7:79; Num 7:85-86; Num 8:19; Num 18:3; Num 18:5; Num 18:10; 1Ch 9:29; Psa 20:2; Psa 58:2; Psa 68:24; Psa 74:3; Psa 77:13; Psa 114:2; Psa 150:1; Isa 43:28; Lam 4:1; Eze 41:21; Eze 41:23; Eze 42:20; Eze 44:27; Eze 45:2; Dan 8:13-14; Dan 9:26; Zep 3:4), which properly means holiness (often so rendered, frequently as an attribute, and perhaps to be regarded as a concrete of the sacred edifice), and especially the holy place (as very often rendered). The more specific term is , mikdash (invariably rendered sanctuary, except Amo 7:13, chapel, and twice in the plur. holy place [Psa 68:35; Eze 21:2]), which is from the same root, and signifies the local shrine. In the New Test. we have the corresponding ( sanctuary, Heb 8:2; Heb 9:1-2; Heb 13:11; elsewhere holy place or holiest), which is simply the neut. of , a general term for anything holy. SEE HOLY PLACE; SEE TABERNACLE; SEE TEMPLE.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Sanctuary (2)
In popish times the privilege of sanctuary was common in Scotland. Innes says: In several English churches there was a stone seat beside the altar, where those fleeing to the peace of the Church were held guarded by all its sanctity. One of these still remains at Beverley, another at Hexham. To violate the protection of the frithstol (the seat of peace), or of the fertre (the shrine of relics behind the altar), was not, like other offenses, to be compensated by a pecuniary penalty: it was bot-leas, beyond compensation. That the Church thus protected fugitives among ourselves we learn from the ancient canons of the Scotican councils, where, among the list of misdeeds against which the Church enjoined excommunication. after the laying of violent hands upon parents and priests, is denounced the open taking of thieves out of the protection of the Church. The most celebrated, and probably the most ancient, of these sanctuaries was that of the church of Wedale, a parish which is now called by the name of its village, the Stow.’ There is a very ancient tradition that king Arthur brought with him from Jerusalem an image of the Virgin, fragments of which,’ says a writer in the 11th century, are still preserved at Wedale in great veneration.’ About the beginning of his reign, king William issued a precept to the ministers of the church of Wedale, and to the guardians of its peace,’ enjoining them not to detain the men of the abbot of Kelso, who had taken refuge there, nor their goods, inasmuch as the abbot was willing to do to them, and for them, all reason and justice.’ SEE ASYLUM; SEE CHURCH.
Sanctuary,
A name for the presbytery, or eastern part of the choir of a church, in which the altar is placed.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Sanctuary
denotes, (1) the Holy Land (Ex. 15:17; comp. Ps. 114:2); (2) the temple (1 Chr. 22:19; 2 Chr. 29:21); (3) the tabernacle (Ex. 25:8; Lev. 12:4; 21:12); (4) the holy place, the place of the Presence (Gr. hieron, the temple-house; not the _naos_, which is the temple area, with its courts and porches), Lev. 4:6; Eph. 2:21, R.V., marg.; (5) God’s holy habitation in heaven (Ps. 102:19). In the final state there is properly “no sanctuary” (Rev. 21:22), for God and the Lamb “are the sanctuary” (R.V., “temple”). All is there hallowed by the Divine Presence; all is sancturary.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
SANCTUARY
A sanctuary was a sanctified place, a place set apart for God and therefore considered to be holy (see SANCTIFICATION). Heaven, being Gods dwelling place, could be called Gods sanctuary (Psa 102:19; Psa 150:1). Usually, however, the sanctuary referred to Gods earthly dwelling place, the tabernacle, and later the temple (Exo 25:8; 1Ch 28:10; Psa 68:24-26; see TABERNACLE; TEMPLE). The inner shrine, or Most Holy Place, was in particular known as the sanctuary; for there, over the ark of the covenant, God symbolically dwelt (Lev 4:6; Psa 96:6; Heb 13:11).
Since Israel trusted in God and God dwelt in the sanctuary, to trust in God was to trust in the sanctuary. A sanctuary therefore came to have a secondary meaning as a place of refuge (Isa 8:14; Eze 11:16; cf. Exo 21:12-14; 1Ki 2:29; Num 35:6; see CITY OF REFUGE).
