Had this thought about the Eucharist. Is it valid?

[Binary]

I have been told that in Old Testament times, when a Hebrew committed a capital crime, it was a common practice for the priests to have him place his hand on an animal to be sacrificed. They believed the sin was transferred to the animal, and the animal was then slaughtered to pay the debt incurred by the sin*.

It occurred to me that perhaps a small part of the meaning of the sacrament is that, as the lamb of God, Christ is dying for the sins of those who have “touched” him (though of course this is not limited to sacramental reception of the Eucharist). So what do you think?

*For all my googling, I cannot find the name of this practice. Does anyone know?

 

[april32010]

 

[Joe_5859]

I have been told that in Old Testament times, when a Hebrew committed a capital crime, it was a common practice for the priests to have him place his hand on an animal to be sacrificed. They believed the sin was transferred to the animal, and the animal was then slaughtered to pay the debt incurred by the sin*.

It occurred to me that perhaps a small part of the meaning of the sacrament is that, as the lamb of God, Christ is dying for the sins of those who have “touched” him (though of course this is not limited to sacramental reception of the Eucharist). So what do you think?

*For all my googling, I cannot find the name of this practice. Does anyone know?

That practice is where we get the term “scapegoat”. Perhaps that is the name you are looking for.

Yes, that does foreshadow Christ taking on our sins and dying for them, even though He Himself is innocent. You’re right, that’s not exclusive to the Eucharist. It’s just general Old Testament typology that is fulfilled in the Paschal Mystery.

EDIT: Okay, I’m thinking a bit more about what you said and now I think I understand what you’re getting at. You’re making a comparison of the Jewish people placing their hands on the scapegoat and us placing our hands on the Eucharist. I’ve never heard that comparison made before (which, of course, doesn’t mean it never has been made…there’s a lot of things I don’t know ). Honestly, I’m not sure about it. It’s not as though we’re putting our sins onto the Eucharist. However, the Eucharist does take away our venial sins when we receive it worthily.

 

[TimothyH]

The person who sinned and wishes to make atonement always had to lay a hand on the animal.

If a person’s offering is a burnt offering from the herd, the offering must be a male without blemish.The individual shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to find favor with the LORD, and shall lay a hand on the heade of the burnt offering, so that it may be acceptablef to make atonement for the one who offers it. (Leviticus 1:3-4)

If the priest sinned, he had to do the same.

If it is the anointed priest who thus does wrong and thereby makes the people guilty, he shall offer to the LORD an unblemished bull of the herd as a purification offering for the wrong he committed. Bringing the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting, before the LORD, he shall lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORD. (Leviticus 4:3-4)

If the whole community committed venial sin then the elders of the community would lay hands on the animal:

If the whole community of Israel errs inadvertently and without even being aware of it violates any of the LORD’s prohibitions, and thus are guilty, when the wrong that was committed becomes known, the community shall offer a bull of the herd as a purification offering. They shall bring it before the tent of meeting. The elders of the community shall lay their hands on the bull’s head before the LORD. (Leviticus 4:13-15)
The same for tribal leaders, heads of families, etc.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I have been told that in Old Testament times, when a Hebrew committed a capital crime, it was a common practice for the priests to have him place his hand on an animal to be sacrificed. They believed the sin was transferred to the animal, and the animal was then slaughtered to pay the debt incurred by the sin*.

*For all my googling, I cannot find the name of this practice. Does anyone know?

I believe the word you are looking for is semicha or semikhah. There are different interpretations about whether the laying on of hands actually transfers sin or not. Wikipedia explains it briefly here and at length here. Semikhah typically referes to laying on of hands at an ordination rather than during a sacrifice.

The Biblical basis for laying on of hands during a sin offering is explicit. The act was commanded by God. The person who sinned and wishes to make atonement always had to lay a hand on the animal.

If a person’s offering is a burnt offering from the herd, the offering must be a male without blemish.The individual shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to find favor with the LORD, and shall lay a hand on the heade of the burnt offering, so that it may be acceptablef to make atonement for the one who offers it. (Leviticus 1:3-4)

If the priest sinned, he had to do the same.

If it is the anointed priest who thus does wrong and thereby makes the people guilty, he shall offer to the LORD an unblemished bull of the herd as a purification offering for the wrong he committed. Bringing the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting, before the LORD, he shall lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORD. (Leviticus 4:3-4)

If the whole community committed venial sin then the elders of the community would lay hands on the animal:

If the whole community of Israel errs inadvertently and without even being aware of it violates any of the LORD’s prohibitions, and thus are guilty, when the wrong that was committed becomes known, the community shall offer a bull of the herd as a purification offering. They shall bring it before the tent of meeting. The elders of the community shall lay their hands on the bull’s head before the LORD. (Leviticus 4:13-15)
The same for tribal leaders, heads of families, etc.

-Tim-