Other gods had their sanctuaries also. These were usually places where altars had been set up for the worship of false gods. The Baal sanctuaries, which Israelites often took over and used in their own form of false worship, were known as high places (Amo 7:9; see BAAL).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Sanctuary
SANCTUARY.See High Place; Tabernacle, 11 (b); Temple.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Sanctuary
The Scriptures have several distinct meanings for this word, according as the word itself is made use of. The apostle to the Hebrews describes the sanctuary how it was appointed, (Heb 9:1-5) No doubt the sanctuary was a type of JEHOVAH’S throne in heaven; hence (Psa 102:19) the Lord is represented as “looking down from the height of his sanctuary, from heaven did the Lord behold the earth?” The church of Christ is represented as the Lord’s sanctuary under the type of the holy land. (Exo 15:17-18) And there is another very sweet and precious figure of the Lord’s sanctuary, when his people are considered in this light. The psalmist celebrates this in one of the loftiest strains of sacred poetry: “When” (Psa 114:1-8) “Israel came out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language, Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion. The sea saw it and fled, Jordan was driven back.”
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Sanctuary
sanktu-a-ri, sanktu-a-ri (, mikdash, , mikkedhash, , kodhesh, holy place; , hagion):
1.Nature of Article
2.The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis
The Three Stages
3.Difficulties of the Theory
(1)Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial
(2)Sacrifice and Theophany
(3)Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries
(4)The Altar of God’s House
(5)Local Altars in Deuteronomy
4.The Alternative View
(1)Lay Sacrifice
(2)Three Pilgrimage Festivals
5.The Elephantine Papyri
The Elephantine Temple
LITERATURE
1. Nature of Article:
The present article is designed to supplement the articles on ALTARS; HIGH PLACE; PENTATEUCH; TABERNACLE; TEMPLE, by giving an outline of certain rival views of the course of law and history as regards the place of worship. The subject has a special importance because it was made the turning-point of Wellhausen’s discussion of the development of Israel’s literature, history and religion. He himself writes: I differ from Graf chiefly in this, that I always go back to the centralization of the cult, and deduce from it the particular divergences. My whole position is contained in my first chapter (Prolegomena, 368). For the purposes of this discussion it is necessary to use the symbols J, E, D, H, and the Priestly Code (P), which are explained in the article PENTATEUCH.
2. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis:
It is said that there are three distinct stages of law and history.
The Three Stages:
(1) In the first stage all slaughter of domestic animals for food purposes was sacrificial, and every layman could sacrifice locally at an altar of earth or unhewn stones. The law of JE is contained in Exo 20:24-26, providing for the making of an altar of earth or stones, and emphasis is laid on the words in every place (in all the place is grammatically an equally possible rendering) where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee. This, it is claimed, permits a plurality of sanctuaries. Illustrations are provided by the history. The patriarchs move about the country freely and build altars at various places. Later sacrifices or altars are mentioned in connection with Jethro (Exo 18:12), Moses (Exo 17:15, etc.), Joshua (Jos 8:30), Gideon (Jdg 6:26 etc.), Manoah (Jdg 13:19), Samuel (1Sa 7:17, etc.), Elijah (1Ki 18:32), to take but a few instances. Perhaps the most instructive case is that of Saul after the battle of Michmash. Observing that the people were eating meat with blood, he caused a large stone to be rolled to him, and we are expressly told that this was the first altar that he built to the Lord (1Sa 14:35). While some of these examples might be accounted for by theophanies or other special circumstances, they are too numerous when taken together for such an explanation to suffice. In many instances they represent the conduct of the most authoritative and religious leaders of the age, e.g. Samuel, and it must be presumed that such men knew and acted upon the Law of their own day. Hence, the history and the Law of Ex 20 are in unison in permitting a multiplicity of sanctuaries. Wellhausen adds: Altars as a rule are not built by the patriarchs according to their own private judgment wheresoever they please; on the contrary, a theophany calls attention to, or, at least afterward, confirms, the holiness of the place (op. cit., 31).
(2) The second stage is presented by Deuteronomy in the Law and Josiah’s reformation in the history. Undoubtedly, Dt 12 permits local non-sacrificial slaughter for the purposes of food, and enjoins the destruction of heathen places of worship, insisting with great vehemence on the central sanctuary. The narrative of Josiah’s reformation in 2 Ki 23 tallies with these principles.
(3) The third great body of law (the Priestly Code, P) does not deal with the question (save in one passage, Lev 17). In Deuteronomy the unity of the cult is commanded; in the Priestly Code it is presupposed…. What follows from this forms the question before us. To my thinking, this: that the Priestly Code rests upon the result which is only the aim of Deuteronomy (Prolegomena, 35). Accordingly, it is later than the latter book and dates from about the time of Ezra. As to Lev 17:1-9, this belongs to H (the Law of Holiness, Lev 17 through 26), an older collection of laws than the Priestly Code (P), and is taken up in the latter. Its intention was to secure the exclusive legitimation of the one lawful place of sacrifice…. Plainly the common man did not quite understand the newly drawn and previously quite unknown distinction between the religious and the profane act (Prolegomena, 50). Accordingly, this legislator strove to meet the difficulty by the new enactment. See CRITICISM (The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis).
3. Difficulties of the Theory:
(1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial
The general substratum afforded by the documentary theory falls within the scope of the article PENTATEUCH. The present discussion is limited to the legal and historical outline traced above. The view that all slaughter of domestic animals was sacrificial till the time of Josiah is rebutted by the evidence of the early books. The following examples should be noted: in Gen 18:7 a calf is slain without any trace of a sacrifice, and in Gen 27:9-14 (Jacob’s substitute for venison) no altar or religious rite can fairly be postulated. In 1Sa 28:24 the slaughter is performed by a woman, so that here again sacrifice is out of the question. If Gideon performed a sacrifice when he made ready a kid (Jdg 6:19) or when he killed an animal for the broth of which the narrative speaks, the animals in question must have been sacrificed twice over, once when they were killed and again when the food was consumed by flames. Special importance attaches to Exo 22:1 (Hebrew 21:37), for there the JE legislation itself speaks of slaughter by cattle thieves as a natural and probable occurrence, and it can surely not have regarded this as a sacrificial act. Other instances are to be found in Gen 43:16; 1Sa 25:11; 1Ki 19:21. In 1Sa 8:13 the word translated cooks means literally, women slaughterers. All these instances are prior to the date assigned to Deuteronomy. With respect to Lev 17:1-7 also, theory is unworkable. At any time in King Josiah’s reign or after, it would have been utterly impossible to limit all slaughter of animals for the whole race wherever resident to one single spot. This part of theory therefore breaks down.
(2) Sacrifice and Theophany
The view that the altars were erected at places that were peculiarly holy, or at any rate were subsequently sanctified by a theophany, is also untenable. In the Patriarchal age we may refer to Gen 4:26, where the calling on God implies sacrifice but not theophanies, Abram at Beth-el (Gen 12:8) and Mamre (Gen 13:18), and Jacob’s sacrifices (Gen 31:54; Gen 33:20). Compare later Samuel’s altar at Ramah, Adonijah’s sacrifice at En-rogel (1 Ki 1), Naaman’s earth (2 Ki 5), David’s clan’s sacrifice (1Sa 20:6, 1Sa 20:29). It is impossible to postulate theophanies for the sacrifices of every clan in the country, and it becomes necessary to translate Exo 20:24 in all the place (see supra 2, (1)) and to understand the place as the territory of Israel.
(3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries
The hypothesis of a multiplicity of sanctuaries in JE and the history also leaves out of view many most important facts. The truth is that the word sanctuary is ambiguous and misleading. A plurality of altars of earth or stone is not a plurality of sanctuaries. The early legislation knows a house of Yahweh in addition to the primitive altars (Exo 23:19; Exo 34:26; compare the parts of Jos 9:23, Jos 9:27 assigned to J). No eyewitness could mistake a house for an altar, or vice versa.
(4) The Altar of God’s House
Moreover a curious little bit of evidence shows that the house had quite a different kind of altar. In 1Ki 1:50 f; 1Ki 2:28 ff, we hear of the horns of the altar (compare Amo 3:14). Neither earth nor unhewn stones (as required by the Law of Ex 20) could provide such horns, and the historical instances of the altars of the patriarchs, religious leaders, etc., to which reference has been made, show that they had no horns. Accordingly, we are thrown back on the description of the great altar of burnt offering in Ex 27 and must assume that an altar of this type was to be found before the ark before Solomon built his Temple. Thus the altar of the House of God was quite different from the customary lay altar, and when we read of mine altar as a refuge in Exo 21:14, we must refer it to the former, as is shown by the passages just cited. In addition to the early legislation and the historical passages cited as recognizing a House of God with a horned altar, we see such a house in Shiloh where Eli and his sons of the house of Aaron (1Sa 2:27) ministered. Thus the data of both JE and the history show us a House of God with a horned altar side by side with the multiplicity of stone or earthen altars, but give us no hint of a plurality of legitimate houses or shrines or sanctuaries.
(5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy also recognizes a number of local altars in Deu 16:21 (see ICC, at the place) and so does Later Deuteronomistic editors in Jos 8:30 ff. There is no place for any of these passages ia the Wellhausen theory; but again we find one house side by side with many lay altars.
4. The Alternative View:
(1) Lay Sacrifice
The alternative view seeks to account for the whole of the facts noted above. In bald outline it is as follows: In pre-Mosaic times customary sacrifices had been freely offered by laymen at altars of earth or stone which were not sanctuaries, but places that could be used for the nonce and then abandoned. Slaughter, as shown by the instances cited, was not necessarily sacrificial. Moses did not forbid or discourage the custom he found. On the contrary, he regulated it in Exo 20:24-26; Deu 16:21 f to prevent possible abuses. But he also superimposed two other kinds of sacrifice – certain new offerings to be brought by individuals to the religious capital and the national offerings of Nu 28; 29 and other passages. If the Priestly Code (P) assumes the religious capital as axiomatic, the reason is that this portion of the Law consists of teaching entrusted to the priests, embracing the procedure to be followed in these two classes of offerings, and does not refer at all to the procedure at customary lay sacrifices, which was regulated by immemorial custom. Deuteronomy thunders not against the lay altars – which are never even mentioned in this connection – but against the Canaanite high places. Deuteronomy 12 contemplates only the new individual offerings. The permission of lay slaughter for food was due to the fact that the infidelity of the Israelites in the wilderness (Lev 17:5-7) had led to the universal prohibition of lay slaughter for the period of the wanderings only, though it appears to be continued by Dt for those who lived near the House of God (see Lev 12:1-8 :21, limited to the case if the place … be too far from thee).
(2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals.
The JE legislation itself recognizes the three pilgrimage festivals of the House of God (Exo 34:22 f). One of these festivals is called the feast of weeks, even of the bikkurm (a kind of first-fruits) of wheat harvest, and as Exo 23:19 and Exo 34:26 require these bikkurm to be brought to the House of God and not to a lay altar, it follows that the pilgrimages are as firmly established here as in Deuteronomy. Thus we find a House (with a horned altar) served by priests and lay altars of earth or stone side by side in law and history till the exile swept them all away, and by breaking the continuity of tradition and practice paved the way for a new and artificial interpretation of the Law that was far removed from the intent of the lawgiver.
5. The Elephantine Papyri:
The Elephantine Temple.
Papyri have recently been found at Elephantine which show us a Jewish community in Egypt which in 405 BC possessed a local temple. On the Wellhausen hypothesis it is usual to assume that the Priestly Code (P) and Deuteronomy were still unknown and not recognized as authoritative in this community at that date, although the Deuteronomic law of the central sanctuary goes back at least to 621. It is difficult to understand how a law that had been recognized as divine by Jeremiah and others could still have been unknown or destitute of authority. On the alternative view this phenomenon will have been the result of an interpretation of the Law to suit the needs of an age some 800 years subsequent to the death of Moses in circumstances he never contemplated. The Pentateuch apparently permits sacrifice only in the land of Israel: in the altered circumstances the choice lay between interpreting the Law in this way or abandoning public worship altogether; for the synagogue with its non-sacrificial form of public worship had not yet been invented. All old legislations have to be construed in this way to meet changing circumstances, and this example contains nothing exceptional or surprising.
Literature
J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, chapter i, for the critical hypothesis; H. M. Wiener, EPC, chapter vi, PS passim for the alternative view; POT, 173 ff.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Sanctuary
This is ‘holy [place],’ and is applied in the O.T. both to the tabernacle and to the temple as a whole, and to the ‘holy [place]’ and ‘most holy’ in distinction from the other parts: “Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary.” Psa 77:13. The sanctuary was where, in retirement from man and the world, God’s glory was seen, and His mind apprehended; it was where the sacrifices were offered, and God was worshipped.
In the N.T. also the word sanctuary is applied to the holy and most holy parts of the tabernacle. Heb 9:1-8; Heb 10:19; Heb 13:11. Here it is called ‘worldly,’ () in reference possibly to its order, and its contrast to the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. The word ‘sanctuary’ in Heb 8:2 is literally holy (places or things); of these Christ is minister. The sanctuary for the Christian consists in the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. God is revealed without a veil.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Sanctuary
The holy of holies.
In the tabernacle
Heb 9:2
Divine dwelling place
Exo 25:8
Reverence for
Lev 19:30; Lev 26:2
High priest in charge of
Exo 27:21; Lev 24:3; Num 18:5
The holy place in the temple
Lam 2:7; Lam 2:20; Eze 42:20
Figurative
Eze 11:16
Symbolic
Heb 8:2; Heb 8:5 Tabernacle; Temple
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Sanctuary
the neuter of the adjective hagios, “holy,” is used of those structures which are set apart to God, (a) of “the tabernacle” in the wilderness, Heb 9:1, RV, “its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world” (AV, “a worldly sanctuary”); in Heb 9:2 the outer part is called “the Holy place,” RV (AV, “the sanctuary”); here the neuter plural hagia is used, as in Heb 9:3.
Speaking of the absence of the article, Westcott says “The anarthrous form Hagia (literally Holies) in this sense appears to be unique, as also below, if indeed the reading is correct. Perhaps it is chosen to fix attention on the character of the sanctuary as in other cases. The plural suggests the idea of the sanctuary with all its parts: cp. Moulton-Winer, p. 220.” In their margin, Westcott and Hort prefix the article ta to hagia in verses 2 and 3. In Heb 9:3 the inner part is called “the Holy of holies,” RV (AV, “the holest of all”); in Heb 9:8, “the holy place” (AV, “the holiest of all”), lit., “(the way) of the holiest;” in Heb 9:24 “a holy place,” RV (AV, “the holy places”), neuter plural; so in Heb 9:25, “the holy place” (AV and RV), and in Heb 13:11, RV, “the holy place” (AV, “the sanctuary”); in all these there is no separate word topos, “place,” as of the Temple in Mat 24:15; (b) of “Heaven itself,” i.e., the immediate presence of God and His throne, Heb 8:2, “the sanctuary” (RV, marg., “holy things”); the neut. plur. with the article points to the text as being right, in view of Heb 9:24-25; Heb 13:11 (see above), exegetically designated “the true tabernacle;” neut. plur. in Heb 9:12, “the holy place;” so Heb 10:19, RV (AV, “the holiest;” there are no separate compartments in the antitypical and heavenly sanctuary), into which believers have “boldness to enter” by faith.
is used of the inner part of the Temple in Jerusalem, in Mat 23:35, RV, “sanctuary.” See TEMPLE.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Sanctuary
See TEMPLE.
Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary
Sanctuary
2Ch 30:8 (b) This is a beautiful type of the fellowship and presence of GOD in the midst of His people. It is a picture of the Church in the New Testament whereby GOD is able to dwell among us in the Person of the Holy Spirit and feel at home with His children on earth. (See also Psa 20:2; Psa 68:24; Psa 73:17; Psa 77:13; Psa 96:6).
Psa 114:2 (a) GOD refers to the entire people of Judah as a holy place in which He can dwell and walk among them.
Isa 8:14 (a) GOD calls Himself a place of holiness. GOD’s people could and should find their place of worship in GOD’s own person, in His presence. (See also Eze 11:16).
Eze 47:12 (a) This is a type of the Lord JESUS from whom the Holy Spirit comes to work on and in the people of GOD. The river is a type of the Holy Spirit. (See also under “RIVER”).